Posts

Return to Sender: DOJ Seized Evidence that Up to 90 Highly Sensitive Documents May Have Disappeared

/246 Comments/in , /by

As you read the more detailed inventory unsealed by Judge Aileen Cannon, keep in mind that Trump is under investigation not just for unlawful retention of classified documents, but also under both 18 USC 2071 and 18 USC 1519, for concealing documents and (under just 2071) for removing them.

And one of the most notable details about the inventory (aside from the fact that the Roger Stone pardon is classified Secret) is the number of empty folders:

  • Item 2: The leatherbound box, containing news clippings dated 1/2017 to 10/2018
    • 43 empty folders with CLASSIFIED banners
    • 28 empty folders labeled Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide
  • Item 15: Box A-28, containing news clippings dated 10/2016 to 11/2018
    • 2 empty folders with CLASSIFIED banners
    • 2 empty folders labeled Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide
  • Item 18: Box A-35, containing news clippings dated 1/2018 to 12/2019
    • 2 empty folders labeled Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide
  • Item 23: Box A-39, containing clippings dated 11/2016 to 6/2018
    • 8 empty folders labeled Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide
  • Item 25: Box A-41, containing clippings dated 10/2016 to 11/2017
    • 1 empty folder with CLASSIFIED banners
  • Item 33: Box A-33 (includes potentially privileged documents), containing clippings dated 2/2017 to 2/2018
    • 2 empty folders with CLASSIFIED banners
    • 2 empty folders labeled Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide

All told, then, there are 48 empty CLASSIFIED document folders and 42 empty “Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide” folders. Each of those is a highly sensitive — and now potentially missing — document.

Update: I’ve added the two empty CLASSIFIED folders in Item 15 and adjusted the headline.

Update: Here’s my initial pass at the inventory (I need to proof the numbers; my missing Secret document happened to be Roger Stone!). An important point: Every one of the boxes seized had at least 2 government documents in it. Altogether, the FBI seized over 11,000 documents without classification markings.

 

No One Puts Roger Stone in a Box

/207 Comments/in , , /by

As I noted in my first post on Wednesday’s DOJ response to Trump’s bid to get a Special Master, the filing provides more details about what the FBI found where.

I’ve updated my nifty graphic accordingly.

As a reminder, this graphic attempts to show with horizontal boxes where things were seized, and with vertical boxes, to show where they were cataloged. The original search inventory was catalogued on two different receipts: one — which I refer to as the CLASS receipt — on which all boxes described to contain documents marked as classified were listed, and another — which I refer to as the SSA receipt because the Supervisory Special Agent signed it — which Fox News subsequently reported was where all the potentially privileged materials were catalogued. Once emptywheel gets a graphics department, I’ll update this to reflect 22 boxes were found in the storage room.

While we can’t be entirely certain, it appears that further sorting of the items on the SSA receipt of potentially privileged items has identified two more boxes and 3 additional documents marked as classified.

Another thing I think we can say is that the FBI found Roger Stone in Trump’s desk drawer, not some dusty box stored in a converted bomb shelter.

According to the filing, FBI seized classified materials from just two rooms: Trump’s office and a storage closet.

[C]lassified documents were found in both the Storage Room and in the former President’s office.

The filing also makes clear that the TS/SCI documents in the picture included as an appendix came from a container seized from Trump’s office.

See, e.g., Attachment F (redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the “45 office”).

That helps us sort out the locations of the items seized in the search. The label “2A” in the picture confirms the container in question is item 2 on the inventory, the leatherbound box, which is further confirmed because that box was the only one in the entire inventory described to enclose TS/SCI documents. So that also makes clear (as I suspected) that the leatherbound box was seized in Trump’s office.

In part based on known FBI search processes and the role of proximity in this search protocol, we can surmise that the other items lacking an A-prefix were also seized in Trump’s office (items 1 through 7 here, plus item 4, described only as “documents,” on the SSA receipt that we know lists the items originally identified as potentially including privileged material). It’s hypothetically possible that some of those items were seized in Trump’s residence, but in part because the filter team only searched Trump’s office and in part because there’s not a second series of numbers from a room identified as “B,” I think it more likely this stuff was in Trump’s office.

Given that the only other location from which classified documents were seized was the storage room, it suggests all the A-prefix boxes were seized there. Again, that makes sense given what we know of FBI processes: they label a room with a letter, then label the items in that room by letter and number. There were at least 73 boxes or other items searched in that storage room.

So the first page of what I call the CLASS receipt, the items outlined in red would have been found in Trump’s office, and the items outlined in purple would have been found in the storage room. Everything else on the CLASS receipt, too, would have been seized from the storage room.

And the SSA receipt included some number of documents seized from Trump’s office that filter agents wanted to review some more, as well as five boxes that, for some reason, investigative agents stopped searching and brought to the filter team to handle.

If all that’s right, it means that DOJ seized 26 (out of at least 73) boxes from the storage room, and seven items total (one of which was described as “documents,” plural, on the SSA privileged receipt) from Trump’s office, for a total of 33.

I’ll come back to that number, 33.

From that inventory, according to DOJ’s filing, 13 boxes include documents marked as classified, and all told, the FBI collected over 100 documents marked classified on August 8.

Of the Seized Evidence, thirteen boxes or containers contained documents with classification markings, and in all, over one hundred unique documents with classification markings—that is, more than twice the amount produced on June 3, 2022, in response to the grand jury subpoena—were seized.

Those over 100 break down this way, by location:

  • 76 documents found in boxes in the storage room
  • 3 documents (individually) found in desk drawer(s) in Trump’s office
  • At least 22 documents in the leatherbound box (I count around 23 from the picture)

It’s the number of total boxes with documents marked as classified, 13, that can’t be reliably broken down.

That’s because DOJ’s filing describes two more boxes that contain documents marked as classified, 13, than are reflected on the receipts, which show 11. They’ve found two more since August 8. The extra two boxes may come from one of two places: either boxes on the CLASS receipt that were not previously identified to include documents marked as classified but in which one or two classified documents were discovered on closer inspection, or boxes among the five originally on the SSA receipt that, after further filter review, were subsequently discovered to have classified documents.

It doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things — two boxes post-privilege review or two boxes in which there’s a stray classified document shorn of its cover sheet.

But it may reflect further processing of materials on the SSA receipt.

The government’s language on this is a bit confusing. In one place, the government seems to suggest the case agents have not reviewed anything in the containers originally designated to include potentially privileged documents (though this may simply mean the investigative team has finished its scrutiny of all boxes known not to contain privileged documents, without commenting on the rest).

The investigative team has reviewed all the materials in the containers that the privilege review team did not segregate as potentially attorney-client privileged.

In another place the government filing seems to suggest that since seizing the documents, a subsequent privilege review may have freed up materials — like some of the contents of those five boxes and documents, plural, from Trump’s office — for subsequent review or, in the case of Trump’s passports, return to the subject of the investigation.

[T]he government’s filter team has already completed its work of segregating any seized materials that are potentially subject to attorney-client privilege, and the government’s investigative team has already reviewed all of the remaining materials, including any that are potentially subject to claims of executive privilege.

In a third place, the government’s filing seems to suggest that DOJ has freed up everything not identified as potentially privileged, resulting in a much smaller possible universe of potentially privileged documents than the original five boxes plus “documents” laid out on the SSA receipt.

The privilege review team has completed its review of the materials in its custody and control that were identified as potentially privileged. The privilege review team identified only a limited subset of potentially attorney-client privileged documents.

I don’t so much care about the uncertainty except insofar as the small number might thwart Trump’s efforts to stall things with a Special Master review.

But several other things suggest that after pulling six items (five boxes from the storage room and “documents” from Trump’s office) for closer review on August 8, it has since freed up things that are clearly not privileged, and along the way identified some number of documents marked as classified.

One reason that almost has to be the case is that DOJ has segregated all classified documents because it has to do so to keep them secure (which will also help prove any eventual charges against Trump).

All of the classified documents seized in the August 8 search have been segregated from the rest of the seized documents and are being separately maintained and stored in accordance with appropriate procedures for handling and storing classified information.

This seems to suggest that even for the potentially privileged documents, the filter team has at least identified if they’re classified, so they can be stored someplace more secure than a hotel safe.

Another reason that seems, necessarily, to be true is that DOJ talks about documents marked as classified. While the FBI seized three individual documents from what appears to be Trump’s desk drawer — the Roger Stone clemency, a potential Presidential Record, and a handwritten note — none of those were described as classified, which would be easy to note. They might be classified, but they are not marked as such.

