What We Might Learn in the Affidavit for Trump Search

warrant has other ideas. US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhardt ruled that portions of the FBI affidavit used to secure the search warrant should be unsealed, and he gave the government until noon on Thursday to propose what information in the affidavit should be kept secret. Joining me as former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers electure at Columbia Law School, Jennifer, are you surprised that the judge has decided to release parts

of that FBI affidavit? Yes, I was really surprised. I, along with basically every other legal commentator I saw, I thought that there was virtually no chance the judge would do that. I guess the judge was just convinced here that there's such great public interest in this that, assuming it can be properly redacted, the public ought to be able to see portions of it. So now the big question turns to what redactions will the judge except from d o J. Just how unusual is it to unseal

an affidavit while the investigation is still going on. It's very unusual, and usually it's because the person whose property has been searched has no interest in the public learning about that and learning about the investigations that is likely targeting that person, So you know, you don't typically have people wanting these things publicly released. This, of course, is a unique situation where Trump wants to try to turn it to his advantage and claim he's being targeted and

so on. So that's why we are where we are. And also, of course Trump isn't the party that moves

to unseal. It was media organizations. Media doesn't typically care about your average search warrants explain what kind of information normally goes into an affidavits supporting a search want request, So it's not the entire investigation necessarily, but what it has to do is established probable cause that at least one crime has been committed and that evidence of that crime can be found at the scene that is to be searched. So they have to go through the information

that leads to that conclusion. So in this case, I assume that it goes through however they learned that there were potentially documents that should not have been at Mara Lagos there. It likely goes through the negotiations with Trump's team, the back and forth that they had the boxes that

worst these by National Archives. However, they determined that there were still things outstanding, the further negotiations, the subpoena, and then ultimately, however, they reached a conclusion that there still were items outstanding that were likely at Moral Lago That

may include statements from witnesses who saw documents there. It's essentially the evidence that establishes to a judge of satisfaction not be under reasonable doubt, not even by a preponderance, but at least that there's probable cause to believe this crime has been committed and you can find the evidence there. And importantly, it has to be that the evidence is there at the time they're going to search. It can't be at one time there was evidence there. It has

to be fairly fresh. J. Brad, the Justice Department's counter intelligence chief, argued that the ongoing investigation would be severely compromised, including the names of agents and witnesses, and that there was a threat of possible obstruction and interference in the investigation. In a case where the judge has already found probable cause that there's a violation of one of the obstruction statutes.

That sounds pretty convincing to me at least. Yeah, I mean, and that's why it's so critical what the judge does with the request for redaction, because you know, there's really no point in releasing a document if virtually everything in it is redacted and you can't learn anything. I mean, that doesn't assist the public and this matter of great importance,

as the judge has determined. On the other hand, I think the judge should take seriously the Justice Department's concerns about its investigation and the integrity of the investigation, and of course the safety of most primarily witnesses, not just their safety, but that they should not be tampered with, of course, So you know, weighing all of that, the

question is how extensive. Will the redactions speak? You know, there's some information in the public already about these negotiations between Trump's team and the National Archives and then eventually the FBI. Some of that seems like it could come out and not be redacted. That would be safe. You know. The things I expect to be redacted are whatever source information they received that these documents are still at Moral Lago and exactly where they are. That's the sort of

information you would think would be redacted. And then of course anything else sensitive that they think would jeopardize the ongoing nature of the investigation will likely be redacted to But I expect they can release some of this, particularly about the back and forth with Team Trump and his lawyers and the National Archives and SBI. I think we'll see some of that. Do you think we'll learn more about the classified documents that they were looking for. That's

an interesting question. I certainly who were certainly not going to see any information that's specific enough that itself is classified. You know, In other words, we're not going to hear, oh, it's a cable that talks about you know, Russia's nuclear program and says that it's you know, X, Y and Z but would the judge entertain releasing some gen neural information about the nature of the documents? Um, I'm not sure. I mean maybe if the judge determines that that that

information doesn't jeopardize the investigation. I mean, that seems to be where he will likely draw the line. So we could learn more, but it'll be fairly general. The judge gave the Justice Department a week to propose what information the documents should be kept secret, and he said he'll propose his own redactions if he disagrees with their. So is he trying to send a message to them, don't redact everything, or I'm going to do my own stuff. Oh?

