Some of the documents have already been unsealed, with the Justice Department seeking to unseal them last week and Trump not opposing their release. But some news outlets — including CNN — are pushing to release more of the sealed court records related to the investigation. Of particular interest is the affidavit that federal investigators would have to file under seal in court detailing why they believed there was probable cause that a crime had been committed and why they believed there was evidence of the crime at Mar-a-Lago in recent days. The Justice Department opposes releasing the additional search warrant material, telling the court in a filing this week that doing so would “cause significant and irreparable harm to this ongoing criminal investigation.” Here’s what to watch as news comes out of Thursday’s hearing, which is being held in person and will not be broadcast live:
How does the Department of Justice describe the risks involved in disclosing documents for its investigation?
The Justice Department said in its filing that its investigation would be “irreparably harmed” if the additional materials were unsealed. “If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a road map for the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a way that is highly likely to jeopardize future investigative steps,” the statement said. statement of the Ministry of Justice. He specifically pointed to the threat that disclosure of FBI witness information would “spoil future cooperation from witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations.” The Department of Justice may seek to highlight these points in a way that gives more insight into where the investigation is at. While it was known before the investigation that the Justice Department was investigating the Trump White House’s handling of classified documents, news of the investigation led to confirmation that the probe has taken some other major steps, including FBI interviews with prominent former Trump officials . Among those who have spoken to the FBI about the probe are Trump’s White House adviser Pat Cipollone and his former deputy Patrick Philbin, CNN and The New York Times reported Tuesday. Other Trump aides known to have been interviewed by investigators include Molly Michael, then Trump’s executive assistant; Bo Harrison, Trump’s former White House operations coordinator. former White House staff secretary Derek Lyons; and Walt Nauta, former White House valet.
How does the Justice Department describe the national security risks of unsealing the documents?
As the Justice Department said in its filing, this investigation is not just any criminal investigation, but “involving national security.” “The fact that this investigation involves highly classified material further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential for harm if the information is prematurely or inappropriately disclosed to the public,” the Justice Department said. Thursday’s hearing could provide some clues as to why the department tried to conduct the investigation when it did. CNN and the New York Times reported how a series of investigative steps and efforts to secure material that had been marked classified took place several months before the investigation. The National Archives had first requested and returned possession of 15 boxes in January — with some classified-level label material — prompting the agency to request a criminal investigation. The Department of Justice then looked into the matter, with significant investigative actions, especially in June. Investigators visited the beach club, saw where records were kept, asked the Trump team to secure them and issued a subpoena to return them to federal hands. The Trump Organization also provided investigators with access to surveillance video in response to another subpoena. That led investigators to spot something in the video around a warehouse that concerned them, the Times reported.
Is the Trump team seeking to make his views known to the judge?
The former President is not officially a party to the controversy. Instead, the Justice Department confronts the media and other organizations seeking to release the documents. When the Justice Department moved to unseal the initial round of warrant materials last week — specifically the search warrant itself and proof of ownership from the search — the judge ordered the department to speak with Trump and let the court know whether the former President was opposed to the release of these materials. He did not and they were released on Friday. Since then, the court has not sought more information about how Trump views the release of more material warrants, but Trump’s views on unsealing the documents have been presented to the court through other means. One of the groups that asked the court to unseal the documents is Judicial Watch, a conservative group that regularly advocates for transparency around government activities and documents. The organization has repeatedly pointed in court to Trump’s public statements in favor of releasing the documents. Judicial Watch has asked the court to allow him to present brief arguments at Thursday’s hearing, and there is a 9 a.m. deadline. ET Thursday for the other parties to file in court to respond to the DOJ’s opposition to unsealing the documents. Trump on social media called for the “immediate release of the completely Unredacted affidavit,” but it remains to be seen whether his team will seek to weigh in before a judge.
Will the judge give any indication of how he will rule?