Which is to say that the two boxes not identified on the CLASS receipt that, per DOJ’s filing had classified documents, may be two that also contain potentially privileged documents. And the three documents from the desk drawer that are marked as classified were among those the filter team thought might be privileged. And in fact, Trump seems to know there are potentially privileged documents that are also classified. About the only thing Trump’s lawyers agree with DOJ about, regarding a hypothetical Special Master, is that that person should have TS/SCI clearance. (Which seems to be a confession that Trump broke the law, but Trump and his lawyers are doing that a lot of late.)

That also seems to be the only way to explain the treatment of items from Trump’s office: the filter team identified things that clearly weren’t privileged — such as the leatherbound box and all its contents and two binders of photos — then seized the rest as a category, documents, that they they have since done a more attentive privilege review on.

Three classified documents that were not located in boxes, but rather were located in the desks in the “45 Office,” were also seized. Per the search warrant protocols discussed above, the seized documents included documents that were collectively stored or found together with documents with classification markings.6

6 Plaintiff repeatedly claims that his passports were outside the scope of the warrant and improperly seized, and that the government, in returning them, has admitted as much. See D.E. 1 at 2 & n.2; D.E. 28 at 3, 8, 9. These claims are incorrect. Consistent with Attachment B to the search warrant, the government seized the contents of a desk drawer that contained classified documents and governmental records commingled with other documents. The other documents included two official passports, one of which was expired, and one personal passport, which was expired. The location of the passports is relevant evidence in an investigation of unauthorized retention and mishandling of national defense information; nonetheless, the government decided to return those passports in its discretion.

That’s how it was possible to seize three passports but not have them show up on the original receipt. They were included along with those documents, plural, on the SSA receipt. But then further review made it clear that Trump’s visa stamps are not classified, and Jay Bratt returned them to Evan Corcoran.

In my nifty graphic above, I’ve put the passports where they belong, in a desk drawer in Trump’s office.

Now let’s return to DOJ’s affirmation that the total number of items seized were 33.

Remember when I wrote an entire post, based on the FBI’s Borgesian counting methods, arguing that others were making a big mistake by assuming there was one item, Roger Stone clemency for things we know about — his lying to cover up how he coordinated with Russia in 2016 — listed as item 1, and another separate item, information about a French President, listed as item 1A?

Well, the people who filed Wednesday’s filing — who presumably have DOJ’s detailed inventory in hand — tell us that the number of items seized equals 33.

During the August 8 Execution of the Search Warrant at the Premises, the Government Seized Thirty-Three Boxes, Containers, or Items of Evidence, Which Contained over a Hundred Classified Records, Including Information Classified at the Highest Levels

Pursuant to the above-described search protocols, the government seized thirty-three items of evidence, mostly boxes (hereinafter, the “Seized Evidence”), falling within the scope of Attachment B to the search warrant because they contained documents with classification markings or what otherwise appeared to be government records.

That’s precisely the number recorded on the inventory. 33.

The only way the people in possession of that more detailed inventory would assert, still, that there were 33 items on the original inventory is if item 1, Executive Grant of Clemency for Roger Jason Stone, Jr., and item 1A, info re: President of France, are the same object.

If there are 33 items, Trump granted clemency to Stone for something to do with a French President.

Let me repeat that: If the people who wrote this filing, who unlike you and I are privy to the detailed inventory of what was taken, say there were 33 items taken, then the Stone clemency itemized as item 1 in the inventory we do have contains — within it — information about a French President.

This is a pardon or some other kind of clemency that, rather than giving it to DOJ for publication, Trump stuck in a desk drawer. Not a box in a storage room. Trump had a pardon (or some other clemency) for his rat-fucker about an unknown subject relating to a French President, stashed in his desk drawer, apparently right next to his passports and three documents marked as classified that may be privileged.

And that’s one of the reasons I found DOJ’s generous offer to unseal the more detailed receipt, in the guise of sharing it with Trump, to be rather delicious.

1 Plaintiff also sought a more detailed receipt for the property seized during the August 8, 2022 execution of the search warrant. D.E. 1 at 19-21; see generally D.E. 28. The Court ordered the government to file under seal “[a] more detailed Receipt for Property specifying all property seized pursuant to the search warrant.” D.E. 29 at 2. The government filed today under seal, in accordance with the Court’s order, the more detailed receipt. Although the receipt of property already provided to Plaintiff at the time of the search, see In Re Sealed Search Warrant, No. 22-MJ-8332 (S.D. Fla.) (hereinafter, “MJ Docket”), D.E. 17 at 5-7, is sufficient under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41, the government is prepared, given the extraordinary circumstances, to unseal the more detailed receipt and provide it immediately to Plaintiff. [my emphasis]

Be careful of what you wish for, Donny, especially with the press coalition already asking Judge Cannon to unseal these sealed materials.

If Trump pardoned Roger Stone for something to do with — say — a hack-and-leak campaign, conducted in coordination with the GRU, targeting Emmanuel Macron, but then stuck the pardon in his desk drawer rather than sending it to DOJ to be published along with all his other utterly corrupt pardons, it’s not something he wants to be public. My guess is the potential Presidential Record and the handwritten note, also apparently found in his desk drawer, are similarly things Trump wouldn’t like to be public. Likewise the three classified, potentially privileged documents found in the same desk drawer, which he agrees would require a TS/SCI clearance to review.

Trump stuck his rat-fucker in his desk drawer. And now his efforts to gum up this investigation may make that public.

Update: Judge Cannon has thwarted live coverage of the hearing on this today. But NBC reported that she will not order the release of the more detailed inventory, which may suggest she recognizes it doesn’t help Trump.

That Bratt-I-Am, That Bratt-I-Am, I Do Not Like That Bratt-I-Am

/98 Comments/in , , , /by

Red Docs, Blue Docs . . .

In the far-away land of Mar-A-Lago
sits a once-vaunted leader, now brought very low.
His voice, once ubiquitous, lordly, and loud
has become but a whimper, no longer so proud.
The cameras have vanished, the crowds have all shrunk,
as he scrambles for donors, this fallen-down punk.

And then come his lawyers, with news of a guest,
A visit un-looked for, unwelcome, unblessed.

“That Bratt-I-Am, that Bratt-I-Am,
I do not like that Bratt-I-Am.”

“You must return those stolen docs.
You must return them, yes, every box.”

“I do not have a box of docs,
and they are mine, you lying fox.”

But then they came and then they found
docs aplenty, all around . . .

One doc, two docs
red docs, blue docs
Docs TOPSECRET/SCI
Docs with pictures from on high
Docs with covers, docs with stamps,
Docs in files marked “terror camps”
Docs from spies and docs from techs
Docs ’bout planes on navy decks
Docs on armies, docs on friends
Docs on missiles, docs on end!

“I do not like you, Bratt-I-Am!
I do not like your little scam.
You only fight ’cause I am so strong!
You only fight ’cause Biden is wrong!
Besides, I don’t have the docs that you seek
or, if I do, they’re mine, free to keep!”

A pause, then that voice so quietly speaks
pricking his bubble; his vanity leaks.

“There’s only one president, you see,
and you are not it, quite obviously.
You’ve filed lots of lawsuits and lost every one
and Biden, not you, is the one who has won.

“The law is quite clear: these docs are ours.
You have no magic pixie dust powers.
You cannot claim them, nor take them home;
they belong to us, not you alone.
You must return those stolen docs.
You must return them, yes, every box.

“These classified docs are not like cheap porn
They’re CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET, ORCON, and NOFORN.
They’re stuff you can’t look at outside of a SCIF.
There are but a few even granted a sniff.
They should be under watch, behind guarded doors,
not left in a closet or stashed into drawers.
They must be sent back, each one of these docs
They must be returned, yes, every last box.

“We’ll come to you, or you to us.
You can return them on a bus.
You can return them on a train.
You can return them on a plane.
You can return them at your house.
You can return them with a mouse.
You must return those stolen docs.
You must return them, yes, every box.”

“But I *want* them, because they are mine!
and you cannot have them – don’t cross that line!”

“Have you read this warrant, here?
Do you not see? Is it not clear?
The judge agrees – you have no choice.
You must comply, so please, no more noise.
You must return those stolen docs
You must return them, yes, every box.”

“That Bratt-I-Am, that Bratt-I-Am,
I do not like that Bratt-I-Am!”

“Boxes of documents, boxes of pics,
Boxes of letters – be sure there’re no tricks!
We’ll carefully pack them and give you a list
(It *will* be redacted, but we’ll give you the gist)
We’ll guard them as well as the law says we must.
We’ll guard them much better than you have, we trust.

“For crimes have been crimed, as we have deducted:
espionage, theft, and justice obstructed.
The proof, we believe, will emerge box by box
from rooms where you’ve kept them without any locks.
The charges will follow, and names will be named
and soon the guilty in court will be blamed.

