I think it is beginning to dawn on Trump and his supporters that the execution of a search warrant by the FBI on his Mar-a-Lago home is more serious than they initially thought and that the legal net is closing around him. They initially reacted as if the department of justice had handed him a gift by providing evidence that he was being harassed by the Deep State and used that claim to fundraise from his supporters. Republican congresspeople also echoed those statements and inflamed feelings against the FBI and the department of justice. In fact, it was Trump himself who first broadcast the search in sensational terms, as if the FBI had stormed into his property and ransacked the place, they way they sometimes do with ordinary people. In fact, it was done quite discreetly. The FBI had executed a properly authorized search with the cooperation of people on the premises. The news of the search would have come out eventually but Trump was the one who sensationalized it.
Now that it has been revealed that the FBI had recovered documents that had some of the highest levels of secrecy classification, some of the early and vociferous people who had condemned the search are trying to walk things back. Whether the documents recovered deserve such a high degree of classification or not (the government is notorious for over-classifying things) is not really relevant since it is a crime to have them if they were not supposed to be there.
Meanwhile, the justice department has said that they would not ask for the release of the affidavit they provided to the judge in support of their search warrant application because doing so would impede their criminal investigation. That affidavit would reveal more information about why the search was required and authorized.
“If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a roadmap to the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a manner that is highly likely to compromise future investigative steps,” U.S. Attorney Juan Gonzalez and Justice Department counterintelligence chief Jay Bratt said in a filing urging the continued secrecy of the affidavit.
“The fact that this investigation implicates highly classified materials further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential for harm if information is disclosed to the public prematurely or improperly,” the DOJ officials wrote.
…“Disclosure of the government’s affidavit at this stage would also likely chill future cooperation by witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations,” Gonzalez and Bratt say, adding “This is not merely a hypothetical concern, given the widely reported threats made against law enforcement personnel in the wake of the August 8 search.”
…Sworn affidavits that undergird search warrants are typically sealed until charges are issued or an investigation is closed. They are typically provided by an FBI agent connected to the case and attest to the reasons the bureau believes there is probable cause of a crime.
In the face of the darkening clouds over Trump, he and his followers have started trying out alternative exculpatory theories. One is that the documents were planted by the FBI. Planting of evidence on innocent people by law enforcement is by no means unusual but it seems unlikely in this case and this position is only being advanced by the most nutty of his followers. Another theory is that he had declassified the documents before they were taken, though no evidence has been produced that he did so. Then there is the claim that Trump, while president, had issued a ‘standing order’ that any documents taken to his residences be deemed unclassified. That has been denied. And then there is the old standby that Barack Obama had taken 30 million documents with him when he left office, something that the National Archives and Records Administration office that should be the place where these documents are stored, has also denied.
Now Trump is claiming that some of the documents are covered by attorney-client privilege and hence the FBI should not have taken them and is demanding that they be returned.
Oh great! It has just been learned that the FBI, in its now famous raid of Mar-a-Lago, took boxes of privileged “attorney-client” material, and also “executive” privileged material, which they knowingly should not have taken. By copy of this TRUTH, I respectfully request that these documents be immediately returned to the location from which they were taken. Thank you!
Trump seems to think that by using vaguely legal language (What the hell does “By copy of this TRUTH” even mean?), his posts on his social media account carry legal weight, though that is not how it works. (Trump’s social media site, his alternative to Twitter from which he was kicked off, is called Truth Social and posts there are called ‘Truths’.)
It seems to be the opinion among some in the political commentariat that there is a race to see which will come first: an announcement by Trump that he is running for the presidency in 2024 or an indictment from the justice department against Trump for one or more crimes. This opinion is based on the assumption that the justice department would not want to get in the middle of aa political campaign, and thus would hold off on any indictments if Trump announces his candidacy. This position would argue that it would benefit him to announce quickly. Meanwhile Alina Habba, one of Trump’s attorneys, seems to be giving him the opposite advice, that if he wants all the investigations into him to stop, he should announce that he is NOT running for office again. This opinion seems to be based on the assumption that all these investigations are indeed purely malicious and just designed to sabotage his political future. If he has no political future, then there will be no investigations.