In the controversy, Reinhart is asked to weigh the Justice Department’s reasons for keeping the documents secret against the public interest in transparency surrounding a high-profile investigation. The Justice Department — having previously sought to unseal the original round of warrant materials — has already conceded that there is an important public interest that warrants providing some transparency about the FBI’s investigation. But the department has drawn the line on issuing the additional warrant documents. The question is whether that’s where Reinhart draws the line. He could say what he’s going to do from the bench during Thursday’s hearing. Or he could keep his cards close to his chest and wait to rule by written order later. Or Thursday’s hearing couldn’t fully get to the heart of both sides’ arguments and stuck to some procedural issues the judge wants to settle first. But it would be very surprising if the judge didn’t agree with the Justice Department. While this is an unusual situation, secrecy surrounding an ongoing investigation is the norm in the judicial system across the country. And the judge has already seen this search warrant affidavit and can appreciate for himself the seriousness of the details in it. CNN’s Katelyn Polantz contributed to this story.
title: “What To Watch Out For In The Hearing To Issue More Warrant Documents Than The Mar A Lago Search Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-14” author: “Gloria Ross”
Some of the documents have already been unsealed, with the Justice Department seeking to unseal them last week and Trump not opposing their release. But some news outlets — including CNN — are pushing to release more of the sealed court records related to the investigation. Of particular interest is the affidavit that federal investigators would have to file under seal in court detailing why they believed there was probable cause that a crime had been committed and why they believed there was evidence of the crime at Mar-a-Lago in recent days. The Justice Department opposes releasing the additional search warrant material, telling the court in a filing this week that doing so would “cause significant and irreparable harm to this ongoing criminal investigation.” Here’s what to watch as news comes out of Thursday’s hearing, which is being held in person and will not be broadcast live:
How does the Department of Justice describe the risks involved in disclosing documents for its investigation?
The Justice Department said in its filing that its investigation would be “irreparably harmed” if the additional materials were unsealed. “If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a road map for the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a way that is highly likely to jeopardize future investigative steps,” the statement said. statement of the Ministry of Justice. He specifically pointed to the threat that disclosure of FBI witness information would “spoil future cooperation from witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations.” The Department of Justice may seek to highlight these points in a way that gives more insight into where the investigation is at. While it was known before the investigation that the Justice Department was investigating the Trump White House’s handling of classified documents, news of the investigation led to confirmation that the probe has taken some other major steps, including FBI interviews with prominent former Trump officials . Among those who have spoken to the FBI about the probe are Trump’s White House adviser Pat Cipollone and his former deputy Patrick Philbin, CNN and The New York Times reported Tuesday. Other Trump aides known to have been interviewed by investigators include Molly Michael, then Trump’s executive assistant; Bo Harrison, Trump’s former White House operations coordinator. former White House staff secretary Derek Lyons; and Walt Nauta, former White House valet.
How does the Justice Department describe the national security risks of unsealing the documents?
As the Justice Department said in its filing, this investigation is not just any criminal investigation, but “involving national security.” “The fact that this investigation involves highly classified material further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential for harm if the information is prematurely or inappropriately disclosed to the public,” the Justice Department said. Thursday’s hearing could provide some clues as to why the department tried to conduct the investigation when it did. CNN and the New York Times reported how a series of investigative steps and efforts to secure material that had been marked classified took place several months before the investigation. The National Archives had first requested and returned possession of 15 boxes in January — with some classified-level label material — prompting the agency to request a criminal investigation. The Department of Justice then looked into the matter, with significant investigative actions, especially in June. Investigators visited the beach club, saw where records were kept, asked the Trump team to secure them and issued a subpoena to return them to federal hands. The Trump Organization also provided investigators with access to surveillance video in response to another subpoena. That led investigators to spot something in the video around a warehouse that concerned them, the Times reported.
Is the Trump team seeking to make his views known to the judge?
