Lawfare has the unsealed affidavits for the Fulton County elections office search warrants, which are online at the link.
-
The agent who swore out the affidavit appears is a relatively junior agent (5 years out of the academy), with no apparent cybersecurity or elections speciality background (he was a lawyer before joining the FBI). He appears to have taken all the witness's suspicions at face value, with little or no discussion of confounding explanations or discussions with election experts (except for the discussion of tabulator tapes with Parikh).
If these affidavits constitute the entirety of the probable cause presented to the court, I'm surprised that the judge granted the warrant.
-
If these affidavits constitute the entirety of the probable cause presented to the court, I'm surprised that the judge granted the warrant.
@mattblaze Thank you for reading and commenting
-
If these affidavits constitute the entirety of the probable cause presented to the court, I'm surprised that the judge granted the warrant.
In particular, as the affidavit correctly notes, mere discrepancies or procedural mistakes do not by themselves constitute a crime. The crimes require deliberate malicious conduct. But the affidavit presents virtually no evidence that any conduct that led to the discrepancies was deliberate, or even who was responsible for it.
-
In particular, as the affidavit correctly notes, mere discrepancies or procedural mistakes do not by themselves constitute a crime. The crimes require deliberate malicious conduct. But the affidavit presents virtually no evidence that any conduct that led to the discrepancies was deliberate, or even who was responsible for it.
The standard for getting a search warrant isn't a complete case ready for trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's "probable cause" to believe that the search will yield evidence of a crime. But here, they don't even lay out, to my eyes, probable cause to believe there even was a crime in the first place.
-
The standard for getting a search warrant isn't a complete case ready for trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's "probable cause" to believe that the search will yield evidence of a crime. But here, they don't even lay out, to my eyes, probable cause to believe there even was a crime in the first place.
Usually in warrant affidavits like this, you'll see lines like "Based on my training and experience, <some evidence> is indicative of <criminal conduct>. There's NONE of that here. Just quotes from witnesses who said they were suspicious, generally for unspecified reasons and without analysis.
-
The standard for getting a search warrant isn't a complete case ready for trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's "probable cause" to believe that the search will yield evidence of a crime. But here, they don't even lay out, to my eyes, probable cause to believe there even was a crime in the first place.
@mattblaze I believe it's been a joke for some time in the legal community that judges will give out warrants like they're candy. It seems this may yet another example for why that joke goes around in the first place.
-
@mattblaze I believe it's been a joke for some time in the legal community that judges will give out warrants like they're candy. It seems this may yet another example for why that joke goes around in the first place.
@maxgross I don't think that's right. Mostly warrants are supported by persuasive affidavits. Judges don't generally question the honesty of the agents, but they do make them state the case. And the defense generally will eventually see it and can challenge it.
-
Usually in warrant affidavits like this, you'll see lines like "Based on my training and experience, <some evidence> is indicative of <criminal conduct>. There's NONE of that here. Just quotes from witnesses who said they were suspicious, generally for unspecified reasons and without analysis.
@mattblaze but they got the ballots and corrupted chain of custody, right?
-
Usually in warrant affidavits like this, you'll see lines like "Based on my training and experience, <some evidence> is indicative of <criminal conduct>. There's NONE of that here. Just quotes from witnesses who said they were suspicious, generally for unspecified reasons and without analysis.
You might think, "well if there are discrepancies, shouldn't they be investigated?"
The 2020 election in GA HAS been investigated. It's one of the most closely scrutinized elections in US history, and has been the subject of an almost endless stream of litigation and analysis. This case is not the only opportunity to find out about the GA election.
Also, this is a federal criminal investigation, a very powerful tool with the capacity to wreck people's lives. Not something to do frivolously.
-
@maxgross I don't think that's right. Mostly warrants are supported by persuasive affidavits. Judges don't generally question the honesty of the agents, but they do make them state the case. And the defense generally will eventually see it and can challenge it.
@mattblaze I posted before I saw your followup (that affidavits usually say "Based on my experience, <something> is indicative of <conduct>"). That aligns with the few affidavits I've read -- and this is not my area of expertise.
Still, I've believed citing an agent's training and expertise, alone, is not sufficient for PC.
Doctors still have to cite papers, even if they're experts. It seem reasonable for agents to cite specific courses and research that forms the basis of their training
-
@mattblaze I posted before I saw your followup (that affidavits usually say "Based on my experience, <something> is indicative of <conduct>"). That aligns with the few affidavits I've read -- and this is not my area of expertise.
Still, I've believed citing an agent's training and expertise, alone, is not sufficient for PC.
Doctors still have to cite papers, even if they're experts. It seem reasonable for agents to cite specific courses and research that forms the basis of their training
@maxgross Yes, but the affidavit isn't supposed to be a raw dump of facts. The agent can use their expertise and experience to analyze the evidence to explain why it constitutes PC.
-
Usually in warrant affidavits like this, you'll see lines like "Based on my training and experience, <some evidence> is indicative of <criminal conduct>. There's NONE of that here. Just quotes from witnesses who said they were suspicious, generally for unspecified reasons and without analysis.
Just red meat for the MAGA base and for POTUS to justify sending in ICE. The Qspiracy never needed facts anyway
-
You might think, "well if there are discrepancies, shouldn't they be investigated?"
The 2020 election in GA HAS been investigated. It's one of the most closely scrutinized elections in US history, and has been the subject of an almost endless stream of litigation and analysis. This case is not the only opportunity to find out about the GA election.
Also, this is a federal criminal investigation, a very powerful tool with the capacity to wreck people's lives. Not something to do frivolously.
In short, I'm trying to give every benefit of the doubt to the feds here, but this case seems to be extremely thin and well below what you'd expect to warrant a federal criminal investigation.
-
@FediThing My guess, and this is only a guess, is that it's pretty much that. They seem to be trying to stoke the fires by giving previously debunked claims the legitimacy of a federal criminal case.
-
In short, I'm trying to give every benefit of the doubt to the feds here, but this case seems to be extremely thin and well below what you'd expect to warrant a federal criminal investigation.
@mattblaze I'm not sure the current incarnation of the feds has done anything to earn your benefits, doubtful or otherwise, Matt.
-
@mattblaze I'm not sure the current incarnation of the feds has done anything to earn your benefits, doubtful or otherwise, Matt.
@Sempf Nonetheless, I find an actual analysis to be more compelling than just calling them doo-doo heads or whatever.
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
