BREAKING UPDATE in Trump’s Georgia ballot seizure

The affidavit used to secure the FBI's search warrant for 2020 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, is characterized as a collection of 'same old recycled lies' and grievances previously heard in 2020-2022. The guest suggests it reads like a transcription of Donald Trump's rally speeches, dressed up with legal jargon.

Guest Mark Elias states, 'this is just the same old recycled lies... this affidavit... reads like just the same grievances that we heard in 2020 and 2021 and 2022.'

A federal magistrate judge approved the search warrant despite the affidavit's perceived lack of substantive evidence. The hosts criticize the judge for not exercising sufficient scrutiny and for granting a request based on what they consider 'nonsense and trash,' allowing an unprecedented search of an election office.

Mark Elias states, 'It is an absolute shame that a federal magistrate signed off on this nonsense and trash to allow a unprecedented search of an election office.'

Lawyer Kurt Olsen, described as a prominent election denier, is identified as the individual who brought forward the recycled election denier theories that formed the basis of the affidavit. Olsen has a history of involvement in unsuccessful lawsuits challenging election results in 2020 and 2022.

Mark Elias details, 'This was all brought forward by yet another prominent election denier, a lawyer named Kurt Olsen.' He recounts Olsen's past efforts to invalidate elections in 2020 and his representation of Kari Lake in Arizona.

The hosts express significant concern that the successful execution of this search warrant, despite its weak justification, establishes a 'template' or 'legal framework' that can be used to seek similar warrants in other election offices across the country. This could lead to attempts to seize ballots and voter rolls in future elections.

Brian Tyler Cohen states, 'if they were successful here, can't they go... to other elections offices and say, oh, well, look, a judge agreed with us here.' Mark Elias adds, 'what I'll call the template... I believe they are now going to use not just to go back and relitigate 2020, but to try to search and seize ballots in the 2026 election.'

The legal standard for obtaining a search warrant is 'probable cause,' which is a relatively low threshold (around 51% certainty). The hosts argue that this low standard is being exploited by those pushing election denial theories, allowing judges to greenlight 'crazy plans' with minimal scrutiny.

Brian Tyler Cohen asks, 'the reason that they were able to get this magistrate judge to agree to this... is because they just had to reach the threshold of probable cause. If I'm not mistaken that's that's 51%.' Mark Elias confirms, 'the legal standard unto itself is probable cause, which is a pretty low standard.'

While the probable cause standard is low, judges are expected to be 'probing' and 'skeptical' of the evidence presented. The hosts fault the magistrate judge for not being inquisitive enough and for failing to recognize that the information presented was 'garbage' from known election deniers, which had already been found not credible in other courts.

Mark Elias explains, '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.' He adds, 'this judge could have just like googled on the internet who the hell these people are and realized it's like a bunch of... all of the craziest election deniers around the country are compiled in this document.'