We Have Questions About the FBI’s Fulton County Search

The FBI executed a search warrant on Wednesday at the Fulton County Election Hub and Operation Center outside Atlanta, Georgia. The Justice Department, through the FBI, stated that it was conducting a “court authorized law enforcement action.” A few hours later, Trump posted a flurry of conspiracy theories on TruthSocial, including sharing a post from an anonymous account that accused Italian hackers, the CIA, the FBI, and China of conspiring to rig the 2020 election.  

You may remember the 2020 election fracas in Georgia.

In the wake of that election, Trump and his allies ​​repeated a grab bag of false or misleading claims about alleged voter fraud and election irregularities. The explanations varied. Sometimes it was “suitcases full of ballots.” Other times, it was thousands of votes cast by dead people. Maybe Hugo Chávez had somehow hacked the voting machines—or perhaps Chinese-made refrigerator thermostats were responsible. Those in Trump’s orbit were certain the election had been stolen, but no one could say how, let alone produce credible evidence to support the claim.

In their quest to prove the steal, Georgia—a state Trump lost by 11,779 votes—became a particular fixation. Rudy Giuliani and others seized on video of ballots being counted in Fulton County, Georgia, to promote their false claims of fraud, publicly accusing election workers Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman of rigging the vote. References to Georgia cropped up in Trump campaign documents, including a “strategic communications plan” and two draft executive orders, which would have directed the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security to seize Dominion Voting Systems machines. And then there was Trump’s infamous call to Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia Secretary of State, in which Trump repeated debunked claims of fraud and pressured Raffensperger to “find” the 11,780 votes he needed to win the state.

Even after Trump was indicted in two jurisdictions for his efforts to overturn the results of the election, he and his allies continued efforts to discredit the vote. In 2024, a shift in the composition of the Georgia State Election Board—an administrative body that can promulgate voting regulations for the state—reinvigorated those efforts. Since then, the five-person entity has been controlled by a pro-Trump majority. Trump has gone so far as to describe the three members of the MAGA majority as “pit bulls, fighting for honesty, transparency, and victory."

All of which is why it was hardly surprising when the board’s new majority voted to reopen an investigation into Fulton County’s conduct during the 2020 election. The board also sent subpoenas seeking troves of documents related to the 2020 election, and in July asked the Justice Department for assistance. The following month, Justice Department official Ed Martin wrote a letter seeking election records. Trump’s Justice Department followed up again in October, purportedly in response to the Fulton County board’s request demanding election records—and filed a civil suit when the county did not comply. A Fulton County official has publicly signaled that these letters were related, both to each other and to Wednesday’s search. 

None of this, however, explains exactly what federal law enforcement officials are doing executing this search warrant. Nothing in the public record remotely suggests that a crime was committed in the tallying of Georgia’s vote—even after numerous audits and court cases challenging the results.

Nor does any of this explain why Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard showed up for the occasion.

All of which is to say that we have questions. A bunch of them.

What potential crimes are under investigation?

Here the public record offers some insight. The search warrant lists two criminal statutes: 52 U.S.C. §§ 20701 and 20511. Section 20701, enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, requires election officers to preserve all voter registration records, and records of any “other act requisite to voting,” for 22 months after any federal election. A willful violation of that law is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison. Section 20511, part of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, criminalizes threats and coercion in the voting process as well as fraud in the voter registration process and tabulating ballots known to be fraudulent, and carries a maximum five-year prison term. And the standard for a search warrant means that federal authorities must have convinced the magistrate judge that there was probable cause of a violation—that is, that there had been some failure to retain records for the requisite period of time, and that there had been either threats, coercion, or fraud in vote processes or tabulation.

What’s the basis for thinking Fulton County officials may have violated these statutes?

No clue on this question; the affidavit in support of the search warrant remains sealed. For that matter, we don’t even know for sure that Fulton County officials are the alleged perpetrators. 

If this is about the 2020 election, why hasn’t the statute of limitations expired?

This is a bit murky too. Unless otherwise specified, the statute of limitations for federal crimes is five years (18 U.S.C. § 3282). And the 2020 election was more than five years ago. That said, at least in the case of Section 20701, the statute itself may contain the answer. The law provides that an election officer commits a crime by not preserving specified records at all points until 22 months have passed after the federal election. Thus, a person who knowingly did not preserve records relating to the November 2020 election until Sept. 3, 2022 would be committing a crime. By this logic, the statute of limitations could expire as late as Sept. 3, 2027.

