Judging Freedom - Judge Considers Unsealing Trump's Affidavit

Episode Date: August 18, 2022

Federal Judge to Consider Unsealing Affidavit That Led to Mar-a-Lago Search Judge Bruce Reinhart will hear arguments Thursday; Justice Department says release would compromise its continuing investigation https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-... #Trump #fbi #affidavitSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, August 18, 2022. It's about 1025 in the morning here on the east coast of the United States. In about three hours in a federal courthouse in West Palm Beach, Florida, Judge Bruce Reinhart, who is the federal judge who signed the search warrant authorizing the FBI to search former President Donald Trump's home in Palm Beach, Florida, will hold a public hearing over the request of news media for the unsealing of the affidavits that were submitted to him. Just by way of background now, when the government, local, state, or federal, wants a search warrant, lawyers for the government, not FBI agents, not cops, not detectives, lawyers, go to a judge, make an appointment with the judge,

and they submit to the judge before the appointment affidavits signed by investigators, in this case FBI agents, about what they're looking for, why they're looking for it, and where they think it is, and how they know where they think it is. The affidavits must make out the case of two legal principles. One, that it is more likely than not that a crime was committed. Two, that it is more likely than not that the place to be searched or the things to be seized are evidence of that crime. If the judge, after reading these affidavits, wants to interrogate the officers who signed them or the FBI agents who signed them, they're there at the appointment. The judge will interrogate them. So that's what happened here. Judge Reinhart

received these affidavits about a week before the search took place. He read the affidavits, called in the federal lawyers. Two were there, one from Miami, one from Washington. We don't know how many FBI agents were there, but he put the FBI agents under oath and interrogated them. And after reading the affidavits and hearing their answers on the interrogation, all of which was stenographically recorded, he agreed with the FBI that it is more likely than not that a crime was committed and more likely than not that evidence of that crime will be found at former President Trump's home,

and he signed the search warrant. Okay, today is the application of many major news organizations, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, everybody wants to see the affidavits. The federal government does not want to reveal them. Trump's lawyers filed a letter saying the president wants to see the affidavits at all. Trump will not have lawyers there. Trump does not yet have lawyers representing him in this, which is his M.O. in many of these cases. But it's a bad and it's a dangerous way of operating. When you have reason to believe that the government is after you, man, if 50 FBI agents show up at your house and start taking things from you, that's reason enough to believe it. You better have a lawyer who's dealing with the government lawyers who dispatched the FBI to your house. Trump does not have such a person. He has his in-house lawyers, but they're not serious, experienced litigators in federal white-collar crime. In fact, we know from a

report in the Washington Post, which is based on interviews with lawyers Trump approached, the creme de la creme of criminal defense lawyers in southern Florida, which is only about 10 or 15 people, have been turning him down. They're turning him down because he has a reputation for not paying, and they're turning him down because he has a reputation for not listening to his lawyers. They're turning him down because he has a reputation for ordering his lawyers to do things that are either unethical, illegal, inaccurate, or wrong. So that's another story for another time. Who's going to represent the president? He won't be represented at this hearing this afternoon. The hearing this

afternoon is the news media versus the federal government, the Department of Justice, about whether these documents should be revealed. In my opinion, they will not be revealed and should not be revealed. The simple reason is the government not be revealed and should not be revealed. The simple reason is the government is in the middle of a criminal investigation. If the government's roadmap for that criminal investigation were to become a public document, then whoever the government thinks has committed a crime will be given a leg up. You know, just like the best way to defeat the enemy is by surprise, the best way to investigate a crime is where the people being investigated don't know they're

being investigated. That is at least the argument that the government will make. The judge is a former federal prosecutor and a former criminal defense lawyer and an experienced federal judge. He knows what the arguments are going to be ahead of time, and he probably already knows how he's going to rule. There's a midway here, which is to allow the government to recuse, to black out, to redact, recuse is the wrong word, redact sensitive information in the affidavits. If they do that, the affidavits will be meaningless. They will tell us that there is a confidential source, but every conceivable identifier of who that confidential source is will be redacted. So my prediction is that the judge will rule today from the bench and that he will

deny the media's application. Look, I'd like to see this affidavit. I'd like to see it for you. I'd like to see it so I can interpret it for you. I'll know from looking at it what I've signed, a search warrant on the basis of this, either no way or probably or for sure. And here's why. And I'll go through that affidavit line by line for you right here on judging freedom. I would love that. But I also understand the way the system works. And I don't think Judge Reinhart is going to interfere with a federal criminal prosecution, particularly one this sensitive, just to satisfy the lust for news of the media. Legitimate lust for news, but it will probably be made to wait. I could be wrong. We'll know in a few hours. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.