A judge ordered the Justice Department on Thursday to release a redacted version of the affidavit it relied on when federal agents searched former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate for classified documents. The directive from U.S. District Judge Bruce Rinehart came hours after federal law enforcement officials filed under seal the portions of the affidavit they want to keep secret as their investigation progresses. The judge set a deadline of noon Friday for a redacted or black-and-white version of the document. The order means the public could soon learn at least some additional details about what led FBI officials to search Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8 as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Documents that have already been made public show that the FBI repossessed 11 sets of classified documents, including information marked at the top secret level. Search warrants usually contain vital information about an investigation, with agents explaining to a judge the rationale for why they want to search a particular property and why they believe they are likely to find evidence of a possible crime there. But affidavits typically remain sealed during pending investigations, making the judge’s decision to release portions of them in this inquiry all the more striking. The corrections proposed by the Justice Department are likely to be extensive given the sensitivity of the investigation, reducing the likelihood that the document will provide a comprehensive look at the basis for the unprecedented investigation or important information about the direction of the investigation. But even a redacted affidavit could contain at least some new revelations about the investigation, which brings new legal risk just as Trump lays the groundwork for another presidential run in 2024. Federal agents are investigating possible violations of three different federal laws, including one governing the collection, transmission or loss of defense information under the Espionage Act, according to documents that have already been made public. The other statutes address the concealment, mutilation, or removal of records and the destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations. The Justice Department had earlier disputed arguments by media organizations to release any part of the affidavit, saying the disclosure could contain private information about witnesses and investigative tactics. But Reinhart, acknowledging the extraordinary public interest in the investigation, said last week he was unwilling to keep the entire document sealed and told federal officials to privately submit to him the corrections he wanted to make. In his order Thursday, Reinhart said the department had made compelling arguments to leave sealed large portions of the document that, if released, would reveal grand jury information. the identity of witnesses and “unaccused parties”; and details of the “strategy, direction, scope, sources and methods of the investigation.” But he also said he was satisfied “that the government has met its burden of showing that its proposed amendments are narrowly tailored to serve the government’s legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation and are the least onerous alternative to sealing the entire of the affidavit”. Many media organizations, including the Associated Press, argued in court for disclosure of the affidavit, citing the extraordinary public interest in the federal investigation into the home of a former president. After the Justice Department filed its filing under seal Thursday, the media coalition responded by asking the judge to unseal portions of the department’s statement and instruct the government, “going forward,” to publicly file a revised version of the sealed documents. which submits. The groups noted that important information about the investigation is already public. “At a minimum, any portions of the Brief that recite these facts about the investigation without disclosing additional ones not yet publicly available — in addition to any other portions that do not pose a threat to the investigation — should be unsealed,” the news wrote the organizations. They added: “If and when additional facts come to light and are confirmed to be accurate, or certain facts no longer pose a threat to the investigation for any other reason, there is no justification for keeping them under seal.”