It’s less clear how a Section 20511 indictment might still be timely. Perhaps the government will allege a conspiracy to violate Section 20511—that someone committed acts, in furtherance of the conspiracy, at some point within the last five years, including acts of concealment depending on the applicable circuit caselaw, such as destroying evidence or lying about the facts to investigators. A conspiracy charge, which would likely come in the form of 18 U.S.C. § 371, would mean that such acts would only have to fall within a five-year statute of limitations. Notably, the warrant does not specify conspiracy as one of the statutes under investigation, but that doesn’t mean the government could not later charge it.

Who are the subjects of this investigation? 

The search warrant does not name any subjects or targets of the investigation. There do not seem to be any other reliable sources offering clues. So we won’t speculate.

What did the government seek to seize?

Beyond the affidavit, which provides the alleged facts forming the basis for probable cause, the warrant is accompanied by two attachments: A (describing the property to be searched) and B (the particular things to be seized). Normally, these attachments would include a good amount of detail: These warrants only give investigators one chance to search and seize materials. After that, they’d need to seek a fresh warrant to conduct another search. As a result, investigators would typically put together an application for a search warrant that seeks permission for as much relevant evidence to the proposed charges as possible—particularly when the warrant is for physical premises.

Here, both what the government sought to seize in its search of the Fulton County Election Hub and Operation Center and what it did not seek to seize are interesting. According to Attachment B, the government sought to seize all physical ballots, all tabulator tapes, all ballot images, and all voter rolls from the 2020 General Election in Fulton County. These appear to be the same records that the Trump administration has sought from multiple counties across the country—notably, including Fulton County. Last month, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit against Fulton County, alleging that the office had failed to respond to the office’s Oct. 30, 2025 demand for “specific election records” pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 20703. But that is a civil lawsuit—the government would have to prove in court that it was entitled to obtain those records. The search warrant, on the other hand, is part of a criminal process—it’s compulsory. 

In that sense, it looks like the warrant could be an attempted workaround to avoid the need for a civil suit. Besides, the list of items in Attachment B is pretty slim considering the criminal charges the government listed in the warrant. The government did not seek evidence it would need to prove a crime—for instance, evidence of any individual’s intent or mindset; evidence of an agreement necessary to prove conspiracy, evidence of fraud, intimidation, threats, or coercion; evidence of actions depriving or defrauding others, or attempts to do those things. Considering the government must be investigating some person and their alleged criminal intent, these omissions are noticeable.

Why was DNI Gabbard present at the search warrant execution?

Typically, the DNI wouldn’t be involved in routine law enforcement investigations—much less in scrutinizing evidence from a county elections office. Not even a national security nexus to the case would typically justify her presence on the scene. Quite simply, the DNI is not a law enforcement officer and has no conceivable reason to be present. That said, Gabbard’s presence is less surprising given that she has already indicated her interest in probing supposed fraud in the 2020 election: Last summer, President Trump asked her in a Cabinet meeting whether she had found evidence in “burn bags” of “how corrupt the 2020 election was.” She promised him a briefing once her team had gathered the information: “But you’re right. We are finding documents literally tucked away in the back of safes in random offices in these bags and in other areas, which again speaks to the intent of those who are trying to hide the truth from the American people.”

More recently, it emerged that Gabbard’s promise had materialized into an actual investigation. The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday afternoon that Gabbard has been leading for months an administration effort to investigate the 2020 election and search for potential crimes. The Journal reported that Gabbard is preparing a report, has regularly briefed Trump on her progress, and has pursued Trump-promoted theories that foreign governments plotted to steal the election from him.

Does her presence at the warrant’s execution have any implications with respect to her being called as a potential witness in future criminal prosecutions? 

Why yes, actually. It does. One reason the DNI should not do ride-alongs on FBI search warrants is that it makes her a fact witness to the conduct of the search. Normally, when the FBI conducts a search pursuant to a search warrant, the agents meticulously document everything—photographs of the spaces and items moved, searched, or seized; itemized logs of items searched or seized; and, importantly, lists of government personnel present—in both operational planning documents and chain of custody forms. Separately, the FBI will document the facts of the search and the individuals present in a separate FBI report, or “FBI 302,” and more 302s may result if there are any significant conversations with non-governmental personnel at the scene. So if Gabbard took part in any such dialogues, she would, at least in the normal course, be documented as a participant.

