BREAKING UPDATE in Trump’s Georgia ballot seizure

This is Democracy Watch Mark. Today is. the day we've been waiting for because. today we would finally find out what the. justification was for the FBI to execute. a search warrant in Fulton County and uh. grab all of those ballots from 2020. We. now have those answers. Mark, can you. explain what we found out? >> Yeah, it turns out there wasn't much. there there. Look, I didn't have high. expectations. It's not like I thought. that the Trump Justice Department, you. know, had found some magic bullet or. some some, you know, hidden evidence, but I did kind of think that they would.

come up with some new lies. Instead, this is just the same old recycled lies. I mean, this document, this affidavit. that was used to to affffectuate a. search warrant in 2026 reads like just. the same grievances that we heard in. 2020 and 2021 and 2022. You know, it's. as if they just like recorded Donald. Trump at one of his rallies and then. just transcribed it and adds added some, you know, jargon and legal mumbo jumbo.

and FBI speak. But really, Brian, this. is just the same recycled garbage that. we have become used to. And it is an. absolute shame that a federal magistrate. signed off on this nonsense and trash to. uh allow a unprecedented search of an. election office that let's not forget. then had the cameo of the director of. national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. doing this on an evidence truck. Well, that that was my question is why in the.

world would a judge look at that look at. that rambling screed, you know, the same. lies that he surfaces at every campaign. rally and think that that's enough. enough justification, enough of a. predicate to sign off on this search. warrant. >> Yeah. So, that's what really should be. the next thing we focus on, right? The. first thing we focus on is, you know, what is in this affidavit? Because the. affidavit, unlike the original search. warrant, the affidavit gives you all of. the evidence that the government. presented to a federal judge or in this.

case federal magistrate judge um and. said this is why we believe there is. probable cause that that supports the. execution of a raid on an election. office. Okay, so that's why this was. such a big deal, the release of this. document and what you see throughout it. is just like one recycled election. denier theory, another recycled election. denier theory. This was all brought. forward by yet another prominent. election denier, a lawyer named Kurt.

Olsen. Let me tell you, I first ran. across Kurt Olsen when he was a lawyer. in 2020 who was asking the Department of. Justice to sue in the Supreme Court to. invalidate the election when that didn't. happen because that was too batshit. crazy even for the Trump won Department. of Justice. He then convinced Texas to. do this. You may remember we oftentimes. talk about this Texas lawsuit to try to. invalidate uh the elections in four. other states. Well, that was rejected. out of hand by the Supreme Court. Next.

thing I knew about Kurt Olsson, he was. representing Kerry Lake in her election. contest in Arizona, which my law firm. represented the sitting governor, uh, Governor Hobbs, Katie Hobbs, and beating. Kurt Olsson in court, and he was. spouting all kinds of nonsense there. Well, now he works in the White House. and seems to be the instigator behind. this. But Brian, you put your finger on. it, which is if a federal judge is going. to give, and you and I have talked about. this before, the presumption of. regularity, the good faith assumption.

that the when when an FBI agent walks in. and says, you know, judge, we have this. and we have this and we have this. If. they're going to give the the the good. faith assumption to the government on. this, then man, we are in for a long. election season because this affidavit. is as thin as they come. It is thinner. than this one single sheet of paper. And. let me tell you, when we get to the fall. and they want to raid other election. offices, they're going to have paper. just as thin. >> And and I want to get to that point. right now. But first, a quick note that.

no one else in the media is covering. this to the extent that Mark and his. team are covering this. and they're. doing it on Democracy Docket, which is. the news outlet Mark founded to focus on. everything voting elections. Please make. sure to sign up, subscribe if you are. not yet subscribed, because this is the. way that you can stay on top of this. stuff. Again, it's being ignored largely. by Legacy Media if you want to get into. the details of this stuff, which is. hugely important right now. Democracy. docket is the way to go. So, I'm going. to put that link right here on the. screen and also in the post description. of this video. Mark, that that's the. part that I think worries me a little.

