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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

In other words, there were existing state and federal CIVIL cases seeking these documents already in the works. Civil cases move slowly, and the production of the records was not likely to be resolved for a while. In particular, SEARCH WARRANTS are not a thing in civil cases (in which the cops show up and seize evidence). That's only for criminal cases.

In civil cases, there are subpoenas, in which the subject is ordered to produce documents, but can challenge it in court before complying.

In any case, this is a significant escalation. Fulton started with the basic argument that the warrant shouldn't have been issued (because no credible probable cause was alleged and the statute of limitations had passed on any possible crimes), and that therefore the documents should be returned. In other words, that the magistrate judge erred in issuing the warrant.

Now, they're also effectively alleging actual fraud by the government in seeking the warrant in the first place.

Buy popcorn.

@rpluim @me_valentijn The consequences available to the judge in this case would be to grant the petitioner's motion to have the documents returned, and possibly to refer various lawyers to their bar authorities for disciplinary action if he believes anyone misrepresented facts.

This is how courts work. And the administration has faced consequences like this in quite a few cases in the last year.

@rpluim Well, that's mostly outside what a judge can do. Judges are limited to ruling on the cases before them.

This is a case seeking return of documents.

@rpluim In any case, while some people seem to find it personally satisfying to cry about about how legal remedies are powerless to stop the all-powerful Trump administration, I find that fatalism to be both factually wrong (they keep losing cases, in fact), and counter productive (challenging them in court has often been quite effective at countering their abuses).

As for me, I'll continue to keep an eye on and report about the cases I find interesting and relevant.