DOJ says Fulton County ballot seizure timeline is secret. But Harmeet Dhillon may have already revealed it

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is claiming key details about its seizure of 2020 election ballots in Fulton County are too sensitive to disclose in court — but one of its top officials may have already laid them out publicly.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon previously described the timeline leading up to the FBI’s ballot seizure in an interview — even as DOJ lawyers now argue that the same information is privileged and cannot be shared in ongoing litigation.

The discrepancy, first flagged by Lawfare, is now drawing new scrutiny in the case.

Fulton County is seeking the return of election records seized during a January FBI raid and has asked the court to require DOJ to provide details about when its criminal investigation began and how it relates to earlier civil efforts to obtain the same materials.

The department has resisted, arguing that such information is protected.

But in the interview — which Dhillon promoted in a February social media post — she outlined a sequence that closely mirrors the theory Fulton County is advancing in court.

According to Dhillon, DOJ first sought the records voluntarily, then filed a civil lawsuit to obtain them. While that case was still pending, she said, “other colleagues” pursued a criminal search warrant based on what they believed was probable cause.

“I first tried to get them voluntarily by letters. I asked for them. The people in possession of these ballots in Fulton County had already defied requests by Georgia election officials and election board to obtain these, so they were already in defiance of state requests,” Dhillon said in the interview. “I then filed a lawsuit. While that case has been pending, which was filed fairly recently, just weeks ago, other colleagues of mine at the Department of Justice learned that they believed they had probable cause to obtain a search warrant regarding potential criminal violations of the law and that is what was executed in the search warrant being executed.”

That sequence is central to Fulton County’s argument.

The county has alleged that the warrant was “pretextual” — a way for DOJ to obtain through criminal process what it had been unable to secure through civil litigation. 

During a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge Jean-Paul Boulee indicated that such a theory, if well supported, could weigh in the county’s favor.

Dhillon’s public comments appear to align with that timeline.

The episode is the latest example of how public statements by Trump DOJ officials — particularly those with active social media presences — are bleeding into active litigation.

Dhillon, a longtime Trump ally who leads the Civil Rights division, has frequently used social media and interviews to discuss department activity, sometimes offering unusually candid insights into ongoing matters.

In this case, those comments may carry legal consequences.

Fulton County has asked the court to compel DOJ to provide more information about the origins and development of the investigation, including when it began and whether officials discussed using a search warrant in response to delays in civil proceedings.

For now, the department maintains those details are privileged. But Dhillon appears to have taken a different view.