Of course, of course he's saying, be reasonable, you know, don't send me a document that that redacts everything except the the BUZ and the a's in the end, you know, the articles. Um, so sure he's saying, don't do this, but you know they should be reasonable anyway, you know. And and I suspect, you know, what usually happens is the o J is a little bit too conservative and the judge may push back a little bit. So you know what, we'll have to see what we end up with.

I mean, hopefully the public will be able to learn a bit more without jeopardizing the investigation or any of the witnesses. I mean, I think that's what all of us wants. What does it tell you that one of Trump's attorneys attended the court hearing but declined to comment other than to say Trump wants the affidavit unsealed. So it's interesting. So, of course Trump has been saying for days that he wants the affidavit unsealed. But my view

is he doesn't really want it unsealed. He wants to see it because he wants to identify people who have provided information to the government against him. But does he really want it fully unsealed? Does he really want the public to be able to see the basis for the probably cause to believe that crimes have been committed? In evidence of those crimes, you know, is at Mara Lago,

I don't think so. So. I think the reason that he had a lawyer there but didn't actually make a formal legal filing calling for the unsealing, joining in the media's request really shows that he actually doesn't want it in public, He just wants to know within it. Now, he said he'd allow the government time to appeal his ruling. Is that something you think the Justice Department might actually

do appeal? I think they might appeal if in the end they feel that the judge's ruling releases too much information. So we'll we'll have to wait and see what the outcome of that is. But yet, certainly, if they think that their investigation is jeopardized, or certainly any classified material is jeopardized by what the judge wants to be released, I think they will appeal. Thanks Jennifer. That's former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers. We will not talk about this until

it's over. It's a grand jury and grand juries, as I recall, a secret Rudy Giuliani appeared before the Georgia grand jury investigating criminal efforts to overturn the election on Wednesday. Giuliani was told that he's now target of the investigation that Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis has been conducting for more than a year. We're gonna look at everything

until that investigation is complete. It's not known what Giuliani said in his six hours in the closed door session, but he made several appearances before Georgia lawmakers promoting conspiracy theories and claiming that he had evidence of widespread voter fraud. You can see them counting the ballots more than once, two, three, four, or five times. You would have to be a moron not to realize if that voter fraud. Joining me is

Elizabeth Widra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center. Rudy Giuliani was told by Atlanta prosecutors that he's a target in their investigation. Is it unusual to call a target to testify before the grand jury? Why would he answer any questions when he's the target? Well, I think that's a very good question. You know, if you are called before a grand jury, you can be called as a witness, you know, simply a material witness, or you can be

called as a target. And we understand that he is a target, and that means that the grand jury and the prosecutor likely have substantial evidence that linked him to a crime, and he could very likely be charged. So I think there is a very very strong likelihood that he invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination and

declined to answer questions. You know, he could have also tried to put forth this attorney client privilege, but I don't think that really would relate to most of the questions of allegations of crime, because they simply weren't taking place in conversations between him and Donald Trump. And also there's a client fraud exception to the attorney client privilege, which doesn't allow you to assert that privilege over fraudulent

criminal conversation. On his podcast on Monday, Giuliani said, quote, as I recall correctly, I appeared in Georgia as attorney for Donald J. Trump, So I'm going to be prosecuted for what I did as an attorney. Does that theory make sense to you? No, it doesn't make a lot of sense. You know, it's unclear whether Julian was on a mission from Trump as his attorney in George or not.

But the real gist of the matter is when he was making these public statements that the you know, for example, to the Georgia send a judiciary committee hearing about election integrity, you know, in which he spread conspiracy theories about what he referred to his widespread irregularities, which there's been absolutely

no evidence bound that that has any merit whatsoever. You know, whether those are part of an unlawful, coordinated attempt to alter the outcome of the elections, and that's not protected

by any type of attorney relationship. If Juliani made statements at legislative hearings in Georgia falsely claiming that there have been widespread voter products, so he testified before the grand jury for about six hours, does that length of time mean that he didn't take the fifth for every question or didn't invoke attorney client privilege, or could it take that long just to have them ask questions and answer? In other words, does the time tell us anything? The

time doesn't necessarily tell us what happened. You know, he could very well have pleaded the fifth to every question and they simply had six hours worth with breaks, of course, a question to ask him, because very frequently prosecutors who are investigators will continue to ask the questions even if they know that the witness is going to invocus fifth, and so you know, it definitely does go faster than if the witness gave a full answer to the questions.