“Justice is coming,” says Bratt-I-Am,
and that once-vaunted leader can only say . . .
“Damn.”

How DOJ Continues to Build Its Case that Trump Improperly Retained National Defense Information

/159 Comments/in , /by

DOJ’s response to Trump’s request for a Special Master last night did a bunch of things — most notably, debunking lies Trump’s camp had been telling.

But I want to point to several details presumably designed not just to impress Judge Aileen Cannon that this is more serious than Trump has made out, but to give Trump and his attorneys notice that they’re dealing with National Defense Information.

As I and others have noted repeatedly, the Espionage Act doesn’t criminalize the refusal to return classified information. It criminalizes the refusal to return National Defense Information. That’s a legacy of how old the law is — it predates the current US classification system.

But it means Trump’s crowing about having declassified documents is simply bluster, irrelevant to his exposure under the statute.

The distinction between classified and National Defense Information not only shows up in Trump’s affidavit, but it shows up in a key spot: modifying a still-redacted paragraph between the discussion of the June 3 meeting (which, because it pertained to grand jury information, is entirely redacted in the affidavit) and the discussion of Jay Bratt’s June 8 follow-up.

2 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) does not use the term “classified information.” but rather criminalizes the willful retention of “information relating to the national defense.” The statute does not define “information related to the national defense.” but courts have construed it broadly. See Gorin, .. United States. 312 U.S. 19. 28 (1941) (holding that the phrase “information relating to the national defense” as used in the Espionage Act is a “generic concept of broad connotations, referring to the military and naval establishments and the related activities of national preparedness”). In addition, the information must be “closely held” by the U.S. government. See United States v. Squillacote. 221 F.3d 542, 579 (4th Cir. 2000) (”[I]nformation made public by the government as well as information never protected by the governent is not national defense information.”); United States, .. Morison. 844 F.2d 1057, 1071-72 (4th Cir. 1988). Certain courts have also held that the disclosure of the documents must be potentially damaging to the United States. See Morison, 844 F.2d at 1071-72. [my emphasis]

In context, when Bratt contacted Evan Corcoran and instructed him to secure the storage room where, DOJ suspected correctly, classified documents were still being stored, he was asking Corcoran to protect the information.

In yesterday’s filing, the government demonstrated what properly protecting NDI looks like in practice. The example that has — deservedly — gotten the most attention is the description of case agents and National Security Division attorneys having to get additional clearances to access this information.

In some instances, even the FBI counterintelligence personnel and DOJ attorneys conducting the review required additional clearances before they were permitted to review certain documents.

Trump was storing this stuff in a hotel safe. But when FBI and DOJ got the materials back, they wouldn’t let anyone look at the documents until they got additional clearances first.

DOJ also described that the classified materials that have been seized have been segregated and properly stored.

All of the classified documents seized in the August 8 search have been segregated from the rest of the seized documents and are being separately maintained and stored in accordance with appropriate procedures for handling and storing classified information.

DOJ intends that these special protections will extend to these court proceedings: DOJ demanded that if Judge Cannon decides to appoint a Special Master, she pick someone who is already cleared at the TS/SCI level.

If the special master must be permitted to review classified documents, in order to avoid unnecessary delay, the special master should already possess a Top Secret/SCI security clearance.

And finally, there’s the rationale that DOJ raised over and over again for why it needs to retain access to all the classified materials: The Intelligence Community needs to and has already started the process of assessing what kind of damage Trump did by keeping this stuff in his hotel safe.

The Intelligence Community is also reviewing the seized documents to assess the potential risk to national security that would result if these materials were disclosed while they were unlawfully stored at the Premises.

[snip]

As the government has explained, the Intelligence Community, under the supervision of the Director of National Intelligence, is conducting a classification review of those documents and an assessment of the potential risk to national security that could result from their disclosure.

Thus far, Trump’s lawyers have been oblivious to such warnings.

But if DOJ were to charge this, his attorneys’ obliviousness may be Trump’s downfall. I laid out (most recently in this post) what a jury would be asked to consider if Trump ever were put on trial for his actions. One central question would be whether the jury believed this was NDI, including whether (as bolded above) it was closely held. And one thing prosecutors would demonstrate, at length, is that whatever the former President did with these documents, the rest of the government continued to closely hold the materials.

If Trump’s lawyers were smart, they’d read last night’s filing and realize that every time they make DOJ write up another document, DOJ further documents things that would be key evidence against Trump at trial.

This stunt about a Special Master — whatever else it is — is also helping DOJ strengthen any prosecution of Trump for his actions.

Trump Stored Some of the Nation’s Most Sensitive Secrets with His Framed Time Magazine Cover

/101 Comments/in , /by

I wrote an initial thread of my read of the filing in the Trump document theft here.

It details how the investigation evolved, from 18 USC 2071 for the torn documents and 18 USC 793 for the stolen classified documents to add 18 USC 1519 after it was clear Trump and his team were willfully withholding stuff.

It describes the three sets of inventories of documents seized, roughly as follows (the filing didn’t break down the documents seized on August 8 by classification type):

I’m interested in where the FBI found certain things on August 8. As the filing notes, 13 boxes (not 11, as suggested by the warrant receipt) contained classified information, with over 100 marked classified documents identified.

The investigative team has reviewed all the materials in the containers that the privilege review team did not segregate as potentially attorney-client privileged. Of the Seized Evidence, thirteen boxes or containers contained documents with classification markings, and in all, over one hundred unique documents with classification markings—that is, more than twice the amount produced on June 3, 2022, in response to the grand jury subpoena—were seized. Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. See, e.g., Attachment F (redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the “45 office”). The classification levels ranged from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET information, and certain documents included additional sensitive compartments that signify very limited distribution. In some instances, even the FBI counterintelligence personnel and DOJ attorneys conducting the review required additional clearances before they were permitted to review certain documents.

Documents with classified markings were found in two places: the storage room and Trump’s office.

Notwithstanding counsel’s representation on June 3, 2022, that materials from the White House were only located in the Storage Room, classified documents were found in both the Storage Room and in the former President’s office.

76 documents were in the storage room, leaving at least 25 in his office. Three of those were found in desk drawers, at least some of them with his passports.

Three classified documents that were not located in boxes, but rather were located in the desks in the “45 Office,” were also seized.

[snip]

Consistent with Attachment B to the search warrant, the government seized the contents of a desk drawer that contained classified documents and governmental records commingled with other documents. The other documents included two official passports, one of which was expired, and one personal passport, which was expired. The location of the passports is relevant evidence in an investigation of unauthorized retention and mishandling of national defense information; nonetheless, the government decided to return those passports in its discretion.

That leaves at least 22 documents.

The photo included as an exhibit of the filing, is described as a “redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the ’45 office’,” which must be the leatherbound box described in the search warrant returns.

That shows that Trump was keeping some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets next to a framed Time Magazine cover.

And they were probably all in a standard hotel safe.

Update: This photo has been widely misunderstood. It is part of the FBI’s inventorying process. Effectively, the agents found the leatherbound box, emptied it out, and took pictures of everything in there. The 2A shows that these are the contents of that box. See this post for more about how the FBI documents their searches.

Key Details about Evan Corcoran that Evan Corcoran Did Not Disclose to Judge Aileen Cannon

/105 Comments/in , /by

Over the weekend, Judge Aileen Cannon ordered DOJ — which had not yet been formally served in Donald Trump’s civil suit to get a Special Master appointed to conduct a review of the materials seized from his home — to take initial steps towards appointing a Special Master.

There are a lot of procedural reasons why that order is crazy.

But Judge Cannon might be excused for believing some grave wrong has been done against the former President. That’s because the two filings his lawyers submitted — neither of which was accompanied by a sworn declaration — were wildly misleading.

I’d like to lay out a few of those details here. (First filing, Supplemental filing)

One of the lawyers who signed the filings is Evan Corcoran.

Some useful background first. In the Steve Bannon case, Corcoran let Bannon’s earlier attorney, Robert Costello, join his defense team even though Costello was a witness in the case against Bannon. He did so even after DOJ warned that might pose a problem. Ultimately, Costello conceded that might pose a conflict and he dropped off the team. So even in the last year, Corcoran has been rather flexible about where the role of defense attorney ends and the role of witness begins.

Now let’s look at the filings that Evan Corcoran signed, with two others.

