Monday, August 15, 2022

When will the actual search warrant affidavit get unsealed?

 That's really the most important document, by far.  It has the justification -- or the explanation of probable cause -- for the search.  

Meantime, the insane attacks on Magistrate Judge Reinhart have led to renewed calls for extra security for judges.  From Reuters:

The federal judiciary is renewing calls for Congress to pass a stalled bill aimed at bolstering judges' security after the magistrate judge who signed off on a warrant authorizing an FBI search of Donald Trump's Florida home became the subject of online threats.

The chair of a key judiciary security committee and the president of the Federal Judges Association in separate remarks on Thursday pushed for the bill after U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart became the target of a wave of violent, anti-Semitic threats.

***

That legislation, the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, was named for the deceased son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed in an attack at the New Jersey judge's home in July 2020 by a disgruntled lawyer.

That bill would allow federal judges to redact personal information displayed on government websites and bar people and businesses from publishing such information online if they have made a written request not to do so.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the bill on a bipartisan 22-0 vote in December, but attempts to quickly pass it unanimously in the Senate have been blocked by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who says it should also cover members of Congress.

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Clifton, the president of the Federal Judges Association, in an interview said with time running out in the current Congress to pass the bill, judges are being encouraged to contact their local lawmakers.

"The news of the last few days underscores the concern that we have," said Clifton, who former Republican President George W. Bush appointed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Seems like releasing the affidavit would be prejudicial to TFG's case. 6th Amendment must bend to the 1st.

Anonymous said...

Aren't judges eligible for protection by the Marshals?

Anonymous said...

Kash knows

https://www.salon.com/2022/08/15/defender-falsely-claims-he-can-declassify-documents-just-by-standing-over-them_partner/

Anonymous said...

Where were these advocates for security when SCOTUS justices homes were being targeted before and after Dobbs?

Rumpole said...

This needs to be done. FBI agents are being attacked. And they carry weapons. This is a much bigger threat to the judiciary than the drug trafficker threats of the 1980s when federal judges in Miami routinely carried firearms and one brought his German shepherd to court chambers every day. What has happened to Judge Reinhart is scary and must move lawmakers to act before there is another tragedy.

And not to be frivolous on this serious issue. But I read a story where Reinhart wasn’t even on duty and volunteered to help the duty mag. First of all this is fueling all sorts of right wing conspiracies- A Freaking Fox TV host ran an admittedly fake photo of Epstein’s GF Maxwell giving him a foot massage before he was a judge. The host later apologized after the internet went crazy. And the mag who bailed on the warrant owes Reinhart big time. Like bringing him coffee every day and buying lunch every week for a couple of years. Talk about no good deed goes unpunished.

And finally Marco Rubio was on Fox screaming about the impropriety of a magistrate signing the warrant “it wasn’t even a federal judge” he railed. Of course he knows better. This was done to fire up the right and fuel the conspiracies. Shameful.

Anonymous said...

10:55 actually there's a bipartisan bill ready to be signed. Rand Paul is obstructing it. But thanks for your what-aboutism. Refreshing.

Anonymous said...

Another hack attack by Rumpy. Not suprising that he's allowing his hatred for TFG to blind him to subvert the rule of law.

Anonymous said...

Because of the sensitivity of the matter, it should have been signed by a judicial officer without a history of campaign donations, which would have favored having a federal judge do it, who probably would have been able to see that the warrant was overly broad.

Tattoodtiger1 said...

Oh yeah, like they have no allegiance...some of the kids sleep with their
MAGA hats on!

Anonymous said...

@340 -

If, rather than the former president, this had been the search of some low level former staffer's home (but a low level staffer who for some reason had the appropriate clearance to have been in possession of the documents to begin with), would you still hold this position?

If the answer to the question is "no", your position is not sound. What you are suggesting creates different standards and procedures for different people based on who they are rather than what they have allegedly done. That is not acceptable in a society such as ours. The law must apply equally to everyone no matter who they are.

On the other hand, if your answer to the question is "yes," can you cite to any rules of procedure or other law that requires the procedures you suggest? If not, then you're just arguing for a change of law (and that's ok), but that doesn't mean that anything was done that was improper.

Anonymous said...

First, a magistrate is a federal judge. Second, if it went to a federal district judge, then it would have to be one with a bit of seniority because most of the newer ones probably have made recent political contributions. And probably to only one party unlike the mag who seemingly has donated to both parties.

You can go to open Secrets and run a judge's name to find out.

https://www.opensecrets.org/