The affidavit outlines why investigators believe there was probable cause that crimes had been committed. The warrant authorized the FBI to search former President Donald Trump’s home and private club earlier this month.
Earlier Thursday, the DOJ presented its proposed redaction to U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who issued the public release order.
Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said: “The United States has filed a sealed filing pursuant to the Court’s August 22 order. The Justice Department respectfully declines further comment while the Court considers the matter.” .
Justice Department prosecutors have stressed that they need continued secrecy so as not to disrupt an ongoing criminal investigation, especially as they keep grand jury activity confidential and protect witnesses who have or can share information.
In his order, Reinhart said the Justice Department convinced him that portions of the affidavit should remain sealed because “disclosure would reveal (1) the identities of witnesses, law enforcement officers and non-defending parties, (2) the strategy, direction, and scope of the investigation. , sources and methods, and (3) grand jury information.”
It concluded that the DOJ had met “its burden of showing that its proposed redactions are 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 affidavit “.
Media asks judge to seal DOJ document on redactions
Not long after the DOJ’s sealed filings on the redactions were filed, a conglomerate of media companies, including CNN, filed a request with the judge to seal the Justice Department’s brief on the redactions. The media said the letter should be made public with any redactions necessary to protect the ongoing investigation. In addition, the media asked the judge to order that, from now on, any documents the Department of Justice files under seal in the transparency dispute also be publicly filed with the corresponding redactions.
“As this Court has also recognized, there is little interest in maintaining secrecy regarding facts about the investigation that the government has already publicly confirmed are accurate,” the media petition said.
At a minimum, the media organizations argued, “any part of the brief that recites these facts about the investigation, without disclosing others that are not yet publicly available, plus any other part that poses no threat to to the investigation, it should be. unsealed.”
“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 also no justification for keeping them sealed,” the media wrote of communication “Furthermore, any legal arguments in government documents should be made public, even if some of the facts the government recounts remain sealed.”
This story has been updated with additional details.