The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Latest Order Regarding Unsealing of Mar-A-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit
From Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart (S.D. Fla.) today in U.S. v. Sealed Search Warrant:
I have reviewed the Government's memorandum of law and proposed redactions to the search warrant Affidavit. ECF No. 89. I am fully advised in the entire record, including the contents of the Affidavit.
1. I find that the Government has met its burden of showing a compelling reason/good cause to seal portions of the Affidavit because disclosure would reveal (1) the identities of witnesses, law enforcement agents, and uncharged parties, (2) the investigation's strategy, direction, scope, sources, and methods, and (3) grand jury information protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). As further explanation for this finding, I incorporate by reference my Order on Motions to Unseal. ECF No. 80; see also United States v. Kooistra, 796 F.2d 1390, 1391 (11th Cir. 1986) (findings must be "sufficient for a reviewing court to be able to determine, in conjunction with a review of the sealed documents themselves, what important interest or interests the district court found sufficiently compelling to justify the denial of public access.").
2. Based on my independent review of the Affidavit, I further find that the Government has met its burden of showing that its proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve the Government's legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation and are the least onerous alternative to sealing the entire Affidavit.
WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Intervenors' Motion to Unseal [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED IN PART.
2. On or before noon Eastern time on Friday, August 26, 2022, the Government shall file in the public docket a version of the Affidavit containing the redactions proposed in ECF No. 89-1.
What exactly this means (i.e., just how much will be redacted and how much will be disclosed), we'll learn tomorrow, since for now ECF Nos. 89 & 89-1 themselves remain sealed.
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
Of course, it will remain redacted. They spied on candidate Trump in secret, they spied on President Trump in secret, then they spied on ex-President Trump in secret.
It's so important to remain redacted that they've been leaking parts that help them spin a narrative left and right to Pravda. How could they create their narrative if everyone could see the truth?
Again, the lawyer profession cannot protect witnesses, or litigants, thus the secrecy.
Correct—Bush Republicans spied on Trump and then in 2019 Republicans in Congress voted Lizard Cheney into leadership!?! Why anyone would be a Republican is beyond me…I guess it’s important for them to belong to the party of Dennis Hastert??
I expect we'll know what it means tomorrow, but given past behavior, the redactions that matter will be the ones that occurred prior to submitting the application to the 'judge': All the reasons the government knew that what they were saying to the judge was BS.
Remember the FISA application where they interviewed Steele's source, and reported to the court that he seemed credible, but omitted that he had credibly said that the dossier was a steaming heap? Expect those sorts of omissions, that don't need redaction because they were pre-redacted.
Hell, I expect the thing to full of outright lies since the agent who falsified documents to provide exact opposite meanings faced just about zero punishment for his deliberate lies to the court.
"I expect we'll know what it means tomorrow, but given past behavior, the redactions that matter will be the ones that occurred prior to submitting the application to the 'judge'"
Unclear on what "redaction" means, Brett? And why the scare quotes around the word judge?
"All the reasons the government knew that what they were saying to the judge was BS."
That is a serious charge to make, especially when we don't know the content of the affidavit supporting issuance of the warrant. An affiant's making a false statement essential to the determination of probable cause could result in the suppression of evidence seized under the warrant. To do so in a case of this visibility and magnitude would be sheer folly.
Do you have any facts supporting your rank conjecture that the affiant falsely represented anything to the magistrate judge?
Still waiting on the supporting facts, Brett.
Why can't you man up and admit how full of shit you actually are?
Did I not point out that they committed material omissions on the FISA warrants? Surely you've heard of that.
What does that have to do with this case? And there is quite a difference between omissions -- after all, a probable cause affidavit is by its nature one-sided -- and affirmative misstatements of fact (which, if essential to probable cause, can result in suppression of the fruits of the search.
not guilty...That is a problem = not releasing the affidavit
A redacted affidavit is better than no affidavit. Owing to the gravity of what happened, and the public interest...this is a case where I believe the release of the unredacted affidavit is required, if this act is to be seen as legitimate.