The former President is not officially a party to the controversy. Instead, the Justice Department confronts the media and other organizations seeking to release the documents. When the Justice Department moved to unseal the initial round of warrant materials last week — specifically the search warrant itself and proof of ownership from the search — the judge ordered the department to speak with Trump and let the court know whether the former President was opposed to the release of these materials. He did not and they were released on Friday. Since then, the court has not sought more information about how Trump views the release of more material warrants, but Trump’s views on unsealing the documents have been presented to the court through other means. One of the groups that asked the court to unseal the documents is Judicial Watch, a conservative group that regularly advocates for transparency around government activities and documents. The organization has repeatedly pointed in court to Trump’s public statements in favor of releasing the documents. Judicial Watch has asked the court to allow him to present brief arguments at Thursday’s hearing, and there is a 9 a.m. deadline. ET Thursday for the other parties to file in court to respond to the DOJ’s opposition to unsealing the documents. Trump on social media called for the “immediate release of the completely Unredacted affidavit,” but it remains to be seen whether his team will seek to weigh in before a judge.
Will the judge give any indication of how he will rule?
In the controversy, Reinhart is asked to weigh the Justice Department’s reasons for keeping the documents secret against the public interest in transparency surrounding a high-profile investigation. The Justice Department — having previously sought to unseal the original round of warrant materials — has already conceded that there is an important public interest that warrants providing some transparency about the FBI’s investigation. But the department has drawn the line on issuing the additional warrant documents. The question is whether that’s where Reinhart draws the line. He could say what he’s going to do from the bench during Thursday’s hearing. Or he could keep his cards close to his chest and wait to rule by written order later. Or Thursday’s hearing couldn’t fully get to the heart of both sides’ arguments and stuck to some procedural issues the judge wants to settle first. But it would be very surprising if the judge didn’t agree with the Justice Department. While this is an unusual situation, secrecy surrounding an ongoing investigation is the norm in the judicial system across the country. And the judge has already seen this search warrant affidavit and can appreciate for himself the seriousness of the details in it. CNN’s Katelyn Polantz contributed to this story.
title: “What To Watch Out For In The Hearing To Issue More Warrant Documents Than The Mar A Lago Search Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-07” author: “David Bowen”
Some of the documents have already been unsealed, with the Justice Department seeking to unseal them last week and Trump not opposing their release. But some news outlets — including CNN — are pushing to release more of the sealed court records related to the investigation. Of particular interest is the affidavit that federal investigators would have to file under seal in court detailing why they believed there was probable cause that a crime had been committed and why they believed there was evidence of the crime at Mar-a-Lago in recent days. The Justice Department opposes releasing the additional search warrant material, telling the court in a filing this week that doing so would “cause significant and irreparable harm to this ongoing criminal investigation.” Here’s what to watch as news comes out of Thursday’s hearing, which is being held in person and will not be broadcast live:
How does the Department of Justice describe the risks involved in disclosing documents for its investigation?
The Justice Department said in its filing that its investigation would be “irreparably harmed” if the additional materials were unsealed. “If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a road map for the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a way that is highly likely to jeopardize future investigative steps,” the statement said. statement of the Ministry of Justice. He specifically pointed to the threat that disclosure of FBI witness information would “spoil future cooperation from witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations.” The Department of Justice may seek to highlight these points in a way that gives more insight into where the investigation is at. While it was known before the investigation that the Justice Department was investigating the Trump White House’s handling of classified documents, news of the investigation led to confirmation that the probe has taken some other major steps, including FBI interviews with prominent former Trump officials . Among those who have spoken to the FBI about the probe are Trump’s White House adviser Pat Cipollone and his former deputy Patrick Philbin, CNN and The New York Times reported Tuesday. Other Trump aides known to have been interviewed by investigators include Molly Michael, then Trump’s executive assistant; Bo Harrison, Trump’s former White House operations coordinator. former White House staff secretary Derek Lyons; and Walt Nauta, former White House valet.
How does the Justice Department describe the national security risks of unsealing the documents?
As the Justice Department said in its filing, this investigation is not just any criminal investigation, but “involving national security.” “The fact that this investigation involves highly classified material further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential for harm if the information is prematurely or inappropriately disclosed to the public,” the Justice Department said. Thursday’s hearing could provide some clues as to why the department tried to conduct the investigation when it did. CNN and the New York Times reported how a series of investigative steps and efforts to secure material that had been marked classified took place several months before the investigation. The National Archives had first requested and returned possession of 15 boxes in January — with some classified-level label material — prompting the agency to request a criminal investigation. The Department of Justice then looked into the matter, with significant investigative actions, especially in June. Investigators visited the beach club, saw where records were kept, asked the Trump team to secure them and issued a subpoena to return them to federal hands. The Trump Organization also provided investigators with access to surveillance video in response to another subpoena. That led investigators to spot something in the video around a warehouse that concerned them, the Times reported.
