• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Department ordered to release redacted Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
34,483
Reaction score
34,847
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

Justice Department ordered to release redacted Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit (CNN)​

The Justice Department must release a redacted version of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit by noon on Friday, a federal judge ruled.

The affidavit lays out why investigators believe there was probable cause that crimes had been committed. The warrant authorized the FBI to search former President Donald Trump's home and private club earlier this month.

Earlier Thursday, the DOJ submitted its proposed redactions to US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who issued the order for the public release.

Justice Department Spokesman Anthony Coley said: "The United States has filed a submission under seal per the Court's order of Aug. 22. The Justice Department respectfully declines further comment as the Court considers the matter."


Oh, this is going to be goood. Noon tomorrow.
 

Justice Department ordered to release redacted Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit (CNN)​

The Justice Department must release a redacted version of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit by noon on Friday, a federal judge ruled.

The affidavit lays out why investigators believe there was probable cause that crimes had been committed. The warrant authorized the FBI to search former President Donald Trump's home and private club earlier this month.

Earlier Thursday, the DOJ submitted its proposed redactions to US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who issued the order for the public release.

Justice Department Spokesman Anthony Coley said: "The United States has filed a submission under seal per the Court's order of Aug. 22. The Justice Department respectfully declines further comment as the Court considers the matter."


Oh, this is going to be goood. Noon tomorrow.
Will not be much there to see.
 

Justice Department ordered to release redacted Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit (CNN)​

The Justice Department must release a redacted version of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit by noon on Friday, a federal judge ruled.

The affidavit lays out why investigators believe there was probable cause that crimes had been committed. The warrant authorized the FBI to search former President Donald Trump's home and private club earlier this month.

Earlier Thursday, the DOJ submitted its proposed redactions to US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who issued the order for the public release.

Justice Department Spokesman Anthony Coley said: "The United States has filed a submission under seal per the Court's order of Aug. 22. The Justice Department respectfully declines further comment as the Court considers the matter."


Oh, this is going to be goood. Noon tomorrow.
I'm betting there won't be much to see.

1661471004854.webp
 
Regardless of what it does or doesn't say, I'm pretty sure there will be those on the right who will find something wrong with the report we all will see.

Let the speculation and conspiracy theories start at 12:15 pm tomorrow.
 
A bunch of black bars on white paper.
 
I think the will be done interesting attachments.
 
Regardless of what it does or doesn't say, I'm pretty sure there will be those on the right who will find something wrong with the report we all will see.

Let the speculation and conspiracy theories start at 12:15 pm tomorrow.
I think you're right about that. It cannot be avoided at this point. The judge is trying to be as transparent as possible for "national interest." It's too bad that the necessary redactions will do nothing but rile up the Trumpsters.
 
I think you're right about that. It cannot be avoided at this point. The judge is trying to be as transparent as possible for "national interest." It's too bad that the necessary redactions will do nothing but rile up the Trumpsters.
Not nothing. I'm very interested to see just how much criminality will be exposed. Espionage. Pattern of obstruction. Theft. Wide ranging conspiracy. Treason.
 
i just want to know whose job it is to explain what affidavit and redacted means to the ex-president's lawyers.
 
It is too early in the morning to get Rick rolled.
the cult in support of the thief after the affidavit is released today...


Image
 
The probe, top Justice Department official Jay Bratt told a court, is in its "early stages." The ultimately discredited Russia collusion probe stretched on for nearly three years, even though there wasn't any real evidence of wrongdoing. And that means this case — which involves questions of whether presidential records were wrongly kept from the National Archives and national security secrets wrongly compromised in violation of the Espionage Act — is likely months from any serious resolution.

Here are some of the most important unanswered questions:

1. Did the 45th president declassify the documents found in his home?

Trump's office issued a statement saying the records found in Mar-a-Lago were originally taken by the president from the Oval Office to his White House residence under a "standing" declassification order. If the former president can show that — and presidents have wide latitude to declassify at will without going through the normal process — it could challenge any criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act. "The president can be left with whatever documents on his request that he wants," says former federal prosecutor Kash Patel, an adviser to Trump who believes all the documents at Mar-a-Lago were already declassified. "He's the president of the United States. He's a unilateral, final arbiter of classification and declassification authorities."

Other legal observers think some evidence of a process or proof of the declassification order will be needed to satisfy prosecutors, but all agree every president has wide latitude to declassify what they want, when they want while they are in office. Some legal observers also noted a careful choice of language in the National Archives May 8, 2022 letter sent to Trump's legal team. Rather than call the documents found at Mar-a-Lago "classified" they described the recovered papers as "documents with classification markings," language that leaves open the possibility that declassification may be disputed in the future.

2. Did President Joe Biden have the constitutional authority to waive executive privilege over Trump documents sent to Congress or the Justice Department?