It's comments like this that help to demonstrate that the people calling for "more transparency" on the right have never been arguing in good faith. You'll just believe whatever it is you want to believe. "I will read into any unredacted portion only things that further mar the investigation's legitimacy."
You'd find a way to wriggle out of any incriminating revelations even if the entire thing were unredacted.
All the reasons the government knew that what they were saying to the judge was BS.
This is amazing, even from you.
It just couldn't be that Trump was keeping documents he wasn't entitled to, and stalled for a year and a half about turning them over.
Couldn't be, could it, Brett? No conspiracy, so that must be wrong.
Dudebro is a walking, typing Duckspeaker, in the Orwell-sense.
He'd spend incredible amounts of energy explaining away his own nose if it somehow criticized someone with an (R) tribal affiliation.
Quick! Name a document the President of the United States isn't entitles to and cannot declassify if he's POTUS!
Even if his name is Trump.
Trump. Is. Not. The. President.
When you get around to it, would you mind sharing with us your evidence -- any evidence -- that Trump declassified any of the material in those boxes he took to Florida with him?
Being entitled to read about X, and having the authority to declassify X are sometimes two very different issues.
You'd know that if you actually knew what you were talking about.
In any event, as explained elsewhere, if there isn't a record of POTUS declassifying a document, then it didn't fucking happen.
How about if he ordered a document declassified, and a disloyal minion deliberately didn't create that record? Trump's argument would be that, since he had the declassification power, not the minion, the document was declassified from the time he ordered it declassified, not from the time the minion acted on the order.
'a disloyal minion'
The one-size-fits-all excuse.
Irrelevant anyway, he still wasn't supposed to have them at MAL, or anywhere.
How about after Trump said "this document is declassified" (but no-one heard him because he was alone) the Flying Spaghetti Monster descended from his Space Colander and took up the document so that Trump couldn't hand it over, and later gave it to the Cylons, who finally placed it at Maga Lago without Trump knowing. Can you prove that didn't happen?
https://reason.com/2022/08/19/fbi-misled-judge-in-obtaining-warrant-to-seize-hundreds-of-safe-deposit-boxes/
But we should just take the FBI at their work that the Mar-a-Lago raid was totally non-political and legitimate.
What they found is less important to me than whether they had legitimate cause to go look in the first place. An no, I am not inclined to simply trust them on that point.
Sure, it's possible.
But the feds have a history when it comes to investigating Trump, and I'm not going to ignore that.
They have a history of material omissions on warrant applications, and I'm not going to ignore that, either.
What do you expect from Bush Republicans?? Bush Republicans stole the 2000 election and then lied us into a war all the while selling us out to China and juicing the economy with subprime mortgages and student loans.
Could you try posting something other than your usual conspiracy bullshit?
You claim that you went to college. You claim that you got a 'degree' and became an "Engineer."
Why are you flatly incapable of commenting in good faith and dealing with facts, as a "college educated" person?
Maybe you're just full of "shit."
Hm. Where did I claim the degree?
In the open thursday thread, you lying traitor. You don't even lie well. It's astonishing how stupid you must be if the only person you're fooling is yourself.
Obviously Brett didn't go to college, he spent his time in a secure facility for his own protection. His carer has to keep wiping drool off the keyboard as he's posting here.
You have reading comprehension problems, don't you?
LOL. Brett doesn't know who wrote the affidavit or what it says, but he already knows that it's full of perjury.
Trump's objective is to sabotage an investigation headed by a Republican who he himself had appointed.
It's so refreshingly transparent every time a leftist tries to gleefully point out that the person taking an adverse action against Trump is someone Trump himself hired/appointed/nominated, etc. It is them disclosing their worldview that appointees/nominees are beholden to the President. In short, it isn't the "own" they think it is; rather, an "own-goal".
No, that's not the point. The point is that Trump can't sell his legal BS even to his own appointees.