One thing that Evan Corcoran didn’t bother to tell Aileen Cannon is that Evan Corcoran plays a lead role in the filing. The following are actions described in the two Trump filings that Evan Corcoran is either known, or by consistent reference, must have done, but which are attributed only to Trump’s counsel:

  • Communicated with DOJ, the White House, and NARA about the documents
  • On June 3, met with Jay Bratt at Mar-a-Lago
  • Told Bratt and three FBI agents that Trump consented to a search of a storage room that contributed to the probable cause that Trump was still refusing to return classified documents
  • Asked Bratt to communicate with him if they needed anything more
  • On June 8, received an email directing Trump to secure the storage room
  • Was the person informed of the search on August 8
  • Engaged in “heated discussion” after being so informed
  • Asked three questions after being informed of the search
  • Refused to turn off surveillance video during the search
  • Was informed on August 11 that the FBI had seized materials that might include privileged material
  • On August 11, stated the following to Jay Bratt:
    • President Trump wants the Attorney General to know that he has been hearing from people all over the country about the raid. If there was one word to describe their mood, it is “angry.'” The heat is building up. The pressure is building up. Whatever I can do to take the heat down, to bring the pressure down, just let us know.
  • Was informed that filter agents who searched the Former President’s office had taken three passports

Here are some other details regarding events in which Corcoran was involved that he did not disclose to Judge Cannon:

  • After the meeting with Bratt, Trump did not identify and provide all classified documents at Mar-a-Lago to DOJ in response to a subpoena
  • In response to a direction to Corcoran to secure the storage room, Trump did nothing more than add a new lock
  • Corcoran made the comment about “the heat [] building up” in the wake of an attack by an armed Trump supporter on an FBI office
  • After Corcoran was informed on August 11 that DOJ would not use a Special Master, he did nothing for ten days
  • DOJ did, in fact, include a Corcoran letter that the first filing suggested they had not, thereby alerting Bruce Reinhart of Corcoran’s claim that Presidents have absolute authority to declassify documents

Perhaps most critically, in the second filing that quotes from the warrant affidavit, Evan Corcoran did not disclose to Judge Cannon that Evan Corcoran’s own actions are described in the unredacted parts of the warrant affidavit. He is mentioned five times in just in the unredacted section (and the fact that the affidavit refers to FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 strongly suggests there’s an FPOTUS COUNSEL 2, Christina Bobb, mentioned in the redacted sections).

[redacted] In the second such letter, which is attached as Exhibit 1, FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 asked DOJ to consider a few “principles,” which include FPOTUS COUNSEL 1’s claim that a President has absolute authority to declassify documents. In this letter, FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 requested, among other things, that “DOJ provide this letter to any judicial officer who is asked to rule on any motion pertaining to this investigation, or on any application made in connection with any investigative request concerning this investigation.”

[snip]

On June 8, 2022, DOJ COUNSEL sent FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 a letter, which reiterated that the PREMISES are not authorized to store classified information and requested the preservation of the STORAGE ROOM and boxes that had been moved from the White House to the PREMISES. Specifically, the letter stated in relevant part:

As I previously indicated to you, Mar-a-Lago does not include a secure location authorized for the storage of classified information. As such, it appears that since the time classified documents [redacted] were removed from the secure facilities at the White House and moved to Mar-a-Lago on or around January 20, 2021, they have not been handled in an appropriate manner or stored in au appropriate location. Accordingly, we ask that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the documents had been stored be secured and that all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until farther notice.

On June 9, 2022, FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 sent an email to DOJ COUNSEL stating, ”I write to acknowledge receipt of this letter.”

That makes the other things that Corcoran chose to misrepresent to or conceal from Aileen Cannon far more important:

  • That the warrant provided the reason for the search
  • That the reason for the search was to find documents Trump had refused to return, which amounted to probable cause for violations of the Espionage Act, 18 USC 2071, and obstruction (Corcoran had falsely affirmed the warrant was about the Presidential Records Act, which was not named on the face of the warrant at all)
  • That a quote in the second filing focusing on Presidential Records neglected to mention the evidence of Espionage Act and obstruction in the same paragraph; Corcoran withheld the following bolded language:
    • Further, there is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified NDI or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at the PREMISES. There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at the PREMISES.
  • Trump fought for 8 months before he acceded to send the first 15 boxes back
  • Christina Bobb was the custodian of records that accepted service for a subpoena asking for all remaining classified documents
  • Trump didn’t return all classified documents in response to a subpoena for them
  • That custodian of records, Bobb, not some lawyer who happened to be in the neighborhood, signed off on the property receipt
  • Custodian of records Bobb made no objections as to the form of the search warrant receipt — one basis for the claimed action — at the time of the search or since
  • No Special Counsel issued a finding that the FBI agents who investigated Trump were biased; the Inspector General issued a finding that there no evidence bias affected the investigation and a Special Counsel attempted to make similar claims that have thus far all failed (Corcoran makes a slew of other false claims about the Horowitz Report as his basis to suggest the FBI has been mean to Trump)
  • The Acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall obtained an Executive Privilege waiver for documents inappropriately withheld under the PRA in May and informed Corcoran of that
  • In the ensuing three months after Corcoran was informed of the Executive Privilege waiver, he is not known to have done anything to contest it
  • The National Security Division filter team Corcoran describes and the filter process described in the warrant appear to be different (the former seems to be one described to him by the Acting Archivist)
  • The filter team process in the warrant approved by Reinhart includes the possibility of a Special Master, something Corcoran claims Reinhart could not approve:
    • (c) disclose the documents to the potential privilege holder, request the privilege holder to state whether the potential privilege holder asserts attorney-client privilege as to any documents, including requesting a particularized privilege log, and seek a ruling from the court regarding any attorney-client privilege claims as to which the Privilege Review Team and the privilege-holder cannot reach agreement.
  • If the storage of classified materials fit the terms of the CFR guiding storage of classified documents, then the surveillance video Corcoran refused to turn off would have shown to Trump what materials were seized from where
  • That DOJ acknowledged the passports weren’t validly seized under the warrant (they were, and Corcoran even suggests why they were — because they were in the same safe holding classified documents), when DOJ simply said they weren’t included in the scope of the crimes under investigation

Evan Corcoran, in a filing that failed to disclose his own role in the events under investigation, misrepresented to the judge that this was a search about the Presidential Records Act and not an investigation into violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction.

He didn’t even tell her that he is named in the affidavit showing probable cause of obstruction.

Update: DOJ has acknowledged Cannon’s order. As expected, they’ve completed much of the privilege review already.

Although the government will provide the Court more detail in its forthcoming supplemental filing, the government notes that, before the Court issued its Preliminary Order, and in accordance with the judicially authorized search warrant’s provisions, the Privilege Review Team (as described in paragraphs 81-84 of the search warrant affidavit) identified a limited set of materials that potentially contain attorney-client privileged information, completed its review of those materials, and is in the process of following the procedures set forth in paragraph 84 of the search warrant affidavit to address potential privilege disputes, if any. Additionally, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”) are currently facilitating a classification review of materials recovered pursuant to the search. As the Director of National Intelligence advised Congress, ODNI is also leading an intelligence community assessment of the potential risk to national security that would result from the disclosure of these materials.

Six Days: Trump’s Second Whack Filing Is Too Late

/194 Comments/in , /by

According to the Trump affidavit, between May 16 and May 18, the FBI conducted a preliminary review of the 15 boxes of materials he returned to NARA in January.

47. From May 16-18, 2022, FBI agents conducted a preliminary review of the FIFTEEN BOXES provided to NARA and identified documents with classification markings in fourteen of the FIFTEEN BOXES. A preliminary triage of the documents with classification markings revealed the following approximate numbers: 184 unique documents bearing classification markings, including 67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 92 documents marked as SECRET, and 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET. Fm1her, the FBI agents observed markings reflecting the following compartments/dissemination controls: HCS, FISA, ORCON, NOFORN, and SI. Based on my training and experience, I know that documents classified at these levels typically contain NDI. Several of the documents also contained what appears to be FPOTUS ‘s handwritten notes.

We know from the letter from Acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall that the FBI first got access to those records no earlier than May 12.

I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s “protective” claim of privilege. See Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a); see also 36 C.F.R. 1270.44(f)(3) (providing that unless the incumbent President “uphold[s]” the claim asserted by the former President, “the Archivist discloses the Presidential record”). For the same reasons, I have concluded that there is no reason to grant your request for a further delay before the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community begin their reviews. Accordingly, NARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question , as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.

One … two … three … four … five … six.

That’s how many days it took the FBI to process 15 boxes of material and then find 184 unique pieces of evidence that the former President violated the Espionage Act.

Six days.

Now consider a detail included in the affidavit. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, there was a filter team onsite. The affidavit helpfully explains that the primary job of the filter team was to do the search of Trump’s office.

82. The Case Team will be responsible for searching the TARGET PREMISES. However, the Privilege Review Team will search the “45 Office” and conduct a review of the seized materials from the “45 Office” to identify and segregate documents or data containing potentially attorney-client privileged information.

