ReportWire

Tag: classified documents

  • Trump’s Classified Documents Case Set For First Pretrial Conference Hearing

    Trump’s Classified Documents Case Set For First Pretrial Conference Hearing

    FORT PIERCE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida judge who issued a court ruling last year that critics said was unduly favorable to Donald Trump is set to preside Tuesday over the first pretrial conference in his landmark criminal case concerning the mishandling of classified documents.

    Prosecutors and defense lawyers are scheduled to appear before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to discuss the rules and procedures that will govern how classified evidence is used in the case. It’s a routine subject for any prosecution that concerns classified information, but it’s notable because it will be Cannon’s first time hearing arguments in the case since the former president’s indictment last month.

    At issue during Tuesday’s arguments is a 1980 law known as the Classified Information Procedures Act. That statute governs how classified information is handled by the parties in a criminal prosecution. It’s meant to balance a defendant’s right to access evidence that prosecutors intend to use in a case against the government’s interest in safeguarding sensitive and secret information.

    In this image from video provided by the U.S. Senate, Aileen M. Cannon speaks remotely during a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight nomination hearing to be U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 29, 2020, in Washington.

    Ahead of the pretrial conference, special counsel Jack Smith’s team asked Cannon on Monday to enter a protective order that would, in part, restrict the ability of defense lawyers to share with Trump and his codefendant and aide, Walt Nauta, classified information in the case. In seeking the order, prosecutors wrote that defense lawyers have told them “that they intend to object to certain provisions of the proposed protective order, but did not specify any such provisions.”

    Trump and Nauta have pleaded not guilty to a 38-count indictment that accuses them of conspiring to hide classified documents from Justice Department investigators that were taken from the White House to Mar-a-Lago at the end of Trump’s time in office in January 2021.

    Neither Trump nor Nauta is expected to attend Tuesday’s hearing.

    Another unresolved issue that could come up Tuesday is the trial date. Prosecutors have proposed that the trial begin Dec. 11, while lawyers for Trump, who is pursuing the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, have suggested that it be postponed until after the election.

    Cannon also presided over a lawsuit that the Trump team filed last year over the August 2022 FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. Cannon drew criticism and second-guessing from legal experts for granting Trump’s request for a special master to conduct an independent review of the classified documents removed by the FBI from Mar-a-Lago.

    A three-judge federal appeals court later overruled that order and said she had lacked the authority for such a ruling.

    Tucker reported from Washington.

    Source link

  • Trump Roasted For Making Up A Law ‘Out Of Thin Air’ About Classified Documents

    Trump Roasted For Making Up A Law ‘Out Of Thin Air’ About Classified Documents

    Legal experts and critics lashed Donald Trump over the weekend after he fabricated a law he claimed gives presidents the “absolute and unquestioned right” to take any documents when they leave office.

    The former president made the claim during a speech at the conservative Turning Point Action Conference in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday.

    While railing against last month’s federal Espionage Act indictment over his handling of classified documents taken from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago estate, Trump claimed: “Whatever documents a president decides to take with him, he has the absolute and unquestioned right to do so.”

    “This was a law that was passed and signed,” he insisted. “And it couldn’t be more clear.”

    Legal experts did not agree. Laurence Tribe, a legal scholar and Harvard University professor emeritus, said “no such law exists.”

    National security attorney Bradley P. Moss said it was an illegitimate argument that would fail in court. “It’s a political talking point. That’s all,” he tweeted.

    Trump has made similar claims in the past. Last month, he argued that a president leaving office has the “absolute right to keep [documents] or he can give them back to NARA if he wants,” referring to the National Archives and Records Administration.

    His assertions have been repeatedly debunked by legal experts, who noted that the Presidential Records Act Trump has cited in his defense actually states the opposite. The 1978 law requires records created by presidents and vice presidents to be turned over to NARA at the end of their administrations.

    Trump has also claimed he could take any documents he wanted because he had a “standing order” to automatically declassify any documents he took from the White House ― a claim that has been contradicted by many high-ranking members of his own administration, the relevant federal agencies and his own comments on a 2021 tape obtained by CNN.

    His latest fiction drew backlash and ridicule online:

    Source link

  • Trump Reacts To Audio Of Him Discussing Sensitive Document

    Trump Reacts To Audio Of Him Discussing Sensitive Document

    Former President Donald Trump responded with fury Monday after CNN published an audio file of him discussing a sensitive military document he kept after leaving the White House, saying the recording actually exonerates him and reflects an ongoing witch hunt at the Justice Department.

    “The Deranged Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, working in conjunction with the DOJ & FBI, illegally leaked and ‘spun’ a tape and transcript of me which is actually an exoneration, rather than what they would have you believe,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “This continuing Witch Hunt is another ELECTION INTERFERENCE Scam. They are cheaters and thugs!”

    CNN was the first to publish the 2-minute audio earlier in the day, a key bit of evidence in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president. In the clip, Trump references a document he says was compiled by Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he was president, on potential attacks against Iran.

    “They presented me this ― this is off the record, but ― they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him,” Trump says of Milley in the audio as papers are heard shuffling in the background.

    He then tells his guests the documents were classified, saying the papers were “highly confidential” and “secret.”

    “See, as president I could have declassified it,” Trump added. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

    Trump was arraigned on 37 criminal charges earlier this month related to his handling of classified files after he left the White House and his alleged efforts to obstruct the government’s attempts to see those documents returned.

    The former president has rejected the charges and pleaded not guilty on all counts earlier this month. He has repeatedly claimed he had the right to take anything he wanted from the White House and that he had a standing order to declassify anything that left the Oval Office.

    But the latest audio appears to undercut those claims as he acknowledges the secret nature of the files he had with him.

    Source link

  • ‘This Is Still Secret:’ CNN Obtains Audio Of Trump Discussing Sensitive Military Document

    ‘This Is Still Secret:’ CNN Obtains Audio Of Trump Discussing Sensitive Military Document

    CNN obtained audio of former President Donald Trump discussing sensitive military documents he took with him after leaving the White House.

    In the 2-minute audio clip, Trump can be heard describing a document compiled by Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Trump was president, on the potential attacks against Iran. The discussion of the file was recorded during a 2021 meeting in Bedminster, New Jersey, with people working on Milley’s memoir.

    “He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn’t it amazing?” Trump says of Milley in the audio clip as the sound is heard of that appears to be shuffling papers. “I have a big pile of papers. This thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this ― this is off the record, but ― they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.”

    “All sorts of stuff, pages long. Let’s see here,” the former president continues. “Isn’t that amazing. This totally wins my case, you know, except that it is like highly confidential, secret, this is secret information.”

    Trump went on to say the papers he was showing his guest were classified.

    “See, as president I could have declassified it,” Trump said in the clip. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

    Trump also joked with several people in the room after his aides laughed about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server, saying she would “print that out all the time.”

    “No,” Trump added, “she’d send it to Anthony Weiner, the pervert,” referring to the former Democratic congressman who resigned after it was revealed he sent explicit texts.

    The recording is reportedly a key piece of evidence in special counsel Jack Smith’s case into Trump’s handling of classified files after his presidency.

    Federal prosecutors indicted Trump on 37 criminal counts this month, accusing the former president of repeatedly risking national security and undermining the government’s efforts to see the return of boxes of documents from his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. The indictment cites the conversation obtained by CNN.

    Trump has rejected the claims and pleaded not guilty to all counts. He has said he had the absolute right to take anything he wanted when he left the White House under the Presidential Records Act and that he had a standing order to declassify anything removed from the Oval Office during his presidency.

    Prosecutors, however, appear to have homed in on Trump’s own words during their investigation. The indictment lays out at least two conversations — including the one in the CNN file — in which he acknowledged material in his possession was still classified.

    U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the case, set an initial trial date of Aug. 14. The Justice Department has asked for a postponement until December, a timeline that would give Trump’s attorneys time to obtain security clearances necessary to review the hoard of classified files referenced in the indictment.

    Source link

  • Justice Department Asks For Lengthy Postponement In Trial Of Donald Trump

    Justice Department Asks For Lengthy Postponement In Trial Of Donald Trump

    U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon earlier this week set an initial trial date of Aug. 14 for Trump, who faces 37 felony counts accusing him of illegally hoarding classified documents and obstructing Justice Department efforts to get them back.

    Prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s team asked Cannon to reschedule the trial for Dec. 11. They said the delay was necessary because the case involves classified information and will require Trump’s lawyers to obtain security clearances, a process that is underway.

    But, they said in their Friday filing, “Even with the prompt production the government has arranged, the inclusion of additional time for defense counsel to review and digest the discovery, to make their own decisions about any production to the government, and for the government to review the same, is reasonable and appropriate.”

    The Justice Department said Trump’s lawyers do not object to pushing the trial date back. The judge will ultimately set the trial date.

    Source link

  • Ex-FBI Analyst Gets 46 Months Behind Bars For Same Charge Trump Faces

    Ex-FBI Analyst Gets 46 Months Behind Bars For Same Charge Trump Faces

    A former FBI intelligence analyst charged with the same violation of the Espionage Act as former President Donald Trump was sentenced this week to nearly four years in prison by a Missouri federal judge.

