NYT posted:

Judge May Release Affidavit in Trump Search, but Only After Redaction

The possibility emerged after news organizations sought to unseal the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant. Any public version of the affidavit could be heavily redacted.


By Patricia Mazzei and Alan Feuer
Aug. 18, 2022
Updated 7:25 p.m. ET

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A federal judge ordered the government on Thursday to propose redactions to the highly sensitive affidavit that was used to justify a search warrant executed by the F.B.I. last week at former President Donald J. Trump’s private home and club, saying he was inclined to unseal parts of it.

Ruling from the bench, the judge, Bruce E. Reinhart, said it was “very important” that the public have as “much information” as it can about the historic search at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s Florida residence. He noted later in a written order that the government “had not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed.”

Judge Reinhart went on to say that he was leaning toward releasing portions of the document, adding that “whether those portions would be meaningful for the public or the media” was not for him to decide. He also acknowledged that the redaction process could often be extensive and sometimes turned documents into “meaningless gibberish.”

In its fullest form, the affidavit supporting the warrant would reveal critical details of the broader investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of sensitive documents, chief among them what led prosecutors to believe there was probable cause that evidence of a crime existed at Mar-a-Lago. Even a redacted version could shed light on aspects of the inquiry, such as the back-and-forth negotiations between Mr. Trump and federal prosecutors about returning the documents, a crucial step in showing that the former president may have willfully kept them in his possession.

Judge Reinhart’s decision in the closely scrutinized case appeared to strike a middle course between the Justice Department, which had wanted to keep the affidavit entirely under wraps as it continued to investigate Mr. Trump’s retention of classified documents, and a group of news organizations, which requested that it be released in full to the public.

As part of his ruling, Judge Reinhart ordered the government to send him under seal proposed redactions to the warrant affidavit by next Thursday at noon. He said he would review the suggestions and decide if he agreed with them. But he did not set a specific date for the affidavit to be released.

“This is going to be a considered, careful process,” Judge Reinhart said.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to Judge Reinhart’s ruling, but privately, officials said they were surprised by the decision.

The hearing, in Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida, emerged from an effort last week by a coalition of news organizations to unseal the affidavit, a document that is almost always kept under seal until charges are filed. Among the news organizations making the request were The New York Times, The Washington Post and Dow Jones & Company.

It is unlikely, however, that any critical details of the inquiry, including issues related to probable cause or the identities of witnesses who were interviewed by prosecutors, will make it into the redacted version of the affidavit.

At the request of the Justice Department, Judge Reinhart has already unsealed the warrant itself and two attachments to it. Those documents revealed, among other things, that prosecutors have been looking into whether Mr. Trump violated the Espionage Act, mishandled government records and obstructed a federal investigation by removing boxes of material from the White House at the end of his tenure.

Outside the courthouse in downtown West Palm Beach, news media vans and cameras lined the street, prompting a passer-by to remark that someone famous must be inside. More than three dozen reporters filed into the courtroom, wearing masks at the court’s request. A few curious members of the public also attended.

Before the proceeding began in earnest, Judge Reinhart unsealed a few more ancillary documents connected to the warrant affidavit that all of the parties had agreed to release. They included a redacted copy of the warrant application, the original order to seal the warrant and the government’s request to seal the warrant.

A top Justice Department lawyer began the arguments in front of Judge Reinhart by admitting that the search of Mar-a-Lago had attracted “heightened public interest,” but he still opposed the request to unseal the affidavit. It was a “very detailed and reasonably lengthy” document that would provide a guide to the department’s continuing inquiry into Mr. Trump, he said.

The lawyer, Jay Bratt, the chief of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence and export control section, which has led the investigation from the outset, noted that if the affidavit were publicly available, it could reveal the government’s next investigative steps and jeopardize the safety of its witnesses at a moment when the search of Mar-a-Lago had resulted in multiple threats against federal agents and others.

“This is a volatile situation with respect to this particular search across the political spectrum, but certainly on one side in particular,” Mr. Bratt said. “There is a real concern not just for the safety of these witnesses, but to chill other witnesses who may come forward and cooperate.”

In court papers filed on Monday, prosecutors said much the same, strongly objecting to the affidavit being made public and arguing that it offered a “road map” to their inquiry. In their papers, prosecutors also said that the release of the affidavit could harm “other high-profile investigations,” but did not specify which inquiries they were referring to.

