Trump indicted on 7 counts in classified documents probe

Post Reply New Topic

Special counsel Jack Smith is reportedly ready to drop a hammer blow of up to 45 additional criminal charges on former President Donald Trump in the classified documents case, especially if Trump-friendly Judge Aileen Cannon looks set to thwart the case.

The ex-Brooklyn prosecutor is prepared to bring additional charges in various federal jurisdictions against Trump based in part on multiple additional incriminating tapes of Trump, The Independent reported Thursday, quoting “people familiar with the matter.”

A senior campaign official for Donald Trump was allegedly shown a classified map by the former president during a meeting at his New Jersey golf club after Trump left office, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The campaign adviser, Susie Wiles, has spoken to federal investigators numerous times as part of the special counsel’s Mar-a-Lago documents probe, multiple sources told CNN.

Wiles is not named in Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump, but a source familiar with the matter identified her as the “representative of his political action committee” who is referenced in the indictment.

During her interviews, sources say that prosecutors repeatedly asked Wiles about whether Trump showed her classified documents. They also inquired about a map and whether she had any knowledge regarding documents related to Joint Chiefs Chairman, Gen. Mark Milley, one source added.

The indictment alleges that Trump showed classified documents to people on two separate occasions.

A federal judge in Florida has ordered that more information be made public from the search warrant affidavit that led the FBI to discover a trove of classified documents at Donald Trump's Florida resort.

In a ruling Wednesday, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart denied a request by media organizations, including NBC News, that the entire affidavit be unsealed in the wake of last month's related criminal charges against the former president, but found "additional portions of the search warrant application should be unsealed."

Reinhart said the Justice Department agreed in a sealed filing that some additional parts of the search warrant could be made public, but asked that other parts remain sealed to "comply with grand jury secrecy rules and to protect investigative sources and methods."

The judge said that that DOJ "has met its burden of showing that its proposed redactions of the affidavit are narrowly tailored to serve the Government's legitimate interests and are the least onerous alternative to sealing the entire search warrant affidavit."

It's unclear when the less-redacted version will be filed, or how new the information will be to the public, since it will most likely involve information that is contained in the 37-count federal indictment that was unsealed last month.

Donald Trump's lawyers asked a U.S. federal judge on Tuesday not to treat the former president the same as any other criminal defendant in setting the timing for his trial on charges of mishandling classified documents, citing his presidential campaign.

Trump lawyer Christopher Kise asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, to consider the timing of the U.S. presidential campaign in deciding when to schedule the trial.

Cannon did not set a trial date during the hearing, which Trump did not attend, but appeared skeptical of prosecutors' request for a December start. She asked prosecutor Jay Bratt if there had ever been a case involving classified information that had gone to trial in less than six months. Bratt said he could not point to a specific case.

But Cannon also did not seem inclined to grant Trump’s request for an indefinite delay, saying, "we need to set a schedule."

During Tuesday's hearing in the documents case, Trump attorney Kise said that because the U.S. Justice Department under Biden brought the charges, the case could be seen as the "two leading contenders for president of the United States squaring off in court."

Prosecutor David Harbach called suggestions of political interference "flat out false." He noted that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel to distance the investigation from politics.

He said career prosecutors assigned to the case would not be working it if "we thought we were doing somebody’s political bidding."

The federal judge overseeing the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump has decided the criminal trial will begin May 20, 2024, in Fort Pierce, Florida.

Judge Aileen Cannon announced the timing of the trial in a document filed in federal court Friday.

The timing of the trial is a few months after the period special counsel Jack Smith had requested, but is a blow to the former president, who wanted to delay the court proceedings until after the presidential election.

The announcement by Cannon comes after federal prosecutors and defense attorneys argued in favor of their preferred timelines at a hearing earlier this week in Fort Pierce.

Smith had requested a start date of Dec. 11., while Trump’s team said the trial should be pushed back until after the election.