I am not convinced by either theory. I do not think that the department of justice is in any hurry to decide on whether to issue indictments or not because the idea that you cannot or should not indict a candidate for major political office is not firmly grounded in law. What is likely is that they will be unwilling to indict a former president, whether or not he is running again for that office, unless they have a very strong case. Since we are not privy to how the wheels are grinding within that department, we will just have to wait and see.
Meanwhile, in Georgia, there are major developments in a lower profile case where state attorneys are investigating possible election crimes that may have been committed there.
Prosecutors in Atlanta on Monday told lawyers for Rudy Giuliani that he’s a target of their criminal investigation into possible illegal attempts by then-President Donald Trump and others to interfere in the 2020 general election in Georgia.
…The revelation that Giuliani, a lawyer for Trump, is a target of the investigation by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis edges the probe closer to the former president. Willis has said she is considering calling Trump himself to testify before the special grand jury, and the former president has hired a criminal defense attorney in Atlanta.
…Giuliani, who spread false claims of election fraud in Atlanta’s Fulton County as he led efforts to overturn the state’s election results, is to testify Wednesday before a special grand jury that was impaneled at Willis’s request.
Also Monday, a federal judge said U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham must testify before the special grand jury. Prosecutors have said they want to ask Graham about phone calls they say he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his staff in the weeks following the election.
Willis’s investigation was spurred by a phone call between Trump and Raffensperger. During that January 2021 conversation, Trump suggested that Raffensperger “find” the votes needed to reverse his narrow loss in the state.
…Willis also wrote in a petition seeking the testimony of attorney Kenneth Chesebro that he worked with Giuliani to coordinate and carry out a plan to have Georgia Republicans serve as fake electors. Those 16 people signed a certificate declaring falsely that Trump had won the 2020 presidential election and declaring themselves the state’s “duly elected and qualified” electors even though Joe Biden had won the state and a slate of Democratic electors was certified.
All 16 of those fake electors have received letters saying they are targets of the investigation, Willis said in a court filing last month.
It is exhausting having to keep track of the many investigations into Trump and the 2020 elections.
Trevor Noah comments on the changing excuses given by Trump and his allies.
In this case, I think TRUTH stands for Truth Social. It is like saying “by way of this tweet”. It is still insane to think that a tweet or a TRUTH has any legal force.
The documents the FBI seized that may be attorney-client privileged could be excepted for crime-fraud. That’s one of the speculations stemming from the 2 distinct pages and 1 separate signatures on the Receipt For Property attached to the warrant.
If Trump knowingly withheld classified or archival documents from the June sub poena, which his attorneys affirmed had been turned over, then those documents are evidence of a crime which pierces attorney-client privilege.
At least, that’s what I’ve read around the internets.
Trump seems to hire lawyers who are willing to join him in his criminal endeavors. Either that, or susceptible to being drawn in. There has been the occasional exception, but not many.
Trump + attorney client privilege = assumed facts not in evidence.
The Biden administration would have probably gotten better pr results if they had conducted a lower profile confrontation with former president Trump. It was also poorly timed, too close to the passage of legislation that funds a huge expansion of the IRS to the tune of some $920,000 per new hire. This is very awkward political behavior this close to the mid-terms.
Only took 4 comments for a desperate excuse to show up.
I heard on the news this morning that Trump was DEMANDING this, that, and the other. My first thought--who is this guy to demand anything? He’s not president, he’s nothing but a failed businessman.
“The dog ate my homework.”
“You don’t have a dog.”
“The FBI stole my dog.”
What the fuck does “huge expansion of the IRS to the tune of some $920,000 per new hire” even mean? Citation required.
$80,000,000,000
87,000 additional agents/employees
@Raging Bee,
There is a bill in congress to fund the IRS to bring it’s staffing levels back up to around pre-2009 levels. It covers spending over the next ten years, largely focusing on hiring people to replace those retiring, but there will be some expansion to reach previous staffing levels and there will be some investment in new computer systems and some other infrastructure. Note that these additional staff are not all agents, but include things like customer service representatives, filing clerks, cleaning staff, etc.
In the right-wing ecosphere it’s viewed as a threat, ‘Biden is coming to take all your money!!!’ The idiots get riled up about the most benign things. Frankly, I would like to see the IRS expand further and go after tax cheats and take away the 501(c)3 non-profit status of organizations which engage in politics. There are illegal activities going on, and the IRS should be staffed at a level to deal with them. Tax avoidance is contagious, if it’s allowed it will expand. This spending bill really won’t help that, but since it’s the IRS, the rubes are in an uproar.
