There is now substantially more public information about the FBI unit that handled the Mar‑a‑Lago search—primarily the Washington Field Office (WFO)—and about its other Trump‑related investigations, but whether this amounts to proven "prior misconduct" is contested.

1. Identification of the unit and new details about the Mar‑a‑Lago search

• The redacted search‑warrant affidavit, released after the podcast in late August 2022, confirmed that the affidavit was sworn by an FBI agent in the Washington Field Office, clarifying that WFO rather than the Miami Field Office played the lead role. (theguardian.com)
• Subsequent reporting, such as a 2023 Washington Post piece, described internal FBI debates and reluctance by some field agents to pursue aggressive steps against Trump, citing a “hangover of Crossfire Hurricane” (the 2016 Trump‑Russia probe) and fear that investigating Trump could damage careers. (washingtonpost.com)
• Former WFO chief Steven D’Antuono later told congressional investigators it was unusual for WFO—not the Miami Field Office—to run the search, and he criticized aspects of DOJ’s handling, explicitly connecting his concerns to lessons learned from Crossfire Hurricane. (clintonfoundationtimeline.com) These are real new details about how that unit conducted the search, consistent with Sacks’s view that “there’s still more to come out.”

2. Information about prior Trump‑related investigations by the same field office

• Crossfire Hurricane (the 2016 Trump‑Russia case) had already been heavily scrutinized before August 2022. The DOJ inspector general’s 2019 report found 17 significant errors and omissions in FISA applications involving Trump adviser Carter Page, and special counsel John Durham’s 2023 report reiterated that the FBI and DOJ “failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law,” although it largely re‑hashed known problems and recommended no major structural changes. (en.wikipedia.org) These issues involved FBI headquarters and earlier teams and were not new revelations about the specific WFO unit that carried out the Mar‑a‑Lago search.

• More directly tied to WFO, in 2025 Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson released internal documents about Operation Arctic Frost, a 2022 FBI counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election that was opened and run out of the Washington Field Office. (en.wikipedia.org) Their materials allege that WFO Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Timothy Thibault improperly opened and approved the case himself (a claimed breach of FBI protocol) and that his prior anti‑Trump social‑media activity showed political bias—characterizing this as serious misconduct. (grassley.senate.gov) However:

  • The same documentary record (e.g., the Arctic Frost summary and independent commentary) notes that DOJ leadership formally approved the investigation and that some experts say its opening was consistent with FBI/DOJ policy. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • As of November 2025, no inspector general report or court ruling has formally found Arctic Frost or the WFO unit to be unlawful or in violation of binding rules; the strongest condemnations come from political actors (Trump officials, Grassley, Johnson, etc.), and the FBI and Jack Smith’s team have defended the investigation as lawful. (en.wikipedia.org)

3. Assessment of the prediction

• Sacks’s narrow statement—“I think there’s still more to come out about this”—is clearly borne out: we have considerably more detail today about the FBI Washington Field Office’s role in the Mar‑a‑Lago search and its involvement in other Trump‑related probes.
• The normalized stronger version of the prediction—that future revelations would show prior misconduct by that unit in investigations involving Trump—is only partially and controversially supported:
  • There are now detailed public allegations and internal documents suggesting protocol breaches and bias in a WFO‑run Trump investigation (Arctic Frost), which critics and some officials explicitly label as misconduct. (grassley.senate.gov)
  • But these claims remain hotly disputed, and no neutral adjudicator (court or inspector general) has definitively classified the WFO’s conduct as misconduct.

Because the existence of additional significant information is unquestionable, but the central question—whether it definitively establishes “prior misconduct” by the Mar‑a‑Lago unit—depends on contested, partisan interpretations rather than settled findings, the fulfillment of the normalized prediction cannot be cleanly scored as simply right or wrong. Hence the judgment here is ambiguous.