Under questioning by Judge Reinhart, Mr. Bratt said that the department did not want to release even a redacted version of the affidavit, arguing that it could set a poor precedent for future cases.

“It is not a practice that we endorse and certainly would object to it very strongly,” he said.

Speaking for the news media coalition, a lawyer, Charles D. Tobin, said this was a “case of historic importance” and argued there was great public interest in understanding the underlying justification for the search.

“The raid on Mar-a-Lago by the F.B.I. is already one of the most significant law enforcement events in the nation’s history,” Mr. Tobin said, asking Judge Reinhart to provide “transparency” into the process.

“You are standing in for the public, your honor,” Mr. Tobin said at one point. “You are the gatekeeper.”

In court papers filed on Wednesday, the news organization group quoted Attorney General Merrick B. Garland who wrote, while he was a judge, about the right of public access to judicial records being “a fundamental element of the rule of law, important to maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of an independent judicial branch.”

Although Mr. Trump himself has called on social media for the affidavit to be released — echoing similar demands made by congressional allies like Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina — his lawyers were conspicuously absent from the legal proceeding surrounding the unsealing process. At any time, Mr. Trump could have filed papers asking Judge Reinhart to make the affidavit public, but he chose not to.

Indeed, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Christina Bobb, showed up at the courthouse for the hearing, but only as an observer, not a participant, she told reporters. Ms. Bobb confirmed that Mr. Trump’s legal team did not intend to get involved in the arguments about the warrant affidavit.

The search of Mar-a-Lago, on Aug. 8., ignited a firestorm of condemnation from right-wing figures in the news media and congressional Republicans, resulting in rallying cries to defund and destroy the F.B.I. and even warlike calls for violence. Three days after agents descended on Mar-a-Lago, an armed man apparently enraged by the search tried to breach the F.B.I.’s Cincinnati field office and was subsequently shot to death after trading gunfire with the local police during a standoff.

Even Judge Reinhart himself had been dragged into the furor surrounding the search.

In the days after Judge Reinhart signed the warrant, several threats — some of them antisemitic — were issued against him and his family on pro-Trump message boards with one person writing, “I see a rope around his neck.”

Twincityhacker posted:

Like, I don't blame the judge for throwing the DOJ under the bus - threats to kill him and members of the synagouge he goes to would do that - but I would love to see the entire thing redacted in a 'gently caress you' play.

GoutPatrol posted:

If Yang could crowdsource his party platform through AI chatbots he would.

Gumball Gumption posted:

True though you'd think we could all be adult enough and recognize that the forward party has put out open calls to have people help form a platform and wants to create theirs from the bottom up which is the explicit reason they don't have a full platform yet. But it's easier to get dunks in on enemies.

Herstory Begins Now posted:

You can't really defend a negative space, even if you want to

Herstory Begins Now posted:

the ai chat bots would accuse him of being a lovely chat bot

Zachack posted:

Roe has a lot of supporters and detractors and people will tend to disagree on what they think the best outcome for roe is. I work with people that consider roe to be ethically wrong, and they can make strong points in favor of abolishing roe, including unequal access arguments due to wealth disparity and even environmental arguments. Others may argue that roe represents a necessary freedom and being deprived is untenable. Personally I'm not a huge fan but it's fine as part of sushi and I assume makes for good bait?

Zachack posted:

Roe has a lot of supporters and detractors and people will tend to disagree on what they think the best outcome for roe is. I work with people that consider roe to be ethically wrong, and they can make strong points in favor of abolishing roe, including unequal access arguments due to wealth disparity and even environmental arguments. Others may argue that roe represents a necessary freedom and being deprived is untenable. Personally I'm not a huge fan but it's fine as part of sushi and I assume makes for good bait?

FizFashizzle posted:

Forward sounds like the name of a fascist Italian party.

I bet someone can get Yang to describe his party “like an automobile powered by machine gun fire.”

FizFashizzle posted:

Forward sounds like the name of a fascist Italian party.

I bet someone can get Yang to describe his party “like an automobile powered by machine gun fire.”

Tnega posted:

Counterpoint: If you join the Forward party, you can be like these fellow carbon-based lifeforms.
https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1560428613903810561
As you can see by their human smiles, it is a positive space, not a negative one.