It nonetheless does take quite a bit of time. Among the potential crimes that the d. A. Willis is investigating is making false statements to state and local government bodies, as well as solicitation of election fraud and conspiracy. Since Giuliani's statements before Georgia lawmakers have been proven, does it seem like it would be difficult for him to get

around a charge of making false statements to state government bodies. Right, And that's why in some ways claims about attorney client privilege, you know, don't really make sense in this instance, because Juliani was making public comments. They were during a legislative committee hearing. They have been televised, you know, we've seen

the tape. So these statements are out there, and the fact that they are false is incredibly well known, even if some people continue to refuse to accept that truth. And so we know that the scope of the investigation that D. A. Willis is undertaking includes the call between Trump and Rappensburger, which call between Rappensburger and Senator Graham,

and also include these false comments made by Juliani. And so given that it is so clear cut, it could be an important first step for this investigation to charge Juliani and then go from there. You know, I think also it would be in a important steps for the nation because we have continually heard these false claims of

election abroad about the twenty elections. They've been said over and over publicly by Donald Trump and his allies without really any consequence or accountability, And so I think to have some actual accountability attached to those false statements could be a way of finally getting more people on board with the actual truth that there wasn't wide spread election

fraud of the twenty twenty election. And so I think charging Giuliani for those false statements would be an important step in the d A investigation and could be an important step for the country as well. Atlanta prosecutors have also told sixteen Trump fake electors that their targets. But this focus on Giuliani brings that investigation right into Trump's inner circle. Giuliani went from being a material witness to being a target. So is Trump far behind or is

that a bridge to far? You know, We certainly don't know. We can speculate based on what the DA is investigating. And one of the things she is specifically investigating is a phone call between Donald Trump himself and Wrapping Burger. And so if that particular call is part of the scope of the investigation, obviously that directly involves Trump. And so I think that if I were Donald Trump, I

would continue to be nervous about this investigation. Willis has said that the investigation could result in a multi defendant racketeering or conspiracy case. She's brought rico cases before, and so does it seem like the time that she's taking and the people that she's calling in before the grand jury lead to a conclusion that it's a bigger case

than we might have anticipated when she started. Yes, well, I think that that often happens with grand juries, because you know, part of the reason you have a grand jury when you're engaged an investigation is to have the authority to subpoena witnesses and information because there are limits to getting people to willingly participate in your investigation. Is so very frequently after you and panel a grand jury,

you will learn new things. So I think that it would be not surprising at all if her investigation did continue to turn up additional evidence of criminal activity and unlawful activity. Willis has said that the investigation could result in a multidefendant racketeering or conspiracy case. She's brought rico cases before, and so does it seem like the time that she's taking and the people that she's calling in before the grand jury lead to a conclusion that it's

a bigger case than we might have anticipated when she started. Yes, well, I think that that often happens with grand juries because you know, part of the reason you have a grand jury when you're engaged in investigation is to have the authority to subpoena witnesses and information because you know there are limits to getting people to willingly participate in your investigation. Is so very frequently after you and panel a grand jury,

you will learn new things. So I think that it would be, um, not surprising at all if her investigation did continue to turn up additional evidence of criminal activity and unlawful activity. And um, we know that just from the January six committee hearings that there were a lot of tentacles to this effort to Keith Donald Trump empowered despite the votes in the election. And you know in

Georgia in particular, President Biden one by nearly twelve thousand bots. Um. So you know, it wouldn't be surprising if the grand jury investigation turned up additional evidence and the tard Its group, as you mentioned Senator Lindsey Graham and also to other lawyers who represented Trump during the election, tried to challenge the subpoenas. Graham was turned down and Jenna Ellis, the attorney was turned down John Eastman, it's still up in

the air. The judge is not being intimidated or playing around with this, neither is the d A. Is it unusual to have these national figures being called to a grand jury by a county d A. So there's there's very little that is normal about this, but it is, I would say appropriate. You have state and local laws that apply to everyone, whether you're you know, powerful or power less, whether you're um infamous statist or just a

regular person, and you know it. So this is very unusual because we have this coordinated effort going up to the former president of the United States to overturn the will of the people, and it happens to be centered in Fulton County, Georgia. But in many ways, you know, the president and his allies took the fight to Sultan County by making these unsubstantiated claims of election of fraud

that they claimed took place in Fulton County. And the fact is that no election fraud took place, No widespread election fraud took place, in Fulton County. And so the Fulton County d A is pushing back against this conspiracy to try to overturn the results of the people who voted in that county and the people across the nation who voted to put Joe Biden into power instead of

