techdirt: It Looks Like The FBI Straight Up Lied To A Judge To Get Permission To Seize Georgia Voting Records

Begging the question: What consequences are there for a Franks violation, besides a Franks hearing and maybe just suppression of evidence? Or here, return of the evidence? Rebuke? Prosecution for false statement or worse? See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (false statement to federal officer) & 1621 (perjury).

techdirt: It Looks Like The FBI Straight Up Lied To A Judge To Get Permission To Seize Georgia Voting Records by Tim Cushing:

Earlier this month, the FBI decided it was going to help Donald Trump steal back the election he’s claimed for half-a-decade was stolen from him. The state whose Secretary of State was asked directly by the outgoing president in January 2021 to “find 11,780 votes” was raided by Trump 2.0, who still somehow thinks he can win the election he lost back in 2020.

It’s not just revenge Trump is seeking. He’s also hoping to find anything that will allow him to cast doubt on midterm election results now that it seems entirely possible the GOP might lose its majority in the legislature.

The FBI walked off with tons of stuff after its raid of the Fulton County election hub in Georgia. The raid — which was attended by the current DNI Tulsi Gabbard for no apparent reason — saw the Trump government seize as many 2020 ballots and voter records as possible. The stated reason for this raid was to collect evidence related to two alleged crimes: not retaining election records long enough and attempts to “intimidate voters or procure false votes/false voter registration.”

One of several glaring problems with this raid is the fact that some of the criminal acts alleged have already surpassed the five-year statute of limitations. The rest of the glaring problems are far less subtle. Like Trump using the FBI and DOJ to engage in vindictive prosecution. And the FBI appearing to have deliberately mislead the magistrate judge to get this search warrant approved.

The petition for return is here. The concluding paragraph of the affidavit in support of return of the Fulton County 2020 general election ballots, Feb. 17, 2026 with about 100 pages of attachments:

  1. As an expert in the field, I conclude based on my experience and a thorough review of the full public record that each of the many individual omissions and misstatements in the Affidavit, not to mention all of them taken together, reflect gross mischaracterizations of the facts of how elections work and are directly at odds with the findings and conclusions of all of the prior investigations of the November 2020 election in Fulton County. Once the statements and omissions in the Affidavit are corrected and based on my experience administering elections, the Affidavit does not have a substantial basis in reality.

Observation: It would seem that common knowledge and the statute of limitations expiring in November 2025 would have required the USMJ to deny the warrant.

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.