FizFashizzle posted:

Forward sounds like the name of a fascist Italian party.

I bet someone can get Yang to describe his party “like an automobile powered by machine gun fire.”

FizFashizzle posted:

Forward sounds like the name of a fascist Italian party.

I bet someone can get Yang to describe his party “like an automobile powered by machine gun fire.”

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Hallucinogenic Toreador posted:

It's literally just "en marche", every egotistical clown with no policies thinks they can pull a Macron.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

Yeah trying to ape Macron in the US is inherently birdbrained since the Democrats already fill that niche in the political ecosystem. Yang being such an open doofus adds comic garnish to the whole affair but the truth is that there's no utility to that kind of party for any of the centers of power here. Macron is an actual bulwark against the French left. The US bulwark doesn't need its own bulwark

In some alternate reality in which a left takeover of the Democrats succeeded somehow, Yang or someone like him could get somewhere, but that's not our reality, and in ours he is a teacup runt trying to fight a full-grown mastiff for the same teat

quote:

Your rights may be affected, please read carefully.

You filed a borrower defense application asking the U.S. Department of Education ("Department") to cancel some or all of your federal student loan debt because you allege the school you (or your child) attended engaged in unlawful conduct. We write to inform you that there is a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit that could affect your claim and to explain how your legal rights may be affected by that lawsuit.

As a borrower defense applicant, you may have been previously informed of a class action lawsuit called Sweet v. DeVos, which challenged the Department's delay in issuing final decisions on borrower defense applications, including yours. You may also have been informed in 2020 that the parties had proposed a settlement of the lawsuit, subject to the court's approval. The court did not approve that proposed settlement, so the lawsuit continued. You can find more information about that here: https://www.ppsl.org/news/news/pres...ess-release.The lawsuit now also challenges the Department's denial of certain borrower defense applications.

We now write to inform you that there is a new proposed settlement of the lawsuit. The settlement will not become final until it is approved by the court as fair, adequate, and reasonable. This Notice describes how your legal rights may be affected by this settlement.

What is the case about?

A lawsuit was filed in a federal court in California by seven borrower defense applicants who represent, with certain exceptions, all borrowers with pending borrower defense applications. The lawsuit challenges the way the Department has been dealing with borrower defense applications over the past few years, including the Department's delays in issuing final decisions and the Department's denial of certain applications starting in December 2019. The case is now called Sweet v. Cardona, No. 3:19-cv-3674 (N.D. Cal.).

Now, both parties are proposing to settle this lawsuit. This proposed settlement is a compromise of disputed claims, and Defendants continue to deny that they have acted unlawfully.

What are the terms of the proposed settlement for borrowers who applied for borrower defense relief on or before June 22, 2022?

In the proposed settlement, the Department agrees to resolve the borrower defense applications of people who have borrower defense applications pending as of June 22, 2022 on the following terms:

* If your borrower defense application related to federal student loans borrowed to pay for attendance at a school on the list attached to this letter, you will receive a discharge of federal loans associated with that school and a refund of any amounts paid to the Department on those federal loans, and the credit tradeline for those loans will be deleted from your credit report. Within 90 days of the date that the court's approval of the settlement agreement becomes final, the Department will notify you that you will receive this relief. You will receive the relief within one year of the final effective date of the settlement agreement. Until this relief is provided, the Department will not take action to collect your debt.

* If your loans are not associated with a school on the list attached to this letter, you will receive a decision on your application according to the following schedule:
* If you submitted your application between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017, the Department will issue a decision no later than 6 months after the court's approval of the settlement agreement becomes final.
* If you submitted your application between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018, the Department will issue a decision no later than 12 months after the court's approval of the settlement agreement becomes final.
* If you submitted your application between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, the Department will issue a decision no later than 18 months after the court's approval of the settlement agreement becomes final.
* If you submitted your application between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020, the Department will issue a decision no later than 24 months after the court's approval of the settlement agreement becomes final.
* If you submitted your application between January 1, 2021 and June 22, 2022, the Department will issue a decision no later than 30 months after the court's approval of the settlement agreement becomes final.

If you do not receive a decision within the timeline outlined above, you will receive a discharge of federal loans associated with your borrower defense applications and a refund of any amounts paid to the Department on those federal loans, and the credit tradeline for those loans will be deleted from your credit report.