    Kendra Kingsbury admitted in 2017 to having more than 380 classified documents in her home in digital and physical formats while she was employed by the FBI’s Kansas City division, court records show. She held the highest level of security clearance available during her more than 12 years at the agency.

    Kingsbury was indicted in May 2021 on two counts of having willfully retained national defense information — a violation of Title 18 U.S.C., Section 793(e) — and pleaded guilty last October.

    Trump is currently facing 31 counts of violating Title 18 U.S.C., Section 793(e); he faces a total of 37 charges.

    Judge Stephen R. Bough, an Obama appointee, sentenced Kingsbury to three years and 10 months behind bars.

    “I cannot fathom why you would jeopardize our nation by leaving these types of documents in your bathtub,” Bough told her in court, according to the Kansas City Star.

    Prosecutors had asked for four years and nine months, while Kingsbury’s attorney, Marc Ermine, asked only for probation, citing problems in his client’s personal life that allegedly contributed to her poor judgment.

    Court records show that Kingsbury had been assigned to a series of “different FBI ‘squads,’ each of which had a particular focus, such as illegal drug trafficking, violent crime, violent gangs and counterintelligence.”

    The records she was accused of keeping improperly related to “specific open investigations across multiple field offices,” “sensitive human source operations in national security investigations,” “intelligence gaps regarding hostile foreign intelligence services and terrorist organizations,” including information about al Qaeda, and “the technical capabilities of the FBI against counterintelligence and counterterrorism targets.”

    Prosecutors said that an investigation into “what uses the defendant put to the classified documents she illegally removed from the secure workspace,” revealed “more questions and concerns than answers.”

    Trump has pleaded not guilty to the dozens of charges against him, claiming in an interview after his arraignment that he was allowed to have the documents. Photographs included in his indictment showed how the former president kept stacks of banker’s boxes in various rooms of his Florida golf resort, including an ornate bathroom.

    Source link

  • What It Would Take to Beat Trump in the Primaries

    What It Would Take to Beat Trump in the Primaries

    This should be a window of widening opportunity and optimism for the Republicans chasing Donald Trump, the commanding front-runner in the 2024 GOP presidential race.

    Instead, this is a time of mounting uncertainty and unease.

    Rather than undermine Trump’s campaign, his indictment last week for mishandling classified documents has underscored how narrow a path is available for the candidates hoping to deny him the nomination. What should have been a moment of political danger for Trump instead has become another stage for him to demonstrate his dominance within the party. Almost all GOP leaders have reflexively snapped to his defense, and polls show that most Republican voters accept his vitriolic claims to be the victim of a politicized and illegitimate prosecution.

    As GOP partisans rally around him amid the proliferating legal threats, recent national surveys have routinely found Trump attracting support from more than 50 percent of primary voters. Very few primary candidates in either party have ever drawn that much support in polls this early in the calendar. In an equally revealing measure of his strength, the choice by most of the candidates running against Trump to echo his attacks on the indictment shows how little appetite even they believe exists within the party coalition for a full-on confrontation with him.

    The conundrum for Republicans is that polls measuring public reaction to Trump’s legal difficulties have also found that outside the Republican coalition, a significant majority of voters are disturbed by the allegations accumulating against him. Beyond the GOP base, most voters have said in polls that they believe his handling of classified material has created a national-security risk and that he should not serve as president again if he’s convicted of a crime. Such negative responses from the broader electorate suggest that Trump’s legal challenges are weakening him as a potential general-election candidate even as they strengthen him in the primary. It’s as if Republican leaders and voters can see a tornado on the horizon—and are flooring the gas pedal to reach it faster.

    This far away from the first caucuses and primaries next winter—and about two months from the first debate in August—the other candidates correctly argue that it’s too soon to declare Trump unbeatable for the nomination.

    Republicans skeptical of Trump hold out hope that GOP voters will grow weary from the cumulative weight of the multiple legal proceedings converging on him. And he still faces potential federal and Fulton County Georgia charges over his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

    Republican voters “are going to start asking who else is out there, who has a cleaner record, and who is not going to have the constant political volleying going on in the background of their campaign,” Dave Wilson, a prominent Republican and social-conservative activist in South Carolina, told me. “They are looking for someone they can rally behind, because Republicans really want to defeat Joe Biden.”

    Scott Reed was the campaign manager in 1996 for Bob Dole’s presidential campaign and is now a co-chair of Committed to America, a super PAC supporting Mike Pence. Reed told me he also believes that “time is Trump’s enemy” as his legal troubles persist. The belief in GOP circles that “the Department of Justice is totally out of control” offers Trump an important shield among primary voters, Reed said. But he believes that as the details about Trump’s handling of classified documents in the latest indictment “sink in … his support is going to begin to erode.” And as more indictments possibly accumulate, Reed added, “I think the repetition of these proceedings will wear him down.”

    Yet other strategists say that the response so far among both GOP voters and elected officials raises doubts about whether any legal setback can undermine Trump’s position. (The party’s bottomless willingness throughout his presidency to defend actions that previously had appeared indefensible, of course, points toward the same conclusion.) The veteran GOP pollster Whit Ayres has divided the GOP electorate into three categories: about 10 percent that is “never Trump,” about 35 percent that is immovably committed to him, and about half that he describes as “maybe Trump,” who are generally sympathetic to the former president and supportive of his policies but uneasy about some of his personal actions and open to an alternative.

    Those “maybe Trump” voters are the key to any coalition that can beat him in the primary race, Ayres told me, but as the polls demonstrate, they flock to his side when he’s under attack. “Many of them had conflict with siblings, with parents, sometimes with children, sometimes even with spouses, about their support for Donald Trump,” Ayres said. “And they are very defensive about it. That makes them instinctively rally to Donald Trump’s defense, because if they suggest in any way that he is not fit for office, then that casts aspersions on their own past support for him.”

    This reflex helps explain the paradoxical dynamic of Trump’s position having improved in the GOP race since his first indictment in early April. A national CBS survey conducted after last week’s federal indictment found his support in the primary soaring past 60 percent for the first time, with three-fourths of Republican voters dismissing the charges as politically motivated and four-fifths saying he should serve as president even if convicted in the case.

    The Republicans dubious of Trump focus more on the evidence in the same surveys that voters outside the GOP base are, predictably, disturbed by the behavior alleged in the multiplying cases against him. Trump argues that Democrats are concocting these allegations because they fear him more than any other Republican candidate, but Wilson accurately pointed out that many Democrats believe Trump has been so damaged since 2020 that he might be the easiest GOP nominee to beat. “I don’t think Democrats really want someone other than Trump,” Wilson said. Privately, in my conversations with them, plenty of Democratic strategists agree.

    Ayres believes that evidence of the resistance to Trump in the wider electorate may eventually cause more GOP voters to think twice about nominating him. Polls have usually found that most Republican voters say agreement on issues is more important for them in choosing a nominee than electability. But Ayres said that in focus groups he’s conducted, “maybe Trump” voters do spontaneously raise concerns about whether Trump can win again given everything that’s happened since Election Day, including the January 6 insurrection. “Traditionally an electability argument is ineffective in primaries,” Ayres said. “The way the dynamic usually works is ‘I like Candidate X, therefore Candidate X has the best chance to win.’ The question is whether the electability argument is more potent in this situation than it was formerly … and the only answer to that is: We will find out.” One early measure suggests that, for now, the answer remains no. In the new CBS poll, Republicans were more bullish on Trump’s chances of winning next year than on any other candidate’s.

    Another reason the legal proceedings haven’t hurt Trump more is that his rivals have been so reluctant to challenge him over his actions—or even to make the argument that multiple criminal trials would weaken him as a general-election candidate. But there are some signs that this may be changing: Pence, Nikki Haley, and Tim Scott this week somewhat criticized his behavior, though they were careful to also endorse the former president’s core message that the most recent indictment is illegitimate and politically motivated. Some strategists working in the race believe that by the first Republican debate in August, the other candidates will have assailed Trump’s handling of the classified documents more explicitly than they are now.

    Still, Trump’s fortifications inside the party remain formidable against even a more direct assault. Jim McLaughlin, a pollster for Trump’s campaign, points out that 85 to 90 percent of Republicans approve of his record as president. In 2016, Trump didn’t win an absolute majority of the vote in any contest until his home state of New York, after he had effectively clinched the nomination; now he’s routinely drawing majority support in polls.

    In those new national polls, Trump is consistently attracting about 35 to 40 percent of Republican voters with a four-year college degree or more, roughly the same limited portion he drew in 2016. But multiple recent surveys have found him winning about 60 percent of Republican voters without a college degree, considerably more than he did in 2016.

    McLaughlin maintains that Trump’s bond with non-college-educated white voters in a GOP primary is as deep as Bill Clinton’s “connection with Black voters” was when he won the Democratic primaries a generation ago. Ayres, though no fan of Trump, agrees that the numbers he’s posting among Republicans without a college degree are “breathtaking.” That strength may benefit Trump even more than in 2016, because polling indicates that those non-college-educated white voters will make up an even bigger share of the total GOP vote next year, as Trump has attracted more of them into the party and driven out more of the suburban white-collar white voters most skeptical of him.