Probably, the case team brought the privilege review team five other boxes to review. That’s because Fox News told us already that all the items on what I call the SSA receipt include privileged materials, but the numbers for five of those boxes suggest they were found in the proximity of all the rest, likely the storage closet.

So five boxes (and a stash of documents) were identified to include privileged information. The remainder, a total of 22 boxes (one of which is the leatherbound box with the TS/SCI documents), would presumably be subjected to a similar process as that used in May.

Probably, that initial search was done with a limited team, because the investigation was not overt yet (though Trump obviously knew about it). Now, this time around, FBI was undoubtedly assuming that Trump could run to the court to get a Temporary Restraining Order at any time, so they may have thrown additional bodies at the problem. But let’s assume the process took the same amount of time. There are approximately 50% more boxes on the CLASS receipt than FBI first accessed in May. 50% more days would be nine days.

August 8 … August 9 … August 10 … August 11 … August 12 … August 15 … August 16 … August 17 … August 18. Nine days.

Even assuming that the FBI didn’t throw extra bodies at the problem, even assuming they took weekends off — both completely ridiculous assumptions when you’re trying to beat a notoriously litigious suspect trying to hide stuff — they would have been done with that same preliminary review around August 18. Nine days ago.

They could have gone through the entire process twice in the time elapsed since the search of Mar-a-Lago!!!

That timeline is consistent, in fact, with NYT having gotten a leak that the FBI had found maybe 100 more documents with classified markings, just from the 27 (or maybe just 22 of the) boxes seized on August 8, by August 22.

The initial batch of documents retrieved by the National Archives from former President Donald J. Trump in January included more than 150 marked as classified, a number that ignited intense concern at the Justice Department and helped trigger the criminal investigation that led F.B.I. agents to swoop into Mar-a-Lago this month seeking to recover more, multiple people briefed on the matter said.

In total, the government has recovered more than 300 documents with classified markings from Mr. Trump since he left office, the people said: that first batch of documents returned in January, another set provided by Mr. Trump’s aides to the Justice Department in June and the material seized by the F.B.I. in the search this month.

Every single document with classified markings seized on August 8 is another piece of evidence that the former President took classified documents the Presidential Records Act says must be in the Archives or the agency that generated the documents and refused to give them back. And then refused again. And again. And again. If the DOJ were ever to charge Trump, they might focus on just twenty documents, like they did with Hal Martin.

They’ve got 15 times that to choose from already.

Now let’s go back to the privileged documents — 5 boxes and a pile of other documents, presumably obtained from Trump’s office. For some reason — perhaps because they’re also government records or include classified information — even after identifying them as privileged, FBI still got to seize them.

Five boxes, a third the number as the original batch from Mar-a-Lago. Once you got into those boxes, it might take just two days to do an initial review of them.

Now, we don’t know what DOJ is doing with them (though they did decide to take them). But here’s what, per the affidavit, they were permitted to do:

84. If the Privilege Review Team determines that documents are potentially attorney-client privileged or merit further consideration in that regard, a Privilege Review Team attorney may do any of the following: (a) apply ex parte to the court for a determination whether or not the documents contain attorney-client privileged material; (b) defer seeking court intervention and continue to keep the documents inaccessible to law-enforcement personnel assigned to the investigation; or (c) disclose the documents to the potential privilege holder, request the privilege holder to state whether the potential privilege holder asserts attorney-client privilege as to any documents, including requesting a particularized privilege log, and seek a ruling from the court regarding any attorney-client privilege claims as to which the Privilege Review Team and the privilege-holder cannot reach agreement.

They can hold off entirely (option b), they can engage in a sort of a Special Master review (option c), or (option a), they can secretly go to the judge and ask him to decide whether they’re privileged. The way this is written suggests that DOJ imagined that Bruce Reinhart might look at documents the privilege team identified as privileged and decide they weren’t privileged, possibly because they were crime-fraud excepted.

Remember that Fox News report relaying Trump’s complaints that the FBI had taken attorney-client privileged documents? That was published on August 13, six days after the search.

To be sure, Judge Reinhart probably can’t sort through boxes of documents at the pace the FBI can (though, what else was he going to do, given that he was hiding out from Trump’s mob?). Still, by the time Trump learned that the SSA receipt reflecting 5 boxes and some other documents from his office had privileged material in them, DOJ had had five days to do their own filter search and go back to Reinhart and ask him to confirm they could access those materials.

And that was something like fourteen days ago.

Yesterday, five days after their first attempt to submit a whack filing asking for (among other things) a Special Master to review the seized documents — but not for attorney-client privilege, but for Executive Privilege (documents that, by definition, belong at the Archives) — and after some polite prodding from an wildly pro-Trump Judge, Aileen Cannon, they submitted their second attempt.

I’m not going to go through it in depth this time (here’s a typically hilarious thread from Mike Dunford on it). But here are two key details. First, in response to one of the really helpful prods from Judge Cannon, Trump’s lawyers confessed that, no, they hadn’t thought to formally inform DOJ about this lawsuit before she reminded them that’s necessary.

Finally, the Court has directed Movant to address the status of service of process on the Government. Dkt. 10. Movant served the Motion to United States Attorney Juan Antonio Gonzalez and Jay Bratt, Chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section in the DOJ’s National Security Division, on the date of filing, August 22, 2022, via electronic mail. Counsel for Movant spoke with Mr. Bratt on August 25, 2022, and inquired as to the Government’s position on acceptance of service. Mr. Bratt consulted the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”), and informed counsel for Movant that, consistent with DOJ practice, SDFL adheres to the requirements of Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for service of process in a civil matter against the United States. Accordingly, counsel for Movant sought an executed copy of a Summons, which has been issued by the Clerk. See Dkt. 26. Movant will promptly serve it, and a copy of the pleadings, on the U.S. Attorney’s Office for SDFL and will promptly file proof of service thereafter.

But, two days after she nudged them to do so, Trump’s lawyers decided to call Jay Bratt, and asked him if he’d really like formal notice that they want to sue him to prevent him from doing his job.

He did.

So sometime on Monday, maybe — that’ll be 21 days after the FBI seized 27 boxes from Trump’s hotel, more than three times as long as it took for FBI to find 184 unique pieces of evidence that Trump violated the Espionage Act back in May — DOJ will have formal notice that this is going on, which would be the earliest that Judge Cannon could conceivably say, “Stop what you’re doing!!”

But she won’t, because first she’s going to give DOJ a chance to weigh in, even if on accelerated schedule.

With that in mind, here’s the second point. On their second attempt, Trump’s lawyers managed to ask for the thing they needed to do if they really wanted a Special Master: to ask for an injunction.

Movant requests two categories of relief in the present proceeding. First, Movant seeks an order directing the appointment of a Special Master to oversee the review of materials seized from Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022 and enjoining the Government from engaging in any further review of those materials.

[snip]

The present Motion seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order barring the Government from engaging in any further review of materials seized on August 8, 2022.

I’m not sure they’ve made this ask properly. At this point, 18 days after the search, it’s probably not even worth the effort figuring it out. The point, though, is how this will work. 21 days after the search of Trump’s house, 17 days after DOJ told Trump they’re going to pursue some other option to access the stuff already identified as attorney-client privileged (one of which might be asking Reinhart to allow them to access it), and 14 days after Trump started getting stuff — his passports — that was out of scope of the investigation, is the first moment that they will have formally told a judge, “Emergency!!! We need a Special Master!!!”

Update: Two significant developments. First, Judge Cannon has issued an order to the government — which has not yet been served — to respond to Trump’s motion by Tuesday.

 On or before August 30, 2022, Defendant shall publicly file a Response to the Motion and Supplement, including Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of a special master.

In addition to the Response, on or before August 30, 2022, Defendant shall file under seal the following materials:

i. A more detailed Receipt for Property specifying all property seized pursuant to the search warrant executed on August 8, 2022.

ii. A particularized notice indicating the status of Defendant’s review of the seized property, including any filter review conducted by the privilege review team and any dissemination of materials beyond the privilege review team.

Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines has told various Committee Chairs and Ranking Members that the IC is conducting a classification review and what sounds like a preliminary damage assessment. That suggests the stolen documents are already out to the agencies.

Update: In DOJ’s initial response, they’ve noted that the privilege review is already done.

Although the government will provide the Court more detail in its forthcoming supplemental filing, the government notes that, before the Court issued its Preliminary Order, and in accordance with the judicially authorized search warrant’s provisions, the Privilege Review Team (as described in paragraphs 81-84 of the search warrant affidavit) identified a limited set of materials that potentially contain attorney-client privileged information, completed its review of those materials, and is in the process of following the procedures set forth in paragraph 84 of the search warrant affidavit to address potential privilege disputes, if any. Additionally, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”) are currently facilitating a classification review of materials recovered pursuant to the search. As the Director of National Intelligence advised Congress, ODNI is also leading an intelligence community assessment of the potential risk to national security that would result from the disclosure of these materials.