". . . .that appointees/nominees are beholden to the President. "
But...when an appointee doesn't do Trump's bidding then HOLY SHIT look out because here comes a rash of name calling, spittle, traitor!, RINO, etc.
My point is that it is odd that a Republican that Trump himself appointed is somehow part of a left-wing plot.
It is them disclosing their worldview that appointees/nominees are beholden to the President.
No, it's to try to somehow puncture the right-wing echo chamber by saying, "See? Even this person feels that Trump stepped over the line! Why can't you see that?" It seldom gets through to you people, as your comment so perfectly illustrates.
I haven't encountered any conservatives who think a judge is beholden to the POTUS who nominated them. Please keep your left-wing projections to yourself.
Speculating is a waste of time. We will see what the DOJ releases. On a related issue, I find Bill Barr's interview with Bari Weiss very interesting. He does not fault the FBI; he says that the Bureau is just doing what it has been ordered to do by the DOJ. According to Barr, any fault lies with the political leadership and the DOJ leadership.
https://www.commonsense.news/p/bill-barr-calls-bullsht
I read that interview. What impresses me is how many times he's confused, surprised, can't understand things. Even this:
"BW: Is it possible that Jeffrey Epstein didn’t die by suicide?
AG BARR: No. "
There's such a thing as carrying Hanlon's Razor too far. He needs to start considering that malice really IS the explanation sometimes, and that at some point you have to stop accepting coincidence as an explanation.
Sometimes you can't dismiss the possibility of malice.
What is regrettable is that many of us no longer presume (or even assume) that government officials are doing their jobs in a professional, non-partisan manner. It would be incorrect to assume the opposite, but our inability to trust our institutions and to need verification before believing them is a tragedy.
I've seen what happens when this gets carried to an extreme. I spent 7 years working as an Assistant Attorney General with the Virgin Islands Department of Justice in the Civil Section. Time and time again I was assigned cases where I had defend government officials who had screwed up while doing their jobs. It got so bad that the judges (both federal and territorial) assumed that the government was acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. In or around 2000, Federal Judge Tom Moore enjoined the assessment of real property taxes because the VI Tax Assessor's office was making too many mistakes. After that, every major tax case had the taxpayer alleging that the assessment was unconstitutional. The VIBIR (local version of the IRS) lost the presumption that assessments were correct. Taxpayers now refused to produce their business records if audited and demanded that the government show evidence to prove that the assessment was correct. What a nightmare.
"What is regrettable is that many of us no longer presume (or even assume) that government officials are doing their jobs in a professional, non-partisan manner. It would be incorrect to assume the opposite, but our inability to trust our institutions and to need verification before believing them is a tragedy. "
...and how do you think we got there?
What you describe doesn't seem to be bad faith, but rather negligence.
Way to disprove the conspiracy point being made above.
Very insightful on a lot of topics. My respect for him has gone up. He calls it as he sees it, and there is plenty of critcism to spread around on both sides.
I always thought that of him (Barr) = He calls it as he sees it
Agree that he is insightful on many topics.
Interesting that this judge (apparently) did not disagree with any of the redactions that were offered. Another indication that DOJ is acting in good faith here.
lol oh come on
Or that the fix was in.
But as I wrote above, the important redactions were the pre-redactions, the things the DOJ didn't bother telling the 'judge'.
Sneer quotes, by the way, because I don't think magistrate judges should be a thing, constitutionally speaking.
If you want to pass a statute turning the Magistrate Judges into Article III judges, I'm sure they'd support you.
What is the constitutional infirmity in Congress creating magistrate judges pursuant to Article I, § 8, cl. 9, in your view, Brett?
The constitutional infirmity is pursuant to Article 3, obviously.
What about article 3 says that the judiciary must do its work without any assistance? Do you also think clerks, courtroom deputies, and the workers in the courthouse cafeteria are unconstitutional?
What Article 3 says is that the Article 3 judges get "the judicial power", it leaves no room at all for anybody else to be exercising judicial power.