A new indictment was filed today in connection with the ongoing prosecution of Trump and a top aide, adding additional charges against the former president for his handling of classified documents after he left the White House. The new, or superseding, indictment also charges Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker from Mar-a-Lago who helped move boxes in of classified documents.


Trump faces additional charges in superseding indictment
Trump faced additional charges in a superseding indictment that was returned by a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida.

The former president is charged with one additional count of willful retention of National Defense Information, according to the new filing.

The superseding indictment also charges Trump, De Oliveira and Nauta with two new obstruction counts stemming from allegations that they attempted to delete surveillance video footage last summer at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club.

One of former president Donald Trump's current attorneys told special counsel Jack Smith's team that, within days of the Justice Department issuing a subpoena last year for all classified documents at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, she "very clearly" warned Trump that if he failed to fully comply -- but then swore he did -- "it's going to be a crime," according to sources familiar with the matter.

Sources said the lawyer, Jennifer Little, told investigators Trump "absolutely" understood the warning, which came during a pivotal meeting at Mar-a-Lago with Trump and another attorney, Evan Corcoran, who had recently joined Trump's legal team.

What Little allegedly told Smith's team earlier this year may shed further light on how Smith came to accuse Trump of knowingly violating the law, saying in his June 9 indictment against Trump that the former president defied a subpoena by hiding more than 100 classified documents from the FBI and even his own legal team, and then having his legal team certify otherwise.

Special counsel Jack Smith used a routine legal filing Friday to offer a forceful public rebuttal against Donald Trump’s claims that his criminal prosecution for allegedly hoarding classified documents has been infected by politics and legal impropriety.

The 68-page document began with what Smith’s team described as an effort to correct false assertions the former president had made about the nature of the case against him.

“It is necessary to set the record straight on the underlying facts that led to this prosecution,” the prosecutors argued. “The government will clear the air on those issues … because the defendants’ misstatements, if unanswered, leave a highly misleading impression.”

What followed was a lengthy recitation of the events that led prosecutors to suspect Trump had been squirreling reams of classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Rather than the bloodthirsty partisan endeavor Trump describes, prosecutors say federal officials from the National Archives, intelligence community and White House counsel’s office took “measures” and “incremental” steps to retrieve the documents — often in coordination with some of Trump’s own designated advisers — before escalating the matter as the former president continued to resist.

The substance of the prosecution brief is aimed at countering the demands by Trump and his two co-defendants — Walt Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira — for access to a broad range of documents from across the government that the defense attorneys contend could be useful in defending their clients. They’ve asked Cannon to consider massive executive branch agencies and the White House as appendages of Smith’s prosecution team — a decision that could open their files to defendants beyond the typical evidence-sharing that occurs for witnesses in criminal proceedings.

The filing included some new details about the origins of the probe, particularly as Trump’s liaisons to the National Archives began a dialogue with key White House officials about how to facilitate the return of missing documents. Though Trump has long portrayed the Biden White House’s involvement in the process as a sign of sinister politics, Smith’s team described it as limited, necessary and well-known to Trump’s aides, who did not protest.

That was a running theme throughout the prosecutors’ filing: Where Trump spoke in ominous terms about a monolithic “Biden administration” acting against him, the reality was that career officials from multiple agencies, acting on their discrete responsibilities, took standard and even “innocuous” actions to fulfill their duties, according to the brief.

The brief is also peppered with factual claims that make Trump’s behavior sound more serious and egregious. When discussing the defense’s request for more information from the Secret Service, prosecutors assert that their interaction with the federal agency that guards the president and his family underscored Trump’s recklessness in keeping a large volume of classified information at his Florida home, which also serves as a social club and a site for political and social events with lengthy guest lists.

The Secret Service reported that “of the approximately 48,000 guests who visited Mar-a-Lago between January 2021 and May 2022, while classified documents were at the property, only 2,200 had their names checked and only 2,900 passed through magnetometers,” the prosecution filing says.

