It's no secret that deeply and thoroughly embedded within our once well reputed federal agencies are members of what we colloquially call the Deep State — perhaps another moniker ought to be "American Stalinists"?

Filed yesterday, the courts handling the Mar-a-Lago raid issued a new ruling.  The per curiam 21-page opinion in Donald J. Trump v. United States of America decision overturns the federal district court's appointment of a special master to review the documents seized by the politicized FBI at the direction of the viciously partisan attorney general, Merrick Garland.  (Can you believe this man almost became a Supreme Court justice?) 

Strangely, I don't find the plaintiff and defendant an accurate reflection of reality; rather, it should read something like Trump v. the American Stalinists, or Trump v. Biden, Obama, and Garland.

This following observation by the three-judge panel appears at page 20 of the per curiam opinion:

Only one possible justification for equitable jurisdiction remains: that Plaintiff is a former President of the United States. It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president — but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation.

I see it as giving short shrift to a former president, allowing the FBI to continue its campaign against him, and, sub silentio, giving Biden license to decide whether he can deny executive privilege to a hated and perceived political enemy who must be destroyed.

The "ongoing investigation" is the campaign, as Obama aide David Plouffe said in a now-deleted tweet from June 2016, to "thoroughly destroy" Trump and "his kind."  Plouffe went on to write a book titled, A Citizen's Guide to Beating Donald Trump.

The Mar-a-Lago raid occurred August 8.  Twenty-four days later, President Biden officially declared war on MAGA and the former president.  Did Mr. Trump's attorneys call this to the attention of the 11th Circuit appellate panel?

My sense is that the decision represents judicial formalism gone haywire — for purposes of goring the political ox named Donald J. Trump.

Image: DonkeyHotey, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons, unaltered.