Donald Trump. And so it certainly is high profile, of course, but I think that what we're seeing is a d A and a judge and a and jury who are not afraid to really stand up to say no one is above the law, and we are going to require you to comply with the law, even if we're, you know, just a little county in Georgia. Our laws apply to everyone, including you. Thanks so much, Elizabeth. That's Elizabeth Widerette, president

of the Constitutional Accountability Center. Alan Weisselberg, the Trump organization's longtime chief financial officer, pleaded guilty to evading taxes on a free apartment and other perks amounting to more than one point seven million dollars worth of untaxed extras, striking a deal with prosecutors that could make him a star witness against the company. At a trial this fall. The seventy five year old acknowledged guilt on all fifteen charges.

As part of his plea agreement, Weislberg will spend five months behind bars, followed by five years of probation. He also agreed to pay nearly two million dollars in back taxes, penalties and interest. Joining me as Greg Farrell Bloomberg News investigative reporter for the Legal Enforcement Team. Is this plea

deal Weislberg flipping on Trump? No, not in the sense that we understand flipping as being let's say Michael Cohen several years ago, where this Cohen describes he decided to plead guilty, and he testified to the best of his knowledge, including against Trump in the Stormy Daniel's case and related cases, and eventually has really been aggressive in promoting that. Weizelberg's trying to walk a fine line he wants to and succeeded in reducing exposure to life five months maximum. He's

the guy seventy that matters. I mean, he might get you know, less than that, and he's playing guilty to fifteen charges and he will be required, if called, to testify in the rest of the trial against the Trump organization,

to testify about what he did. So it's not like ratting out Donald Trump personally saying I was in the room with him and did this, but just providing testimony that as an official, the guy who actually controlled the finances and the payments, et cetera of the company, it's going to be very damaging to the organization and implicitly to Trump himself. I looked at it in a different way.

He didn't implicate Trump or his family, and he's not going to testify about Trump and his family, and he hasn't cooperated with prosecutors in their broader investigation into Trump,

So why give him a deal? I think the prosecutors a must have realized that despite the fact that he's facing fifteen years, a guy his age on something like this where there's not a lot of case history is probably not at awhere near that, and then the effort and manpower going into prosecuting him versus the value he would have to testify in court about his role there,

like publiclarations. Wise, it's already a victory, you know, because everybody was giving up on Alvin Bragg when the investigation of Trump were dead, you know, when those two star appointees of Civance left, and now this is very much back in the game. So it's a momentum for the d a's office if they want to continue pursuing Trump himself.

It cuts out a very toilsome part of the trial against an individual, and it's much tougher to get a criminal conviction of a guy who seventy five years old, and you generate some sympathy for him that it isn't an organization. People just don't care about finding an organization guilty. The organizations not going to jail. So there are several upsides,

you know, embedded in this for the prosecution, right. So, and the fact that the Trump organization sent out a statement that I had done nothing wrong and look forward to going to trial, and the company called Wisselberg a fine and honorable man, So they're happy that he kept his mouth shut, at least as far as Trump is concerned. So let's talk a little bit about the criminal investigation

to Trump, which you referenced. So there was this push when Civance was prosecutor to try to pursue this criminally, and we went up to the Supreme Court to get the tax documents, push, push, push, and then Alvin Brad comes in and nothing. He says, it's still going on. But is it is there an investigation going on? This is a a complex story, so to simplify it, you are correct. The former district attorneys I Vance Um embarked on this prosecution several years ago after a Bloomberg story.

A story in Bloomberg News pointed out that you know, Wislberg had been paying for the Trump organization, had been paying for the apartment of Weislberg's son and his wife, and all sorts of other payments like that that were off the books and books and records, violations to conceal a fraud. That's a that's a that's a that's a crime in New York state law. So prosecute started that,

and you're right. They asked for eight years of Trump's tax returns and the company's tax returns, and Trump, as usual, fought it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost and went to the Supreme Court again. So he helped run out the clock by ending that way against ivance. However, it was a year ago or late June early July last year, when Weisselberg and the organization would charged criminally. Um and Vance had decided not to run for re election and he had six months left in his term.