Have you considered that some of that money is not going to new hires? Or that your conspiracist thinking makes you look like a tinfoil hat wearing idiot?
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/14/1117317757/irs-tax-evaders-dodgers-inflation-reduction-act-enforcement
flex: So basically that “$920,000 per new hire” figure is (assuming it’s not something pulled out of txpipsqueak’s bum) what each new hire will be paid for TEN YEARS of work? That’s $92K per year per new hire, which is well inside the range of the last three jobs I’ve had. IANAE, but that seems fairly reasonable (or maybe a little low) for someone poring over tax forms and looking for tax-code violations.
And then he links to a source laying out that the IRS is going to be doing its sole job. Wowee.
Habba had, and presumably still does have, hair furor’s ear. This is good, because they appear to be incompetent, and are despised by the rest of the hair furor’s legal team. From poopyhead’s Infinite Thread thread (May 2022):
It means that $80,000,000,000 in revenues will have to be collected before a return on investment is realized.
All of the subsections and amounts from the section related to the IRS (“part 3,” pages 14-16 here), in billions of dollars:
Taxpayer services: $3.18
Enforcement: $45.64
Operations support: $25.33
Business systems modernization: $4.75
Task force for designing/researching (over the next year) a publicly-operated free e-file system: $0.015
Treasury inspector general: $0.4
Office of tax policy: $0.1
US tax court: $0.15
Treasury departmental offices: $0.05
Thus, the total for all of that is roughly $79.615 billion. By the way, all of that of money, other than the $0.015 billion for the e-file task force which is supposed to be done by next September, is spread out until the year 2031. In other words: definitely not next year’s (new) paychecks for IRS agents.
Make of those numbers what you will. But in case you’re wondering…. That part’s just three pages which don’t take that long to read. No, not a single word in the text specifies a number of new people to be hired (not next year, not over the period up to 2031, not at all), and many of those expenses will of course go to other things besides an IRS agent’s paycheck.
So it’s hard to say where the $920,000 number is supposed to come from…. Pulled out of someone’s ass? If the $79.615 billion figure were equally divided into chunks of $920,000 per agent, that would mean approximately 86,538 new agents. So I googled looking for conservative nonsense and I found it quickly. Taking into account a bit of rounding, Vox reports about Kevin McCarthy tweeting that the ~$80 billion would be hiring an army of ~87,000 IRS agents. That agrees, after some rounding, with the total-dipshit calculation I just did above for the sake of argument.
So, mystery solved: it was pulled from Kevin McCarthy’s ass, who is in fact a total dipshit. He also lies to his constituents and the population as a whole, obviously, which should be considered unacceptable to them. txpiper apparently thinks it’s propaganda that can be used on us, but doesn’t realize it’s actually being used on him. Your cult leaders are just liars, txpiper, and you don’t have to do their work for them.
@13 Raging Bee,
I’m not sure where txpiper got his numbers, but they are in the ballpark. The bill doesn’t require the IRS to hire an employee immediately, it’s only part of the planning over the next ten years, so the average pay may well be a bit higher. On the other hand, there will probably be people, like call-center phone answerers, who will be paid quite a bit less.
The numbers in the bill are scary to people like txpiper, but they are in the ballpark for the costs of an organization as large as the IRS.
As for txpiper @16, it is laughable to suggest that ROI is even applicable, but if you do want to think about it, then you should remember that the IRS collected ~$4 trillion dollars in income taxes 2021, and the costs for this bill is about $8 billion/year.
In other words, if you try to look at this in a return on investment view, over the collection of $4 trillion in the course of a year, it takes about 18 hours to collect the $8 billion. Or about 1 week to collect the entire $80 billion.
A hurricane in a thimble.
One tactic of the desperate is to completely derail the conversation by bring up something completely unrelated.
I see it works.
My point was about poor political optics this close to an election. If you are pleased with how democrats are performing, good for you. But it almost looks like they want republicans to run the table in November.
No @20, the point is about enforcing laws. “Political optics” is neither a point nor part of the rule-of-law.
Please return your rubles to Putin, he’s not getting any value at all for his payments.
