A hearing is set about whether to unseal the affidavit supporting the search warrant run at Trump’s residence

A few individuals also filed requests that the search warrant documents be unsealed, but Reinhart pushed them aside and denied their motions outright by saying, “The interests asserted by the movants [the individuals] are adequately represented by the media-intervenors”.

The government was directed to file one response to all of the requestors, which it did on Monday of this week, 15 August. The parties seeking disclosure were to file replies to the Justice Department by 9:00 a.m. today. All of the media organizations filed one reply together, and Judicial Watch and The Florida Center for Government Accountability filed separate replies.

What usually happens in a situation like this is that at the conclusion of the hearing, the presiding magistrate or judge will say that the matter will be “taken under advisement”, and a written opinion and order will be issued in the future. Reinhart could deny the requests outright in open court this afternoon, but with all the large media companies saying they want the affidavit unsealed in whole or in part, he will probably be more circumspect and say he will issue a ruling later.

The hearing is to get underway right about now.

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government, Justice, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to A hearing is set about whether to unseal the affidavit supporting the search warrant run at Trump’s residence

  1. Fred says:

    So “media intervenors” are superior to actual US citizens? That is so kind of the magistrate to let the rest of us know just how subordinate we all are.

  2. Glenn Fisher says:

    Redacted version of the affidavit ordered by the magistrate today. He says the Govt failed to meet it’s burden of proof and that he’s leaning towards releasing it. We’ll see.
    What’s also interesting is that the documents released thus far show that it was the FBI, not Merrick Garland that sought the warrant and that it was an FBI agent that provided said affidavit.
    And speaking of the FBI, who doing you think they put in charge of their Mar A Lago raid and “investigation”? Why, none other than some of our old friends from Crossfire Hurricane:

    • TTG says:

      Glenn Fisher,

      Why would you expect Garland to seek the warrant rather than the FBI agents and line prosecutors handling the case? If he was seeking the warrant, it would smell of political influence. It would be even worse if, as the Trump kids believed, Biden was directing the investigation and warrants. It’s not his place to do that.

  3. Deap says:

    List the leaks of affidavit content by each named media. Confirm or deny each published leak. Media leaks are on trial too.

  4. Deap says:

    I was a volunteer small claims judge for five years in our local Municipal Court. No lawyers are used by the litigants, just regular people coming to make their small claims against each other for damages under $5000.

    I would virtually always rule from the bench and hope everyone left understanding why they had won or lost. This also offered the opportunity for follow-up questions, because each case provided a chance for legal education. To me it was pretty easy to make immediate rulings, since most were written contract cases, or failure to have written contracts, or landlord/tenant disputes which have express controlling state law.

    However, more often my small claims colleagues would “take the ruling under advisement” which left little satisfaction for all the parties involved, along with a worrisome long wait for the supplicants. I can see this work several ways – some issues do require more legal research and sorting out the key issues. Those are proper to take under advisement.

    But taking under advisement was also a copout for the lazy judge who had a poor operating knowledge of the law, or the one who simply did not want confrontation. My own sense was it was hard enough for regular people to face a court hearing, as informal as small claims hearing are, and they deserved an immediate ruling and the opportunity to bring their issues to an expedient end.

    Acknowledged, rulings at this federal warrant level have nothing to with small claims hearings – just insights into differing judicial personalities that factor into the world of law. Because unfortunately a “biased” judge can use the extra time to craft a politically expedient ruling, as well as a legally expeditious ruling.

    Justice delayed is justice denied.

Comments are closed.