Over the last two decades, executive orders governing executive privilege waivers have fluctuated on this issue. Under George W. Bush, the final decision on executive privilege covering a former president's papers was tipped toward the ex-executive and not the incumbent president. During the Obama-Biden years, the final say was tilted back toward an incumbent president as we covered in this recent story. That rollercoaster history means any legal challenge will likely look at the Constitution. Biden used the Obama-era guidance to authorize the National Archives to pierce Trump's privilege and send evidence to the FBI this spring.

 

3. Were some of the records seized by the FBI previously deemed personal records by Trump?


Reports indicate the National Archives were looking for records like letters between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to be returned as presidential records. But a 2012 federal court ruling involving a dispute with Bill Clinton declared that presidents have the "sole discretion" to decide which of their presidential records are personal and that such decisions can't even be challenged by a federal court. The only remedy is a civil procedure in the Presidential Records Act in which the National Archives and an Attorney General seek to force the recovery of disputed documents.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who was a party to the 2012 case, believes the ruling a decade ago is so sweeping as to negate most of the FBI's investigation. "The government, the lawyer for the Archives, said, 'You know what? If documents are in the former President's hands, where they're presumptively personal, we just, you know, we presume they're personal,'"

4. Was the approved search warrant overly broad, and did it result in illegal over-collection of evidence?

The rules for FBI agents and federal prosecutors require that a search warrant be cast as narrowly as possible to protect Americans' 4th Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure. But the Mar-a-Lago search warrant authorized the seizing of any presidential records between Jan. 20, 2017 and Jan. 20, 2021, a massively broad category. And even with that breadth, the Justice Department admits it mistakenly seized Trump's passports and other documents that were marked privileged.

5. Is the FBI investigation properly predicated to laws that have a criminal enforcement component?

Many observers, Brock included, have raised concerns that the dispute over presidential records is governed by laws that don't have much of a criminal enforcement mechanism to them, making the FBI raid look, as Brock put it, like "the revenge of the National Archives."

"If this turns out to be what it appears to be — and that is basically a document dispute involving some fairly low-level federal statutes — then the perception that this was pursued as a political campaign versus one seeking justice becomes more real in the minds of people."

"The Trump warrant had no legal basis. Nothing in the [Presidential Records Act] suggests that the former president's physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based."

 
The probe, top Justice Department official Jay Bratt told a court, is in its "early stages." The ultimately discredited Russia collusion probe stretched on for nearly three years, even though there wasn't any real evidence of wrongdoing. And that means this case — which involves questions of whether presidential records were wrongly kept from the National Archives and national security secrets wrongly compromised in violation of the Espionage Act — is likely months from any serious resolution.

Here are some of the most important unanswered questions:

1. Did the 45th president declassify the documents found in his home?

Trump's office issued a statement saying the records found in Mar-a-Lago were originally taken by the president from the Oval Office to his White House residence under a "standing" declassification order. If the former president can show that — and presidents have wide latitude to declassify at will without going through the normal process — it could challenge any criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act. "The president can be left with whatever documents on his request that he wants," says former federal prosecutor Kash Patel, an adviser to Trump who believes all the documents at Mar-a-Lago were already declassified. "He's the president of the United States. He's a unilateral, final arbiter of classification and declassification authorities."

Other legal observers think some evidence of a process or proof of the declassification order will be needed to satisfy prosecutors, but all agree every president has wide latitude to declassify what they want, when they want while they are in office. Some legal observers also noted a careful choice of language in the National Archives May 8, 2022 letter sent to Trump's legal team. Rather than call the documents found at Mar-a-Lago "classified" they described the recovered papers as "documents with classification markings," language that leaves open the possibility that declassification may be disputed in the future.

2. Did President Joe Biden have the constitutional authority to waive executive privilege over Trump documents sent to Congress or the Justice Department?

Over the last two decades, executive orders governing executive privilege waivers have fluctuated on this issue. Under George W. Bush, the final decision on executive privilege covering a former president's papers was tipped toward the ex-executive and not the incumbent president. During the Obama-Biden years, the final say was tilted back toward an incumbent president as we covered in this recent story. That rollercoaster history means any legal challenge will likely look at the Constitution. Biden used the Obama-era guidance to authorize the National Archives to pierce Trump's privilege and send evidence to the FBI this spring.


Does 18 USC 793 specify classified documents?
 

Justice Department ordered to release redacted Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit (CNN)​

The Justice Department must release a redacted version of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit by noon on Friday, a federal judge ruled.

The affidavit lays out why investigators believe there was probable cause that crimes had been committed. The warrant authorized the FBI to search former President Donald Trump's home and private club earlier this month.

Earlier Thursday, the DOJ submitted its proposed redactions to US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who issued the order for the public release.

Justice Department Spokesman Anthony Coley said: "The United States has filed a submission under seal per the Court's order of Aug. 22. The Justice Department respectfully declines further comment as the Court considers the matter."


Oh, this is going to be goood. Noon tomorrow.
Whatever is released, the rabid members of "Claque Failed Casino Operator" will claim that the redactions are part of the cover-up.

If the entire affidavit, without any redactions, was released, the rabid members of "Claque Failed Casino Operator" would be claiming that it was a fake.
 
Back
Top Bottom