Is the Trump team seeking to make his views known to the judge?
The former President is not officially a party to the controversy. Instead, the Justice Department confronts the media and other organizations seeking to release the documents. When the Justice Department moved to unseal the initial round of warrant materials last week — specifically the search warrant itself and proof of ownership from the search — the judge ordered the department to speak with Trump and let the court know whether the former President was opposed to the release of these materials. He did not and they were released on Friday. Since then, the court has not sought more information about how Trump views the release of more material warrants, but Trump’s views on unsealing the documents have been presented to the court through other means. One of the groups that asked the court to unseal the documents is Judicial Watch, a conservative group that regularly advocates for transparency around government activities and documents. The organization has repeatedly pointed in court to Trump’s public statements in favor of releasing the documents. Judicial Watch has asked the court to allow him to present brief arguments at Thursday’s hearing, and there is a 9 a.m. deadline. ET Thursday for the other parties to file in court to respond to the DOJ’s opposition to unsealing the documents. Trump on social media called for the “immediate release of the completely Unredacted affidavit,” but it remains to be seen whether his team will seek to weigh in before a judge.
Will the judge give any indication of how he will rule?
In the controversy, Reinhart is asked to weigh the Justice Department’s reasons for keeping the documents secret against the public interest in transparency surrounding a high-profile investigation. The Justice Department — having previously sought to unseal the original round of warrant materials — has already conceded that there is an important public interest that warrants providing some transparency about the FBI’s investigation. But the department has drawn the line on issuing the additional warrant documents. The question is whether that’s where Reinhart draws the line. He could say what he’s going to do from the bench during Thursday’s hearing. Or he could keep his cards close to his chest and wait to rule by written order later. Or Thursday’s hearing couldn’t fully get to the heart of both sides’ arguments and stuck to some procedural issues the judge wants to settle first. But it would be very surprising if the judge didn’t agree with the Justice Department. While this is an unusual situation, secrecy surrounding an ongoing investigation is the norm in the judicial system across the country. And the judge has already seen this search warrant affidavit and can appreciate for himself the seriousness of the details in it. CNN’s Katelyn Polantz contributed to this story.
title: “What To Watch Out For In The Hearing To Issue More Warrant Documents Than The Mar A Lago Search Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-08” author: “Daniel Mckinney”
Some of the documents have already been unsealed, with the Justice Department seeking to unseal them last week and Trump not opposing their release. But some news outlets — including CNN — are pushing to release more of the sealed court records related to the investigation. Of particular interest is the affidavit that federal investigators would have to file under seal in court detailing why they believed there was probable cause that a crime had been committed and why they believed there was evidence of the crime at Mar-a-Lago in recent days. The Justice Department opposes releasing the additional search warrant material, telling the court in a filing this week that doing so would “cause significant and irreparable harm to this ongoing criminal investigation.” Here’s what to watch as news comes out of Thursday’s hearing, which is being held in person and will not be broadcast live:
How does the Department of Justice describe the risks involved in disclosing documents for its investigation?
The Justice Department said in its filing that its investigation would be “irreparably harmed” if the additional materials were unsealed. “If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a road map for the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a way that is highly likely to jeopardize future investigative steps,” the statement said. statement of the Ministry of Justice. He specifically pointed to the threat that disclosure of FBI witness information would “spoil future cooperation from witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations.” The Department of Justice may seek to highlight these points in a way that gives more insight into where the investigation is at. While it was known before the investigation that the Justice Department was investigating the Trump White House’s handling of classified documents, news of the investigation led to confirmation that the probe has taken some other major steps, including FBI interviews with prominent former Trump officials . Among those who have spoken to the FBI about the probe are Trump’s White House adviser Pat Cipollone and his former deputy Patrick Philbin, CNN and The New York Times reported Tuesday. Other Trump aides known to have been interviewed by investigators include Molly Michael, then Trump’s executive assistant; Bo Harrison, Trump’s former White House operations coordinator. former White House staff secretary Derek Lyons; and Walt Nauta, former White House valet.
