Matt BlazeFeb 10

RE: https://mastodon.social/@lawfare/116048314109181139

Lawfare has the unsealed affidavits for the Fulton County elections office search warrants, which are online at the link.

I’ve so far only skimmed, but a couple initial impressions.

-Lots of mentions of small discrepancies, but not much that appears to establish PC of an actual crime. Some of the alleged discrepancies were previously refuted by GA officials.

-Nothing mentioned (such as an indictment) that would stop the 5 year statute of limitations clock; all the acts are > 5 years ago.

Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 10

Again, I’ve not yet read the docs carefully. But it’s worth noting that mere discrepancies aren’t crimes, and small errors and mishaps are normal and expected in something as large scale as this. Also, these seem to be related to the statewide machine recount, which was a new process partly invented on the fly, intended to validate the initial results.

And the statute of limitations problem is significant. It may have been addressed in some other filing or hearing, but it’s not explained here.

Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 10
I’m NOT saying there’s nothing to any of this, only that the affidavits don’t themselves suggest that there’s all that much here.
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 11

Much is made of the presence of "pristine" absentee ballots, which is the term they use for ballots that lacked creases from being folded and sealed in an envelope. The assert that there's no innocent explanation for this, since all absentee ballots have to arrive in an envelope.

But there *is* an explanation. UOCAVA ballots, a generic ballot form used by some overseas/military voters, aren't machine readable. They have to be transcribed onto a regular ballot form for tabulation.

Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 11
There'd be no reason to expect transcribed UOCAVA ballots to have creases, since they're created in the election office after the mailed ballot from the voter is opened.
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 11
The agent who swore out the affidavit appears to be relatively junior (5 years out of the academy), with no apparent specific cybersecurity or elections speciality background (he was a lawyer before joining the FBI). He appears to have taken all the witness's suspicions at face value, with little or no discussion of confounding explanations or discussions with election experts (except for the discussion of tabulator tapes with Parikh).
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 11
If these affidavits constitute the entirety of the probable cause presented to the court, I'm surprised that the judge granted the warrant.
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 11
In particular, as the affidavit correctly notes, mere discrepancies or procedural mistakes do not by themselves constitute a crime. The crimes require deliberate malicious conduct. But the affidavit presents virtually no evidence that any conduct that led to the discrepancies was deliberate, or even who was responsible for it.
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 11
The standard for getting a search warrant isn't a complete case ready for trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's "probable cause" to believe that the search will yield evidence of a crime. But here, they don't even lay out, to my eyes, probable cause to believe there even was a crime in the first place.
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 11
Usually in warrant affidavits like this, you'll see lines like "Based on my training and experience, <some evidence> is indicative of <criminal conduct>. There's NONE of that here. Just quotes from witnesses who said they were suspicious, generally for unspecified reasons and without analysis.
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 11

You might think, "well if there are discrepancies, shouldn't they be investigated?"

The 2020 election in GA HAS been investigated. It's one of the most closely scrutinized elections in US history, and has been the subject of an almost endless stream of litigation and analysis. This case is not the only opportunity to find out about the GA election.

Also, this is a federal criminal investigation, a very powerful tool with the capacity to wreck people's lives. Not something to do frivolously.

Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 11
In short, I'm trying to give every benefit of the doubt to the feds here, but this case seems to be extremely thin and well below what you'd expect to warrant a federal criminal investigation.
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 12

For l the reasons I noted as well as many others, I don’t expect the case related to the Fulton County search to end with any federal criminal convictions, and I’d be surprised if there were even indictments.

But that’s not the only impact here. The GA state elections board is reportedly using the investigation to move toward taking over the Fulton County elections office, under a provision of GA election law.

Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 12
This would not be a FEDERAL takeover, since the elections would still be operated by the state. But it would alter the political dynamics of Fulton County elections, since the GA state elections board is R controlled, while the locally-elected Fulton County office is D controlled.
Show threadMatt Blaze21h ago

The plot continues to thicken in the Fulton County GA elections search warrant case.

(tl;dr: Earlier this year, the feds got a criminal search warrant to seize an expansive range of documents related to the 2020 election, despite no clear probable cause of a prosecutable crime) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72267501/71/pitts-v-united-states/

At a hearing last Friday, the judge asked whether the warrant was an abuse of criminal procedure as an end run in a civil case seeking the same docs.

Fulton Cty's filing: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72267501/71/pitts-v-united-states/

Show threadchronophage
@mattblaze kind of surprised they did not use an NSL - less overhead for the government (not to say I endorse the practice), but perhaps I am misunderstanding who can use NSLs. Also given the nature of NSL, we might not know if they did for a long time.
Mar 31 at 7:58pmWeb
Show threadMatt Blaze21h ago
@chronovore NSLs are less powerful here than search warrants. They are orders to produce information, and you can challenge them in court (like a subpoena). And they have to have a natsec nexus.
Show threadchronophage21h ago
@mattblaze ah, thank you for the context and clarification!
Show threadMatt Blaze21h ago
@chronovore In a search warrant, the government shows up and takes the documents, whether you like it or not. You have to go to a court to get them back (which is what Fulton county is doing here).