    But if Trump looks stronger inside the GOP than he was in 2016, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis may also present a more formidable challenger than Trump faced seven years ago. On paper, DeSantis has more potential than any of the 2016 contenders to attract the moderate and college-educated voters most dubious of Trump and peel away some of the right-leaning “maybe Trump” voters who like his policies but not his behavior. The optimistic way of looking at Trump’s imposing poll numbers, some GOP strategists opposed to him told me, is that he’s functionally the incumbent in the race and still about half of primary voters remain reluctant to back him. That gives DeSantis an audience to work with.

    In practice, though, DeSantis has struggled to find his footing. DeSantis’s choice to run at Trump primarily from his right has so far produced few apparent benefits for him. DeSantis’s positioning has caused some donors and strategists to question whether he would be any more viable in a general election, but it has not yet shown signs of siphoning away conservative voters from Trump. Still, the fact that DeSantis’s favorability among Republicans has remained quite high amid the barrage of attacks from Trump suggests that if GOP voters ultimately decide that Trump is too damaged, the Florida governor could remain an attractive fallback option for them.

    Whether DeSantis or someone else emerges as the principal challenger, the size of Trump’s advantage underscores how crucial it will be to trip him early. Like earlier front-runners in both parties, Trump’s greatest risk may be that another candidate upsets him in one of the traditional first contests of Iowa and New Hampshire. Throughout the history of both parties’ nomination contests, such a surprise defeat has tended to reset the race most powerfully when the front-runner looks the most formidable, as Trump does now. “If Trump is not stopped in Iowa or New Hampshire, he will roll to the nomination,” Reed said.

    Even if someone beats Trump in one of those early contests, though, history suggests that they will still have their work cut out for them. In every seriously contested Republican primary since 1980, the front-runner as the voting began has been beaten in either Iowa or New Hampshire. That unexpected defeat has usually exposed the early leader to a more difficult and unpredictable race than he expected. But the daunting precedent for Trump’s rivals is that all those front-runners—from Ronald Reagan in 1980 to George W. Bush in 2000 to Trump himself in 2016—recovered to eventually win the nomination. In his time as a national figure, Trump has shattered a seemingly endless list of political traditions. But to beat him next year, his GOP rivals will need to shatter a precedent of their own.

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Judge Aileen Cannon Is A Wildcard In Trump Documents Trial — And It’s Causing Controversy

    Judge Aileen Cannon Is A Wildcard In Trump Documents Trial — And It’s Causing Controversy

    Aileen Cannon, the U.S. district judge appointed to oversee former President Donald Trump’s trial over his handling of classified documents, faces heavy scrutiny after her previous decision favoring Trump in a related case was overturned and found to be riddled with errors.

    Democrats in Congress have called for Cannon to recuse herself from overseeing the case against the former president on 37 felony counts, which include mishandling classified documents, obstruction and making false statements, because of her previous favorable disposition toward him.

    “I’m very concerned about her prior rulings and her potential mindset in this case,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “In the interests of justice, she might well consider recusing herself.”

    “The standard … is whether it would cause a reasonable person to question the integrity and impartiality of the proceedings, and I think she has come very close to completely discrediting her own potential impartiality and objectivity with respect to Donald Trump, so that would be the wiser way for her to go, but obviously that’s up to her,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.

    In this video image provided by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Aileen Cannon testifies virtually during her nomination hearing on July 29, 2020. She was nominated by President Donald Trump to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, with her confirmation coming a week after Trump lost the presidential election.

    Senate Judiciary Committee via Associated Press

    Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he was “concerned” about her selection as the trial judge for this case but hopes “that she really does her very best to be neutral and a good judge.”

    Trump was arraigned at a Miami federal courtroom on Tuesday and pleaded not guilty to all charges against him.

    Cannon, one of the youngest and least experienced federal judges, was nominated by Trump for the U.S. District Court seat in 2020 and confirmed a few days after Trump lost the election. She came into the spotlight in September 2022 after she released an opinion that temporarily suspended the investigation into Trump’s possession of classified documents following an FBI search of his residence at the Mar-a-Lago private club in Florida. Her opinion ordered investigators not use the seized classified documents until a special master appointed by her reviewed the documents, as Trump’s lawyers had requested.

    In doing so, she declared that Trump, as a former president, faced “reputational harm” of a “decidedly different order of magnitude” than another person who faced a similar search, seizure and potential indictment. Trump is again seeking the presidency in the 2024 election.

    A panel of two Trump nominees and one Barack Obama nominee on the U.S. Circuit Court for the 11th District overturned Cannon’s opinion in strong terms later in September. In repeatedly noting Cannon’s multiple errors and omissions, the court declared that “the district court abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over [Trump’s] motion as it concerns the classified documents.”

    The strong rebuke revealed Cannon’s decision to be a sop to Trump. This is what tarnished her reputation as potentially biased in favor of the president who nominated her to the federal bench. And now, by random assignment, Cannon will have power to help Trump again. She was randomly assigned the case from a pool of five available judges within the U.S. District Court that hears cases in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

    Her appointment produced a broad outcry from Democrats and legal observers across the political spectrum, who worried that her previous flawed decision after the Mar-a-Lago FBI search showed that she could not appear as an unbiased judge in another case involving Trump.

    “Given the importance of this case, perhaps the most important criminal trial in the history of the United States — certainly the most watched — and in light of what Judge Cannon did in the search-and-seizure case last year, I think she must step aside,” Stephen Gillers, an expert on judicial ethics at the New York University School of Law, told The New Yorker.

    “For a case as important as this one, it’s critical to have a judge who is experienced, smart, and impartial,” Michael Bromwich, a former Department of Justice inspector general and lawyer for the independent counsel in the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 1980s, tweeted. “Judge Cannon fails on each of these dimensions. If she has any self-awareness, she should recuse herself.”

    This isn’t to say that she will be biased in her second go-around hearing arguments on Trump’s alleged illegal retention of classified documents.

    Former President Donald Trump waves as he makes a visit to the Cuban restaurant Versailles in Miami after he pleaded not guilty to 37 federal charges on Tuesday.
    Former President Donald Trump waves as he makes a visit to the Cuban restaurant Versailles in Miami after he pleaded not guilty to 37 federal charges on Tuesday.

    Alon Skuy via Getty Images

    “There is a need for caution in terms of people’s hyperbole regarding the likelihood that Judge Cannon will preside over this prosecution,” Bradley Moss, a lawyer who specializes in national security cases, said via email. “The earlier procedural matters before her were different in terms of nature (they were civil) and substance (it was only about a Special Master review).”

    Still, the presiding judge in a trial like this one does have significant leeway to delay or derail a prosecution if they so desire.

    There are questions of what evidence will be allowed to be admitted into court. Trump’s lawyers have already sought to strike testimony and evidence from Trump’ ex-lawyer Evan Corcoran as a violation of attorney-client privilege. They are also likely to challenge everything from the legality of the search warrant to the ability of Trump to hold the government documents in question under the Presidential Records Act.

    In each instance, Cannon will be able to rule on what evidence can be admitted and whose testimony can be heard. If she sides with Trump, the prosecution can appeal, but that will create further delays as campaigning for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination is already underway.

    Cannon can also influence the case during the jury selection process. Since trial judges have a lot of leeway to call out potential juror bias, Cannon could pack the jury with people who are sympathetic to Trump. With the jury needing to reach a unanimous verdict, even one biased juror could cause a mistrial.

    Any and all of these decisions could be appealed by the prosecution. And evidence of favoritism toward Trump could lead to a later request for Cannon’s recusal.

    “If she was acting out of the traditional bounds of what are very commonplace procedures, the 11th Circuit and the prosecutors would note it very quickly,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Still, this all threatens to drag out the proceedings.

    “While the odds are not in Mr. Trump’s favor on any of those issues, judges can be wild cards and there is always the possibility that the government will be forced to seek immediate appellate review of any adverse pre-trial rulings,” Moss said in an email. “If nothing more, that review could further delay the start of a trial and risk pushing it back until after the 2024 election.”

    That works to Trump’s benefit. He wants to delay a verdict as long as possible because his indictment now stalls all other ongoing investigations. More important, he hopes that he can win the 2024 election and, once in the White House again, he would be protected from prosecution and could even attempt to pardon himself.

    Source link

  • Will Trump Get a Speedy Trial?

    Will Trump Get a Speedy Trial?

    Settle in, America: This could take a while.

    When Special Counsel Jack Smith announced last week that a federal grand jury had indicted former President Donald Trump, he made a point of saying that the government would “seek a speedy trial in this matter, consistent with the public interest.” Whether Trump gets one could determine whether he goes to prison for his alleged crimes.

