Jack Smith

Post Reply New Topic

Two employees of former President Donald Trump moved boxes of papers the day before Federal Bureau of Investigation agents searched for and removed classified documents from Trump’s Florida home in an unannounced raid in August 2022, the Washington Post reported Thursday, days after reports circulated that Special Counsel Jack Smith was wrapping up his investigation into Trump’s potential mishandling of those documents.

Trump aides separately conducted a “dress rehearsal” to practice moving sensitive papers, even before he was subpoenaed in May 2022, the Post, citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter.

Prosecutors obtained evidence that shows that Trump stored classified documents in a visible place in his office, occasionally showing them to others, the Post reported.

The timing of the “dress rehearsal” and the moving of boxes was an indication of possible obstruction, the sources told the Post

The report indicates special counsel Smith’s criminal investigation into whether Trump mishandled those classified documents is coming to an end. Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal reported Trump’s associates are preparing for his indictment in the matter, though it’s unclear exactly when and if that will happen.

Dual revelations about Jack Smith’s probe into the mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago suggest the special counsel’s probe into former President Trump is advancing on several fronts, bolstering the case against him.

Reporting from CNN this week indicates authorities have a recording of Trump discussing his inability to share the contents of a classified document he retained — undercutting his long-standing claim he declassified the records in his possession.

The special counsel is also seeking more information about the movement of boxes at the Mar-a-Lago carried out by two Trump employees, The Washington Post reported, while Trump attorney Evan Corcoran was waived off from searching certain portions of Trump’s Florida home following a subpoena, according to The Guardian.

Collectively, the reporting suggests the special counsel is buttressing Espionage Act charges over the episode and still building an obstruction of justice case over the ensuing saga to secure the return of the records.

The week was capped with a report from lawyers and former prosecutors who concluded, based on public reporting, that the DOJ has enough evidence in the case to merit charging Trump directly.

“The Department’s own precedent makes clear that charging Trump would be to treat him comparably to others who engaged in similar criminal behavior, often with far fewer aggravating factors than the former president. Based on the publicly available information to date, a powerful case exists for charging Trump,” the group wrote in a model prosecution memo published by Just Security.

“We conclude that Trump should — and likely will — be charged.”

The tapes, which have not been directly reviewed by any outlet and only described by sources familiar, capture Trump in summer 2021 discussing a classified document reviewing options for launching a possible attack on Iran.

The tape is significant on two counts. It undercuts Trump’s ongoing claim that he declassified the records found at his home, something he at one point claimed a president could do simply by thinking about it.

But it also shows Trump’s awareness of the rules and processes surrounding the classification process ahead of the special counsel’s investigation, a key detail for prosecutors who would need to successfully demonstrate the former president willfully retained the records.

“The tape recording is most probative of Trump’s mental state. It shows that he knew the documents remained classified and shouldn’t be shared with others, which further undercuts any potential argument that he secretly declassified them,” Brian Greer, a former CIA attorney, told The Hill.

“It also makes it much easier to demonstrate that Trump’s retention of the documents was willful, a key element of an Espionage Act charge.”

Jim Trusty, an attorney for Trump, wouldn’t comment on whether the document in question was classified — saying during an appearance on CNN that Trump has “unfettered authority” to both declassify and personalize records from his presidency.

Trump, in a Thursday night interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity, also defended his actions without getting into specifics.

“All I know is this — everything I did was right. We have the Presidential Records Act, which I abided by a hundred percent,” Trump said.

Prosecution under the Espionage Act doesn’t require that information be classified, just that it deals with information important to the national defense. Plans for responding to Iran would likely qualify.

Part of the power of the tape is it allows prosecutors to hear in Trump’s voice his awareness of the rules surrounding the handling of sensitive information.

“If it is accurate as reported, I do think it’s very powerful evidence. One, it proves Donald Trump’s knowledge about the law regarding the handling of classified information. Unlike most laws, where ignorance of the law is no excuse, there are some exceptions to that law and one of them is handling classified information. You do have to know that it’s illegal when you violate that law,” said Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney.

