Trump lawyers seek to convince judge to block FBI review of Mar-a-Lago documents – live

Former president’s attorneys could give hints of legal strategy as they appear in court to explain their lawsuit over alleged retention of government documents...
The Guardian
2022-08-25T15:22:00Z
Former president’s attorneys could also give hints of legal strategy as they appear in court to explain their lawsuit over alleged retention of government documents.
Here’s what else happened today:
Just in: New entry on the Trump Mar-a-Lago docket — under seal — appears to indicate the Justice Dept has now filed proposed redactions for the FBI affidavit
The panel in Fulton county is looking into election meddling in the state two years ago, and has already heard from testimony
Republican senator
The justice department will probably submit today their proposed redactions to the affidavit that justified the FBI’s search of
A federal judge is weighing how much, if anything, of the affidavit can be made public, which could offer further details into what the justice department is looking into, and how involved the former president might be.
Here’s more from the Times on what the document’s release could mean:
The submission by the Justice Department is a significant legal milepost in an investigation that has swiftly emerged as a major threat to Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have offered a confused and at times stumbling response. But it is also an inflection point for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, who is trying to balance protecting the prosecutorial process by keeping secret details of the investigation, and providing enough information to defend his decision to request a search unlike any other in history.
“There are clearly opposed poles here,” said Daniel C. Richman, a former federal prosecutor and a law professor at Columbia University, who said it might be difficult, even impossible, for Mr. Garland to strike the right balance.
Last week, Bruce E. Reinhart, a federal magistrate judge in Florida, surprised prosecutors by saying he was inclined to release portions of the affidavit at the request of news organizations, including The New York Times, after the government proposed redactions.
Disclosing even a partial version of the affidavit would be highly unusual: Such documents, which typically include evidence gathered to justify the search, like information provided by witnesses, are almost never unsealed before the government files criminal charges. There is no indication the Justice Department plans to file charges anytime soon.
Judge Reinhart reiterated this week that he might agree to extensive redactions, acknowledging that they could be severe enough to render release of the final document “meaningless.”
“I cannot say at this point that partial redactions will be so extensive that they will result in a meaningless disclosure, but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the government,” he wrote in an order issued on Monday.
Colorado senator
House Democrat
But the plans’ income cap on who can receive cancellation, and its unclear bureaucratic process for Americans seeking debt relief could perpetuate the inequities that underpin the nation’s student loan system, Welbeck, director of advocacy and civil rights counsel for the Student Borrower Protection Center, said.
“While a $10,000 cancellation is so meaningful for millions of student loan borrowers, there’s a lot that’s still to be done to fix this student debt crisis,” Welbeck says.
The proposal would formalize Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca), in an attempt to protect it from court challenges, which it has already faced from Republican officials. According to CBS, “The regulation will maintain the longstanding eligibility rules for DACA, which include requirements that applicants prove they arrived in the U.S. by age 16 and before June 2007; studied in a U.S. school or served in the military; and lack any serious criminal record.”
However, the new regulation is not immune from being sued over, according to CBS:
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, who closed DACA to first-time applicants in July 2021, ruled that the policy itself violates federal immigration law, as Texas and other Republican-led states have argued in a lawsuit.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held a hearing in July on the Biden administration’s appeal of Hanen’s ruling, is expected to issue an opinion on DACA’s legality later this year. The conservative-leaning appeals court is expected to side with Republican state officials who argue that DACA is unlawful. The Biden administration could appeal such a ruling to the Supreme Court.
The ongoing litigation could keep DACA closed to new applicants and even lead to its complete termination, a s