    In just over 18 months, Trump could be serving as president again, at which point he’d be in a position to attempt to pardon himself or instruct the Department of Justice to dismiss its case against him. That might seem like a long way away, but for the nation’s tortoiselike federal-court system, it’s not. Complex, high-profile cases sometimes take years to get to trial, and former federal prosecutors told me that, even under the fastest scenarios, Trump’s trial won’t begin for several months and potentially for more than a year. Trump may well be waiting for a trial when voters cast their presidential ballots next fall. Although Smith will do all he can to hurry up the prosecution, the former president’s legal team could move to dismiss the charges—though that would almost certainly be futile—and file other pretrial motions in order to bog down the process.

    “There’s a pretty obvious incentive from [Trump’s] point of view for delaying this,” Kristy Parker, a lawyer at the advocacy group Protect Democracy who tried cases for 15 years at the Justice Department, told me. “That is especially true if he understands that the evidence against him is significant and that the chances of him being convicted of these offenses are pretty high.”

    Different federal courts operate at different speeds. The Eastern District of Virginia, for example, has long been known as “the rocket docket”; it’s raced through even high-profile cases such as the 2018 trial of Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort. Trump’s trial will occur in the Southern District of Florida and will reportedly be overseen by one of his own appointees, Judge Aileen Cannon. “Federal judges have enormous control over their courtrooms and over the schedule and timing of their cases,” Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney in Virginia and Texas, told me. “Some are very good at docket management, and some are not.” Having served as a judge for less than three years, Cannon hasn’t developed much of a reputation either way.

    Cannon presided over a lawsuit Trump filed last year after the FBI executed a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago estate. She issued a series of rulings favorable to him. Representative Dan Goldman, a New York Democrat and a former federal prosecutor who served as a top counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, told me it was “concerning” that Cannon would apparently run the former president’s trial. “It was pretty clear that her initial rulings did not follow the law but followed some preconceived personal and political viewpoints, and there’s no place for that in the judiciary,” Goldman said. Indeed, the conservative Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a pair of Cannon’s decisions, including one that barred the government from accessing some of the documents that the FBI recovered from Mar-a-Lago.

    Another former Democratic co-counsel during the Trump impeachment, Norm Eisen, has called for Cannon to recuse herself or be taken off the case.

    If Cannon stays on the case, she will have fairly wide latitude to set its tempo. She will be responsible for scheduling any pretrial motions and hearings, determining what evidence is admissible, and ruling on potentially time-intensive challenges that Trump’s lawyers could bring.

    In their indictment, the prosecutors estimated that a trial would take 21 days in court—not an especially long trial for a case of such magnitude. The timeline suggests the government believes it has a pretty “straightforward” argument, Parker said.

    The fact that this case centers on documents Trump had in his possession—illegally, the government argues—means that he may have already seen a significant portion of the evidence the Justice Department has on him. Theoretically, that could speed up the discovery process that occurs before any trial. But cases that involve classified documents tend to take longer, former prosecutors told me, because the court will have to determine who can access sensitive materials and how to protect government secrets before and during a trial. Most of the pretrial rulings that Cannon could make are subject to appeal, and those delays can quickly add up.

    Another scheduling complication is that Trump is facing another criminal trial, in New York, on charges that he falsified business records, and he could face yet another indictment and trial in Georgia related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s Manhattan trial is scheduled for March, which would be about 10 months after his indictment in that case and right in the middle of the Republican primary season. (Although the cases are in different jurisdictions, the 10-month lag could be a rough guide for how long Trump’s federal trial will take to get under way.)

    One of the biggest questions Cannon may face is whether the election should factor into her decisions about how soon to schedule a trial and whether to agree to delays that Trump might seek. Parker argued that the election is a legitimate consideration. “We are in uncharted territory,” she said, “and quite frankly, I would think that a court would want to try to get this matter resolved ahead of that point.” Even if Trump’s trial concludes before the 2024 election, however, it’s unlikely that (if he’s convicted) his appeals will be exhausted by then.

    The former prosecutors I spoke with could only guess at what would happen if Trump were elected president while awaiting trial or sentencing. The case would likely proceed after the election, and the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bar convicted felons from taking office. Whether Trump could pardon himself is a matter of debate; no president has ever tried, but in 1974, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion stating that a presidential self-pardon would be unconstitutional. Even if Trump did not attempt to pardon himself, though, he could lean on or simply direct his appointees in the Justice Department to drop the case against him. He’d surely argue that, by electing him, voters had rendered a verdict more legitimate than any jury’s.

    For all the legal wrangling to come, Trump’s ultimate fate may yet rest with the voters. If he is the Republican nominee, they will have what amounts to the final word on his future, political and otherwise. “These cases are important, but they are not magic wands,” Parker said. “They will not relieve the voting public of its problems.”

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • Trump Faces Difficult Odds In Classified Documents Case

    Trump Faces Difficult Odds In Classified Documents Case

    (Reuters) – Donald Trump faces a formidable task defending against charges that he illegally kept top-secret documents upon leaving the White House in 2021, according to legal experts, who said neither the law nor the facts appear to be on his side.

    The former U.S. president, who is a candidate to run again in the 2024 election, was charged in an indictment unsealed in Florida federal court on Friday. The 37 counts against him include violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice conspiracy and false statements.

    National security law experts were struck by the breadth of evidence in the indictment which includes documents, photos, text messages, audio and witness statements. They said this made a strong case for prosecutors’ allegation that Trump illegally took the documents and then tried to cover it up.

    “The details are pretty shocking in terms of the carelessness with which these documents were handled, and the concerted effort to keep them out of the hands of the FBI,” said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security law expert at the Brennan Center for Justice.

    Trump’s lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump has proclaimed his innocence and called the case a “witch hunt” orchestrated by political enemies.

    “There was no crime, except for what the DOJ and FBI have been doing against me for years,” he wrote on his Truth Social platform on Friday.

    Trump’s greatest peril could lie in the conspiracy to obstruct justice charges, which carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

    Legal experts said the evidence appears to show that Trump was aware he had documents in his possession that were subject to a subpoena but refused to turn them over and encouraged his lawyers to mislead the FBI.

    “That’s about as clear a case of obstruction as you could imagine,” said Clark Neily, a legal expert at the conservative Cato Institute.

    Obstruction of justice is a particularly difficult charge to defend against, attorney Mark MacDougall said. “It offends people. Hiding things from a lawful legal process. Most people understand why that’s a crime,” he said.

    Legal experts said Trump’s alleged years-long effort to conceal documents was likely a major factor in special counsel Jack Smith’s decision to indict him.

    ‘WORSE THAN THE CRIME’

    During the investigation, Trump’s lawyers told the FBI that they had turned over all classified documents in their possession, which was false. They deny intentionally misleading investigators.

    “This is a situation where the coverup is worse than the crime,” the Brennan Center’s Goitein said. “If he had only been negligent, no charges would have been brought.”

    The conspiracy element makes the obstruction charges far more serious, and all prosecutors must prove is that Trump worked with another person to try to hinder the investigation, regardless of whether they succeeded.

    Cato’s Neily said that based on his reading of the indictment, prosecutors likely have many witnesses who have given them similar accounts of Trump’s efforts.

    Trump has claimed he declassified the documents before taking them. That assertion is undercut by a taped conversation cited in the indictment, which said Trump showed a secret document to several people and said that he “could have declassified it” as president but did not.

    But the classification issue will likely end up being irrelevant. Prosecutors charged Trump under the Espionage Act, a World War One-era law that predates classification and criminalizes only the unauthorized retention of “national defense information.”

    National defense information does not need to be classified to be covered by that law, national security law experts said. The information need only be useful to the nation’s adversaries and be closely held by the government.

    “Let’s say all of the documents were declassified. The Espionage Act does not care,” said Georgetown University law professor Todd Huntley.

    COULD TRUMP PARDON HIMSELF?

    However, Trump does have some potentially successful strategies. His lawyers could challenge witness accounts, blame others or argue he was following the advice of his attorneys and did not intend to break the law.

    If it goes to trial, a Florida jury would hear the case since that is where the special counsel sought the indictment. In the conservative-leaning state, Trump would need only one juror to oppose his conviction for there to be a mistrial.

    His defense team could also file motions that would delay a trial until after the November 2024 election. Legal experts disagree over whether Trump could pardon himself if he wins.

    (Reporting by Jack Queen in New York; Additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch in Washington, D.C.; editing by Amy Stevens and Cynthia Osterman)

    Source link

  • Trump calls federal indictment Biden’s attempt to ‘jail his leading opponent’

    Trump calls federal indictment Biden’s attempt to ‘jail his leading opponent’

    Former President Donald Trump called his federal indictment a “travesty of justice” in his first public appearance since he was charged for allegedly mishandling classified materials after he left the White House.

    Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination, drew cheers and applause from about 2,000 delegates at a state GOP convention in Georgia as he denied obstructing justice and claimed without evidence that the indictment was an attempt by President Joe Biden to “jail his leading opponent.”

    Trump tried to suggest that the special counsel’s investigation leading up to the indictment unveiled on Friday was a political advantage, saying “the only good thing about it is it has driven my poll numbers way up.” 

    The former president hit the campaign trail ahead of his expected appearance in a Miami court on Tuesday. He planned to address a state Republican convention in North Carolina later Saturday.