How does the Justice Department describe the national security risks of unsealing the documents?
As the Justice Department said in its filing, this investigation is not just any criminal investigation, but “involving national security.” “The fact that this investigation involves highly classified material further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential for harm if the information is prematurely or inappropriately disclosed to the public,” the Justice Department said. Thursday’s hearing could provide some clues as to why the department tried to conduct the investigation when it did. CNN and the New York Times reported how a series of investigative steps and efforts to secure material that had been marked classified took place several months before the investigation. The National Archives had first requested and returned possession of 15 boxes in January — with some classified-level label material — prompting the agency to request a criminal investigation. The Department of Justice then looked into the matter, with significant investigative actions, especially in June. Investigators visited the beach club, saw where records were kept, asked the Trump team to secure them and issued a subpoena to return them to federal hands. The Trump Organization also provided investigators with access to surveillance video in response to another subpoena. That led investigators to spot something in the video around a warehouse that concerned them, the Times reported.
Is the Trump team seeking to make his views known to the judge?
The former President is not officially a party to the controversy. Instead, the Justice Department confronts the media and other organizations seeking to release the documents. When the Justice Department moved to unseal the initial round of warrant materials last week — specifically the search warrant itself and proof of ownership from the search — the judge ordered the department to speak with Trump and let the court know whether the former President was opposed to the release of these materials. He did not and they were released on Friday. Since then, the court has not sought more information about how Trump views the release of more material warrants, but Trump’s views on unsealing the documents have been presented to the court through other means. One of the groups that asked the court to unseal the documents is Judicial Watch, a conservative group that regularly advocates for transparency around government activities and documents. The organization has repeatedly pointed in court to Trump’s public statements in favor of releasing the documents. Judicial Watch has asked the court to allow him to present brief arguments at Thursday’s hearing, and there is a 9 a.m. deadline. ET Thursday for the other parties to file in court to respond to the DOJ’s opposition to unsealing the documents. Trump on social media called for the “immediate release of the completely Unredacted affidavit,” but it remains to be seen whether his team will seek to weigh in before a judge.
Will the judge give any indication of how he will rule?
In the controversy, Reinhart is asked to weigh the Justice Department’s reasons for keeping the documents secret against the public interest in transparency surrounding a high-profile investigation. The Justice Department — having previously sought to unseal the original round of warrant materials — has already conceded that there is an important public interest that warrants providing some transparency about the FBI’s investigation. But the department has drawn the line on issuing the additional warrant documents. The question is whether that’s where Reinhart draws the line. He could say what he’s going to do from the bench during Thursday’s hearing. Or he could keep his cards close to his chest and wait to rule by written order later. Or Thursday’s hearing couldn’t fully get to the heart of both sides’ arguments and stuck to some procedural issues the judge wants to settle first. But it would be very surprising if the judge didn’t agree with the Justice Department. While this is an unusual situation, secrecy surrounding an ongoing investigation is the norm in the judicial system across the country. And the judge has already seen this search warrant affidavit and can appreciate for himself the seriousness of the details in it. CNN’s Katelyn Polantz contributed to this story.
title: “What To Watch Out For In The Hearing To Issue More Warrant Documents Than The Mar A Lago Search Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-15” author: “Thomas Davidson”
Some of the documents have already been unsealed, with the Justice Department seeking to unseal them last week and Trump not opposing their release. But some news outlets — including CNN — are pushing to release more of the sealed court records related to the investigation. Of particular interest is the affidavit that federal investigators would have to file under seal in court detailing why they believed there was probable cause that a crime had been committed and why they believed there was evidence of the crime at Mar-a-Lago in recent days. The Justice Department opposes releasing the additional search warrant material, telling the court in a filing this week that doing so would “cause significant and irreparable harm to this ongoing criminal investigation.” Here’s what to watch as news comes out of Thursday’s hearing, which is being held in person and will not be broadcast live:
How does the Department of Justice describe the risks involved in disclosing documents for its investigation?
