The FBI made headlines in August when it seized boxes of documents during a controversial raid on former President Donald Trump’s home at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
However, it has now emerged that the law enforcement agency wasn’t forthcoming about what it actually took.
So many more taken
According to The Epoch Times, the FBI submitted an updated inventory list on Sept. 26, which shows that it hauled off an additional 63 previously undisclosed items that lacked classification markings.
That submission was made on the orders of U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie, who, as a special master, has been tasked with reviewing the seized material.
The submission was submitted by an FBI agent whose name has been redacted. He or she stated that “FBI personnel working under my direction conducted an additional review and recount of the Seized materials in order to make this declaration.”
“The additional review and recount resulted in some minor revisions to the Detailed Property Inventory,” the unnamed agent explained.
The Times noted that if the revised numbers are accurate, then they show the FBI seized some 11,200 non-classified items during the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Judge overrules special master
This was not the only development raid-related development to come this week, as Fox News reported that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon also overruled Dearie’s requirement for Trump to voice his final objections or arguments by Sept. 30.
“The Court’s Appointment Order did not contemplate that obligation,” wrote Cannon, who appointed Dearie to serve as a special master on
“Defendant since has complied with the requirement to attest to its now-revised inventory and the parties and the Special Master are situated to proceed forward with the process pending exchange of the actual materials,” she continued.
“Should any additional matters surface during the Special Master’s review process that requires reconsideration of the inventory or the need to object to its contents, the parties shall make those matters known to the Special Master for appropriate resolution and recommendation to this Court,” the judge concluded.