    Trump’s appearance in Georgia comes as Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis weighs whether to charge against Trump for his efforts to overturn his 2020 electoral loss to Biden — one of a string of legal entanglements building up for Trump ahead of next year’s election.

    The 37-count indictment unsealed by the Justice Department on Friday is a significant escalation of his legal exposure. That opens a lane for Republican rivals to offer themselves as an alternative to Trump’s third bid for the Oval Office.

    Trump is the first former US president to face federal allegations of criminal conduct. The indictment, unsealed by a federal court in Miami, outlines 37 counts of seven charges including willful retention of national defense information, corruptly concealing documents, conspiracy to obstruct justice and making false statements.

    “This vicious persecution is a travesty of justice,” Trump said Saturday in Columbus, Georgia.

    For his part, Biden said Thursday he hadn’t spoken to the Justice Department about the case. 

    Trump’s base hasn’t been deterred in the past. His fundraising and standing among primary voters surged in April he was indicted in a Manhattan court over alleged hush money payments to adult-film actor Stormy Daniels.

    In Georgia, Trump last year failed in an attempt to exact revenge against Republican Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger for refusing to alter the results of the 2020 election. Both were reelected, despite facing primary challengers supported by Trump. 

    Subscribe to Well Adjusted, our newsletter full of simple strategies to work smarter and live better, from the Fortune Well team. Sign up today.

    Brett Pulley, Mario Parker, Bloomberg

    Source link

  • 7 Wild Takeaways From Donald Trump’s Indictment

    7 Wild Takeaways From Donald Trump’s Indictment

    Federal prosecutors on Friday unsealed charges against former President Donald Trump ― accusing him of inappropriately keeping and distributing sensitive U.S. government information after he left office, then obstructing authorities’ efforts to investigate his alleged misconduct.

    The 49-page indictment repeatedly accuses Trump of risking national security and misleading federal agents in coordination with his aide Walt Nauta. The allegations range from the shocking, like Trump describing U.S. military operations to people without security clearances, to the surreal, like the onetime reality TV star storing documents in a shower at his Mar-a-Lago resort.

    “I AM AN INNOCENT MAN!” Trump said of the indictment Thursday on his website Truth Social. He faces more than 30 charges, and is expected to dispute all of them. In a separate post on the site, he accused the U.S. government of “trying to destroy [Nauta’s] life.” An attorney for Nauta did not immediately reply to a request for comment on the charges.

    The front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination is expected to appear in court on Tuesday, June 13.

    Here are some of the biggest revelations in the charge sheet prepared by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith.

    Trump allegedly knew he was holding classified material

    The indictment undercuts Trump’s most consistent line of defense since the investigation into his handling of documents began last year: that he used his authority as president to declassify all the material he took.

    Prosecutors say they can prove that in at least two conversations in 2021, Trump acknowledged possessing material that was still classified.

    In July 2021, he held a meeting at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, with two of his staff members and two people working on an autobiography of his former chief of staff Mark Meadows. Trump agreed that the meeting could be recorded.

    During the taped conversation, Trump allegedly said he was showing the other four people a “plan of attack.” The plan was developed by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, Trump claimed, saying it undercut a recent New Yorker story in which Milley expressed fear that Trump would attack Iran.

    “This wasn’t done by me, this was him,” Trump allegedly said on the recording. He asked the people with him to “look,” but added: “It is like, highly confidential… secret, this is secret information.”

    Trump then allegedly acknowledged that the material he was talking about was not declassified, saying: “As president, I could have declassified it … Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

    CNN first reported on the existence of the recording last week.

    Later that year, Trump had a meeting with a political adviser where he brought up a U.S. military operation in a different country, according to the indictment.

    He then showed a classified map of that country to the adviser, who worked for Trump’s political action committee. Trump said he should not be sharing the map and the adviser should not get too close, the indictment says.

    Trump allegedly shared classified documents inappropriately

    In handling his trove of sensitive documents, Trump repeatedly exposed classified material to people who had no authority to view it and who had not been vetted, prosecutors allege — risking leaks of information and internal U.S. government decision-making and information-gathering processes.

    In the two instances where Trump knowingly shared classified military documents with other people, none of the other people involved had security clearances or other government approval to view those documents, the indictment argues.

    The government’s case against the former president also suggests that a slew of other individuals could have encountered sensitive information due to Trump’s bizarre approach to storing the documents. In one example from December 2021, Trump’s aide Nauta found that several boxes of documents in a storage room had fallen, spilling materials onto the floor. One of them was marked as only accessible for officials with the Five Eyes intelligence-gathering alliance: the U.S., Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

    Nauta allegedly took photos of the spill ― one of which showed classified information ― and texted them to a colleague.

    “Oh no oh no,” the colleague texted back.

    Trump and his team allegedly tried to cover up his handling of sensitive documents

    The indictment also asserts that Trump sought “concealment” of the boxes of documents, and cites instances where he seemed to speak favorably about, or even encourage, keeping documents hidden.

    “I don’t want anybody looking, I don’t want anybody looking through my boxes, I really don’t, I don’t want you looking through my boxes,” Trump said, according to one of his attorneys.

    “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” he asked, according to the same attorney.

    The same attorney also said Trump made a nonverbal suggestion that the attorney take a folder with him and pull out possibly damaging documents.

    “He made a funny motion as though — well okay why don’t you take them with you to your hotel room and if there’s anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out. And that was the motion he made. He didn’t say that,” the attorney recalled, according to the indictment.

    Trump allegedly kept a huge variety of classified material

    Trump hoarded documents relating to a vast swath of national security issues, the indictment claims, including America’s nuclear capabilities and data about U.S. and allied vulnerabilities and possible responses to attacks. The list of agencies whose documents he allegedly retained reads like a Who’s Who of U.S. intelligence “alphabet” agencies and the federal defense sector.

    Beyond the CIA, Trump is alleged to have kept documents that came from the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

    The NSA is responsible for intercepting foreign electronic “signals” intel and disseminating that to lawmakers and military leaders. The NGIA and NRO work on getting, analyzing and exploiting imagery and geospatial intel, including space-based surveillance, while the Bureau of Intelligence and Research supports U.S. diplomatic efforts.

    Trump is also alleged to have kept documents from the Defense Department and the Energy Department, the latter of which is tasked with making sure the United States’ nuclear weapons program is secure and effective.

    In the list of specific documents in the indictment, classification statuses included “top secret,” “secret,” “special handling,” “FISA,” and “NOFORN.” The latter two likely refer to documents that concern activities related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which deals with countering espionage activities by foreign governments, and to restricting disclosure of the documents’ content to foreign nationals. The indictment also includes the classification categories of the documents found at Mar-a-Lago: seventeen Top Secret, 54 Secret and 31 Confidential.

    Trump allegedly stored documents in bizarre locations

    Among other places, Trump kept sensitive documents in a storage room and a bathroom with a shower at Mar-a-Lago, the indictment states. The indictment also says that he stored boxes of documents on a ballroom stage that visitors could access, as well as in a business center at his Mar-a-Lago estate. A photo included in the indictment document shows a ballroom stage stacked with cardboard boxes of documents, as though they were prepared for a move.

    Per the indictment, some of the boxes from the Mar-a-Lago business center were shifted to the bathroom/shower after two Trump employees texted each other. One said there was still “a little room in the shower where the other stuff is” as they were looking for additional storage space.

    In another exchange, a “Trump family member” texted Nauta to coordinate which boxes to bring along on a flight, warning that there would be little room because the “plane will be full with luggage.”

    Trump is still obsessed with Hillary Clinton

    The indictment quotes a conversation Trump apparently had with two of his attorneys regarding Hillary Clinton and her private email server, which Trump repeatedly attacked during the 2016 election cycle, spawning the line “Lock her up!” Whether Clinton’s use of a private email server was illegal remains the basis of various right-wing conspiracy theories.

    The indictment doesn’t mention Clinton by name, but appears to refer approvingly to an attorney who, in Trump’s eyes, took the fall for her email woes.

    “He was the one who deleted all of her emails, the 30,000 emails, because they basically dealt with her scheduling and her going to the gym and her having her beauty appointments. And he was great … So she didn’t get in trouble because he said he was the one who deleted them,” Trump said, per the indictment.

    The indictment also quotes several public statements Trump made about classified document laws while he was a candidate in 2016 ― in which he criticized Clinton’s handling of documents ― as evidence that he understood what he was doing.

    Trump faces up to 20 years in prison

    The indictment comes with a whopping 37 counts against Trump himself.

    This includes 31 counts for the alleged willful retention of national defense documents, with a maximum imprisonment term of 10 years and a $100,000 fine. The counts also include conspiracy to corrupt justice, withholding a document or record, corruptly concealing a document or record, concealing a document in a federal investigation, scheme to conceal, and false statements and representation. None of the counts have a mandatory minimum sentence, but they have maximum sentences of five to 10 years, and maximum fines of $250,000 per count.

    The indictment also includes charges against Trump’s aide, Nauta, on five of those counts, plus a single count of making false statements and representations against Nauta alone.