Oh looky, a Retrumplitarian lecturing us about “poor political optics.” Bless your little heart, but you’re not really fooling anyone here. We all know that whatever any Democrat does, some gaggle of right-wing idiots will call it a bad or damaging or wrong move, even if it’s the exact opposite of something else the right-wing idiots had called a bad or damaging or wrong move.
txpiper:
Let’s get this out of the way: the Democratic party is full of shit, their optics are terrible, and that bill is a load of crap crafted by deficit hawks. The only silver lining for them that I can see this election might be a little bit of pro-choice backlash, because conservatives were stupid enough to actually deliver on their terrible promises, not just fundraise on it or entertain their dumbass thoughts and prayers about it like usual. Prior to that, I had figured the Dems would probably lose the House and the Senate. Now, I’m less certain of that.
Anyway, you are a still a habitual liar, your lies are not plausible and are easily refuted so you’re not even good at it, and you have no serious point to make. If any Dem voters wanted to hear some good advice or some constructive criticism about their own party, you’re certainly not the kind of person they should ask. My advice for Republicans would be that they should not vote until they can believe in something decent and reasonable, which for many of them will never happen, but I know they don’t want my advice.
Oh, the timing is bad? Yes I suppose I could see that -- this should have been dealt with within the first weeks after Trump left office. You’ve be fine with this if it had occurred sooner, right tx?
My point was about poor political optics this close to an election.
First you pull a meaningless number out of your bum, then when that gets debunked, you say your “point” was about something else entirely. Sure, Jan…
“You’ve be fine with this if it had occurred sooner, right tx?”
.
No, because it doesn’t really look like there is an actual relationship between revenues and expenditures.
My god, you’ve forgotten what you were even talking about. Tx, your first reply to this thread was
Clearly, the thing you are talking about was the FBI executing a search warrant, in part because it supposedly had poor timing. With this in mind, I said
Hopefully this clarifies things for you. The subject is the FBI search warrant and its timing. With that in mind, perhaps you’d like another shot at a reply.
You’re almost there, finally, after all these years. So close, yet so far away….
Not that the legislation has much to do with it, but we basically just need a sufficient number of tax dollars to be cast into oblivion every year, so there won’t be too much inflation as new money is spent.
But not more than what is spent, with the aim of “cutting the deficit,” since that would merely take money from us for no good reason whatsoever. Unless for some reason you really love burning giant piles of cash for the express purpose of putting citizens and businesses deeper into debt than they already were, that’s a really awful idea…. So alright, I guess you, txpiper, probably want it more than anything else in life, other than lying to people and maybe tormenting small defenseless animals and other such things.
Of course we ought to take lots more taxes from the rich, in order to make them less powerful. That’s also something taxes should be doing. But again, this is not because we need it in order to afford something for somebody else, since it will simply disappear from an account like the rest whenever it’s paid, as it should.
Other than that, this “relationship” that you’re looking for would be pointless, since that’s just rooted in more conservative/neoliberal nonsense used to justify defunding public things that make our society somewhat livable and functional for ordinary people.
But it’s not like they need to keep a gigantic pile of dollars in a vault somewhere, so that those dollars can later be spent (probably on new toys for the military or handouts to huge corporations, given how this country actually works). You understand that, right?
“Clearly, the thing you are talking about was the FBI executing a search warrant…”
.
No, clearly I was talking about the second subject in my first post, the legislation Biden just signed into law. I believe that the “Building a Better America Tour” that he, Harris and several cabinet members will be doing is also very bad idea.
You mean the “Building a Better America Tour” they have been doing since December 8 last year? Do you ever get any facts right, and if so, is it unintentional?
I read that as an endorsement too, by the way. If you think it’s very bad, it probably isn’t (or doesn’t even exist perhaps). Maybe one day you’ll understand this.
“You mean the “Building a Better America Tour” they have been doing since December 8 last year?”
.
No, I mean this one: https://nypost.com/2022/08/15/bidens-cabinet-promote-inflation-reduction-act/
It’s the same tour. A tour in this sense is a thing that consists of more than one event and extends over a period of time. They didn’t come up with two different tours in less than a year and give them both the same fucking name.
Even the NY Post, the dubious source which you’ve cited, is at least accurate enough to say this:
Being part of it does not imply that it’s the whole of it.