 

The Elements of the Offense for an 18 USC 793e Prosecution

/164 Comments/in , /by

Back on August 10, I did a post laying out the elements of the offense from some pattern jury instructions for 18 USC 793e, which is what a judge would instruct a jury to consider if the Trump document theft ever went to trial.

I want to update with contents of the affidavit that so that others understand how things like the June 3 meeting at Mar-a-Lago were not only an attempt to get the stolen classified documents back, but were, short of doing so, a way to establish probable cause in the event that Trump would not cooperate. These efforts would overcome the real challenges — laid out in this WaPo article — of holding a former President accountable.

Key to holding Donald J. Trump accountable for the theft of classified documents will not be, as it is in most cases, reference to the multiple Non-Disclosure Agreements that cleared people have to sign (for the reasons the WaPo laid out). Instead, it would be to show that the Presidential Records Act required Trump to return every Presidential Record, classified or not, and that because he did not have clearance after he was no longer President nor (according to Joe Biden) a need to know, he could not retain any NDI. Given the atrocious conditions under which he kept this stuff at Mar-a-Lago and his refusal to fix that, the guidelines on retaining classified information (which are cited in the affidavit) would also be key.

Here’s what jurors would be asked to decide:

Did the defendant, without authorization, have possession of, access to, or control over a document that was National Defense Information?

Yes. As of January 20, 2021, Donald Trump (FPOTUS) had an affirmative obligation to return all Presidential Records to the National Archives, whether or not those records had National Defense Information.

From May 6, 2021 until late December 2021, NARA informed FPOTUS of missing documents and attempted to negotiate their return. Upon retrieval of those documents, NARA sent a referral to DOJ regarding the classified documents. Inventories and witness testimony confirmed FPOTUS retained further Presidential Records, including classified records. On May 12, the FBI subpoenaed the remaining classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, but when Jay Bratt arrived to retrieve them on June 3, he discovered FPOTUS continued to withhold classified documents.

From January 20, 2021 until August 8, 2022, FPOTUS retained 100s of documents including NDI in defiance of the Presidential Records Act, as well as other documents.

Did the document in question relate to the national defense?

From January 20, 2021 until January 2022, FPOTUS retained the following documents containing NDI:

  • 67 Confidential documents
  • 92 Secret documents
  • 25 Top Secret documents
  • Others marked HCS, FISA, ORCON, NOFORN, and SI
  • Some documents with Trump’s handwritten notes

From January 2022 until June 3, 2022, FPOTUS retained [description of the documents turned over]. On that day, representatives showed Jay Bratt–but refused to turn over–identifiable documents containing NDI.

From January 20, 2021 until August 8, 2022, FPOTUS had unauthorized possession of 11 boxes including NDI documents, including documents classified TS/SCI.

All of these documents were closely held, related to national defense, would do grave damage if released.

Did the defendant have reason to believe the information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?

Trump is such a psychopath that the answer to this might normally be in question. After all, he routinely treated top secret intelligence like it was toilet paper or party favors for visiting Russians. But because of that June meeting, they will likely be able to reach that, as well.

On June 3, 2022, DOJ’s head of Counterintelligence traveled to Mar-a-Lago to discuss the unlawfully retained documents. FPOTUS acknowledged Mr. Bratt’s goal and acceded to the goal of securing the documents. After Mr. Bratt sent attorney for FPOTUS a communication on June 8, 2022, directing him to secure all NDI material according to the terms of 32 CFR Parts 2001 and 2003. Attorney for FPOTUS acknowledged receipt and took action in response. However, on August 8, 2022, both the storage closet containing 10 boxes of documents including NDI information and one box, including TS/SCI documents, stored in a hotel safe, remained insecure.

Did the defendant retain the above material and fail to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it?

From May 2021 until January 2022, NARA informed FPOTUS of the requirements to comply with the Presidential Records Act. On May 12, 2022, the FBI subpoenaed remaining classified information.

Nevertheless, FPOTUS refused to comply, even with a lawful subpoena, and remained in possession of 11 boxes including NDI information on August 8, 2022.

Did he keep this document willfully?

In addition to refusing NARA’s legal requests to return the documents and a lawful subpoena, FPOTUS took efforts to conceal NDI information from his representatives to prevent them from returning documents. Multiple witnesses have testified that FPOTUS responded to consultations about the importance of returning NDI information by insisting they were, “Mine!”

All of the above, aside from the witness testimony declaring Presidential Records including classified NDI, “Mine,” would be backed by multiple exchanges of paperwork.

Christina Bobb, Custodian of Records and Coup Conspirator

/116 Comments/in , , , /by

According to Donald Trump’s whack-ass filing the other day, he personally has yet to receive a subpoena in the investigation of his  suspected theft of classified documents and obstruction of one or more investigations by hiding, ripping, or flushing documents. Instead, his hospitality company and Christina Bobb have.

DOJ sent the June 22 subpoena for surveillance footage at Mar-a-Lago to the Custodian of Records at the Trump Organization.

On June 22, 2022, the Government sent a subpoena to the Custodian of Records for the Trump Organization seeking footage from surveillance cameras at Mar-a-Lago. At President Trump’s direction, service of that subpoena was voluntarily accepted, and responsive video footage was provided to the Government.

The WaPo explained that it was sent to Trump Organization, not Trump, because that’s who actually owns Mar-a-Lago.

By the way, that means that Trump Organization could have, but thus far has not, intervened in the August 8 search as well as Donald. Indeed, that may have been what Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who has read the search warrant affidavit, was alluding to when he memorialized his order asking DOJ to provide more justification for its review. He noted that neither Trump nor any other “purported owner” of Mar-a-Lago had intervened.

Neither Former President Trump nor anyone else purporting to be the owner of the Premises has filed a pleading taking a position on the Intervenors’ Motions to Unseal.

In fact, when Trump intervened in the Michael Cohen search in 2018 — and did so after just four days — he did so in the persons of Trump Organization lawyer Alan Futerfas and Futerfas’ partner Ellen Resnick. Having Trump Organization ask for a Temporary Restraining Order would have been another way to intervene in more timely and competent way than Trump has done so far — but Trump Organization has been rather distracted preparing for depositions in Tish James’ investigation and the October trial testimony of their former CFO in a New York City trial.

In any case, it is totally normal for a grand jury to subpoena the “Custodian of Records” of a corporation from which it wants records. In the case of the surveillance video (and presumably a renewed subpoena after the search), that just happened to place the legal obligation to respond on an entity that has a whole heap of other legal problems right now.

In Trump’s whack filing, though, the hero of our story Donald J. Trump magnanimously instructed Trump Organization to accept service and provide the video (it appears that Eric or the failson would have been the ones legally to give that order), otherwise known as “complying with a subpoena.”

It’s the other subpoena I find more interesting.

On May 11, 2022, Movant voluntarily accepted service of a grand jury subpoena addressed to the custodian of records for the Office of Donald J. Trump, seeking documents bearing any classification markings. President Trump determined that a search for documents bearing classification markings should be conducted — even if the marked documents had been declassified — and his staff conducted a diligent search of the boxes that had been moved from the White House to Florida. On June 2, 2022, President Trump, through counsel, invited the FBI to come to Mar-a-Lago to retrieve responsive documents. [italics Trump’s, bold mine]

There’s a lot going on in this passage. Whereas the earlier passage described the government sending the subpoena, here Trump’s team only describes that service for it was accepted, “voluntarily,” it notes in italics, which is not a thing.

It’s a subpoena, you don’t get a choice.

The passage dates that acceptance to May 11 — the day after, we now know, that the Acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall had informed Evan Corcoran, acting as Trump’s attorney, that she would not respect Trump’s “protective assertion of executive privilege.” The dates are almost certainly related, but we can’t be sure how, because we can’t be sure when DOJ subpoenaed Trump for the rest of the classified documents he was hoarding.

More interesting, to me, is the way this passage introduces a second role (and third) it will rely on heavily to describe what must be a core focus of the obstruction investigation, that Custodian of Records of the Office of Donald J. Trump. The Custodian of Records accepted the subpoena (and so would be on the legal hook for it), “his staff conducted a diligent search,” and then his counsel — Corcoran — “invited” Jay Bratt to come get the additional classified documents that would constitute proof Trump had violated the Espionage Act. Trump doesn’t reveal who did the search (though other reports have said Corcoran did it). But as presented, this process implicated three different roles, at least one role performed by a guy who signed this very whack filing that works so hard to obscure all this.