    Source link

  • Democrats Hail Second Trump Indictment But Warn Of Risks

    Democrats Hail Second Trump Indictment But Warn Of Risks

    Democrats overall welcomed the unprecedented federal indictment of Donald Trump over his handling of classified documents, but some also warned of dangers.

    Trump reportedly faces seven charges stemming from his removal of top-secret documents from the White House and his refusal to give them back, even after being served with a subpoena. The charges include conspiracy to obstruct and willfully retaining national secrets in violation of the Espionage Act. The former president, set to be arraigned in Miami on Tuesday, has denied wrongdoing and maintained he will “of course” plead not guilty.

    “For four years, he acted like he was above the law,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said of Trump. “But he should be treated like any other lawbreaker. And today, he has been.”

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said the indictment signals the former president “put our national security in grave danger as he pursued yet another lawless personal agenda by pilfering and hoarding government documents,” according to NBC News.

    But Democratic Rep. Greg Landsman (Ohio) warned that the chaos Trump inspires is unlikely to end with this indictment.

    “What he’s doing to this country, the extremism and danger he and his allies present, has to end,” Landsman said. “Only when those who support and enable him decide to be done with this toxic behavior will this all be behind us.”

    Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), echoed concerns over how Trump’s supporters will react and whether they will threaten the safety of lawmakers, law enforcement and everyday Americans.

    “It’s the right thing to do, but there’s danger involved,” Quigley, who sat on the Intelligence Committee during Trump’s first impeachment trial, told Axios.

    Quigley appears weary of violence akin to the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, when a mob of Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol.

    The former president, who thrives on controversy, is already fundraising off of his indictment and remains the front-runner in the 2024 GOP presidential nomination contest.

    Polls show his supporters continue to back him, even as he faces a trial next year on New York charges of falsifying business records in relation to a hush money payment scheme prior to the 2016 presidential election.

    He is also under scrutiny in the separate Justice Department investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, and in Georgia for his efforts to undo his 2020 election defeat in the state.

    Despite the mounting criminal charges, Republicans rushed to Trump’s defense Thursday, with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) calling out President Joe Biden for the indictment. The White House declined to weigh in on the news.

    “I, and every American who believes in the rule of law, stand with President Trump against this grave injustice,” McCarthy wrote on Twitter. “House Republicans will hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable.”

    Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said that while Trump “has long-standing constitutional rights to a trial by jury, to confront his accusers, and to legal counsel,” congressional lawmakers shouldn’t be the ones to fight his case.

    “But this case should be litigated in the court of law, not the court of public opinion and most definitely not the halls of Congress,” Goldman said.

    Source link

  • Trump Indictment: Live Updates On Mar-A-Lago Documents Case

    Trump Indictment: Live Updates On Mar-A-Lago Documents Case

    Don’t Expect A Biden Comment

    The White House won’t comment on the indictment, NBC News reports.

    Source link

  • Florida Grand Jury Involved In Trump Documents Probe By Justice Dept., AP Source Says

    Florida Grand Jury Involved In Trump Documents Probe By Justice Dept., AP Source Says

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors are using a grand jury in Florida as part of their investigation into the possible mishandling of classified documents at former President Donald Trump’s Palm Beach property, a person familiar with the matter said Tuesday night.

    The grand jury is in addition to a separate panel that has been meeting in Washington for months to consider charges against Trump over the retention of hundreds of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and potential obstruction of the government’s efforts to reclaim the records.

    It is not clear why prosecutors are using an additional grand jury, which was described to The Associated Press by a person who insisted on anonymity to discuss secret proceedings, or which witnesses might be testifying before it.

    A variety of witnesses, including lawyers for Trump, close aides to the former president and officials with the Trump Organization, have appeared over the last year before the grand jury in Washington. But the use of a different grand jury in Florida suggests that prosecutors may also be eyeing at least some potential charges in that state.

    The Mar-a-Lago investigation, being led by special counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors, is thought to be in its final stages, with a charging decision expected soon. Trump’s lawyers met at the Justice Department on Monday with officials including Smith, part of an effort by the legal team to raise concerns about what they say is prosecutorial misconduct and to try to argue against a potential indictment.

    Police outside of Mar-a-Lago in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Aug. 9, 2022, the day after the FBI searched Donald Trump’s estate. (Joe Cavaretta/South Florida Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

    Sun Sentinel via Getty Images

    The investigation has centered not only on the possession of classified documents, including at the top-secret level, but also on the refusal of Trump to return the records when asked and on possible obstruction. The FBI last year issued a subpoena for classified records at the property, and after coming to suspect that Trump and his representatives had not returned all the documents, returned with a search warrant and recovered an additional 100 documents with classification markings.

    Investigators have questioned a Trump associate who was seen on surveillance camera moving boxes of documents at Mar-a-Lago. As part of an obstruction probe centered in part on surveillance footage, they more recently have expressed interest in a worker’s draining of a pool at the resort last October, an act that caused a flood at the property, according to another person who spoke on condition of anonymity. That area of interest was first reported by CNN.

    A spokesman for Smith declined to comment Tuesday night on the existence of another grand jury.

    Source link

  • Lawyer Who Quit Trump Legal Team Cites Disagreements With Trump Adviser As Basis For Departure

    Lawyer Who Quit Trump Legal Team Cites Disagreements With Trump Adviser As Basis For Departure

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A lawyer who quit Donald Trump’s legal team this past week attributed his decision Saturday to strategy disagreements with a close adviser to the former president.

    Timothy Parlatore, who had been a key lawyer for Trump in a Justice Department special counsel investigation into the potential mishandling of classified documents at his Florida estate, told CNN in an interview on Saturday that there were “certain individuals that made defending the president much harder than it needed to be.”

    He singled out Boris Epshteyn, another lawyer and top Trump adviser in multiple criminal investigations, whom he accused of “doing everything he could to try to block us to prevent us from doing what we could to defend the president.”

    Parlatore disclosed Wednesday that he was resigning from the Trump legal team, a move that comes as the investigation by special counsel Jack Smith shows signs of winding down and nearing a decision on whether or not to bring charges against the former president. His comments Saturday provided additional context for the decision.

    In a statement responding to Parlatore’s comments, a Trump spokesman said “Mr. Parlatore is no longer a member of the legal team. His statements regarding current members of the legal team are unfounded and categorically false.”

    In his interview, Parlatore said Epshteyn had served as a “filter” in preventing the legal team from getting information about the investigation to or from Trump.

    He also said Epshteyn had resisted the idea of the legal team organizing months ago a search of Trump’s property in Bedminster, New Jersey, for potential additional classified documents, and that he had impeded a defense strategy aimed at helping “educate (Attorney General) Merrick Garland as to how best to handle this matter.” Parlatore was one of the authors of a letter last month to the chairman of the House intelligence committee laying out a series of potential defenses in the investigation.

    “It’s difficult enough fighting against DOJ, and in this case a special counsel, but when you also have people within the tent that are also trying to undermine you, block you and really make it so that I can’t do what I know that I need to do as a lawyer,” Parlatore said.

    “And when I am getting into fights like that, that’s detracting from what is necessary to defend the client and ultimately was not in the client’s best interest, so I made the decision to withdraw,” he added.

    Source link

  • Guardsman In Leak Case Wanted To Kill A ‘Ton Of People’: US

    Guardsman In Leak Case Wanted To Kill A ‘Ton Of People’: US

    WORCESTER, Mass. (AP) — The Massachusetts Air National guardsman accused of leaking highly classified military documents kept an arsenal of guns and said on social media that he would like to kill a “ton of people,” prosecutors said in arguing Thursday that 21-year-old Jack Teixeira should remain in jail for his trial.

    But the judge at Teixeira’s detention hearing put off an immediate decision on whether he should be kept in custody until his trial or released to home confinement or under other conditions. Teixeira was led away from the court in handcuffs, black rosary beads around his neck, pending that ruling.

    The court filings raise new questions about why Teixeira had such a high security clearance and access to some of the nation’s most classified secrets. They said he may still have material that hasn’t been released, which could be of “tremendous value to hostile nation states that could offer him safe harbor and attempt to facilitate his escape from the United States.”

    In Teixeira’s detention hearing, Magistrate Judge David Hennessy expressed skepticism of defense arguments that the government hasn’t alleged Teixeira intended leaked information to be widely disseminated.

    “Somebody under the age of 30 has no idea that when they put something on the internet that it could end up anywhere in this world?” the judge asked. “Seriously?”

    Teixeira entered his hearing in Worcester in orange prison garb, smiling at his father in the front row. His handcuffs were removed before he sat down and put back on when he was taken out.

    The judge could order Teixeira to be confined at his father’s home or conditionally released while awaiting trial, if not held in jail.

    “You have a young man before you who didn’t flee, has nowhere to flee,” said Brendan Kelley, the defendant’s lawyer. “He will answer the charges, he will be judged by his fellow citizens.”

    But Nadine Pellegrini from the Massachusetts U.S. attorney’s office told the judge the information prosecutors submitted to the court about the defendant’s threatening words and behavior “is not speculation, it is not hyperbole, nor is it the creation of a caricature. It is … directly based upon the words and actions of this defendant.”