“Having Trump on tape talking about, ‘I wish I could talk about this, but I can’t because it’s classified and I should have declassified it before I left,’ — that’s pretty good evidence of his knowledge.”

Other developments in the case show the DOJ continues to actively pursue evidence that could lead to an obstruction of justice charge.

Justice Department officials recently questioned a second Trump aide who was seen on camera helping Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, in moving boxes at Mar-a-Lago, including the day before DOJ officials came to collect classified material in June following a subpoena.

They’ve since asked additional questions about actions taken in July, when the DOJ issued a subpoena for video camera footage at Mar-a-Lago. That tape has been reported to have gaps, and the Justice Department recently spoke with two Trump Organization security officials about the matter.

In the warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, authorities said they had evidence of “obstructive conduct” and said that items “were likely concealed and removed from the storage room.”

Prosecutors also have at their disposal detailed notes from Corcoran, who removed himself from the Mar-a-Lago case after a judge pierced attorney-client privilege in the matter after determining that Trump may have misled him.

Judges have the power to strip the privilege if they believe legal advice has been used in furtherance of a crime.

Corcoran reportedly told authorities he was waved off of searching Trump’s office, where numerous classified records were found during the execution of the search warrant, and he said he was told any classified records would be found in the storage room with the records from Trump’s presidency. It’s unclear who waved him off.

Corcoran turned over 38 classified records in June in response to the subpoena, while the FBI found a little more than 100 more during their August search.

Attorneys for former President Donald Trump have been unable to locate the sensitive military document that Trump discussed on tape during a July 2021 meeting at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

Federal investigators have the audio recording, on which Trump acknowledges he held onto a sensitive military document after leaving office, sources previously told ABC News.

On the recording, which ABC News has not listened to nor obtained, Trump is heard attacking Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley and referencing one document in particular that Trump claimed Milley had compiled, according to sources. Trump, who said on the recording that he still had the document in his possession, said the document was about attacking Iran, sources said.

Trump's lawyers turned over documents in response to a March subpoena seeking all documents and materials related to Milley and Iran, including any materials containing invasion plans or maps, the sources told ABC News.

In their dealings with Trump's lawyers, special counsel Jack Smith's investigators said they specifically wanted the document that Trump referenced on the recording, sources familiar with the matter said. But they were unable to locate it.

It's also not clear whether Trump had the specific document with him during the July 2021 meeting while he was discussing it. Trump indicated during the recording that he knew the document in question was secret, sources said.

The recording was made during a meeting that Trump held with people who were helping former chief of staff Mark Meadows with his memoir, according to sources.

The federal grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the Justice Department’s investigation of former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents is expected to meet again this coming week in Washington, according to multiple people familiar with the investigation.

Prosecutors working for special counsel Jack Smith have been presenting the grand jury with evidence and witness testimony for months, but activity appeared to have slowed in recent weeks based on observations at the courthouse and sources.

It’s unclear whether prosecutors are prepared to seek an indictment at this point. The Justice Department would not comment on the status of the investigation.

According to reporting from NBC News and other outlets, prosecutors face two central legal questions: 1) Did Trump wrongfully retain classified documents after he left the White House? 2) Did he later obstruct the government’s efforts to retrieve them?

What crimes could Trump be charged with?
Clues about what precise crime or crimes Smith has been investigating can be found in court filings, including the search warrant and an accompanying affidavit submitted by the Justice Department. There are two basic categories: 1) crimes about the handling of classified documents, and 2) crimes about obstructing investigators from retrieving those materials.

Prosecutors cited the Espionage Act, which conjures up an image of someone acting as a spy for a foreign country. But the statute, enacted after World War I, is broader. It criminalizes anyone with "unauthorized possession" of "national defense" material who "willfully" retains it. A string of court decisions has concluded that even if a document isn’t technically "classified," someone can be charged under the law, so long as the information is "closely held" and the information would be useful to U.S. adversaries.