Most of these materials are discoverable in any future criminal prosecutions; these kinds of materials are a standard means by which defense counsel decide whom to interview or even call to the stand—including in furtherance of any challenge they may bring related to the lawfulness of the search. In other words, it could play out something like this: A future defendant would call Gabbard to the stand as a witness in support of a motion alleging unlawful search. She’d be peppered with questions—all of which would be standard for any other government official who had been on the scene for the execution of a search warrant. What did you see, defense counsel would ask the DNI. Is it consistent with what any government witness may testify about? Did you take photographs or send text messages with the phone you were seen using in a widely-circulated photograph of you on scene? Were you alone with the evidence at the time? If so, were you listed on the chain of custody form, and if not, who was supervising you? Do those photographs show something different than the FBI’s photographs of the search? Did you advise any agents on scene about whether they could or could not seize something—specifically, whether something was within or outside of the scope of the warrant’s Attachment B? All of these are questions a defense counsel may rightly dig into. And all of them are reasons prosecutors normally do not attend searches. 

What else could the DNI’s involvement portend for future criminal prosecutions?

There is another question relating to the DNI’s presence at the scene of a criminal search: Is ODNI (or any other intelligence agency) part of the prosecution team? The mere presence of an intelligence official suggests any future prosecution may be complicated by the government’s reliance on classified materials. But the mere fact of handling classified materials in conjunction with a criminal case is not particularly unusual—there’s a whole statute dedicated to managing it, the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). Having an intelligence agency as part of the prosecution team, however, is a different matter. That may open up records in that agency’s holdings to much broader and more intrusive discovery obligations—not only records related to the substance of the case, but any exculpatory records that may exist in the current officials’ communications with each other and others about the substance. The DNI’s presence at a criminal search likely makes it much harder for the prosecutor handling the case to convince a court she and her agency are not part of the team, which would make it much harder to shield potentially relevant documents in the DNI’s possession from discovery. 

Could this have anything to do with the Grand Conspiracy?

Maybe. One of the things about grand conspiracies is that they contain multitudes. And Fulton County could play a role in the so-called Grand Conspiracy, the made-up plot that some folks in MAGA world believe a left-wing cabal has orchestrated over the past decade against Trump—though it’s not entirely clear how. Prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida investigating the matter started off by subpoenaing people connected to intelligence reviews of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, such as former DNI James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, after Gabbard made a criminal referral this summer on precisely that subject. But their probe has reportedly expanded to include other actors and events. 

What on Earth does the purported corruptness of the 2020 election have to do with the purported corruptness of investigations related to the 2016 election?

In reality, nothing at all. But nonetheless, at the Cabinet meeting in which Gabbard promised Trump a briefing on 2020 election corruption, she continued by saying that the “burn bags” to which the president referred had been part of an effort “to cover up the politicization that was led by people like John Brennan and James Clapper and others that have caused really immeasurable harm to the American people and to our country.”

It’s not entirely clear whether, prior to the president’s question, Gabbard actually was claiming to have discovered documents related to the 2020 election tucked away anywhere at all: Burn bags did feature in the series of Grand Conspiracy-related documents administration officials declassified this summer, but press releases or referrals focused only on the 2016 contest, not 2020’s. Is there a yet-to-be-revealed new layer of the Grand Conspiracy that would fold the Fulton County probe into the rest of the Grand Conspiracy investigation? Who knows. After all, the entire endeavor is an example of Trump’s allies’ allegiance to his narrative that every negative thing that has happened to him is part of a nefarious plot. As the president said in July, “The witch hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama, absolutely cold, Tulsi Gabbard, what they did to this country in 2016, starting in 2016, but going up all the way going up to 2020 in the election.”

Could this have anything to do with a completely different conspiracy theory? 

Anything’s possible. Another one of MAGA-world’s favorite conspiracy theories could also explain Gabbard’s trip to Fulton County: This one—promoted by personalities ranging from “MyPillow guy” Mike Lindell to onetime Trump lawyer Sidney Powell—asserts, also without evidence, that Venezuela rigged Dominion Voting Systems machines against Trump. The Guardian reported in November that federal investigators were examining these claims. The theory gained traction after the indictment of Nicolás Maduro. Ed Martin—the multi-titled deputy associate attorney general who heads up the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group—shared, with emphasis, an X post saying that the deposed Venezuelan leader could “plead to lesser charges by proffering evidence that the 2020 election was stolen.” Venezuela’s (imagined) interference with the Fulton County vote count would provide the connection to national security needed to justify the involvement of the Director of National Intelligence. And Gabbard has already signaled her interest in voting machines like the ones Fulton County used: She declared in the spring, “We have evidence of how these electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time, and vulnerable to exploitation to manipulate the results of the votes being cast.”

