ABOUT THE FBI RAID ON THE GEORGIA ELECTION OFFICE TODAY
Many were shocked, I tell you, *shocked* to learn of the FBI raid on the Georgia elections offices today. And that is likely because they didn’t know about the lawsuit that the DOJ filed a few weeks ago against the Georgia elections office, United States of America v. Ché Alexander. (Ms. Alexander is the Clerk of Courts for Fulton County, Georgia.)
In case it isn’t blindingly clear, this is Trump using the DOJ to attempt to find facts to support the lawsuit claiming that the 2020 election was stolen. Of course in the real world practice of law, instead of the make believe world of law practice which Trump, Bondi, and others inhabit, you have some facts first and then look to the law to see if they are actionable, not file a lawsuit first and then try to find facts to support it. Apparently Trump STILL hasn’t gotten the memo that one is entitled to one’s own opinion, but *not* entitled to one’s own facts.
It reminds me of the comic strip Eyebeam, by Sam Hurt. One of the ones that I remember to this day is a guy sitting across a desk from Eyebeam, who is a lawyer, and client says “I’m in a bad mood, and I want to sue.” Eyebeam asks him who he wants to sue, and the guy says “Oh, I thought you guys provided that.”
That’s how Trump’s DOJ works – Trump says he’s mad and wants to sue for an imagined slight, and Bondi manufacturers a defendant for him, and then tries to match the facts to Trump’s fiction. It hasn’t worked yet, although they have tried mightily.
And the timeline for *this* particular action, culminating (so far) in the FBI raiding the Georgia elections office tells the story.
Here’s the timeline:
12/11/25 DOJ files Complaint (included for Notes from the Front members) citing the Civil Rights Act (“CRA”) as their pretext for suing the Georgia elections office.
12/11/25 (same day) DOJ files Motion to Dompel Georgia to turn over records (included for Notes from the Front members)
NOTE: it is *extremely* rare for a motion to compel production of, well, anything, to be filed *with the Complaint that starts the lawsuit*, let alone before a request for discovery has actually been filed, or before the responding party has had a chance to respond and, you know, produce a thing.
CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEARS HOLIDAYS HAPPEN
1/5/26 Georgia files Motion to Dismiss (included for Notes from the Front members)(a 12.b.6 motion for you law nerds) for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”, saying, in part:
“2. The purpose of the targeted “investigative” provisions in the CRA is to enable Plaintiff to determine whether state officials engaged in racially discriminatory voter registration practices that interfered with the right to vote.
3. Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, does not seek voter registration materials in connection with alleged civil rights violations. Instead, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks ballots, ballot stubs, and absentee ballot envelopes from the 2020 election. In addition to falling well outside the CRA’s 22-month window, these 2020 election materials have nothing to do with voter registration.”
Along with the Motion to Dismiss, Georgia filed a very well-written and compelling brief (included for Notes from the Front members), blowing holes so wide in the DOJ’s case that Trump himself could fit through them, starting out with this:
“Plaintiff lacks authority under the CRA to demand production of ballots, ballot stubs, and absentee ballot envelopes from the 2020 election. As Plaintiff’s own authorities explain, the CRA targets discriminatory voter registration practices and should be given a “strict and literal” interpretation. Because the requested 2020 election materials have nothing to do with voter registration, the CRA does not apply.”
1/13/26 DOJ files a notice saying that in their similar lawsuit against Connecticut, the Court ordered that Connecticut appear in court to respond as to why the Court should not grant the DOJ’s request in that lawsuit. Note that in that case Connecticut doesn’t even have to *respond* until 3/19/26 (it was originally 1/29/26, but the Court *sua sponte* (remember that means of its own accord) extended the time to give Connecticut enough time to fully respond). The point is, the DOJ is trying to convince the Court that it should grant their motion to compel by saying “See? This other court is planning to hear our identical motion.” Which means exactly nothing. Which the DOJ likely realized, because…
1/20/26 (so just a week ago) the DOJ files what is titled “OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT” (included for Notes from the Front members) but what is *actually* nothing more than a Bondi tantrum, with the following sections:
“MOTIONS TO DISMISS ARE NOT PROPER WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BRINGS A CLAIM UNDER TITLE III
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ENTITLED TO THE DEMANDED RECORDS
STATES CANNOT FRUSTRATE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S INVESTIGATIVE POWERS BY SEALING ELECTION RECORDS”
It’s the legal equivalent of “Give me the documents because I said so!” as she stamps her little Attorney General feet.
Now, it is very important to observe that since the DOJ filed that Bondi tantrum on January 20th there has been NO action by, from, or in the Court. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Deafening silence.
Then, today, the FBI raids the Georgia elections office, and I’m 99.9999% certain that the FBI raid today on the Georgia elections office is *because Bondi knew that the Court was likely to shut them down*, and once shut down, they couldn’t raid the Georgia elections office. It had to be done *before* the Court said anything like “You don’t have a right to these records.”
Notes from the Front members: The Complaint, Motion to Compel, Motion to Dismiss, Brief that accompanied the Motion to Dismiss, and DOJ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter and forever called the Bondi Tantrum) are in your inbox now.
To preserve original source documents before they can be tampered with (remember the 16 documents that mysteriously disappeared from the Epstein files?), and protect myself from claims of improper republication, and trolls, I don’t publicly share documents I find, I make them available privately to Notes from the Front members. Often these are non-public documents for which I have had to pay out of my own pocket in order to share them with you. Others of them may be public but I find the source originals for you and include explanations and insights based on my decades of law practice and as a law professor, with a side of snark. ;~)
You can join below for immediate access to this and other documents, the archives, our private chat, etc.. – it’s $5 a month which both keeps the trolls out, and helps to cover my expenses for our private dropbox, for purchasing transcripts and documents to share with you, etc..
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/about-the-fbi-raid-on-the-georgia
Source