Justice Department attorneys also raised the prospect of an obstruction-related crime in court filings. But that law only applies if prosecutors can show that Trump’s intent was to "impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation." If Trump is charged with obstruction, it will be important to see what specific evidence Smith’s team has gathered about the former President's intent.

Prosecutors also don’t have to limit their case to the crimes explicitly outlined in the search warrant. Recent reporting from The Washington Post about Trump "sometimes" showing classified documents to others raises the question of whether he could be charged under an entirely different statute, "disclosure of classified information," which prohibits revealing certain classified material to anyone not authorized to receive it.

What is Trump’s most likely defense?
Since the raid, Trump has claimed that he had the power to declassify anything he wants, that he had a "standing order" to declassify documents, and that he could declassify materials simply by "thinking about it."

While there’s never been a case like this before — no former President has made such claims or been accused of such conduct — most national security lawyers say Trump’s argument is legally unpersuasive.

His broad power to declassify materials ended at noon on Jan. 20, 2021, once he was no longer president. But assume, for the sake of argument, that Trump declassified information in his mind as he flew on the plane from Washington to Florida. Attorney Bradley Moss says he would have still needed to effectuate that decision in some meaningful way.

A verbal command doesn’t do it. A tweet doesn’t do it. There has to be follow-up documentation through the agencies making clear what is being declassified," Moss told NBC News. "If not, anyone who saw it would still have to treat it as classified.” But, Moss cautioned, there’s no precedent for anything precisely like this case.

Many have pointed to the fact that Smith could avoid a battle about whether the documents were declassified by charging under the law regarding "national defense" material, but Trump would still likely argue he held onto materials he believed he had the right to possess. "His best defense is he didn’t realize they were classified documents because he didn’t pack them up," Moss added.

On an obstruction charge, Trump could argue that he relied on the advice of others, believed his team was complying with demands to return the documents, or others like his valet Walt Nauta, who moved the boxes, went rogue.

Where are Trump’s legal vulnerabilities?
Claims of Trump’s ignorance about how the documents got to Mar-a-Lago are undercut by the fact that he held onto them, even after the government repeatedly asked for them back, says Mary McCord, the former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department and an NBC News/MSNBC contributor.

"He had received a request and then a subpoena," McCord said. "If the Archives said we need the documents back and he gave everything back right away, we wouldn’t be talking about criminal culpability."

But that’s not all. Recent news, first reported by CNN, of Trump talking on tape about a classified document he kept after leaving office and wishing that he had declassified it also hurts his case in significant ways. "It kind of locks him in," McCord said. "It shows he actually knows he can’t show documents to people who aren’t authorized."

The recording could also be key to rebutting any defense that Trump might raise about having previously declassified everything he took after he left office.

Does Trump’s motivation for keeping the documents matter?
No. "Motivation is irrelevant," Moss said. Even if Trump wanted to keep classified documents in Florida — not because he planned to give them to foreign adversary but merely as a memento of his time as president — he could still face criminal charges.

Could Trump’s case conceivably go to trial before the 2024 election?
It’s difficult to say, especially without an indictment. What’s clear is that Trump’s legal team would fight any charges and undoubtedly attempt to delay the trial.

First, they would likely file multiple pretrial motions to get the case dismissed. And if that didn’t work, his attorneys could file appeals, which would drag the process out even longer.

An employee at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence drained the resort’s swimming pool last October and ended up flooding a room where computer servers containing surveillance video logs were kept, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

While it’s unclear if the room was intentionally flooded or if it happened by mistake, the incident occurred amid a series of events that federal prosecutors found suspicious.

At least one witness has been asked by prosecutors about the flooded server room as part of the federal investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents, according to one of the sources.