The special counsel prosecuting Donald Trump has asked the judge in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case to reconsider an order the government argues could identify more than two dozen witnesses and threaten their safety and testimony.

Trump's lawyers have asked for unredacted documents to be turned over, which lawyers for special counsel Jack Smith want to block.

In a 24-page filing in federal court in Florida, prosecutors for Smith said the court applied the wrong legal standard when U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, the judge overseeing the case, ordered the unsealing of materials. Cannon issued an order in response on Friday that delayed her initial decision.

The filing notes an exhibit that includes “information about uncharged potentially obstructive conduct by a defendant, and speculation about witness tampering by an uncharged individual.” According to the prosecutors, this witness declined to have his interview recorded.

Other exhibits disclose details about the August 8 search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club where classified documents were seized, including the names of the FBI agents involved, two Justice Department attorneys who were present, and non-public details of the property’s layout. Trump has lashed out at “the Gestapo” agents who conducted the “raid,” and at the time of the search, suggested the government might seek to “plant” implicating documents.

Another exhibit discusses how two potential witnesses went about finding lawyers after Smith raised earlier questions over potential conflicts of interest for lawyers paid by Trump. After switching lawyers last year, one witness recanted previous false testimony and shared new information with the special counsel’s team, which led to the superseding indictment.

The filing also reveals how Trump's team is seeking to turn over an FBI report of an interview with a former Trump White House official who revealed privileged information about the classification process. Trump maintains that he declassified the sensitive government records that federal investigators seized from his residence after he left office.

The special counsel has sought to block Trump’s legal team from viewing certain information and has gone back and forth with the defense over how much information should be redacted or withheld in full.

One potential witness is already facing threats, with Smith’s team this week revealing in a separate filing that the U.S. attorney’s office had opened an investigation.

trumplestiltskin

The judge presiding over the federal criminal case involving former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents denied one of his two motions to dismiss the case Thursday, saying the motion was premature.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon found that Trump's argument — that the main statute prosecutors are using against him is unconstitutionally vague as it applies to presidents — is better-suited to be addressed later "in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions."

Cannon issued the ruling shortly after a daylong hearing on Trump's motions to toss the case, with Trump in attendance. Cannon, whom Trump nominated to the bench, made it clear she was skeptical of his attorneys' arguments on their other motion to dismiss, which contends that the Presidential Records Act bars his prosecution.

She said at the end of the hearing that she'd rule on the motions "promptly."

Trump’s legal team contended the bulk of the charges should be thrown out because of the 1978 law that governs the preservation of information during and following a presidency.

“It’s difficult to see how this gets you to the dismissal of an indictment,” Cannon said at one point.

Special counsel Jack Smith has called on Cannon to reject Trump’s claim that he should be shielded from prosecution because classified presidential records “can be transformed into ‘personal’” records by removing them from the White House. Trump has said that he designated the materials he took to Mar-a-Lago as personal records while still in office. A president's personal records are excluded from the act's requirements.

David Harbach, a prosecutor from Smith's office, told the judge, “The documents charged in the indictment are not personal records. Period. They are nowhere close to that.”

Smith was in court for the hearing, as well, and Trump eyed him during a break in the proceedings and again when they concluded. The former president, who's been animated while attending other court proceedings, appeared to listen intently to the arguments, often with his arms crossed. He focused mainly on the judge and occasionally whispered and passed notes to one of his attorneys, Todd Blanche. He sat stone-faced at one point when the judge clashed with Blanche over one of his arguments and called it a "red herring."

Cannon at times seemed more sympathetic to Trump's arguments and noted that no other former president has faced criminal charges related to the law. “There has never been a situation remotely similar to this one,” Jay Bratt of the special counsel's office responded.

Blanche argued that “presidents since George Washington have taken materials out of the White House” at “their own discretion,” but Cannon seemed skeptical of his arguments involving the Records Act.

The sides also argued the motion that the main statute used against Trump can’t be used against him.