    The defense asserted Teixeira no longer has access to any top-secret information and had accused prosecutors of providing “little more than speculation that a foreign adversary will seduce Mr. Teixeira and orchestrate his clandestine escape from the United States.”

    The prosecution’s filing reviews what it says are Teixeira social media posts, stating in November that he would “kill a (expletive) ton of people” if he had his way, because it would be “culling the weak minded.”

    Court papers urging a federal judge to keep Teixeira in custody detailed a troubling history going back to high school, where he was suspended when a classmate overheard him discussing Molotov cocktails and other weapons as well as racial threats. More recently, prosecutors said, he used his government computer to research past mass shootings and standoffs with federal agents.

    He remains a grave threat to national security and a flight risk, prosecutors wrote. Investigators are still trying to determine whether he kept any physical or digital copies of classified information that hasn’t surfaced yet.

    “There simply is no condition or combination of conditions that can ensure the Defendant will not further disclose additional information still in his knowledge or possession,” prosecutors wrote. “The damage the Defendant has already caused to the U.S. national security is immense. The damage the Defendant is still capable of causing is extraordinary.”

    Teixeira has been in jail since his arrest this month on charges stemming from the most consequential intelligence leak in years.

    Teixeira has been charged under the Espionage Act with unauthorized retention and transmission of classified national defense information. He has not yet entered a plea.

    His lawyers argued in court papers that appropriate conditions can be set for his release even if the court finds him to be a flight risk — such as confinement at his father’s home and location monitoring.

    “The government’s allegations … offer no support that Mr. Teixeira currently, or ever, intended any information purportedly to the private social media server to be widely disseminated,” they wrote. “Thus, its argument that Mr. Teixeira will continue to release information or destroy evidence if not detained rings hollow.”

    Prosecutors wrote that he kept his gun locker within reach of his bed and in it were handguns, bolt-action rifles, shotguns, an AK-style high-capacity weapon and a gas mask. Ammunition and tactical pouches were found on his dresser, they said.

    Jack Teixeira’s father answers questions from his attorney as he takes the stand during a detention hearing for Jack Teixeira, a member of the U.S. Air National Guard who is facing criminal charges for leaking top-secret military intelligence records online, at the federal courthouse in Worcester, Massachusetts, U.S., April 27, 2023 in this courtroom sketch. REUTERS/Margaret Small

    MARGARET SMALL via Reuters

    He is accused of distributing highly classified documents about top national security issues in a chat room on Discord, a social media platform that started as a hangout for gamers. The leak stunned military officials, sparked an international uproar and raised fresh questions about America’s ability to safeguard its secrets.

    The leaked documents appear to detail U.S. and NATO aid to Ukraine and U.S. intelligence assessments regarding U.S. allies that could strain ties with those nations. Some show real-time details from February and March of Ukraine’s and Russia’s battlefield positions and precise numbers of battlefield gear lost and newly flowing into Ukraine from its allies.

    Prosecutors wrote that Teixeira repeatedly had “detailed and troubling discussions about violence and murder” on the platform where authorities say he shared the documents. In February, he told another person that he was tempted to make a minivan into an “assassination van,” prosecutors wrote.

    In 2018, they allege, Teixeira was suspended after a classmate “overheard him make remarks about weapons, including Molotov cocktails, guns at the school, and racial threats.” His initial application for a firearms identification card that same year was denied due to police concerns over those remarks.

    The Justice Department said it also learned through its investigation that Teixeira used his government computer in July to look up mass shootings and government standoffs, including the terms “Ruby Ridge,” “Las Vegas shooting,” “Mandalay Bay shooting,” “Uvalde” and “Buffalo tops shooting” — an apparent reference to the 2022 racist mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket.

    Those searches should have triggered the computer to generate an immediate referral to security, which could have then led to a more in-depth review of Teixeira’s file, according to Dan Meyer, a lawyer who specializes in security clearance issues. The Air Force’s investigation will probably discover whether a referral was generated — and whether security officers did anything with the information.

    The Air Force has suspended the commander of the 102nd Intelligence Support Squadron where Teixeira worked and an administrative commander until further investigation.

    Pentagon spokesman Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder wouldn’t discuss the specifics of Teixeira’s case. “We do want to allow the investigation to run its course,” Ryder said.

    Teixeira’s lawyers said he has no criminal history. The incident at his high school was “thoroughly investigated” and he was allowed to come back after a few days and a psychological evaluation, they wrote. That investigation was “fully known and vetted ” by the Air National Guard before he enlisted and when he obtained his top-secret security clearance, they said.

    Months later, after news outlets began reporting on the documents leak, Teixeira took steps to destroy evidence. Authorities who searched a dumpster at his home found a smashed laptop, tablet and Xbox gaming console, they said.

    Authorities have not alleged a motive. Members of the Discord group have described Teixeira as someone who wanted to show off rather than inform the public about military operations or influence U.S. policy.

    Billing records the FBI obtained from Discord helped lead authorities to Teixeira, who enlisted in the Air National Guard in September 2019. A Discord user told the FBI that a username linked to Teixeira began posting what appeared to be classified information roughly in December.

    Tucker and Copp reported from Washington.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Legal Problems Are Putting the GOP in a Vise

    Trump’s Legal Problems Are Putting the GOP in a Vise

    The dilemma for the Republican Party is that Donald Trump’s mounting legal troubles may be simultaneously strengthening him as a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination and weakening him as a potential general-election nominee.

    In the days leading up to the indictment of the former president, which Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced two days ago, a succession of polls showed that Trump has significantly increased his lead over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, his closest competitor in the race for the Republican nomination.

    Yet recent surveys have also signaled that this criminal charge—and other potential indictments from ongoing investigations—could deepen the doubts about Trump among the suburban swing voters who decisively rejected him in the 2020 presidential race, and powered surprisingly strong performances by Democrats in the 2018 and 2022 midterms.

    “It is definitely a conundrum that this potentially helps him in the primary yet sinks the party’s chances to win the general,” says Mike DuHaime, a GOP strategist who advises former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a potential candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination. “This better positions [in the primary] our worst candidate for the general election.”

    That conundrum will only intensify for Republicans, because it is highly likely that this is merely the beginning of Trump’s legal troubles. As the first indictment against a former president, the New York proceeding has thrust the U.S. into uncharted waters. But the country today is not nearly as far from shore as it may be in just a few months. Trump faces multiple additional potential indictments. Those include possible charges from Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis, who has been examining his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in that state, as well as the twin federal probes led by Special Counsel Jack Smith into Trump’s mishandling of classified documents and his efforts to block congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.

    “I think I had a pretty good track record on my predictions and my strong belief is that there will be additional criminal charges coming in other places,” says Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “I think you are going to see them in Georgia and possibly [at the] federal” level.

    The potential for such further criminal proceedings is why many political observers are cautious about drawing too many firm conclusions from polling around public reaction to this first indictment, which centers on Trump’s payment of hush money to the porn star Stormy Daniels late in the 2016 campaign.

    Read: The first electoral test of Trump’s indictment

    The multiple legal nets tightening around Trump create the possibility that he could be going through one or even multiple trials by the time of next year’s general election, and conceivably even when the GOP primaries begin in the winter of 2024. In other words, Trump might bounce back and forth between campaign rallies in Iowa or New Hampshire and court appearances in New York City, Atlanta, or Washington D.C.  And such jarring images could change the public perceptions that polls are recording now.

    “You are just looking at a snapshot of how people feel today,” Dave Wilson, a conservative strategist, told me.

    Yet even these initial reactions show how Trump’s legal troubles may place his party in a vise.

    Polls consistently show that Trump, over the past several weeks, has widened his lead over DeSantis and the rest of the potential 2024 field. That may be partly because Trump has intensified his attacks on DeSantis, and because the Florida governor has at times seemed unsteady in his debut on the national stage.

    But most Republicans think Trump is also benefiting from an impulse among GOP voters to lock arms around him as the Manhattan investigation has proceeded. In an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College poll released this week, four-fifths of Republicans described the various investigations targeting Trump as a “witch hunt,” echoing his own denunciation of them. “There’s going to be some level of emotional response to someone being quote-unquote attacked,” Wilson said. “That’s going to get some sympathy points that will probably bolster poll numbers.”

    Republican leaders, as so many times before, have tightened their own straitjacket by defending Trump on these allegations so unreservedly. House GOP leaders have launched unprecedented attempts to impede Bragg’s investigation by demanding documents and testimony, and even Trump’s potential 2024 rivals have condemned the indictment as a politically motivated hit job; DeSantis may have had the most extreme reaction by not only calling  the indictment “un-American” but even insisting he would not cooperate with extraditing Trump from Florida if it came to that (a pledge that is moot because Trump has indicated he plans to turn himself in on Tuesday.)