The Justice Department said in its filing that its investigation would be “irreparably harmed” if the additional materials were unsealed. “If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a road map for the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a way that is highly likely to jeopardize future investigative steps,” the statement said. statement of the Ministry of Justice. He specifically pointed to the threat that disclosure of FBI witness information would “spoil future cooperation from witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations.” The Department of Justice may seek to highlight these points in a way that gives more insight into where the investigation is at. While it was known before the investigation that the Justice Department was investigating the Trump White House’s handling of classified documents, news of the investigation led to confirmation that the probe has taken some other major steps, including FBI interviews with prominent former Trump officials . Among those who have spoken to the FBI about the probe are Trump’s White House adviser Pat Cipollone and his former deputy Patrick Philbin, CNN and The New York Times reported Tuesday. Other Trump aides known to have been interviewed by investigators include Molly Michael, then Trump’s executive assistant; Bo Harrison, Trump’s former White House operations coordinator. former White House staff secretary Derek Lyons; and Walt Nauta, former White House valet.
How does the Justice Department describe the national security risks of unsealing the documents?
As the Justice Department said in its filing, this investigation is not just any criminal investigation, but “involving national security.” “The fact that this investigation involves highly classified material further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential for harm if the information is prematurely or inappropriately disclosed to the public,” the Justice Department said. Thursday’s hearing could provide some clues as to why the department tried to conduct the investigation when it did. CNN and the New York Times reported how a series of investigative steps and efforts to secure material that had been marked classified took place several months before the investigation. The National Archives had first requested and returned possession of 15 boxes in January — with some classified-level label material — prompting the agency to request a criminal investigation. The Department of Justice then looked into the matter, with significant investigative actions, especially in June. Investigators visited the beach club, saw where records were kept, asked the Trump team to secure them and issued a subpoena to return them to federal hands. The Trump Organization also provided investigators with access to surveillance video in response to another subpoena. That led investigators to spot something in the video around a warehouse that concerned them, the Times reported.
Is the Trump team seeking to make his views known to the judge?
The former President is not officially a party to the controversy. Instead, the Justice Department confronts the media and other organizations seeking to release the documents. When the Justice Department moved to unseal the initial round of warrant materials last week — specifically the search warrant itself and proof of ownership from the search — the judge ordered the department to speak with Trump and let the court know whether the former President was opposed to the release of these materials. He did not and they were released on Friday. Since then, the court has not sought more information about how Trump views the release of more material warrants, but Trump’s views on unsealing the documents have been presented to the court through other means. One of the groups that asked the court to unseal the documents is Judicial Watch, a conservative group that regularly advocates for transparency around government activities and documents. The organization has repeatedly pointed in court to Trump’s public statements in favor of releasing the documents. Judicial Watch has asked the court to allow him to present brief arguments at Thursday’s hearing, and there is a 9 a.m. deadline. ET Thursday for the other parties to file in court to respond to the DOJ’s opposition to unsealing the documents. Trump on social media called for the “immediate release of the completely Unredacted affidavit,” but it remains to be seen whether his team will seek to weigh in before a judge.
Will the judge give any indication of how he will rule?
In the controversy, Reinhart is asked to weigh the Justice Department’s reasons for keeping the documents secret against the public interest in transparency surrounding a high-profile investigation. The Justice Department — having previously sought to unseal the original round of warrant materials — has already conceded that there is an important public interest that warrants providing some transparency about the FBI’s investigation. But the department has drawn the line on issuing the additional warrant documents. The question is whether that’s where Reinhart draws the line. He could say what he’s going to do from the bench during Thursday’s hearing. Or he could keep his cards close to his chest and wait to rule by written order later. Or Thursday’s hearing couldn’t fully get to the heart of both sides’ arguments and stuck to some procedural issues the judge wants to settle first. But it would be very surprising if the judge didn’t agree with the Justice Department. While this is an unusual situation, secrecy surrounding an ongoing investigation is the norm in the judicial system across the country. And the judge has already seen this search warrant affidavit and can appreciate for himself the seriousness of the details in it. CNN’s Katelyn Polantz contributed to this story.