Would you argue that magistrate "judges" aren't exercising that power?
it leaves no room at all for anybody else to be exercising judicial power.
Funny, I don't read that exclusivity and nondelegability in the text.
No, Brett. Article III says that Article III courts get the judicial power. Magistrate judges work for those courts. So do clerks. Each participates in the exercise of judicial power, in a sense. But the Article III judges have final authority.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/26/can-magistrate-judges-constitutionally-issue-search-warrants-against-trump-or-anyone-else/
Of course Phillip Hamburger is a Republican shill, right?
Yes?
Well that’s quite petty. Brett.
Why didn't anyone notice that in 1793, do you think?
Because magistrate judges were created in 1968?
Wrong as always. The title of magistrate judge was established in 1968. The position existed since 1793.
I do appreciate your deep commitment to ensuring that it is blindingly obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Once again, Brett, you neither understand the constitution nor the judicial system. There isn't a non-frivolous argument in favor of what you "don't think."
Magistrate judges IMO aren't a great evil.
However, the practical argument against the way they are appointed is the same as the practical argument in favor of how regular federal judges are appointed, and it's not frivolous: their need to get reappointed periodically (theoretically) makes them susceptible to political pressure, and their appointment by other judges reduces the check-and-balance provided by Senate approval.
Of course all kinds of state and municipal judges are appointed in a similar way, so it's not some screaming outrage emergency. But it's not frivolous to point out the downside.
Right, but state and municipal judges are dictated by state constitutions to be selected in that manner.
Article 3, section 1:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Magistrate "judges" may be ordained and established by Congress, but they do NOT hold their offices during good behavior. And they exercise the judicial power. How is this not a constitutional violation?
They do not exercise the judicial power, except by consent. They work for the Article III judges.
Those two arguments are literally contradictory.
What would be interesting is if the judge did disagree.
Go feed your kittens.
The judge had indicated what would have happened if he had disagreed. Govt would have gone along with the judge's version. Or, probably, some discussion and compromise? And govt could have then appealed if it disagreed strongly enough with the judge's rulings. Didn't seem to happen in this case, fortunately.
Yeah, the State not disagreeing with the State is a sure sign that everything is on the up and up. Now do the FISA warrants based on lies where the State agreed with the State that everything was true and proper.
There is no abuse of power that you will not cheerlead for unless it hurts Democrats or marxists, but I repeat myself.
Anything that was the subject of a leak from the DOJ should not be redacted. Maybe the judge should hold the DOJ in contempt if it does not identify who is doing the leaking.
What does a "leak from the DOJ" even mean when it is the DOJ that is directing the investigation? That it leaked to itself?
I think he means to the press.
Yes. Though even if the redacted affidavit is released, it won't give us any details about the materials that were seized. I wonder if we will ever find out just how accurate the information leaked to the press by DOJ insiders really is.
Perhaps journalistic ethics regarding protection of the identity of sources should be conditional on accuracy of the information given. If a source gives obviously false information, that source should be exposed.
It will never happen in this case. The press sides with the leakers and if the information is false, the press will gleefully add their own lies on top of the leaked lies.
Or (and this thought may not have occurred to you), the info was correct, and the press doesn't have to lie in any way. If you escape from your fevered conspiracy-fueled rage for just a few minutes, you may find yourself with enough integrity to say to yourself, "Well, I guess another alternative is that Trump did a bunch of things that were wrong here, these include refusing to comply with the many many requests from Archives, include having Trump lie to his lawyer (or have his own lawyer affirmatively lie) about having returned all the requested documents, when that was manifestly untrue, and so on." It is actually okay for a human being to support Trump and still publicly take issue with some of his actions. Try it . . . you may find it psychologically liberating.
Attachment C
Affidavit
big black space covering every word
You expected something different?
Are you a lawyer?
In much the same way that you believe what you post is true.
Queenie Baby. Cool comment, bruh. What does it say? Perhaps you can say it in Ebonics so I can understand it.