Why was the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri on the warrant, rather the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia?

It’s not particularly unusual for an investigation run out of one jurisdiction to require executing a Rule 41 warrant in a different jurisdiction. So if we assume that the investigation that led to the Fulton County search is housed out of another district (why, who knows), it wouldn’t be strange at all to have that U.S. attorney on the warrant. But there’s no clear jurisdictional hook in the Eastern District of Missouri that would explain why its U.S. attorney,Thomas Albus, is on the warrant for the Fulton County search rather than the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, where Fulton County is located. And there’s nothing to suggest that the Eastern District of Missouri is where the investigation is housed.

Instead, it appears this is another example of an attorney on special appointment to conduct business outside his district: Attorney General Pam Bondi, Bloomberg Law’s Benjamin Penn reports, has vested Albus with nationwide authority to probe voter fraud. It’s not clear whether this reflects any particular animus against the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, Theodore Hertzberg, whose district encompasses Fulton County. Both Albus and Hertzberg were appointed to the job on an interim basis by Bondi. Albus has since been nominated by Trump for the job for the duration of Trump’s presidency; his nomination is pending Senate confirmation. Trump has not similarly nominated Hertzberg, but his tenure was extended by an appointment by the judges of the district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). Notably, this isn’t the first time out-of-district prosecutors have parachuted in to assist with a politicized case. The same thing happened when two attorneys from North Carolina came to the Eastern District of Virginia to help prosecute former FBI director James Comey. In fact, it isn’t even the first time an out-of-district prosecutor from the Eastern District of Missouri has done the administration such a favor—the Eastern District of Missouri is the home office of Roger Keller, who led the short-lived prosecution of Letitia James after Lindsey Halligan secured an indictment.

Any other weirdness?

Yup. Fellow Missourian Ed Martin—another attorney on special appointment, or in his case appointments, to perform investigations throughout the country—also appears to have some connection to the case: In August, Martin wrote a letter to Robert C.I. McBurney, the superior court judge in Fulton County, requesting his permission to access “the approximately 148,000 absentee ballots and envelopes currently being held at the Fulton County ballot warehouse” as part of “an investigation into election integrity.” Another letter seeking election materials from Fulton County came from a different office in the Justice Department in October—namely, the Civil Rights Division—but didn’t include Martin. But then, in November, Steve Bannon urged Martin to send U.S. marshals to Fulton County to seize ballots.

What do we know about the judge who approved the warrant?

The warrant was approved by Magistrate Judge Catherine Salinas. Magistrate judges are not appointed by the president, but rather by the bench of the district in which they serve. Salinas has been serving in her position since 2015. Her credentials appear to be impressive and, if anything, somewhat liberal from a political standpoint. According to the State Bar of Georgia, she received her undergraduate degree from Emory and her law degree from the University of Texas. Early in her career, she worked as an attorney with Texas Rural Legal Aid along the Mexican border and later, upon returning to Georgia, with the Fulton County Public Defender. She clerked for U.S. District Judge Willis B. Hunt, Jr., who was appointed by President Clinton. Prior to her judicial appointment, she spent ten years as a commercial litigator. She’s a past president of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society and currently chairs the state bar’s Access to Justice Committee.

*  *  *

All these queries we have about the Fulton County search add up to one bigger question: What, ultimately, is the purpose of this probe?

So far, we have only the insinuations of government officials and their allies to go on. Those officials include the president himself, who said at Davos a week before the search: “It was a rigged election. Everybody now knows that. People will soon be prosecuted for what they did.” Then, earlier this week, Trump insinuated at the premiere of a documentary about his wife that he has future elections in mind, too: Asked why Gabbard was present in Fulton County, he said she is “working very hard on trying to keep the election safe…and they got into the votes and you’re going to see some interesting things happening.” So it seems there’s a chance the administration is indeed pursuing one of its farfetched conspiracy theories, “Grand” or not. Or that it’s laying the groundwork for something having to do with future elections—something officials in Fulton County have long feared.

In the meantime, we’re left with the words of FBI Director Kash Patel, who said on Thursday’s episode of “The Charlie Kirk Show” that “these things take time.” Until then, he said, “It’s no longer ‘trust us.’ It’s look at what we’ve done, and we’re going to do the same thing here.”