    As during the procession of outrages and controversies during Trump’s presidency, most Republicans skeptical of him have been unwilling to do anything more than remain silent. (Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, a long-shot potential 2024 candidate, has been the most conspicuous exception, issuing a statement that urged Americans “to wait on the facts” before judging the case.) The refusal of party leaders to confront Trump is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: Because GOP voters hear no other arguments from voices they trust, they fall in line behind the assertion from Trump and the leading conservative media sources that the probes are groundless persecution. Republican elected officials then cite that dominant opinion as the justification for remaining silent.

    But while the investigations may be bolstering Trump’s position inside the GOP in the near-term, they also appear to be highlighting all the aspects of his political identity that have alienated so many swing voters, especially those with college degrees. In that same NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey, 56 percent of Americans rejected Trump’s “witch hunt” characterization and described the investigations as “fair”; 60 percent of college-educated white adults, the key constituency that abandoned the GOP in the Trump years, said the probes were fair. So did a slight majority of independent voters.

    In new national results released yesterday morning, the Navigator project, a Democratic polling initiative, similarly found that 57 percent of Americans, including 51 percent of independents, agreed that Trump should be indicted when they read a description of the hush-money allegations against him.

    Read: What Donald Trump’s indictment reveals

    The Manhattan indictment “may keep his people with him, it may fire them up, but he’s starting from well under 50 percent of the vote,” Mike DuHaime told me. “Somebody like that must figure out how to get new voters. And he is not gaining new voters with a controversial new indictment, whether he beats it or not.” Swing voters following the case in New York, DuHaime continued, “may not like it, they may think Democrats have gone too far, and that might be fair.” But it’s wishful thinking, he argues, to believe that voters previously resistant to Trump will conclude they need to give him another look because he’s facing criminal charges for paying off a porn star, even if they view the charges themselves as questionable.

    The NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist survey underlines DuHaime’s point about the limits of Trump’s existing support: In that survey, a 61 percent majority of Americans—including 64 percent of independents and 70 percent of college-educated white adults—said they did not want him to be president again. That result was similar to the latest Quinnipiac University national poll, which found that 60 percent of Americans do not consider themselves supporters of Trump’s “Make America great again” movement. The challenge for the GOP is that about four-fifths of Republicans said they did consider themselves part of that movement, and about three-fourths said they wanted him back in the White House.

    The open question for Trump is whether this level of support, even in the GOP, may be his high-water mark as the investigations proceed. Eisner and John Dean, the former White House counsel for Richard Nixon, both told me they believe that the New York case may be more threatening to Trump than many legal analysts have suggested. “I think that the New York case is much stronger than people perceive it to be,” Dean told me yesterday. “We really don’t know the contents of the indictment, and we really won’t know for a much longer time the evidence behind the indictment.”

    Whatever happens in New York, Trump still faces the prospect of indictments on the more consequential charges looming over him in Georgia and from the federal special prosecutor. Dean says that Bragg’s indictment, rather than discouraging other prosecutors to act “may have the opposite effect” of emboldening them. Trump “has escaped accountability literally his entire life and it finally appears to be catching up with him,” Dean says. Academic research, he adds, has suggested that defendants juggling multiple trials, either simultaneously or sequentially, find it “much harder to mount effective defenses.”

    Bryan Bennett, the senior director of polling and analytics at the Hub Project, the Democratic polling consortium that conducts the Navigator surveys, says the potential for multiple indictments presents Trump with a parallel political risk: The number of voters who believe he has committed at least one crime is very likely to rise if the criminal charges against him accumulate. “It’s hard to imagine any scenario where multiple indictments is useful” to him, Bennett told me.

    DuHaime and Wilson both believe that multiple indictments eventually could weigh down Trump even in the GOP primary. “The cumulative effect takes away some of the argument that it’s just political,” DuHaime said. Each additional indictment, he continued, “may add credibility” for the public to those that came before.

    Wilson believes that repeated indictments could reinforce the sense among Republican voters that Trump is being treated unfairly, and deepen their desire to turn the page from him. He likens the effect to someone living along a “Hurricane Alley,” who experiences not one destructive storm in a season but several. “The weight of a single hurricane blowing through is one thing,” Wilson told me. “But if you have several hurricanes of issues blowing through, you will get conservatives [saying], ‘I don’t know if I want to continue living in Hurricane Alley’ with Trump, and they are going to look at other candidates.”

    Given Trump’s hold on a big portion of the GOP coalition, no one should discount his capacity to win the party nomination next year, no matter how many criminal cases ensnare him. And given the persistent public dissatisfaction with the economy and lackluster job approval ratings for Biden, no one dismisses the capacity of whoever captures the Republican nomination to win the general election.

    The best-case scenario sketched by Trump supporters is that a succession of indictments will allow him to inspire even higher turnout among the predominantly non-college-educated and non-urban white voters who accept his argument that “liberal elites” and the “deep state” are targeting him to silence them. But even the heroic levels of turnout Trump inspired from those voters in 2020 wasn’t enough to win. For the GOP to bet that Trump could overcome swing-voter revulsion over his legal troubles and win a general election by mobilizing even more of his base voters, Bennett said, “seems to me the highest risk proposition that I can imagine.”

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Top lawmakers briefed on Trump, Biden, Pence documents

    Top lawmakers briefed on Trump, Biden, Pence documents

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Top lawmakers in Congress were briefed Tuesday on the investigations into classified documents found in the private possession of President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence.

    U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines was among the officials who met privately with congressional leaders for roughly an hour. Attending the briefing were the House and Senate leaders of both parties and the leaders of both intelligence committees, who comprise what’s known as the “Gang of Eight.” Lawmakers leaving the briefing declined to specify what was discussed.

    Both Republicans and Democrats have long demanded more information from the Biden administration about the successive discoveries of classified documents in the homes of two presidents and a vice president. The U.S. strictly controls who has access to classified material and how they can view it.

    Leaders of the intelligence committees have expressed concerns about the possible exposure of highly classified secrets in those documents.

    “We still have considerable work to do, oversight work to do, to satisfy ourselves that absolutely everything is being done to protect sources and methods,” Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview.

    The chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a joint statement that also called for more information about any potential damage.

    “While today’s meeting helped shed some light on these issues, it left much to be desired and we will continue to press for full answers to our questions in accordance with our constitutional oversight obligations,” said Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

    The Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have declined to share details of their investigations. Attorney General Merrick Garland has directed separate special counsels to review the documents linked to Trump and Biden.

    Federal agents searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in August after developing evidence that led them to believe that Trump and his representatives had not returned all classified files. The Justice Department has said in court filings that it roughly 300 documents with classified markings, including at the top-secret level, have been recovered from Mar-a-Lago after being taken there after Trump left the White House.

    Biden’s lawyers have said they discovered a “small number” of classified documents in November after searching a locked closet at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. A second batch of documents — again described by Biden’s lawyers as a “small number” — were found in a storage space in Biden’s garage near Wilmington, Delaware, along with six pages located in Biden’s personal library in his home.

    FBI agents in January found six additional items that contained documents with classified markings and also took possession of some of Biden’s handwritten notes, according to Biden’s lawyers.

    Pence’s lawyers have also said they found a “small number of documents” in his Indiana home that appeared to have been inadvertently taken there at the conclusion of his vice presidency. Federal agents found an additional classified document during a voluntary search.

    Underscoring the political and legal sensitivities for Biden, the White House issued a statement saying the Justice Department and the Director of National Intelligence decided on their own to brief Congress and what information to share.

    “The White House has confidence in DOJ and ODNI to exercise independent judgment about whether or when it may be appropriate for national security reasons to offer briefings on any relevant information in these investigations,” said spokesperson Ian Sams.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Farnoush Amiri and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Trump Team Has Turned Over Items Marked As Classified: Source

    Trump Team Has Turned Over Items Marked As Classified: Source

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawyers for former President Donald Trump have in recent months voluntarily turned over to federal investigators additional papers marked as classified, as well as a laptop belonging to a Trump aide, a person familiar with the situation said Friday night.

    The legal team also provided an empty folder with classified markings, according to the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press to discuss an ongoing investigation. It was not immediately clear what material was supposed to have been in the folder.

    A Justice Department special counsel has been investigating the retention by Trump of hundreds of documents marked as classified at his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago. FBI agents who served a search warrant at the property in August recovered roughly 100 classified documents, including records classified at the top-secret level.

    A federal grand jury has been hearing evidence in the case for months. Prosecutors are investigating whether Trump willfully hoarded the material and whether he or anyone else sought to obstruct their probe, court filings show.

    ABC News first reported the discovery of the additional documents.

    The person familiar with the matter said a handful of pages with classified markings were found during a search weeks ago at the Mar-a-Lago complex that was supervised by the Trump legal team, and were promptly provided to the Justice Department. The documents were found in a box containing thousands of pages, the person said. The Trump legal team had enlisted investigators to search for any other classified documents that had not yet been recovered by the government.

    Separately on Friday, the FBI searched the Indiana home of former Vice President Mike Pence and found an additional document with classified markings, following the discovery by his lawyers last month of sensitive documents. FBI officials have also searched the Delaware homes of President Joe Biden after his lawyers found documents with classified markings at his former office in Washington and at his Wilmington property.

    Source link