Taking speaking lessons from Cameltoe Harris?
Obfuscation is your game and you have it down to a science.
We were also "told" that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute such a case.
Perhaps we should pay less attention to what is being "told."
Because they aren't classified because President Trump declassified them. Next question.
Queenie, do you not understand Trumpism? Are you so impaired by your urban education that you do not understand Trumpism? Tell me you do not understand Trumpism, bruh.
Yes. And you?
Yes, except the horse has left the water under the bridge for Clinton.
(Yes, I mixed a metaphor. Not a federal crime. Yet.)
MOre a double standard charge than a hypocrisy charge.
Clinton should have been charged, the FBI report laid it out in minute detail, even using language that tracked the statute, until it was Bowdlerized.
We don't know yet exactly what Trump did, but assuming he purloined secret documents, and all the elements of the criminal statute can be proven, yes charge him. I suspect that the mens rea will be a high hurdle in his case, but who knows?
1. If facts are as they appeared, they both violated the law.
2. If you or I did what they did, we'd certainly be in trouble.
3. But there are some legitimate reasons to not go after high-level officials for technical crimes.
4. Those practical reasons apply to both of them, IF the crime is merely possessing the materials and keeping them someplace that doesn't meet the highest security standards.
If it turns out Trump was trying market nuclear secrets or blackmail someone, then it's a different story.
Anyway it's too early to talk about hypocrisy. HRC got investigated and Trump's getting investigated. So far, the score is even.
No, he did not.
Thank you for demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea how classification or de-classification works.
What's your next idiotic remark?
That is, to use the technical legal Latin term, horse puckey. He never declassified anything. There are procedures for doing that, he did not do that. Trump thinking, "I'm taking these because I want them" does not do it.
Doesn't matter, even if he did and could prove it, he still wasn't supposed to have them. He stole them.
When I say "who knows," I mean Trump has what my wife colorfully calls verbal diarrhea. He may well talk himself into an indictment. First rule any criminal lawyer will tell you is to shut up, which Trump is not capable of doing on anything he cares about.
Well he ignored demands to return them. He had his lawyer submit a statement to the court that no further classified materials remained at Mar-A-Lago, and Trump's the one who signed the law making his behavior a felony.
But did he really know that what he was doing was unlawful? LOL.
Bored,
Why are you skeptical re mens rea? Again, based only on the reporting we've been told so far, Trump personally went through the boxes. If that happened, he looked at documents stamped various versions of double-secret probation top secret. And, if he did not personally do that; the National Archives *did* send him repeated messages that he had improperly taken classified documents.
I think you and I would agree that, if the proper agency contacts you and says, "Hey, you took a bunch of documents that you should not have removed from work. And some of them are highly classified.", you would respond in roughly this way: You would say to them (and to yourself), "Crap. I don't think I did that. But I recognize the seriousness of the issue, and I'm going to give *top priority* to this...I'll check those documents right away. I think you're wrong. But of course I'll check."
Someone who instead responds, "You want them back? No!!! They're mine." . . . well, I think the mens rea has been established, no?
The mens rea for the crimes that have been discussed as to Trump are higher than the gross negligence standard that Clinton violated. I have not read those reports, so I don't know the facts. And I am skeptical that reports in the press about anything are accurate.
Not saying Trump is not guilty, but I would like to see a DOJ report first, with specific charges and evidence of mens reas. Time will tell.
I answered that, I think our posts crossed. The mens rea in her case was "gross negligence." It's right in the statute. Passed during the World War. The first one, when the other side wore silly spikes on their heads, and our boys wore pancakes.
And as I said, the first DOJ report tracked the statute almost word for word, until it was Bowdlerized.
It's a simple yes/no question: do you prefer to see them both charged?
