The judge and the process is a joke that guy was not appointed by the Senate but by the other 2 judges great thinking on that,

Really…you got all that from the overly redacted affidavit….? It’s a pretty standard paragraph in 99% of affidavits….then it goes on to break down specific facts. Are the next few pages completely redacted? I imagine they are. All I had to do was research affidavit examples.

In fact, this affidavit is deceptively worded, because with this very carefully worded statement in paragraph 7, it gives the false impression that it’s based on the personal knowledge of the author of the affidavit: “The facts set forth in this affidavit are based on my personal knowledge . . . AND information obtained from other FBI and U.S. Government personnel.” (Emphasis of “and” added.)

Thus, by stating that some of the unspecified alleged “facts” set forth in this affidavit are based on “information obtained from other FBI and US Government personnel,” a Judge is left to guess which alleged “facts” may be based on the personal knowledge of the author of this affidavit and which alleged “facts” may be based on the impermissible hearsay “information obtained from other” unnamed and unidentified “FBI and US Government personnel.”

Therefore, 99.9% of this affidavit could be based on speculative, unverifiable gossip and contrived or imaginary “facts” allegedly provided by unnamed and unidentified “FBI and US Government personnel.”

In other words, this affidavit is rank hearsay!

Such a blatantly defective, hearsay affidavit should have been rejected by the Judge

Of course, as corrupt as they are, they could claim they found a document anywhere, or even slip documents in that were never on the premises. They didn’t allow anyone else in to observe. Who knows what in the sam hill they might’ve done.