All that is set-up for the meeting on June 3, which will carry a great deal of legal import going forward, not least in an inevitable Fourth Amendment suppression motion. Here’s the tale the whack filing, written in part by Evan Corcoran, tells:

The next day, on June 3, 2022, Jay Bratt, Chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section in the DOJ’s National Security Division, came to Mar-a-Lago, accompanied by three FBI agents. President Trump greeted them in the dining room at Mar-a-Lago. There were two other attendees: the person designated as the custodian of records for the Office of Donald J. Trump, and counsel for President Trump. Before leaving the group, President Trump’s last words to Mr. Bratt and the FBI agents were as follows: “Whatever you need, just let us know.”

Responsive documents were provided to the FBI agents. Mr. Bratt asked to inspect a storage room. Counsel for President Trump advised the group that President Trump had authorized him to take the group to that room. The group proceeded to the storage room, escorted by two Secret Service agents. The storage room contained boxes, many containing the clothing and personal items of President Trump and the First Lady. When their inspection was completed, the group left the area.

Once back in the dining room, one of the FBI agents said, “Thank you. You did not need to show us the storage room, but we appreciate it. Now it all makes sense.” Counsel for President Trump then closed the interaction and advised the Government officials that they should contact him with any further needs on the matter.

This passage is designed to portray Trump’s response as completely cooperative, which is set up for a claim the warrant was not necessary. As such, it describes an FBI comment undoubtedly designed, legally, to reiterate that a consensual search — of the storage room — was indeed consensual, as if it means something else, that the FBI had had all its questions answered. But when Trump eventually receives the affidavit that relies on this FBI agent’s first-hand observations during a consensual search to show probable cause for a warrant to come back and search the storage room further, Trump will have ceded the consensual nature of it and therefore his ability to suppress the August 8 search.

Evan Corcoran will one day be underbussed for agreeing (and in this filing, attesting) to this consensual search; given the way he’s portrayed in this WaPo story, the underbussing may have already begun. But for now, it is the stated version Trump wants to tell.

What I’m interested in, though, is that according to this version — a version that makes absolutely no mention of the declaration Jay Bratt required Trump’s team provide after that consensual search of the storage room — the roles that Corcoran and Christina Bobb played were different, and different in a way that holds legal weight. They don’t name names, but because Corcoran is known to have done the things attributed to “counsel” in this whack filing, he must be the counsel in the meeting and Bobb, by process of elimination, was the Custodian of Records. So Bobb was the person on the hook for the subpoena response.

As a reminder, here’s the most complete description of the declaration that Corcoran neglected to mention in the whack filing, from an NYT article that studiously avoids mentioning that obstruction is one of the crimes under investigation.

Mr. Bratt and the agents who joined him were given a sheaf of classified material, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Corcoran then drafted a statement, which Ms. Bobb, who is said to be the custodian of the documents, signed. It asserted that, to the best of her knowledge, all classified material that was there had been returned, according to two people familiar with the statement.

Bobb, performing the role as the Custodian of Records and so the person on the legal hook for the search, is the one who signed the declaration, based off a search that unnamed Trump “staff” members — described as a third role separate from that of Custodian of Records Christina Bobb and counsel Evan Corcoran — conducted.

Who knows whether Bobb really played the legal function of Custodian of Records at the Office of Donald J. Trump? I’ll come back to that in a bit.

Whatever Bobb really is, though, three pages later, Trump’s Custodian of Records gets a dizzying demotion to one of “three attorneys in the general area” who showed up to observe the search. That demotion may serve the legal function of justifying a claim, made another 11 pages later, that the search warrant receipts Bobb signed do not meet the standards required by Rule 41.

Among other actions taken after being notified of this unprecedented event, counsel for President Trump contacted three attorneys in the general area who agreed to go to Mar-a-Lago. Once they arrived, they requested the ability to enter the mansion in order to observe what the FBI agents were doing, which the Government declined to permit.

After approximately nine hours, the FBI concluded its search. An FBI agent provided one of the attorneys who had been waiting outside for nearly the full nine hours with a copy of the Search Warrant. TheFBI also provided a three-page Receipt for Property. Receipt for Property

[Case 9:22-mj-08332-BER, ECF 17 at 5-7 of 7]. That list provided almost no information that would allow a reader to understand what was seized or the precise location of the items.

[snip]

In addition, Movant requests that this Court direct the United States to prepare and provide a specific and detailed Receipt for Property. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(f). The “Receipt For Property” provided to Movant on August 8, 2022 is so vague and lacking in specificity that the reader does not know what was seized from Movant’s home.

[snip]

Movant submits the current Receipt for Property is legally deficient. Accordingly, the Government should be required to provide a more detailed and informative Receipt For Property, which states exactly what was seized, and where it was located when seized. In addition, Movant requests that the Court provide him with a copy of the inventory. This, along with inspection of the full Affidavit, is the only way to ensure the President can properly evaluate and avail himself of the important protections of Rule 41. [my emphasis]

Rolling Stone has a piece explaining that this whack filing is not actually the significant Fourth Amendment filing we were promised. That one, a bid to demand that Trump get these files back, is still coming.

[T]he former president’s legal team appears to be working to retrieve at least some of the papers seized during the Aug. 8 federal search. In recent days, the Trump team — led by former federal prosecutor Evan Corcoran — has been quietly prepping additional legal arguments and strategies to try to pry back material that the feds removed from the ex-president’s Florida abode and club, the sources say. Those measures include drafting a so-called “Rule 41(g) motion,” which allows  “a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property” to “move for the property’s return,” according to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

This would be a follow-up measure to the lawsuit, filed Monday by Trump and his attorneys, calling for the appointment of a special master to review the Mar-a-Lago materials for potentially privileged materials. It is unclear when the ex-president’s lawyers plan to file a subsequent motion, which people close to Trump expect to be more narrowly tailored than what the former president apparently wants.

But this whack filing is meant to lay the groundwork for the future promised significant Fourth Amendment whack filing.

And the success of both depends on a claim that poor Christina Bobb, who in her role as the Custodian of Records is either a witness or suspect in the obstruction side of this investigation, was on the day of the search just a pretty little lawyer who happened to be walking her dog in the neighborhood, and who asked the nice FBI agents to let her watch the search but wasn’t allowed to, which is why she signed off on the receipt without asking for more details on the front end. This entire scheme will fail when the FBI points out that a suspected co-conspirator didn’t do the due diligence Trump is now claiming (falsely) is legally required according to the standards of Rule 41.

It would almost certainly fail anyway, but it will especially fail when DOJ points out that Bobb is not just some lady walking her dog in the neighborhood, but played the role of the Custodian of Records, and so had the competence to demand a more complete receipt on the day of the search, but did not. The Office of Donald J. Trump has effectively already waived the issue of the receipts.

But consider the import of the claim that Christina Bobb functioned at the Custodian of Records for the Office of Donald J. Trump, particularly given Paul Sperry’s claim (h/t Ron Filipkowski) that Trump withheld these documents because he knew that if he turned them over, the Archives would in turn provide them to the January 6 Committee (and now, DOJ’s January 6 investigation).

Christina Bobb is not only not just a lady walking her dog in the neighborhood of Mar-a-Lago, she also played a key role in the coup attempt.

She was the first author of the draft Executive Order attempting to seize the voting machines.

That document is nearly identical to a draft executive order the National Archives has shared with the Jan. 6 committee, and that POLITICO published last month. Metadata on the document says it was created by a user named Christina Bobb, and later updated by an unnamed person. A One America News anchor by that name was involved in Giuliani’s work for Trump, and previously worked in the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump administration.

The Washington Post reported that Bobb was on at least one conference call about setting up alternate slates of electors for the Jan. 6 certification vote, and that she was at the Willard hotel “command center” that Trump’s allies used as a home base to coordinate efforts to overturn the election. The emails did not cast light on Bobb’s ties to the draft executive order beyond her name’s appearance in the metadata, and she did not respond to requests for comment.

And as Seth Abramson first confirmed, after leaving the Cannon Office Building at 1PM on January 6, Bobb spent the rest of the day in the Willard right alongside Rudy.

While the Archives spent a year trying to get Trump to return identified documents, some reports say things came to a head in December.

WaPo reports that Trump personally oversaw the packing of boxes to be returned to the Archives, and they were retrieved on January 17.

What followed was a tortured standoff among Trump; some of his own advisers, who urged the return of documents; and the bureaucrats charged by the law with maintaining and protecting presidential records. Trump only agreed to return some of the documents after a National Archives official asked a Trump adviser for help, saying they may have to soon refer the matter to Congress or the Justice Department.