Well, the self proclaimed experts are coming out of the woodwork everywhere to say that the President, the ultimate classifying authority, has to follow rules and procedures and have his declassifications approved by----who, exactly? Funny, as a former holder of a secret clearance, I disagree, my two sons with TS/SCI clearances currently on active duty disagree, my son and daughter-in-law who held TS clearances on active duty, and my wif who held a TS clearance as a civilian, disagree. As well as hundreds of other lawyers who have commented on dozens of other blogs. Perhaps instead of calling us all idiots for stating the obvious- that as POTUS, the ultimate classifying authority, the President, regardless of his name, doesn't need to follow procedures or have the declassification approved by anyone other than himself, you could point out chapter and verse of US Law where he is bound to procedures. Procedures take time. Sometimes time isn't available- sometimes he may not care. Doesn't matter. Point out the law instead of telling us YOU'RE the experts, and we're all ignorant idiots. And also- point out who exactly it is who is allowed to override his decision.
I have a story of one rapid declassification from TS/SCI to public knowledge- less than 12 hours. Back in HS had a friend living with his mother, parent's divorced. He recalled that way back when (we graduated in 1973) his father walked in the door and his mother yelled at him; "Honey, you need to come see these pictures they have on TV of missile silos in Cuba!" He zoomed over, took one glance, and exclaimed, loudly using swear words- "I took those pictures this morning- what are they doing on TV!!!???"
Just what classification procedures do you think JFK invoked to take them from TS/SCI to public knowledge in a matter of hours? Easy peasy- his presidential authority as POTUS.
He also recalled his mother turning the TV off then and asking him "Just what is it you do down here?" She had no clue he was flying over Cuba. It was shortly after the divorce happened.
Yes, you've solved the puzzle: Republicans are not a uni-party hivemind, and the neo-con warmonger wing of the party that Trump has spent the last 6 years destroying is not fond of him. Fantastic. Good jorb.
I mean, Republicans are a uni-party hivemind, so your argument falls apart in its very first phrase.
First, the government case doesn't hinge on classification.
Second, who is going to believe a Trump tale of undocumented, undisclosed, magical declassification (other than his delusional, disaffected, credulous fans)?
Third, the offenses based on recent lies are unaffected by declassification.
Carry on, clingers.
I'm puzzled as to why you think that holding a clearance makes one a legal expert on classified information. As a clearance holder you might be expected to know what you can do with classified information, but I am pretty sure that when I was given those instructions back in the day I was not given any guidance in what the president can or can't do.
Your stories are cute, I suppose, however you're still wrong.
If POTUS is going to de-classify something which they have the authority to do (by the way, it's telling that you don't bother to mention that there are in fact two subject areas where POTUS is most certainly NOT the 'ultimate classifying authority'), then there has to actually be a record of POTUS doing so.
There is no record of Trump doing that. His advisors say that they have no record of him doing that. His cabinet members say the same thing.
In fact, the only reason Trump claims to have declassified anything, is because his other bullshit excuses weren't working either.
That you're gullible enough to believe otherwise speaks volumes as to why nobody should be listening to you on this subject.
The TDS is strong in this one.
Yet Trump destroyed the Bush and Cheney dynasties. Sorry for your loss.
Queenie, of course you have. They're far right nutjobs, and you're the useful idiot of far right nutjobs. You just don't realise you've been caught, because you don't understand that your politics are actually the politics of hatred and death.
I have frequently seen you say things every bit as vile and racist (and demonstrably wrong) as any of the Trump-traitors around here. You have regularly presented Nazi conspiracy theories as if they're fact, because you've been fooled by Nazis into thinking it's leftist orthodoxy.
Bolton, his national security adviser, all but laughed when Trump said this, saying that he had never heard any such order while he served.
Challenging a demand is not a crime. He wasn't trying to hide anything. There was a legal discussion going on.
I generally agree, except for No. 3. I have a quaint notion that people in higher places are held to a higher standard. Yes, sometimes the pressing needs of the job should permit them to bend the rules. That allowance does not apply to either of the two scenarios we are discussing.
Disobeying a demand certainly can be a crime. And of course you're once again misrepresenting facts. He lied and said he didn't have them. That's pretty much exactly "trying to hide anything."