The Department will decide your application in a streamlined review process that will determine whether the application states a claim that, if presumed to be true, would assert a valid basis for borrower defense; will not require further supporting evidence; will not require proof of reliance; and will not apply any statute of limitations to your application.

If your application is approved under the procedures above, you will receive a discharge of federal loans associated with your borrower defense application and a refund of any amounts paid to the Department on those federal loans, and the credit tradeline for those loans will be deleted from your credit report.

The Department will not deny your application without first providing instructions on what is required for a successful application and giving you the opportunity to resubmit your application.
If you choose to resubmit your application, you must do so within 6 months after receiving those instructions. The instructions will explain that if you do not resubmit within the 6-month period, your application will be considered denied.
If you choose to resubmit your application within the 6-month time period after receiving the instructions, the Department will issue you a final decision no later than 6 months after receiving your resubmitted application.

If you received a notice from the Department in December 2019 or later informing you that your borrower defense application was denied, that denial has been voided and the Department is reviewing your application pursuant to the terms described above.
What are the terms of the proposed settlement for borrowers who applied for borrower defense relief after June 22, 2022 but before final approval of the settlement?

If you submitted your application after June 22, 2022, but before the court approves the settlement agreement, the Department will issue a decision on your application no later than 36 months after the court's approval of the settlement agreement becomes final. If the Department does not issue a decision within that time period, you will receive a discharge of federal loans associated with your borrower defense application and a refund of any amounts paid to the Department on those federal loans, and the credit tradeline for those loans will be deleted from your credit report.
Does the Department have any reporting obligations?

The Department will provide your lawyers with information about its progress making borrower defense decisions every three months, including how many decisions the Department has made and how many borrowers have received a loan discharge.
What if my loan is in default?

If you are in default, the Department will not take action to collect your debt, such as by garnishing your wages (that is, taking part of your paycheck) or taking portions of your tax refund, while your application is pending or while you are waiting to receive any relief you are owed under the settlement.
What happens next?

The court will need to approve the proposed settlement before it becomes final. The court will hold a public hearing, called a fairness hearing, to decide if the proposed settlement is fair. The hearing will be held on November 3, 2022, beginning at 11 AM Pacific Time, at the following address:

United States District Court
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102

Information about the hearing, including the process for participation and virtual attendance (if any), will be posted at https://www.ppsl.org/cases/sweet-v-cardona.

Riven posted:

Holy poo poo. I filed for Borrower Defense on my student loans related to my time at University of Phoenix…let’s see…the summer before Trump got elected. It didn’t processed until Trump was elected, and by then DeVos had directed the DoE to ignore all such claims and lawsuits got filed, and I just got this email today:

And they’re not loving around on the schools. I kind of expected it would just be the ones that have already folded from lawsuits and such. I did a quick count and got 154 schools that are on the list where they’re just gonna drop the debt and give the money back! gently caress you, DeVos and friends!

ellasmith posted:

Lmao why did you go to university of phoenix?

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Macron wasn't a bulwark against the French left. He originally only came into power because the Socialist Party had completely collapsed and had a 3% approval rate.

If Macron didn't run, then the final two vote getters that advanced to the second round of voting would have been the center-right party and Le Pen. The center right party did not want Macron to win when they had an essentially guaranteed win in the final round.

I guess you can argue that some people see him as that now, but nobody was playing the long game in 2017 to crush the French left who were already at 3% approval and the only other major left-wing party was getting 10% of the vote.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

lol come on Leon, you have to be subtler than this with your bit if you're a mod

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

You need to check up what the political situation was in France at the time.

The socialist party incumbent didn't even run for re-election because he had a disapproval rate of 90%. The Republicans (the center-right party in France) were largely expected to cruise to victory, but they
got knocked out of the first round by 1.3% and Macron ended up in the final round vs Le Pen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/05/nearly-90-percent-of-the-french-now-disapprove-of-their-president/

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

Neither of us need to check up on it actually, because we both know what happened and we both know you're deliberately drilling down on the corpse of the French Socialist Party as encompassing the entire French left in 2017, and we both know that the majority of the French left supported the 4th place candidate that you mysteriously avoided mentioning, and we both know that the difference between first and fourth was less than the number of votes siphoned by the no-hoper still running under the banner of the collapsed Socialist Party. We both know you are aware of this, dude

For whatever reason though we've all gotta pretend "serial liar guy" is actually posting in good faith now because Koos thinks it'e funny or something so I guess I'll just suggest that you read some more about it and maybe you will learn what you already know

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

That would make the no-hoper under the Socialist party banner the bulwark and not Macron. Macron's base was largely moderate and center right voters. If he had not run, then the Republicans and National Front would be clear and away the top two.

