A US Magistrate's Judge has begun the process of potentially releasing some information from an affidavit that the Justice Department used to obtain a search warrant for former President Donald Trump's Florida residence.
.png "Takeaway from the court hearing on the release of more documents from Mar-a-Lago . research")
Judge Bruce Reinhart said during a hearing in West Palm Beach court that he was planning to release portions of the affidavit, which is being sought by various media and other organizations.
His announcement came after the Justice Department, while arguing against disclosing the documents, revealed new, if not very vague, details about the investigation into the handling of classified documents from the White House.
Here are the takeaways from the hearing:
The judge determines the process for the possible release of portions of the affidavit
Reinhart began Thursday with the potential public release of a heavily redacted version of the Mar-a-Lago research affidavit. The judge plans to hear more from the Justice Department by next Thursday about how much investigators want to keep the document that describes the investigation steps and methods that lead to the need for research confidential.
Reinhart said he was not yet convinced that the entire affidavit should remain undisclosed to the public.
"I'm not ready to find that the certificate has to be completely sealed" based on the record he has now, Reinhart said, adding that there are "parts" that can be opened.
Reinhart said prosecutors will have the opportunity to suggest revisions and explain why every piece of information should be kept out of the public eye. These proposals will be due at noon ET on August 25th.
Reinhart said he may then have additional confidential discussions with the Justice Department before making his decisions on transparency.
Unsealed document sharpens focus on Trump as a potential subject of criminal investigation
Several legal experts told CNN that the document disclosed Thursday, which provided details of crimes the Department of Justice is investigating, including "willful retention of national defense information," increases focus on the former president as a potential subject of criminal investigation.
Previously, search warrant documents only listed federal laws, including the broad law known as the Espionage Act. The documents disclosed thus far show that Trump and others around him face potential legal exposure, including obstruction of justice.
But the specific language on "deliberate retention" could refer to the role of the former president, who would have been empowered to hold national defense documents while in office but not once he had moved to his own club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida.
The newly disclosed document was part of the warrant request and was among several largely procedural documents that the judge opened his seal of Thursday.
An affidavit described how evidence of obstruction could be found in Mar-a-Lago, according to the Department of Justice
A Justice Department attorney said during the hearing that the likely cause of an affidavit used to obtain a warrant described how prosecutors could find "evidence of obstruction" on the basis of Florida property - a possible crime the search warrant itself revealed was under investigation.
"In this case, the court has found probable cause for a violation of an obstruction law, and evidence of obstruction will be found at Mar-a-Lago," said Jay Pratt, who heads the Justice Department's counterintelligence division.
Obstruction of justice was one of the three laws listed in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant, which was revealed last week, and Reinhart said during Thursday's hearing that he "found a probable cause" of violations of the laws.
Pratt made the comments about obstructing the investigation while trying to highlight the Justice Department's concerns that future witnesses may not be willing to provide information if too much is revealed about the investigation thus far.
The Department of Justice says the affidavit is long and detailed and contains "material information for the grand jury."
Pratt disclosed other details of the affidavit, describing it as lengthy, detailed, and containing "material information for the grand jury."
He told the federal judge that allowing the public to read the affidavit would provide a "road map for the investigation," and would even indicate the next steps in the investigation.
Pratt's comments in court confirmed that this was an active and ongoing criminal investigation, with robust witness interviews and grand jury activity.
While Pratt acknowledged that there was a public interest in transparency, Pratt said there was "another public interest" in criminal investigations being able to move forward unhindered.
Warnings about chilling witnesses reveal that there are many in this investigation
Pratt also warned that the release of the affidavit could have a chilling effect on witnesses involved in these and future investigations, revealing that many witnesses are already part of the investigation of the documents. Pratt said some of these witnesses have very specific, relevant information that, if released, would reveal their identity.
Pratt has also raised concerns about the risks the FBI has faced since news of the Mar-a-Lago search broke, including a recent confrontation at the FBI's field office in Cincinnati and "amateur investigators" on the Internet.
He told the judge that if any of the other documents were released, the Justice Department would want to revise even basic information on clients who have worked on the matter so far.
Trump's lawyers did not seek to interfere in court over the release of documents
Trump's attorney was present at the hearing, but she did not speak before the judge and was not asked to comment during the proceedings. Attorney Christina Pope told reporters before the hearing that she was there for observation.
Trump is not an official party to the dispute over the release of warrant documents. Previously, when the Justice Department required the judge to release the arrest warrant itself and to receive the search, the judge ordered the administration to consult with Trump and then inform the court whether Trump opposes disclosing the documents.
Ahead of Thursday's hearing, the judge set a 9 a.m. EDT deadline for parties to file motions to respond to Department of Justice filings in the dispute. It was noteworthy that by then Trump's team had not sought to formally engage in the dispute, particularly because Trump and his allies were loudly talking outside the court about their desire to release the arrest warrant documents.
However, some of Bob's public remarks about the research were shown to Reinhart on Thursday. Charles Tobin - who has been demanding the release of the testimony on behalf of a variety of media outlets including CNN - noted that Bob had already provided information about an FBI subpoena for the Mar-a-Lago surveillance tape and that Justice Department officials had visited Mar-a- Lago in June.