Nearly a year later, on Jan. 17, 2022, Trump returned 15 boxes of newspaper clips, presidential briefing papers, handwritten notes and assorted mementos to the National Archives. That was supposed to settle the issue.

[snip]

It could not be determined who was involved with packing the boxes at Mar-a-Lago or why some White House documents were not sent to the Archives, though people familiar with the episode said Trump oversaw the process himself — and did so with great secrecy, declining to show some items even to top aides. Philbin and another adviser who was contacted by the Archives in April have told others that they had not been involved with the process and were surprised by the discovery of classified records.

What’s clear is that effort to pack up boxes, an effort Trump personally oversaw, was happening during the same period when Trump was trying to prevent the Archives from handing over records to the January 6 Committee.

October 18, 2021: Trump sues to prevent the Archives from complying with January 6 Committee subpoena.

November 10, 2021: Judge Tanya Chutkan denies Trump’s motion for an injunction against NARA. (While it wouldn’t appear in the affidavit, in recent days Paul Sperry has claimed that Trump withheld documents to prevent NARA from turning them over to the January 6 Committee.)

December 9, 2021: DC Circuit upholds Judge Chutkan’s decision releasing Trump records to the January 6 Committee.

On January 17, 2022, NARA retrieved 15 boxes of Records from 1100 S. Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL.

January 19, 2022: SCOTUS upholds Chutkan’s decision.

Any tampering with already packed boxes may have happened after the DC Circuit ruled in favor of the Committee, but in any case, in courts in DC, such tampering happened during a period when Trump was legally fighting to hide records that would implicate him … and Christina Bobb.

I’m still not convinced that the January 6 investigation(s) are the primary thing that Trump was trying to retain, though I think there’s a decent chance they’re included among the investigation(s) that Trump is suspected of obstructing by hiding, ripping, and flushing documents.

But to the extent that Trump was attempting to obstruct parallel investigations of his efforts to steal the 2020 election, Bobb’s role as both a co-conspirator in the coup plan and as Custodian of Records would raise additional concerns for the FBI.

Mastering Obstruction: Two of Trump’s Attorneys May Be Witnesses or Suspects

/111 Comments/in , /by

NYT published a 1,700-word story on the investigation into Donald Trump that didn’t include the word “obstruction” once. It implied (though the reporting wasn’t entirely clear) that the government has already found about a hundred additional classified documents among the boxes seized on August 8, on top of around 200 already identified from the boxes turned over in January and the meeting with Jay Bratt on June 3.

WaPo published a 2,100-word story on the investigation that likewise failed to mention that “obstruction” was one of the crimes for which DOJ believed they’d find evidence at Mar-a-Lago. The WaPo story treated the ridiculous filing Trump’s attorneys, including Evan Corcoran, submitted yesterday as if it were a serious legal endeavor.

You cannot understand several of the things that appear in these stories without considering the legal import of the fact that after Corcoran and Christina Bobb (who is described alternately in Trump’s filing as, on page 5, the custodian of records and, on page 8, as one of “three attorneys in the general area” who showed up to observe the search) jointly signed a declaration stating that there were no more classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the FBI found 100 more classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Here’s how the NYT story described it.

On June 3, Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterespionage section of the national security division of the Justice Department, went to Mar-a-Lago to meet with two of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran and Christina Bobb, and retrieve any remaining classified material to satisfy the subpoena. Mr. Corcoran went through the boxes himself to identify classified material beforehand, according to two people familiar with his efforts.

Mr. Corcoran showed Mr. Bratt the basement storage room where, he said, the remaining material had been kept.

Mr. Trump briefly came to see the investigators during the visit.

Mr. Bratt and the agents who joined him were given a sheaf of classified material, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Corcoran then drafted a statement, which Ms. Bobb, who is said to be the custodian of the documents, signed. It asserted that, to the best of her knowledge, all classified material that was there had been returned, according to two people familiar with the statement.

Since Corcoran and Bobb created that declaration, and particularly since FBI seized evidence proving it was not true, they became likely witnesses or co-conspirators in this investigation, both in the obstruction side of the investigation (because they might know whether classified documents were deliberately hidden for Bratt’s visit and who knew that declaration to be a lie) and the Espionage Act side (because 18 USC 793 has a conspiracy provision).

So when Bobb arrived during the search on August 8 and “requested the ability to enter the mansion in order to observe what the FBI agents were doing,” the FBI would have viewed her as a potential co-conspirator in obstruction of an Espionage Act investigation.

And when Corcoran signed a filing demanding that the Court (a different court than the one that approved the warrant) appoint a Special Master who will work with lawyers from both sides to review the documents and also demanding that he and Trump’s other lawyers get a detailed list of what was seized, the FBI would view him as a potential co-conspirator in obstruction of an Espionage Act investigation.

Movant requests that this Court appoint a Special Master pursuant to Rule 53(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s inherent equitable powers and authority. This step — which the Government itself has requested in cases involving the seizure of privileged and/or potentially privileged materials — is needed to preserve the sanctity of executive communications and otherprivileged materials. Furthermore, Movant requests that this Court issue a protective order enjoining the United States from any further review of the items seized until this Court can rule on the present Motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(5)& (c) (1); S.D.Fla.L.R.26.l(g).

In addition, Movant requests that this Court direct the United States to prepare and provide a specific and detailed Receipt for Property. See Fed.R.Crim.P.41(f). The Receipt For Property” provided to Movant on August 8, 2022 is so vague and lacking in specificity that the reader does not know what was seized from Movant’s home.

Indeed, one likely goal of this filing is to get a different judge — one who doesn’t know whether Corcoran is named as a suspect on the affidavit — to force DOJ to tell everyone whether he is or not.

One reason the FBI asked for more surveillance footage — which the NYT story that doesn’t mention obstruction says is part of the hunt for more classified documents — is because they need to understand who caused that false filing to be filed in June and what happened in the storage area between Bratt’s visit and the search.

Even after the extraordinary decision by the F.B.I. to execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, investigators have sought additional surveillance footage from the club, people familiar with the matter said.

It was the second such demand for the club’s security tapes, said the people familiar with the matter, and underscored that authorities are still scrutinizing how the classified documents were handled by Mr. Trump and his staff before the search.

It remains true that we have no idea how narrowly or broadly the FBI scoped the probable cause of obstruction in the warrant affidavit. But what is clear is that DOJ will view both Bobb and Corcoran — the latter of whom remains one of the lawyers in closest contact with Bratt and who is the person who issued what has been viewed as a veiled threat to Merrick Garland — as either witnesses or subjects in this investigation.

And you really can’t explain the significance of that without using the word “obstruction.”

emptywheel Trump Espionage coverage

Mastering Obstruction: Two of Trump’s Attorneys May Be Witnesses or Suspects

Archives Letter Demonstrates Import of Past Kash Patel Claim of Declassification

Trump’s Reneges on Promised Significant Fourth Amendment Filing

Next Steps in the Trump Stolen Documents Investigation

Maggie Haberman: Heads It’s Only Obstruction, Tails It’s Not Obstruction

The French President May Be Contained Inside the Roger Stone Clemency

Which of the Many Investigations Trump Has Obstructed Is DOJ Investigating?

The Known and Likely Content of Trump’s Search Warrant

The ABCs (and Provisions e, f, and g) of the Espionage Act

Trump’s Latest Tirade Proves Any Temporary Restraining Order May Come Too Late

How Trump’s Search Worked, with Nifty Graphic

Pat Philbin Knows Why the Bodies Are Buried

Trump’s Timid (Non-Legal) Complaints about Attorney-Client Privilege

18 USC 793e in the Time of Shadow Brokers and Donald Trump

[from Rayne] Other Possible Classified Materials in Trump’s Safe

Trump’s Stolen Documents

John Solomon and Kash Patel May Be Implicated in the FBI’s Trump-Related Espionage Act Investigation

[from Peterr] Merrick Garland Preaches to an Overseas Audience

Three Ways Merrick Garland and DOJ Spoke of Trump as if He Might Be Indicted

The Legal and Political Significance of Nuclear Document[s] Trump Is Suspected to Have Stolen

Merrick Garland Calls Trump’s Bluff

Trump Keeps Using the Word “Cooperate.” I Do Not Think That Word Means What Trump Wants the Press To Think It Means

[from Rayne] Expected Response is Expected: Trump and Right-Wing DARVO

DOJ’s June Mar-a-Lago Trip Helps Prove 18 USC 793e

The Likely Content of a Trump Search Affidavit

All Republican Gang of Eight Members Condone Large-Scale Theft of Classified Information, Press Yawns

Some Likely Exacerbating Factors that Would Contribute to a Trump Search

FBI Executes a Search Warrant at 1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480