Matt BlazeIs the Fulton County election office search warrant online (preferably the affidavit, but I'll take the order itself)?
Searching on PACER, I can't find the docket.
Edit: it is; see thread.
A federal search warrant comes in two parts: the warrant itself, which authorizes the search and is signed by a judge/magistrate, and a supporting affidavit establishing probable cause that there is evidence of a specific crime to be seized (signed by an investigator). The latter is often sealed until arrests are made, but the warrant is generally unsealed at the time of execution. It identifies the items to be seized, and also the court, judge and docket number.
Also, unless it's a "no-knock" warrant (which the Fulton County was not), a copy goes to the people being searched at the time it's executed. So Fulton County surely has a copy.
Anyway, I want to see the warrant because it will tell us what court issued it, what the FBI was looking for, and a docket number that might give some insight into what specific crimes are being investigated here.
The affidavit (which I'm less hopeful is unsealed) will be especially enlightening, because it is a sworn statement that has to articulate specific facts that establish probable cause about a specific crime for which there is evidence to be seized. (Not merely general suspicion).
Ah, @lawfare got the warrant, which you can read here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26513986-1-28-26-fulton-warrant/ . Thanks @linuxandyarn for calling it to my attention!
Lawfare's analysis is quite good (https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/we-have-questions-about-the-fbi-s-fulton-county-search); I won't add much to it except to highlight a few notable things below.
First, the predicate crimes for the warrant are 52 USC § 20511 (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:20511%20edition:prelim) and 52 USC § 20701 (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:20701%20edition:prelim), and the warrant seeks records for the 2020 general election.
20701 requires certain election records to be retained for 22 months after the election; note that well over 22 months have already elapsed since the election, so it's unclear how the presence or absence of any 2020 records in the warehouse today would shed light on whether this section was violated.
20511 prohibits various kinds of election fraud, including fraudulent voter registration and casting fraudulent ballots, including by election officials.
But, as Lawfare notes, the statute of limitations here is five years, and more than five years have already elapsed since any 2020 election fraud would have occurred.
The warrant also refers to violations since October 12, 2020. It's not clear what the significance of that date is.
So I don't know what to make of this. The magistrate would be well aware of the statute of limitations issue. But she would have read the affidavit, and we haven't, so we're at a disadvantage for unraveling what's going on here.
A possibility (and this is wild speculation on my part) is that there has already been an indictment (still under seal), perhaps issued October 12, 2025 (hence the date), and this warrant is seeking additional evidence to support that prosecution. But who knows.
An existing indictment (even under seal) would generally stop the statute of limitations clock.
But what we also don't know, if this speculation is correct, is why they wouldn't have immediately arrested the target here (presumably a public official) once that indictment had been issued. There are a few possibilities (e.g. someone is cooperating against other defendants), but without more information, we can't do anything more than speculate.
I've been thinking out loud here, but the more I do so, the more I think the best explanation (among unlikely explanations) is that there's an existing sealed indictment of some group of Georgia or Fulton County election officials, dated October 12, 2025.
Michael Weiss@mattblaze and that indictment was probably issued when it was, specifically to stop the statute of limitations clock, which was close to expiry.
@mweiss Exactly.
Steve Bellovin@mattblaze An indictment would undoubtedly read In re Ham Sandwich or some such.
@SteveBellovin I recently learned that the person who coined that phrase was NY State Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, who shortly thereafter was indicted himself (in a fairly ugly and messy case involving threats against his former lover).
🆘Bill Cole 🇺🇦@mattblaze @SteveBellovin He never said the ham sandwich was not guilty…
Stuart Marks@mattblaze Early voting in GA began on 2020-10-12 so maybe that’s the reason for that date.
And as we all know, early voting something fraud something rigged something conspiracy so that’s the day on which all the criming would have started. (/s)
@stuartmarks That's possible, but it still has to be squared with the statute of limitations barrier. You generally can't get a warrant for something that can't be prosecuted.
@mattblaze A Fulton Co. official this morning talking to NPR (I missed his name…) said that the affidavit was sealed, so he didn’t know what the basis was for the warrant.