So, I think maybe one of us does need to check up on the context of the time.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/08/19/democrats-ask-twitter-tiktok-meta-about-threats-after-trump-mar-a-lago-raid.html posted:

The lawmakers sent letters demanding information and documents from Twitter, TikTok, Facebook parent company Meta and Telegram, as well as the Trump-backed app Truth Social. Three other platforms with largely conservative followings, Rumble, Gettr and Gab, were also contacted.

The letters seek data on the threats posted online since the Aug. 8 search of the former president's Palm Beach, Florida, residence, along with information about company policies for reporting and removing threats.

…

"The Committee strongly supports the First Amendment rights of all Americans to speak out about the actions of their government and law enforcement matters, including on social media platforms. However, threats and incitements of deadly violence are unacceptable and against the law," they wrote.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

A base that mysteriously included former Socialist Party officials defecting ahead of the first round to endorse Macron despite him being not remotely socialist, how mysterious

If your unsourced assertion that Macron's absence in the race would've redounded to Le Pen and Fillon is so obvious, why exactly were you being dishonest about the overall share of the explicit left-wing vote being larger than any of the top 3 candidates, Leon? Why even bother trying to throw out unrelated numbers like the approval rating of an outgoing presidential administration while conspicuously ignoring the actual left candidate when you could have simply led with this

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

This is absolutely gross:

Just the most pathetic response from this boot licking party. Asking for defense of the same organization that attempted to drive MLK JR to suicide via blackmail is so on the nose for the Dem party.

Dems went ahead and defended judges who not only took rights away from women, but outright stated they plan to take rights away from gays, trans, and other minorities. Now this.

The mental gymnastics to defend oppressive institutions is so on brand for Dems and liberals that it’s like these events were written by a lazy “leftist” aspiring to be the next Twitter superstar.

Discendo Vox posted:

I can't even tell what you're demanding this time- that the government be okay with death threats against officials?

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

The mental gymnastics to defend oppressive institutions is so on brand for Dems

Discendo Vox posted:

I can't even tell what you're demanding this time- that the government be okay with death threats against officials?

Rigel posted:

I don't even think they are asking for names. Just data, statistics, and content moderation policies

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

Not sure if both of you meant this but thank you for providing examples of my statement above.

Why do Dems and liberals feel the need to interject themselves in fascist on right wing authoritarian conflict? Especially in a manner that has time and time again ensured left leaning voices are the ones that ultimately are “unwittingly” sucked up into those investigations.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

Not sure if both of you meant this but thank you for providing examples of my statement above.

Why do Dems and liberals feel the need to interject themselves in fascist on right wing authoritarian conflict? Especially in a manner that has time and time again ensured left leaning voices are the ones that ultimately are “unwittingly” sucked up into those investigations.

Discendo Vox posted:

I think you know that there is actually an interest in stopping death threats against government officials.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Not sure why you're being weirdly hostile and factually incorrect. You can easily google where Macron's votes came from. In the second round, his biggest increase in votes came from Republican voters.

He did the absolute worst among working class and lower income voters.

He also did pretty poorly with left wing voters in the first round and only collected most of the left wing vote when it was him vs. Le Pen in the second round.

There were even articles in 2017 and 2022 wondering if left-wing voters would even bother to vote for him in the second round because he did so poorly with them in the first round.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/10/france-election-macron-and-le-pen-vie-for-votes-in-second-round



Why would the establishment and center right political parties throw themselves out of power to bring Macron in as a bulwark against the left instead of just taking power themselves? Unless you think they were playing the extremely long game.

Riven posted:

I was working full time and didn’t have parental support and nobody else at the time offered a full bachelor program that was at night. All the night programs were “get your Bachelor’s from your Associate’s” but I didn’t have that. My community college record was an A, 3 Fs and 7 withdrawals. I had taken CA’s equivalency exam so my high school diploma was from the state and I didn’t have a GPA. I have a couple mental health issues that by that time I had overcome but basically at the time it felt like my most realistic option for getting a degree in less than 8 years.