rfenst wrote:Because the absolute legal norm is to protect informants and evidence, as well as the investigative process- unless/until someone is actually charged. Then, for sure the affidavit(s) is/are freely released to the defense, who can publish it/them. Otherwise it requires both parties to agree to release the affidavit early and that is optional. No one has been charged. And, on top of it all. Trump failed to even have his lawyers appear at the hearing to argue in support of release of the affidavit early.
Since he is an ex-president and there are political implications, you just have to accept that 13 days is an unreasonable expectation of the legal system. Giving the prosecution one-week to propose redactions is reasonable under the circumstances.
This comes from a former prosecutor.
From that conservative right wing rag the Boston Globe:
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart said that under the law, it is the government’s burden to show why a redacted version should not be released and prosecutors’ arguments Thursday failed to persuade him.
And the justice department is fighting it.
It will be interesting to see if that one week deadline holds.
But none of this is my point.
I was talking about the manner in which they exercised the warrant.
Over a "possible" mishandling of Presidential documents.
It will be interesting to see if Trump releases the security videos.
It all feels like a witch hunt. And if history tells us anything, when you're looking for one, you'll almost always find one. Real or otherwise.