I think you just don’t read for comprehension. And I guess your instinct is to not believe facts even when they’re placed right in front of you, but to insist on your misinterpretation of a garbage fire like the NY Post, which also talks of “hitting the road” in its headline. I can see how, if you’re not paying attention, that could look like the tour were only about to occur in the near future, as if it wasn’t already a thing after their (obviously related) “build back better” bullshit sloganeering and starting just a few weeks after their bullshit infrastructure bill was passed last year.
But as I said, even the NY Post did suggest that in the quote above if you had bothered to read and comprehend it, and anyway, you could have just checked the link that I just gave you since it’s quite clear. How do you think this works? Do you think that evidence was planted there by the Deep State back in December, or what do you think happened? is this another one of those atheistic, communist lies that are meant to corrupt the youths and to prepare them to be drained of their precious bodily fluids? What’s even supposed to be the point of arguing with it? Can you not ever admit any mistakes, no matter how small or insignificant? In short: Why?
“It’s the same tour. A tour in this sense is a thing….”
.
lol….okay.
#29 tx
Perhaps that was your intent, but you phrased it with “confrontation with former president Trump” followed by “It was also poorly timed…”, where the ‘it’ is said confrontation. The IRS legislation was the object, not the subject. That’s how sentences work -- when no subject is specified, we carry the subject of the previous sentence forward.
Anyway, your correction requires me to change my question. You say the issue, or one issue with it, is that the IRS expansion and the warrant being served were too close, which you take to be a deliberate ploy to distract from the expansion. I take it you have no objection to the warrant outside of that timing?
txpiper
Clearly you were talking about the poor “timing” of two events that you presume were co-ordinated by the Biden administration. Those two events were:
1) -- the “raid”
2) -- the tour.
The above was written by you as a single paragraph (it is written), so you are clearly talking about the confluence of these two events being poorly “timed”.
Because you are a believer in destiny (of your god’s plan) one can assume that you must think that your god timed these events so they must therefore be perfectly timed and had nothing to do with Biden or his administrators.
Or can’t you make up your mind?
“the IRS expansion and the warrant being served were too close, which you take to be a deliberate ploy to distract from the expansion”
.
Not necessarily. It could be a lack of coordination between congress and the DOJ. They have common objectives, but different methods. There is such a thing as trying too hard. If I were a dem strategist, I would suggest that they both calm down. But I’m not, and I could be wrong.
=
“I take it you have no objection to the warrant outside of that timing?”
.
As it pertains to political tactics, I think it was counterproductive.
“2) — the tour.”
.
No. 2) is the Inflation Reduction Act. The tour is 3).
=
“Because you are a believer in destiny (of your god’s plan)”
.
I am a dispensationalist. I believe that human history is being steered towards conclusions forecast many centuries ago. I have passing interest in politics. But for me, there is always a bigger picture.
To quote it-is-written-txpiper @4 (my bold)
Clearly the It the timing of which you are comparing to the passage of legislation cannot be the passage of legislation.
There are multiple ongoing investigations of tfg and his minions at both the State and Federal level. The list of what was removed by the FBI is alarming, and the fact that the DOJ investigation did not end with retrieving the documents is highly significant in legal terms.
The Jan 6th committee was inundated with new information, which is going to dovetail with the DOJ investigation. Law enforcement doesn’t comment on ongoing investigations as a general rule.
Witness intimidation is another tactic of the maga crowd, so I’m glad that the DOJ is shielding the (minimum) 2 credible witnesses who testified that they had recently seen the documents at Maga-lago, which in itself is a serious crime.
Classic Dispensationalism or Revised Dispensationalism?
I find it interesting that (IIRC) a few days ago the DOJ said they would release the warrant. Then today they said they wouldn’t, because doing so could impact an on-going investigation. That suggests to me two things:
1. The DOJ knew there were classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, but didn’t know how many or what information was contained in them. Maybe they knew the details of some of the documents they were looking for, then found some thing they didn’t really expect.
2. Things just got a lot worse for Trump. The warrant was really served rather casually. Trump was in New York, the FBI arranged things with the Secret Service, and it looked like a fairly routine expedition to collect papers which didn’t belong to Trump but he couldn’t be bothered to return. With the about face from the DOJ on the warrant, and now I’m hearing that the National Security Counsel and some members of Congress will be briefed on what the warrant turned up, it looks a lot more serious.
flex,
Nah. He chose not to return them having already been subpoenaed.