And it's strange how he played the last few months. I think he could have you know, there was no new information that came in in the second half of UH, and yet he waited until mid December, with two weeks left in his term and a successor who had been elected, UM to you know, basically, UH direct his top two deputies to pursue this aggressively with an eye towards getting indicted within three months of the new guy's term. So

um anyway, you know, this is how it's unfolds. Uh. Alvin Bragg takes office and uh uh you know, he starts going over some of the material there. Some of the material that had been passed along to Alvin Bragg by the two men you know in question van system did not contain some of the downsides of a prosecution. In other words, there was a lot of paperwork and arguments why this was the right thing to do, uh

and why it could be very winnable. There were a few documents that had been existed in the office that pointed out the challenges of this case that were omitted from the file that these two individuals presented to Alvin Bragg, and of course, you know, he's the Bosty office. When he eventually did see this, he developed some skepticism towards the presentations they had made to him. Um. And then

I guess the video. When they realized they weren't going to be controlling this investigation or getting what they wanted, um, they quit. One of one of the two wrote a resignation letter h that was so detailed and critical of Brag that it had to have been something that was designed to be put in the public domain. UM. So yes, there was. So there was a widespread belief that, based

on the resignation letter, that that Bragg's investigation was over. Um. But I think he was hoping to get something more and as small as this. My it be even though you and I wouldn't use the word flip to uh to talk about al Weisenberg, he will have to testify truthfully about crimes he committed and admitted to. So this is something that's going to be damaging it. This could be something like even though it might seem incremental, I think it's a little bigger than that that could break

other pieces of the puzzle loose. So anyway, that's a you know, a summary of the events of the last more complex, and a lot of things we don't know from the outside looking in looking at this investigation, all that will happen to the Trump organization, as I understand it is fines if they're convicted. Is the Attorney General Letitia James? Is investigation more problematic for Trump? Yes? I think so for several reasons. One, it's a civil case.

It's a civil case, which means, you know, the bar is lower in terms of a jury if she actually files the suit against the Trump organization accusative defraud and New York State and other entities. But she represents the state so defraud and New York's date of tax revenue or whatever, um, she has a lot of strong evidence

on her own. Um. The fact that the CFO of the Trump organization, you know, in another venue, the d A's Office, criminally pleaded guilty to fifteen criminal counts about tax evasion and tax abuse is a positive for her, you know, to the extent she wants to bring it in and I like, do you need me more evidence that you know, the Trump organization intentionally cheated new York State.

You have got the CFO admitting to a portion of that so if she does, and when Trump himself and his son, uh, finally Stafford depositions they took the Fifth Amendment UM like frequently and provided no meaningful answers. Now that's another difference between a criminal investigation by the d A and a civil investigation by the a g UM. In a criminal trial, you know, a jury is not allowed to draw any inferences from a witness who takes the fifth UM. There's a protection against that. But in

a civil trial, you can draw an inference. UM. That's sort of so if you could say, you know, we talked to the CEO, we tried to depose him. In this case, this would be letician James's people. If she goes to trial and he took the fifth he refused to answer any questions on the grounds that may incriminate him. So that's something that a jury could you know, take as a as an inference. So I think she has

a much higher chance of success with this UM. And then yes, she has the power to you know, first of all, uh, that could be a huge financial penalty which would really you know, cripple the Trump organization or worse, I mean, she tried to disband UM, the National Rifle Association in the n r A. So I'm not sure she'd be a very squeamish or uh, you know, delicate

about how to treat the Trump organization. I wouldn't be surprised if she really went for it and say this is a criminal enterprise and you know, should not be allowed to do business or be headquartered in New York. So, Wiselberg, the judge is not going to sentence him till after the trial in October. Yes, So that's that's a standard practice. So in order to ensure you don't want to be too lenient or too harsh, you know, you want to

see if the guy actually was truthfully testifying. Otherwise, if things go sideways or he doesn't testify truthfully, that will affect the sentence. The prosecutors might tear it him and say, no, this guy, you know, didn't tell the truth, and he's got a two million dollar fine, which might be a drop in the bucket to him. I don't I'm not sure if it's a drop in the bucket to him. But for someone facing you know, time in Riker's jail, that's the least of his problems, if you know what

I mean. So he's got the money, and I'm sure he would not want to pay it, but the serious jail time, years in prison at his age, it's sort of like the real you know, sort of damocles over him. Thanks so much, Greg. That's Greg Ferrell, Bloomberg News investigative reporter for the Legal Enforcement Team. The Trump Organization is

facing the same charges as Weisselberg. In a statement, the organization said, we now look forward to having our day in court, which quite interestingly, has been scheduled for October twenty four, just days before the midterm elections. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law.

I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg