Former President Donald Trump on Monday filed a motion requesting a federal judge appoint a “special master” to review the documents seized by federal agents during a search of his Mar-a-Lago home earlier this month.
Attorneys for the former president asked that an investigator be appointed to review items seized from the home that are unrelated to the search, and are also calling on the federal government to provide a more detailed receipt of items taken from the home. The former president is also seeking to inspect what was seized from his home, and that all materials not related to the investigation be returned to the Palm Beach estate.
Trump’s counsel also requested a federal judge to prevent the FBI from continuing to review documents recovered from his Florida estate earlier this month until a neutral special master can be appointed to inspect the records.
A master, or special master, as requested by Trump’s lawyers, is appointed by a judge and used to settle pre-and-post-trial matters that “cannot be addressed effectively and timely by an available district court judge or magistrate judge of the district,” per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53.
The 21-page document claimed the search of Mar-a-Lago was a “shockingly aggressive move,” alleging it was a politically motivated directive from the Department of Justice.
“It is unreasonable to allow the prosecutorial team to review them without meaningful safeguards,” the filing reads in part.
The Department of Justice on Monday afternoon said it was "aware" of the filing from the Trump team and that it would "file its reponse in court," as was first reported by CBS News. (Spectrum News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.)
The former president also released a statement Monday evening on his team's filing, referring to the search of his home as a "break-in" and alleging FBI agents took documents "covered by attorney-client and executive priviledge," in part.
"We are demanding the appointment of a SPECIAL MASTER to oversee the handling of the materials taken in the raid," he added, alleging that the warrant was approved due to a "bias" against him. "We are further demanding that the DOJ be forced to turn over a REAL, without 'plants,' inventory of my property that was taken and disclose where that property is now located."
Monday’s filing comes as media organizations are currently in a court battle with the Department of Justice to unseal a redacted version of the affidavit that preceded the search warrant.
The unsealed warrant said that "all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of" three criminal statutes: 18 U.S. Code § 793 - a subsection of the Espionage Act related to gathering, transmitting or losing defense information; 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - relating to concealment, removal, or mutilation of government records; and 18 U.S. Code § 1519 - destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations and bankruptcy.
A federal judge acknowledged that redactions to an FBI affidavit spelling out the basis for the search might be so extensive as to make the document “meaningless” if released to the public. But he said he continued to believe it should not remain sealed in its entirety because of the “intense” public interest in the investigation.
A written order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart largely restates what he said in court last week, when he directed the Justice Department to propose redactions about the information in the affidavit that it wants to remain secret. That submission is due Thursday at noon.
Justice Department officials have sought to keep the entire document sealed, saying disclosing any portion of it risks compromising an ongoing criminal investigation, revealing information about witnesses and divulging investigative techniques. They have advised the judge that the necessary redactions to the affidavit would be so numerous that they would strip the document of any substantive information and make it effectively meaningless for the public.
Reinhart acknowledged that possibility in his Monday order, writing, “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.”
Several news organizations, including The Associated Press, have urged the judge to unseal additional records tied to this month's search of Mar-A-Lago, when FBI officials said they recovered 11 sets of classified documents, including top secret records, from the Florida estate.
Of particular interest is the affidavit supporting the search, which presumably contains key details about the Justice Department's investigation examining whether Trump retained and mishandled classified and sensitive government records. Trump and some of his supporters have also called for the document to be released, hoping it will expose what they contend was government overreach.
In his written ruling, Reinhart said the Justice Department had a compelling interest in preventing the affidavit from being released in its entirety. But he said he did not believe it should remain fully sealed, and said he was not persuaded by the department's arguments that the redaction process “imposes an undue burden on its resources."
“Particularly given the intense public and historical interest in an unprecedented search of a former President’s residence, the Government has not yet shown that these administrative concerns are sufficient to justify sealing,” he wrote.