On August 8, 2022, the day of the FBI’s search there, the entrance to former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Palm Beach, Florida mansion is displayed. hide caption Terry Renna/AP
switch to caption Terry Renna/AP
On August 8, 2022, the day of the FBI’s search there, the entrance to former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Palm Beach, Florida mansion is displayed.
AAP Terry Renna The former president of the United States is requesting that a federal court appoint a special master to examine the records that the FBI took this month during a search that was approved by the court at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump also requests that the government share more information on the things that were taken during the search in a motion that was filed in federal court in Florida. He also wants to stop the government from studying the records that were taken any further until a special master is appointed.
The court move is the first taken by Trump’s attorneys since FBI officers searched Mar-a-Lago two weeks ago in accordance with a search warrant.
“Americans are shielded by law enforcement. It cannot be utilized as a political weapon, “the document states. “Therefore, in the wake of an extraordinary and unnecessary raid on President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, we request judicial assistance.”
Trump’s legal representatives claim that the search raises Fourth Amendment issues and that the used warrant was too broad. Additionally, they claim that the former president’s house was searched by the government despite what Trump’s attorneys claim was his voluntary cooperation with investigators over a period of months.
Anthony Coley, a spokesman for the Justice Department, reaffirmed in a statement that the Mar-a-Lago search warrant was “approved by a federal judge upon the appropriate finding of probable cause.”
He claimed that the department is aware of Trump’s request and will submit its defense in court.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, the trial’s judge, directed the Justice Department one week last Friday to deliver a redacted copy of the affidavit used to support the unusual search of Trump’s home. The declaration outlining the reasons and research was among the records related to the search that multiple media outlets had requested the judge to open. The groups stated at a hearing last Thursday that they do not want to reveal any material that could intimidate present or potential witnesses, put those who are working on the case in danger, or jeopardize the investigation.
At the hearing, the Justice Department claimed that redacting the affidavit would leave no substantive information to reveal and pointed out that the search itself and last week’s revelation of the warrant had sparked a tense situation in which FBI agents had already received death threats.
By Thursday at noon, Reinhart must receive the Justice Department’s suggested redacted version. What, if anything, the judge will finally order made public is still unknown.
LAW While the Justice Department argued strongly against releasing the affidavit, saying that doing so could jeopardize its investigation, other investigations, the possibility of future witness cooperation, and the safety of agents and people named in the affidavit, the Justice Department asked the court to unseal the warrant, citing intense public interest.
The search warrant reveals that FBI investigators seized records that may have belonged to the president as well as documents marked as classified, secret, top secret, and confidential. Additionally, it shows that the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice are two of the three federal statutes that the Justice Department is looking into for possible violations.
The National Archives served as the inspiration for the inquiry. The organization in charge of classifying and archiving significant government papers pulled 15 boxes of vital presidential materials this winter that it claimed Trump was holding incorrectly and potentially illegally at home.