The incident, which has not been previously reported, came roughly two months after the FBI retrieved hundreds of classified documents from the Florida residence and as prosecutors obtained surveillance footage to track how White House records were moved around the resort. Prosecutors have been examining any effort to obstruct the Justice Department’s investigation after Trump received a subpoena in May 2022 for classified documents.

Prosecutors have heard testimony that the IT equipment in the room was not damaged in the flood, according to one source.

Yet the flooded room as well as conversations and actions by Trump’s employees while the criminal investigation bore down on the club has caught the attention of prosecutors. The circumstances may factor into a possible obstruction conspiracy case, multiple sources tell CNN, as investigators try to determine whether the events of last year around Mar-a-Lago indicate that Trump or a small group of people working for him, took steps to try to interfere with the Justice Department’s evidence-gathering.

Prosecutors have heard testimony that the IT equipment in the room was not damaged in the flood, according to one source.

Yet the flooded room as well as conversations and actions by Trump’s employees while the criminal investigation bore down on the club has caught the attention of prosecutors. The circumstances may factor into a possible obstruction conspiracy case, multiple sources tell CNN, as investigators try to determine whether the events of last year around Mar-a-Lago indicate that Trump or a small group of people working for him, took steps to try to interfere with the Justice Department’s evidence-gathering.

Subpoenas for surveillance
At least two dozen people – from Mar-a-Lago resort staff to members of Trump’s inner circle at the Florida estate – have been subpoenaed to testify in front of the federal grand jury investigating the former president’s handling of classified documents and possible obstruction of justice, CNN previously reported.

Prosecutors for special counsel Jack Smith have been asking questions in recent months about the handling of surveillance footage at Mar-a-Lago resort and discussions Trump’s employees had about the surveillance system after the subpoena last summer for the footage, according to multiple sources.

Recently, investigators have asked questions indicating they are trying to determine if workers at Mar-a-Lago received specific direction from above, particularly from Trump himself, to obstruct the investigation.

Investigators have in recent weeks asked Trump employees whether it’s possible there are gaps in the surveillance footage that was turned over, and whether it could have been tampered with, according to the sources. That detail was first reported by the New York Times. The special counsel’s office declined to comment for this story.

Focus on Trump employees
Prosecutors from the special counsel’s office have focused their obstruction inquiries around Trump, Trump’s body man Walt Nauta and a maintenance worker who helped Nauta move boxes of classified documents ahead of federal agents searching the property last summer, and potentially others, sources told CNN.

The sources say that the maintenance worker is the person who drained the pool that led to the flooding of the IT room where the surveillance footage was held.

Last month, longtime Trump Organization executives Matthew Calamari Sr. and his son Matthew Calamari Jr., who each held senior roles overseeing security at Trump properties and the surveillance of the Florida club, appeared before the grand jury.

At the time, Investigators were interested in both the maintenance worker’s conversations and a text message from Nauta to Calamari Sr. where Nauta asked to talk. An attorney for Nauta declined to comment for this story. A spokesman for Trump and an attorney representing the maintenance worker did not immediately respond to a request to comment.

Moving boxes
In addition to asking about the surveillance tapes, prosecutors have questioned witnesses about Nauta and the maintenance worker moving boxes after the Justice Department first subpoenaed Trump for classified documents last May.

The maintenance worker more recently spoke to investigators in an interview, and his phone has been seized, some of the sources now tell CNN. Neither has been charged with any crime.

I'd just like to see him charged and tried and if convicted, sentenced, just like any other American would be. No one is above the law. (I hope.)

But I'm also okay with them keeping him alive long enough to charge & convict him of a bunch of his other crimes, too.. J6 presidential harassment & political persecution related ones, Georgia election fraud perfect phone call hoax etc etc.

That “wack job” winning some more money from him, dozens of other “locker talk” women winning money from him, Leticia James who should go back to the s**thole country she came from convicting of him real estate fraud.

Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed multiple witnesses to testify before a previously unknown grand jury in Florida in the criminal investigation into Donald Trump’s handling of national security materials and obstruction of justice, according to people familiar with the matter.

The new grand jury activity at the US district court in Miami marks the latest twist in the investigation that for months has involved a grand jury that had been taking evidence in the case in Washington but has been silent since the start of last month.

FILE - Former President Donald Trump greets supporters before speaking at the Westside Conservative Breakfast, June 1, 2023, in Des Moines, Iowa. As Ron DeSantis embarked on the first official week of his presidential candidacy, the Florida governor repeatedly hit his chief rival, Trump, from the right. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File)
Trump lawyers meet with DoJ to stave off indictment in Mar-a-Lago case
Read more
Trump aide Taylor Budowich is scheduled to testify before the Florida grand jury on Wednesday, one of the people said, and questioning is expected to be led by Jay Bratt, the justice department’s counterintelligence chief detailed to the special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the investigation.

The previously unreported involvement of Bratt could suggest the questioning may focus on potential Espionage Act violations, particularly whether Trump showed off national security documents to people at his Mar-a-Lago resort – a recent focus of the investigation.

Bratt, who was seen arriving in Miami on Tuesday by the Guardian, has previously appeared for grand jury proceedings in the espionage side of the investigation, as opposed to the obstruction side, which has typically been led by Smith’s other prosecutors or national security trial attorneys.

A justice department spokesperson declined to comment.

But the underlying reasons as to why prosecutors in the special counsel’s office impaneled the new grand jury in Florida, and whether it is now the only grand jury active in the case after the Washington grand jury has sat dormant for weeks, remains an open question.

Prosecutors would most probably prefer to bring charges in Washington, where the judges at the US district court are more familiar with handling national security cases – though Florida also has a robust national security section – and the jury pool skews more Democratic.

The impaneling of grand juries has to do with where prosecutors believe a crime was committed. And the most straightforward reason for the Florida grand jury is that prosecutors have developed evidence of criminal activity at Mar-a-Lago, which is in the southern district of Florida.

In this investigation, prosecutors considering charges against Trump for retaining national security material may have concluded from the evidence that he was still president when classified documents were moved to Mar-a-Lago, meaning his “unlawful possession” only started in Florida.

Similarly, if prosecutors have also developed evidence that Trump knew he had retained national security documents after he left office at Mar-a-Lago, for instance by waving them around or showing people, that could present hurdles to charging Espionage Act violations in Washington.

The venue for an obstruction of justice charge is more difficult to deduce, meanwhile, because the courts have provided little guidance about how it should be applied under section 1519 of the US criminal code, which prosecutors listed on the affidavit for Mar-a-Lago search warrant.

Generally, other obstruction statutes hold that the venue depends on where the impeded proceeding was taking place. In the Trump documents investigation, the subpoena last year demanding the return of classified documents was issued in Washington.

The US court of appeals for the DC circuit, however, has ruled in previous cases that the correct venue is where acts of obstruction took place. If prosecutors are considering obstruction charges for Trump’s steps to conceal classified documents after the subpoena, Florida could be the venue.

Separate to the question of why prosecutors impaneled a new grand jury in Florida is what it indicates in terms of the status of the criminal investigation.

If both the Florida grand jury and the Washington grand jury are active, that could indicate prosecutors are considering charges in both places and against the same targets. But if the Florida grand jury is the only grand jury in operation, that could suggest several things.

It could be that the investigation in Washington is largely finished, and prosecutors have finalized whether to charge Trump and others there, but are still weighing separate charges in Florida.

Or prosecutors might have concluded charges in Washington and are at risk of dismissal over improper venue because the crimes occurred at Mar-a-Lago, and are moving the entire case to Florida.

Moving the entire case to Florida would not necessarily be that burdensome for the special counsel, legal experts said, and would just involve prosecutors reading out transcripts of testimony previously delivered to the Washington grand jury, in addition to questioning new witnesses.