bit is that if you know we we often talk. about even if it's not precedent, just. the atmospheric precedent of okay, now. they have some legal framework to be. able to do this elsewhere, if they were. successful here, can't they go, you. know, to to other elections offices and. say, oh, well, look, a judge agreed with. us here and and so there's no reason not. to agree with us in Detroit, in. Milwaukee, in Philadelphia, in any other. jurisdiction. Maricopa County Maropa. County. Remember that's where I said I. ran into, you know, my my law firm ran.

into this guy there after the 2022. gubanatorial election. But you remember. the lies that were spread in Maroba. County in 2020. All those crazy. theories. I mean, I just wouldn't be. surprised if we saw the him show up or. we saw him inspire uh FBI agents and and. Department of Justice prosecutors uh uh. to to seek additional search warrants. both as they relate to the 2020. election, which is bad enough, right? It's bad enough that that this has.

happened with respect to the ballots in. 2020. But here's the thing, Brian, the. what you call the precedent or what I'll. call the template, right? a template of. what they used to get this search. warrant. I believe they are now going to. use not just to go back and relitigate. 2020, but to try to search and seize. ballots Yeah. in the 2026 election, both. in the runup and in potentially the. aftermath. You know, my law firm, we. keep kicking their ass on these uh.

efforts to get the voter roles. You. know, they just had another loss. Um uh. and everyone, by the way, needs to. subscribe to this channel because Brian. and I are going to do a video about a. shocking loss that they had in Michigan. And you're not going to want to miss it. because this one is a ride like you. haven't seen before. And I'm proud of. it. So, make sure you're subscribed to. this channel and hit the bell to get. alerted when there's new content because. you're not going to want to miss that or. any of the other content we do. But. Brian, that is the kind of thing that. I'm worried. Now, they may say, "Look, we can't we can't get these uh voter. roles uh by going the normal way by by.

suing and having, you know, Mark Elias. and his team kick our ass and prevent. us. How do we know they're not going to. go and try and get search warrants for. those voter roles?" Now, >> right? And so, I guess the question. becomes, what can be done to push back. on this, recognizing that this is a. framework that they're going to employ. elsewhere? >> I just wrote something on democracy. docket on this very subject. We'll put. it in the post description. Uh, and it. lays out three things that every blue. state needs to do right now and four. things that Democrats and Congress need.

to insist as a condition for any funding. bills or anything else. And they include. things like preventing the misuse of the. Department of Justice in very specific. ways, preventing um criminal. investigations or search warrants of. election offices, uh as well as blue. states banning third party voter. challenges, uh and giving real teeth to. to uh to to people who are wrong to be. able to sue and get real penalties. against uh election off election deniers.

who are trying to challenge their votes. But you know, Brian, the heart of it, and you'll like this one, is Congress. needs to do away with absolute immunity. for federal officials who uh interfere. with the right to vote and qualified. immunity for state officials. If you are. a a federal or a state official who is. engaged in voter suppression or. preventing someone from voting or having. their ballot counted, you should be able. to be sued and you shouldn't be able to. hide behind any immunity doctrine. Is. that something that can be erected at.

the state level? Is there some federal. provision that protects these people. even at the state level? Or can the. states start to put together laws that. that impose a lot of legal liability. onto these people who do seek to. undermine the elections? >> So, it's both. You'll see in what I. wrote, there's a state component to it, what the states need to do, and then. there's a part that we need the Congress. to do. But, but that's not a reason for. each part each part not to go. independently. So there are things that. that blue state governors can do and I. know you talked to a lot of them. So.

maybe next time you have a blue state. governor on you can ask about my. thoughts. >> 100%. Um you know you had mentioned. before that the reason that they were. able to get this magistrate judge to. agree to this uh this this bogus uh. search warrant is because they just had. to reach the threshold of probable. cause. If I'm not mistaken that's that's. 51%. So it's not a very high threshold. Is that what they're taking advantage. of? like as as long as they can, you. know, find some scrap together some. modicum of what may or may not look.

like, you know, just more than just. basically maybe like probably if they. can scrap together some of that, then. they can then they have a legal basis to. get these judges to greenlight these. these crazy plans. >> Yeah. So, I want to I want to. disagregate two different concepts and. then I want to put them back together. So, as you point out, the standard, the. legal standard unto itself is probable. cause, which is a pretty low standard, right? But it should be a probing. standard. In other words, it doesn't. have to be a high standard for you to.

