Well, to quote @Northern_Piper from his summary earlier today:
The second half of that statement would, indeed, seem to suggest that Trump had been sitting on some “very serious” stuff at Mar-a-Lago for a year, and that there were concerns that there was still more, very serious stuff in his possession.
I understand. But like, what is it? It has to meet MY level of what I think top secret information would be. I’m half-joking, but I do hope there is an easy to grasp how dangerous this info is versus having it explained to me and just trusting that it’s serious - if not, then I would imagine this is how this will be abused in the future: “We had to invade Hunter’s home…trust us, it’s serious.”
FBI Director appointed by Trump = Radical Left
I strongly suspect that if the public ever gets to learn what was on those highly-classified documents, it won’t be for many years. They are highly classified, after all. 
A thing that should be added, which almost certainly is true, but that we haven’t had confirmed and don’t know the exact timeline on is:
Secret materials are “secret”. You don’t necessarily know that a document is missing since only a few people even know about the existence of those documents and it’s very difficult to give everyone a pile of papers that fill a large closet and say, “Tell me what should be in here that’s not.”
So, almost certainly what happened was that after they reviewed the 15 boxes and saw things like page 10 missing of multipage documents and, from context, could tell that there was a pattern of removal. The size and boundary of the void wasn’t random.
From there, they would have sent out feelers to people in the (former) president’s orbit to see if any of them had seen any boxes of documents still left over from Trump’s time in office.
From there, once they had probable cause, they’d be able to put together a grand jury and send in spies - secret service agents, FBI informants, etc. to try and track down the papers and figure out if any had national defense information.
Probably as soon as they had confirmation, Bratt went to talk to them about the matter, and give them a last chance to comply.
After that, everything is just time getting all the red tape in place to affect the raid.
I personally think it’s more important to know the reason why the FBI searched an ex-President’s home. Unless it’s something that should never be known, get everyone safe and then let the public know.
I assert privilege. 
You may need to live with disappointment.
I get that not knowing exactly the sort of information was on those documents makes you question just how serious the situation was, but the fact that it had been proven that he had been sitting on hundreds of classified documents, for a year, which he no longer had any right to be in possession of, and was storing them in nothing approaching a secure location, is the reason why they searched his home.
Plus, an independent federal judge magistrate authorised the search warrant, after getting the complete unredacted affidavit.
I hear you. I just don’t like what this means for the future. All rests on trust. Trust that these were not misclassified. Trust that they weren’t fraudulently classified. Trust it’s worth the inevitable abuse of using law enforcement for political purposes. The more you put in the open, the less that it’s likely to be abused.
I’d like this to be as open as possible. If we can’t see the info, let people see redacted images of the doc with the TOP SECRET stamp, etc. I’m sure people could authenticate through pictures that it’s not recently stamped and had been there for awhile. Stuff like that.
I honestly don’t think that would satisfy the Trump supporters who are convinced that it’s all deep-state crap, that the documents were forged/planted. “Oh, you can fake all of that.”
I don’t think they’d be satisfied by anything. The goal would be to provide sufficient access to evidence that would satisfy the majority of observers.
I think it’s worth repeating: the only action necessary to constitute a potential violation of the Espionage Act is to fail to surrender sensitive [ETA: not necessarily ‘classified’] materials when asked to by a government official.
And that would come out – to the extent that was appropriate – during trial. If there is no indictment and no trial, there’s nothing much to get worked up about; the feds seized documents that everyone except diehard Trumpists understand are unequivocally the property of the US Government. But if charges are brought, those charges have to be proven in court. I don’t see a problem with any possible “abuse” here.
Given what we’ve seen in the last 5 years with Trump, do you think it’s likely that he was set up to bring home documents that were somehow fraudulently classified? (Whatever that even is.)
This sounds reasonable, but it isn’t. Here’s why:
Suppose the CIA spent 12 years embedding a human intelligence asset into Putin’s inner circle. This individual is why we’ve been able to accurately predict what Putin’s next moves will be in Ukraine. Remember, Biden’s administration foretold what Russia’s moves there would be with great accuracy, so this is not entirely far-fetched speculation.
Suddenly we learn that human intelligence was at risk at Mar-A-Lago due to the sloppy way this intelligence was stored there – stuff that Trump wasn’t supposed to have in the first place, and that any yahoo with a cell phone camera could have stolen. CIA immediately takes steps to remove their asset from harm’s way, knowing that if Putin learns such information, that person will be killed.
So now you want the CIA to sign off to reveal their sources and methods of how they embedded this person? Not going to happen. Enough damage is done because the CIA had to withdraw this person already, and we’ve lost an important intelligence advantage we spent years developing. CIA is not going to compound that damage just so some skeptic can maybe say, “Oh. Ok, that’s a good enough reason to do a search.”
You’re going to have to rely on the judgment and experience of an independent federal judge looking at the entirety of DOJ’s proposed probable cause and deciding that yes, it’s enough to justify a search of an ex-president’s home for highly sensitive materials, materials he already lied about no longer having and shouldn’t have had in the first place.
This is another aspect of the situation that I don’t think has been widely discussed. It may be that NARA and even the DOJ/FBI did their best to pursue a quiet return of the documents to preserve our relationships with allies who traditionally shared their most covert information with us.
Now it is widely publicized just how insecure certain signal and human intelligence can be in the possession of the USA if our morons citizens elect the wrong person to the office of president. How willing do you suppose those allies are to share their most protected secrets with us these days?
I don’t think that, but I don’t trust any government really. This is more about transparency. Garland being transparent that it was necessary. Not just a crime, which it is. But bad shit could have happened without doing this.
There is just no way I wouldn’t be saying this if the situation was reversed.
Judges appointed by Trump = Radical Left
I don’t like that a President was stealing classified materials, either. But now that he has, we have to treat it as very serious, because anyone stealing classified materials IS very serious. If we don’t want this sort of thing to happen, then our one and only recourse is to not elect criminals to the most powerful positions in the land.
And for a lot of classified information, even the nature of the information is something that has to be kept secret.
How do we keep this from being abused against Democrats in the future? Well, the first step is for Democrats to not steal classified documents. And the second step is to fill all levels of government with people who are there because they intend to do their job (you know, what the Republicans call the “deep state”).
I don’t disagree. I also agree that doing this to prevent it from happening in the future is also a good reason.
However, you’re first sentence is based on trust. You’ve already decided this thing (to be fair, I have too). But there’s no way I’d feel this way in reverse. Because this is inherently political, couldn’t they give it to the Gang of 8, or some top leaders, and at least set a precedent that you’re going to have to show this to someone (who’s cleared to see it) and they can at least say, yes, it really is Top Secret super duper classified stuff.
Maybe I missed it, but how do we know what they took? It’s all from the Executive branch, right?