For amusement, from Fox News, cutpaste from Google search:
Trump received subpoena for classified records this springhttps://www.foxnews.com › politics › trump-received-sub...
5 days ago — Former President Trump received a grand jury subpoena in June for classified documents he allegedly took from the White House when he left ...
The idea that the FBI is acting to recover the documents that should never have left a secured briefing ‘room’ at all, because Biden said so is plainly ridiculous.
Tfg’s crying about FBI raids is also nonsensical.
They gave him multiple opportunities to avoid criminal prosecution, and then made an appointment with the staff to expect their arrival to remove said documents; which is far more deference than the traitorous POS deserves.
Possessing the documents is already a crime, and multiple Federal level organizations are involved in quietly evaluating which additional crimes happened in light of what was recovered.
I suspect the FBI found a few things that aren’t on any lists.
#36 tx
How about as it pertains to law and order?
Oh, look -- the arrogant ignoramus who doesn’t understand even the most basic concepts of biology, geology, history, and probability (amongst other fields), yet feels qualified to dismiss those fields in entirety, doesn’t agree with something.
I guess we all better drop what we are doing and listen to what Mr. “lalalaIcanthearyouwithmyearsplugged” has to say.
“How about as it pertains to law and order?”
.
Precedents have been set.
“I am a dispensationalist.”
“Classic Dispensationalism or Revised Dispensationalism?”
Too many syllables. The best descriptive term for txpipsqueak and his religion is “escapist.”
Desperate times call for desperate escape-attempts.
#46 tx
The precedent… of serving warrants? No, they were set centuries ago. The precedent of… presidents taking boxes of classified documents home with them? Trump set that one.
@flex:
You’re confusing two different documents; the affidavit and the warrant.
The warrant was released, and can be read and downloaded freely from more than one location, including here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22131379-220805-trump-warrant
Note that it is only 7 pages long. It specifies the location to be searched, the dates and times (there’s an option for a search at any time of day or night, but the box allowing that wasn’t checked off) and the general type of property to be seized. The document that was released also includes the receipts for what was actually seized.
The affidavit is a much longer document which contains the general evidentiary justification for writing the warrant in the first place. As noted, it may well have names of witnesses and/or informants interviewed, and information about those informants, which, even if the names were redacted, could ultimately be used to identify those informants.
Thank you Owlmirror,
My mistake.
[Raging Bee — pretty sure txpiper got my point]
The point being that there are also;
Ultra,
Hyper,
Mid-Act,
Classic Pauline,
and
Progressive dispensationalists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism#:~:text=Dispensationalism%20is%20a%20particular%20hermeneutic,used%20in%20fundamentalist%20biblical%20interpretation.
I am not surprised that forking has occurred among jesus’ groupies, but who are the true dispensationalists?
Dispensational theology is just a management framework that recognizes segments of history characterized by policies and/or time. Different people have different ideas about how many dispensations there are and what defines them. There are not a lot of hard doctrinal differences involved.
Some like to contrast dispensations with covenant theology, but the two are not in conflict.
Deepities and buzzwords dismissed.
Heh. Conceding whilst seeming to dispute; does that work among your kin?
Which, without in any sense changing the semantics, can be translated to:
“There are some hard doctrinal differences involved.”
(That’s how schisms tend to begin)
—
Kinda an amusing how the evolution of Christianity (from its Pauline origin) has resulted in a shitload of new generations of doctrine. Some thrive, some die out, new ones arise. Reminiscent of speciation.
(Domains, clades, … even species)
Possibly of interest:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/08/25/magistrate-judge-bruce-reinhart-accepts-dojs-proposed-redactions/
Another poster at the same site suggested that the affidavit might end up looking a little like this :
And the redacted affidavit (38 pages) is now available. Many of the pages do look like what was suggested — just black bars across the page for the entire page. But not all of them. The laws and codes that were believed to have been broken and/or violated are listed carefully, and so is some of the publicly available information about the situation.
And here’s a summary/explainer of the affidavit.
It was speculated that the documents may have included nuclear secrets, but the author of the affidavit doesn’t imply that — the Atomic Energy Act is not listed as a relevant code violated, as noted in the explainer. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t nuclear secrets; just that the classification markings they knew had been seen on the documents did not include the ones used for those.