The Justice Department is refusing to release the statement justifying Trump’s search

The Justice Department is refusing to release the statement justifying Trump’s search

The Justice Department is refusing to release the statement justifying

The United States Department of Justice, headed by the Attorney General, has declined to release the statement or affidavit he gave to the judge establishing the need To Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump’s Palm Beach, Florida mansion . In the face of numerous US media outlets formally requesting the judge to release this report, prosecutors have indicated their disapproval. Donald Trump has not yet ruled on the matter, but numerous Republicans have criticized its lack of knowledge, using it as an argument to suggest there are untold reasons to hide it.

There remain compelling reasons, including protecting the integrity of an ongoing national security law enforcement investigation, to keep the affidavit secret, the Justice Department argues.

Both prosecutors and Trump agreed to release the search warrant with its appendices and the inventory of assets seized by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents. This has enabled us to know that Trump is under investigation for at least three possible criminal offenses that carry fines and/or lengthy prison terms, and that numerous “top secret” documents were found on the registry. In a fresh compliment Friday, Trump claimed he declassified those documents, though there’s no documentary trace of them.

What was not released was the statement, or affidavit, in which prosecutors argued that there was sufficient evidence of a crime to proceed with a search of a former president’s home, unprecedented in United States history.

In the document, filed with the Florida judge handling the case, the Justice Department notes that “the fact that this investigation includes highly classified material underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and the potential harm.” exacerbated when information is released to the public prematurely or inappropriately. And it adds that “disclosure of the government’s affidavit at this stage could also affect future cooperation from witnesses whose assistance may be requested during the course of this investigation, as well as other high-profile investigations.”

“The government has a compelling and overriding interest in preserving the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation,” he argues. Your response lets you know that the report “contains, among other extremely important and detailed investigative facts: highly sensitive information about witnesses, including witnesses interviewed by the government, specific investigative techniques, and information required to be kept secret by law.”

Subscribe to EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without limits.

Subscribe to

If disclosed, the report would provide insight into the roadmap of the ongoing investigation and “provide concrete details about its direction and likely course in a way that is highly likely to affect future steps of the investigation.”

Prosecutors affirm that they carefully considered whether the affidavit could be published with parts crossed out for reasons of confidentiality, but affirm that “the omissions needed to mitigate the damage to the integrity of the investigation would be so extensive that they Text unremarkable.” significant content. Nonetheless, he requests that if the judge allows the report to be published in part, he allows him to suggest which fragments should be protected.

The Department of Justice authorizes the disclosure of other documents related to the application for registration, the request for confidentiality of the investigation and the order of the judge ordering it, and even requires their publication.

In parallel with the media’s request to the judge, Congressmen from both the Republican and Democratic parties have asked that the contents of the report be disclosed.

Trump’s lawyers, for their part, have urged the judge to return seized documents that conservative network Fox said would violate the former president’s right of defense, so-called attorney-client privilege, although they have not specified what type of documents they relate to yet have they provided no proof of this.

Follow all international information on Facebook and Twitteror in our weekly newsletter.