Generally, when there is a conflict between government claims of secrecy and the public demand for openness, the American Civil Liberties Union and other left-wing organizations are on the forefront of demanding openness. Does the affidavit contain information justifying that search? If so, what is the basis for such information? The names of cooperating witnesses who may have provided the information need not be provided, but the information should be made public. What did the affidavit claim was in the safe? What was the basis for this claim? Does the fact that nothing was apparently found in the safe raise questions about the basis on which the safe was searched? The same would be true of the search reportedly extending to Mrs. In order to get a warrant for breaking open of a safe, great specificity is required. President Biden Should Immediately Offer Trump an Unconditional PardonĬonsider for example, the reported search of the safe.Garland, Wray Must Be Impeached for Unconscionable Trump Raid.There may be good reasons for nondisclosure of some materials in this case, but there is no reason or keeping the entire affidavit sealed. I have always lived by the following general rule: if there is a dispute between two parties, and one of them wants everything disclosed, while the other one wants to keep it secret, I generally believe the former rather than the latter. It is not enough for government officials to say, "trust us, we're the government." A better mantra is, "trust but verify." The best way to verify the constitutional justification for the search, if there was one, is to be transparent. In a democracy, suspicions must be allayed by facts and documentation. Though I am not necessarily among them, I understand the suspicion especially after the scandal involving the Fizer warrant based on the Steele dossier which turned out to be anything but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Many are suspicious of the motive of those who authorized it. The nation is deeply divide3d about the legitimacy of this search. The search of Mar a Largo was the first time in American history that a potential future presidential nominee of the opposite party was subject to a multi-hour extensive search that reportedly included his wife's closet and other private areas. This is not a run-of-the mill case involving a search warrant for drugs or white-collar corruption. Supporters of former President Donald Trump gather near his residence at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, on Aug. There have been many other instances where the government has cried wolf. Nonetheless the papers were released with small redactions, and there is no evidence that any harm resulted. But the Judge should demand specificity and good reasons for withholding information, since governments generally prefer secrecy to disclosure.Īs one of the lawyers in the Pentagon Papers Case, I vividly recall the government making exaggerated claims that the release of the secret Pentagon Papers would cause enormous harm to our national security. The redacted information might include the names of cooperating witnesses, as well as other information that might compromise the ongoing investigation. The result of such a process would be the release of most of the affidavit, with certain information redacted. Unless such a showing can be made, secrecy is not justified in relation to important documents which the public has a legitimate interest in seeing.Īccordingly, Judge Reinhardt should demand of the government that they make a showing of necessity sufficient to overcome the presumption of transparency. The showing cannot be a general claim that investigations should be protected it must specifically point out names, words, and sentences whose unsealing would pose a significant danger.
This presumption is rebuttable upon a showing of good cause. Under the First Amendment, there is a strong presumption in favor of transparency and public availability of important documents. Former President Trump's lawyers have demanded the opposite: that the affidavit be unsealed and open to the public. Magistrate Bruce Reinhart must decide what to do about the governments demand that the Mar-a-Lago search affidavit remain sealed.
0 kommentar(er)