say, "Hey, judges, you need to look. behind what is presented to you." In. other words, you need to be inquisitive. and skeptical of what the government. tells you. And that's where that second. idea comes in. Technically, presumption. of regularity doesn't apply in this. instance because it's a pro because, as. you say, it's a probable cause standard. involving a search warrant. But the. concept behind presumption of regularity. exists in all of these facets. What do I.

mean by that? The truth is magistrate. judges day in day out have law. enforcement show up and say, "Look, I am. a law enforcement. I know what it looks. like when there is a meth lab and here. are the indisha of what a meth lab looks. like and we found these these uh these. uh these facilities and these indisha of. a meth lab please give us a search. warrant and two things are going on. there. One is the judge is saying, "Okay, this meets that threshold of. probable cause, which is not that high.".

But the second thing is the judge is. like, "Okay, well, you know what? He. probably is an expert in meth labs.". Like he if he tells us he found these. these, you know, these machines or these. chemicals, yeah, I believe him. He. probably did find those chemicals. [laughter] and and those machines. And. the problem is, and you and I talk about. this over and over again, is that the. stuff that is being pedled to federal. courts all around the country is just. garbage. I mean, this judge could have. just like googled on the internet who.

the hell these people are and realized. it's like a bunch of It's like the bar. scene out of Star Wars. It's like a. collaboration of all of the craziest. election deniers around the country are. compiled in this document. And that's. where I'm faulting the magistrate judge. It's not that if this information was. put in front of them was true. I mean, if the information put in front of them. was true, it would be quite a. blockbuster. But the magistrate judge. could have looked and said, "This is. just recycled garbage. This is the same.

garbage that has already been found to. not be credible. and these people who. are putting it forward have been found. not to be critical. So that's really. Brian what I'm worried about. >> But but that doesn't preclude the. ability of a future magistrate judge in. Arizona or Pennsylvania or Michigan or. Wisconsin from wising up to what's. happening and being able to say, "Sure, this might have happened. You know, this. might have been granted in Georgia.". Notwithstanding that judge's mistake, we're still not going to allow it. because we're going to have enough.

scruples here to recognize, you know, when when it's not on the level. >> Yeah. And look, we've seen that, right? We we saw we saw a magistrate judge in. um I believe in Minnesota refuse to. issue an arrest warrant with respect to. Don Lemon uh as I recall, [snorts]. right? Like the magistrate judges do not. have to close their eyes to reality. And. you're correct. They can learn from uh. from uh experience as easily as they can. follow past president. And this is not. binding precedent. Like let's just be. clear, this is a this is a signing off. of a of a of a search warrant. There's. no opinion. There's no written decision.

There's no presidential effect. But I. would hope, Brian, that the next. magistrate judge or federal judge who. gets this in front of them, you know, just like deploys, you know, common sense that the same. lies that were pedled in Maricopa County. that led to lawyers being sanctioned, the lies, by the way, that Kurt Olsen. pedled in 2022 in Arizona and got. sanctioned for his lies in 2022. Right? Like like at some point you just expect. the judges to say, you know what, I'm. not going to participate in this. Go.

find someone else. But it's not going to. be me, >> right? Well, I mean, they did find one. judge who was willing to participate, but hopefully to your exact point, they. they they learned from the mistakes of. their other colleagues, and that's what. this was in uh in Georgia. So, look, I. know that you have been covering this. extensively and will continue to cover. this extensively. Again, for those who. are watching, if you've not yet signed. up for Democracy Docket, that is the. best way to follow all of this stuff. So, uh also a great way to support the. work that Mark is doing, not just in the. media space, but in the courts. He's. litigating 80 cases right now, including.

in 25 different states and Washington DC. to make sure that your voted voter data. doesn't get to the federal government. So, a step that we can all take to. support his work is to sign up for. Democracy Docket. That link is right. here on the screen and also in the post. description of this video. I'm Brian. Taylor Cohen. >> I'm Mark Elias. >> This is Democracy Watch.