The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Parts of the Mar-A-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit Will Be Unsealed
From today's court order:
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on motions to unseal the search warrant materials, including the probable cause affidavit, that were filed by the Media-Intervenors. ECF Nos. 4, 6, 9, 20, 22, 23, 30-33. Today I held a hearing on the motions. As I ruled from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing, I find that on the present record the Government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed.
It is ORDERED that by noon EST on Thursday, August 25, 2022, the Government shall file under seal its proposed redactions along with a legal memorandum setting forth the justification for the proposed redactions. It is FURTHER ORDERED that ECF No. 57 shall be unsealed by the Clerk of Court.
Here's ECF No. 57, which isn't terribly exciting. You can also read the government's argument against unsealing the probable cause affidavit, and the media intervenors' argument in favor of unsealing it (though perhaps with redactions).
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The page numbers won't be redacted.
This judge must be fired for failing to recuse himself. He is a Democrat attack running dog. I want to know if he has any tie to Soros or to the Chinese Commie Party.
What facts supporting recusal within the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 455 do you posit? Please be specific.
Daivd probably thinks all judges should recuse themselves because they're lawyers...
So, this judge in particular has previously recused himself from overseeing a lawsuit Trump brought against Hillary, over impartiality concerns.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11107969/Trumps-attorney-wants-know-Judge-Reinhart-recused-Clinton-lawsuit.html
The judge did not disclose why he recused himself there. One could hypothesize that given the fairly close relation between the cases, the judge should've recused himself in this case as well, for the same reason.
One could hypothesize all sorts of incorrect rot.
For the full public docket, see https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64872441/united-states-v-sealed-search-warrant/
Docket #57 adds a little information to what we already knew. It specifically cites the "willful retention of national defense information" clause of 18 USC 793.
I'M OUTRAGED!
Joining 10s of millions of other Americans who are "outraged" about one thing or another.
Why?
You first: why are you a bored lawyer?
🙂
Why do people use abbreviations for "standard time" or "daylight time" incorrectly, especially when they are unnecessary in any event?
I would get a polite chuckle if the government got sanctioned for not complying by 11 a.m.
I used to get meeting invitations from Microsoft software that went further and said GMT-5 when the time zone was GMT-4 in the summer.
While the judge did approve and unsealing of the affidavit, I would see a long process to get agreement on what will be released. I am guessing at least a month.
What "agreement"? The magistrate judge invited DOJ's proposal as to what should be redacted, and the court will make the decision. No one need agree.
In practice, the DOJ and court will come to an agreement on it.
Even if the affidavit shows how it is probable that Trump was actually selling or attempting to sell nuclear secrets does anyone believe that it would shave even one vote off of his cult base? I sure don't.
The "public interest" being served but unsealing the document (redacted or otherwise) is actually media needing more clicks on the Internet because "Democrats in Disarray" stories just aren't cutting it anymore.
Speaking for myself I am curious to know if my guesses about it are right.
"how it is probable that Trump was actually selling or attempting to sell nuclear secrets "
let's start to get a bit honest about what is meant by nuclear secrets.
Does anyone KNOW that Rd or FRD were in the boxes or was the information NSI related to the nuclear psoture statement?
If there was proof of Trump selling "nuclear secrets" to anyone, it would have been leaked by now.
It's as simple as this: They were undertaking an outrageous action, so they had to allege an outrageous offense on Trump's part in order to justify it. The question will be whether they had any basis for the allegation beyond Trump having had access to such things while President.
Who is the 'they' that is alleging nuclear secrets are the object here? I've only heard speculation.
Orbital Mechanic is the one that brought it up, and I assume he's basing it off of "leaks" reported by major news sources like the Washington Post, the New York Times, or CNN.
It is possible that there were a bunch of people that lied to different news rooms, all using the same story. Perhaps that's the "they" in question - I wonder who "they" could be...
I took it as a variant of the claim that Trump can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, a hypothetical extreme act without consequences, not as a description of the leaks in this case.
The Government's arguments (as I've seen them reported) strongly assert that releasing any part of the affidavit would have terrible adverse consequences for the ongoing criminal investigation. But the Judge or Magistrate has read the affidavit, and he doesn't buy it. So, has the Government exaggerated? Or worse? A curious public wants to know.
That's not what the government has said. What the government has said was that the amount of redaction necessary to eliminate all the stuff that would be harmful to release would render the balance useless.
You're saying the same thing he said, maybe clarified as, releasing any meaningful part of the affidavit would have terrible adverse consequences.
Do you ever tire of being a hyper-pedantic shill?
Possibly the judge, who signed the warrant in the first place, inviting a storm of criticism, just wants to look impartial by ruling at least partially in Trump's favor. Republicans are good at "working the refs".
"But the Judge or Magistrate has read the affidavit, and he doesn't buy it."
How do you know this? The judge did not include that in his written statements. Do you have a confidential source?
I've seen the redacted version and present it here for your edification:
█████████ folders of ███ ███ ████ .██ and ██ ██ ██████ boxes containing ██████ are ██████. ██████ papers ███████████████ passports ████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ "I'm Eric." ███ ██████████ safe ████████ macaroni collage ████ FRAUD!
This redaction didn't leave unredacted the words 'noodle' and 'incident', not necessarily in that order, or even in close proximity to each other.