The Miami Herald and numerous other outlets are saying it was Magistrate Judge Reinhart. They point to docket entries showing sealed warrants signed on 8/5 by Reinhart. Perhaps.
One thing that always has bothered me about search warrants is that they should not remained sealed once they are executed unless there is a real law-enforcement need to keep them sealed. And they should almost always be made available to the party affected. But I bet Trump's legal team hasn't even seen the actual affidavit in support of the warrant yet, which is bananas.
The warrant will likely remained sealed until (if?) an indictment is brought. If there is no indictment, the warrant may never become public.
"The officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property."
ReplyDelete-Rule 41
So this doesn't apply to warrants that have been sealed?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/10/trump-records-classified/
ReplyDeletePC. This is not a surprise to Trump. The surprise is why Garland has waited so long.
2:34-- yes, they have to give the actual warrant, but my experience is that they do not give the attached affidavit. The actual warrant doesn't provide any information other than the place to be searched. The affidavit is the key document.
ReplyDeleteReinhart drew the short stick on this one. He will need around-the-clock security because of Trump's wacko bird fascist supporters. El pobre.
ReplyDeleteIf true some of the Post allegations about the judge are very concerning.
ReplyDeleteThe comedy of this is that when law enforcement (often blatantly) harass black people, the MAGA types can't help but yell "back the blue!" and "blue lives matters." But when law enforcement gets a warrant and lawfully executed it on one of theirs, the MAGA crowd immediately cries fowl and starts talking about government overreach, etc.
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear, with the warrant and supporting affidavit sealed, there is at this time ZERO support for the theory that this is harassment (at least not more so than every other sealed search warrant and affidavit).
So he wakes up in the morning thinking its a normal day. Then a Few FBI agents show up with a warrant.
ReplyDelete“Whatta got for me ?” He asks.
“Perhaps you’d better sit down for this one judge . “ the agent replies.
You think he called a few district court judges for some advice ?
“Hey Fred . Got a minute ? “
Well I know one carpetbagging ring kisser, further North he didn't call...
DeleteWhy the hell does it matter?
ReplyDeleteIt almost seems we are living in a fiction novel. This is just my opinion but I cant believe this was only done for classified documents. If that was the case the judge would have asked them to issue a subpoena first. I am only using statement analysis from Trump, his son and attorney. Its possible there was a snitch inside. In my experience when spontaneous utterances mention a "safe" it means there was something there. Then the son says nothing was in the safe. Then the lawyer says something was planted. All those statements indicate they are aware something valuable was taken from the safe. I am no classified document expert but could you not just return the documents while having your own photocopy? It just seems there had to be something more than documents, no?
ReplyDeleteThe blanket pardons!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletethe more fascinating question is who in the DOJ authorized this warrant. The WAPOST is reporting the Garland never knew about it. If true, heads should roll from the AG to the US attorney's office down here. To me is it unthinkable that the WH did not know about it and not authorized it. If not, it is political malpractice on a grand scale.
Please post the story because its impossible to believe DOJ lawyers, Garland and the FBI director were aware and gave approval of such an action. Impossible to believe otherwise that the attorney general would be blindsided. Just imagine if the FBI director was not a Trump appointee. I just dont understand why so many minions want to prop up this guy and the tortured logic and endless grievance. Trump has the power to hold a press conference and state what was removed from the safe. But we get crickets.
ReplyDeleteWhat the right wing "media" is doing to Judge Reinhart is completely abhorrent. All of us know that MJs do not have much, if any, discretion in authorizing a warrant when the government's application meets the prerequisites (and that the application going to him was completely random, since MJ duty court is done on a rotation).
ReplyDeleteMore info came out today. Earlier in the year a subpoena was issued and they picked up documents. An informant came forward to state there were way more top secret documents hidden at the property.
ReplyDeleteTook guts to do this. Sad not one republican will stand with the rule of law. Rubio is trying to be a circus clown with crying he should have been briefed. LOL really. The FBI does not need to brief politicians on search warrants. Sure that would be wonderful.
These Trumplicans are giving Florida a bigger black eye than it already had!
DeleteYou know it is really frustrating that your entire audience is composed of folks from one political viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should wait and see what develops, but maybe the magistrate should have been smart enough to recuse himself in favor of someone who did not have such a sordid list of prior clients and such a liberal political giving record.
If this had been Hunter Biden and the mag had been a Trump supporter, the pink blood would have flowed.
The smart judges don't support Trump.
DeleteThe top level of the FBI has nothing but politicians in it.
ReplyDelete@333 - the top level of the FBI, i.e., its director, is a Trump appointee.
ReplyDeleteIn other news, when is a government official no longer a government official for the purpose of protection related to office held? The 11th Cir. seems to think that they always are and remain government officials, although Newsom disagrees.
ReplyDeletehttps://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202010545.pdf
Interesting timing of this opinion in light of FORMER POTUS being in the news about doing things that maybe he was aloud to do while POTUS but not allowed to do as a private citizen.