Judge orders DOJ to release redacted version of Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit by Friday
A judge on Thursday ordered the Justice Department to make public a redacted version of the affidavit it relied on when federal agents searched the Florida estate of former President Donald Trump to look for classified documents.
The directive from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart came hours after federal law enforcement submitted under seal the portions of the affidavit that they want to keep secret as their investigation moves forward.
The judge said the department must file its redacted version by noon Friday. The redactions proposed by the department are likely to be extensive, so it's not clear how much new information about the investigation will be revealed.
Reinhart had given the department until Thursday at noon to propose to him the redactions to the affidavit it wanted to make before any portion of it was released to the public. But he acknowledged Monday that it was possible that the redactions, or blacked-out portions, would be so extensive as to leave the public version of the document without any meaningful information.
The affidavit is likely to contain key information about the FBI's basis for executing a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach on Aug. 8. as part of the investigation show that the from the property 11 sets of classified documents, including information marked at the top secret level.
The documents also showed that the FBI was investigating the "willful retention of national defense information," the concealment or removal of government records and obstruction of a federal investigation.
Multiple news media organizations, including The Associated Press, argued in court last week for the disclosure of the affidavit, citing the extraordinary public interest in the federal search of a former president's home. Trump and some of his supporters have also encouraged the document's release.
The media coalition responded to Thursday's filing by asking the judge to unseal portions of the department's brief and to direct the government, "going forward," to file publicly a redacted version of any sealed document it submits. The groups noted that significant information about the investigation is already public.
"At a minimum, any portions of the Brief that recite those facts about the investigation, without revealing additional ones not yet publicly available — in addition to any other portions that pose no threat to the investigation — should be unsealed," the news organizations wrote.
They added, "If and when additional facts come to light and are confirmed to be accurate, or certain facts no longer pose a threat to the investigation for any other reason, there is no justification for maintaining them under seal either."
The Justice Department has opposed the release, saying the disclosure risks compromising an ongoing criminal investigation, revealing information about witnesses and divulging investigative techniques.
Reinhart has said that though he was sensitive to the department's concerns, he was not inclined to keep the entire document sealed and directed officials to submit to him redactions of the document reflecting the information it wants to keep secret.
Related:
Media attorneys called the raid one of the most significant law enforcement events in the nation's history, arguing that if the reasons justifying the search are not at least partially revealed, the public will likely lose trust in the justice system.
They say the affidavit is key to understanding whether the search was justified.
Government lawyers said releasing sensitive information could jeopardize their criminal case and endanger witnesses or confidential sources.
"Can they show, for example, that releasing certain information contained in those materials would justify or severely impede the investigation, would cause the revelation of confidential informants or confidential witnesses or somehow so hinder the investigation as to jeopardize the safety and security of it," media attorney Deanna Schullman said.
to the judge's written order about possibly unsealing the affidavit into former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.
"It’s a terrible idea to release this information in advance, especially before anyone has even been charged in this matter," Florida State Attorney Dave Aronberg told West Palm Beach sister station WPBF.
The former president had taken to social media, pushing for the public release of these documents.
"Former President Trump does not want this affidavit released. The way I know that is that his lawyers did not argue in court for it to be released. So even though he says on social media, 'release it,' his lawyers really tell the story because his lawyers were in court and said nothing," Aronberg said.
The state attorney said that releasing more details could put sources at risk, tip off suspects and allow witnesses to be tampered with.
"Prosecutors have a different set of rules than politicians. And transparency for prosecutors is limited by the law, by the Constitution. We can’t talk about pending cases like politicians can," Aronberg said.
Previous Coverage:
The search warrant was released to the public on Aug. 8.
The indicates that the Department of Justice is investigating potential violations of at least three criminal statutes, including one under the Espionage Act.
Eleven sets of classified documents were found in the search, according to documents.
The documents range from "top secret" to "sensitive compartmented information," which is one of the top security clearances in the United States of America, ABC News reported. Only very few people would have access to the SCI documents in the country.
Other items found during the executed search warrant include:
- executive grant of the clemency of Roger Stone
- "potential presidential record"
- information about the "president of France"
- binders containing photos
- 21 boxes
Trump pushed for the release of the documents after Attorney General Merrick Garland said they were motioning for them to be released. He stated, "I am going a step further by encouraging the immediate release of those documents."
Attorney General Merrick Garland had personally approved to seek a search warrant in the matter, though he noted that the decision wasn't made lightly.
