This documents kerfluffle has really highlighted (AGAIN!) just how much TFG’s worldview doesn’t have room to even consider the constraints of law, let alone norms. Anyone else would have never taken the documents. If they still possessed them by some accident, they’d return them immediately upon discovery or notification. No, with this clown, it’s ‘It’s not theirs, it’s mine.’ How does a person do this if they don’t have the most tenuous grasp of and a complete lack of care for this thing we all call ‘reality’?
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
I don’t see any posts or links about it so:
The general rule of criminal court cases is that you (the defendant) get to know everything the prosecutor intends to use against you, and who every witness is that will be put against you in court. But, that doesn’t mean that you know every witness who was a part of the investigation and every thing that the LEOs discovered.
In court, the prosecution wants to use dependable, honest-seeming witnesses. But, during the investigation, a lot of people in the total witness pool might be reprehensible scumbags of low repute. And, as such, they’re probably also a lot more easy to be turned or dissuaded away from helping the cops. Identifying and cutting them off, will prevent the cops from learning more information and from finding good court witnesses.
Likewise, the cops might be using certain techniques of investigation that you could try to sue to stop. Even if those cases will all be lost, you might be able to draw the process out and run out the budget for the investigators.
In general, Trump wants the affidavit released because it helps him to go witness hunting and DoSing the investigators.
The judge should refuse to release the document or, at least, allow it to be redacted to within an inch of its life.
I think that’s incredibly unlikely. Even if that would be technically legal, Garland is going to stay far away from anything that could remotely be spun as shady. Imagine the total fucking uproar if it came out that the FBI was trying to trick Trump into committing a crime. Christ almighty.
Of course, that’s the equivalent of tricking Homer Simpson into eating a doughnut or drinking a beer . . .
Spot on simile. 
He’s in touch with reality but thinks the rules don’t apply to him.
And he’s right…they never have.
But he’s really not a defendant at this point, is he? IANAL, but I wouldn’t think those rules apply just yet. Anybody know for sure?
They do not. That was my point. He doesn’t have a right to know who the witnesses are against him, at this stage of the process, and may never have that right for some of them. Standard process, right now, is that all of the witnesses are secret.
Especially as he has shown that the is not above witness tampering. If the judge were to allow the unredacted affidavit to be released, I would have to call shenanigans.
I think there’s a reason you don’t give a suspect the list of witnesses against him.
Yeah, what was I thinking? They are damn near ready to try to start a civil war for a legitimate search of Trumps property to return sensitive documents that he stole from the government.
Especially when dealing with a mob boss.
The best outcome for Republicans is for Trump to get a hefty prison sentence. That way his supporters will finally give up on the idea of him running for president in 2024.
At the risk of derailing the thread, isn’t this legally required - the prosecution must hand over discovery evidence in advance of trial? (except for Witness Protection Program stuff)
Trump has not been charged with anything (yet). There is no “discovery process” during the criminal investigation, prior to filing charges. This is to prevent a suspect from interfering with an active investigation, by corrupting potential witnesses.
My understanding is that they must give a list of witnesses who will testify at the trial, not everybody they talked to in the entire course of their investigation.
There’s a difference between “suspect” and “accused”. Only someone formally charged with a crime has a right to disclosure of the prosecutor’s case.
No, the prosecutor only needs to hand over the information that will be used in court. If you got a tip-off from Jerry the Coke-Head, which lead you to investigating Bill’s finances, then in court your evidence will be Bill’s financials and your witness will be a public accountant, who helps to walk the jury through the financials. Jerry will never appear in court and Bill will never know of his existence.
Note: IANAL, but this is my understanding from previous threads.
This will vary from jurisdiction. In Canada, there is a broad rule for Crown disclosure that goes beyond what the Crown intends to call at trial. The Crown has a duty to disclose everything that may be relevant, not just the evidence they plan to rely on for the trial.
For example, if the police talked to a witness who casts doubt on the Crown’s case, the Crown has an obligation to disclose that conversation and its contents, because it’s relevant to the case, even though the Crown would not likely call it at trial. By disclosing it, the defence knows about it, and it’s then up to them to decide if it’s worth investigating further.
That’s certainly true in the U.S. too. (but we say “defense” 
)See Brady rule.