Media Search:



Mark Meadows Testified to Grand Jury in Special Counsel … – The New York Times

Mark Meadows, the final White House chief of staff under President Donald J. Trump and a potentially key figure in inquiries related to Mr. Trump, has testified before a federal grand jury hearing evidence in the investigations being led by the special counsels office, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Meadows is a figure in both of the two distinct lines of inquiry being pursued by the special counsel appointed to oversee the Justice Departments scrutiny of Mr. Trump, Jack Smith.

One inquiry is focused on Mr. Trumps efforts to cling to power after losing the 2020 election, culminating in the attack by a pro-Trump mob on the Capitol during congressional certification of the Electoral Collegeresults on Jan. 6, 2021. The other is an investigation into Mr. Trumps handling of hundreds of classified documents after he left office and whether he obstructed efforts to retrieve them.

It is not clear precisely when Mr. Meadows testified or if investigators questioned him about one or both of the cases.

For months, people in Mr. Trumps orbit have been puzzled by and wary about the low profile kept by Mr. Meadows in the investigations. As reports surfaced of one witness after another going into the grand jury or to be interviewed by federal investigators, Mr. Meadows has kept largely out of sight, and some of Mr. Trumps advisers believe he could be a significant witness in the inquiries.

Mr. Trump himself has at times asked aides questions about how Mr. Meadows is doing, according to a person familiar with the remarks.

Asked about the grand jury testimony, a lawyer for Mr. Meadows, George Terwilliger, said, Without commenting on whether or not Mr. Meadows has testified before the grand jury or in any other proceeding, Mr. Meadows has maintained a commitment to tell the truth where he has a legal obligation to do so.

Mr. Meadows was a polarizing figure at the White House among some of Mr. Trumps aides, who saw him as a loose gatekeeper at best during a final year in which the former president moved aggressively to mold the government in his image.

Mr. Meadows was around for pivotal moments leading up to and after the 2020 election, as Mr. Trump plotted to try to stay in office and thwart Joseph R. Biden Jr. from being sworn in to succeed him. Some of them were described in hundreds of text messages that Mr. Meadows turned over to the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack at the Capitol before he decided to stop cooperating. Those texts served as a road map for House investigators.

But Mr. Meadows also has insight into efforts by the National Archives to retrieve roughly two dozen boxes of presidential material that officials had been told Mr. Trump took with him when he left the White House in January 2021. Mr. Meadows was one of Mr. Trumps representatives to the archives, and he had some role in trying to discuss the matter with Mr. Trump, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Meadows is also now connected tangentially to a potentially vital piece of evidence that investigators uncovered in recent months: an audio recording of an interview that Mr. Trump gave to two people assisting Mr. Meadows in writing a memoir of his White House years.

Mr. Meadows did not attend the meeting, which took place in July 2021 at Mr. Trumps club at Bedminster, N.J. During the meeting, Mr. Trump referred to a document he appeared to have in front of him and suggested that he should have declassified it but that he no longer could, since he was out of office.

That recording could undercut Mr. Trumps claim that he believed he had declassified all material still held at his properties for months after he left office.

Link:
Mark Meadows Testified to Grand Jury in Special Counsel ... - The New York Times

Trump Lawyer’s Notes Could Be a Key in the Classified Documents … – The New York Times

Turning on his iPhone one day last year, the lawyer M. Evan Corcoran recorded his reflections about a high-profile new job: representing former President Donald J. Trump in an investigation into his handling of classified documents.

In complete sentences and a narrative tone that sounded as if it had been ripped from a novel, Mr. Corcoran recounted in detail a nearly monthlong period of the documents investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Corcorans narration of his recollections covered his initial meeting with Mr. Trump in May last year to discuss a subpoena from the Justice Department seeking the return of all classified materials in the former presidents possession, the people said.

It also encompassed a search that Mr. Corcoran undertook last June in response to the subpoena for any relevant records being kept at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trumps private club and residence in Florida. He carried out the search in preparation for a visit by prosecutors, who were on their way to enforce the subpoena and collect any sensitive material found remaining there.

Government investigators almost never obtain a clear lens into a lawyers private dealings with their clients, let alone with such a prominent one as Mr. Trump. A recording like the voice memo Mr. Corcoran made last year during a long drive to a family event, according to two people briefed on the recording is typically shielded by attorney-client or work-product privilege. Some details of the notes were reported earlier by The Guardian.

But in March, a federal judge ordered Mr. Corcorans recorded recollections now transcribed onto dozens of pages to be given to the office of the special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the documents investigation.

The decision by the judge, Beryl A. Howell, pierced the privilege that would have normally protected Mr. Corcorans musings about his interactions with Mr. Trump. Those protections were set aside under what is known as the crime-fraud exception, a provision that allows prosecutors to work around attorney-client privilege if they have reason to believe that legal advice or legal services were used in furthering a crime.

Judge Howell, in a sealed memorandum that accompanied her decision, made clear that prosecutors believe Mr. Trump knowingly misled Mr. Corcoran about the location of documents that would be responsive to the subpoena, according to a person familiar with the memos contents.

Mr. Corcorans notes, which have not been previously described in such detail, will likely play a central role as Mr. Smith and his team move toward concluding their investigation and turn to the question of whether to bring charges against Mr. Trump. They could also show up as evidence in a courtroom if a criminal case is ultimately filed and goes to trial.

The level of detail in the recording is said to have angered and unnerved close aides to Mr. Trump, who are worried it contains direct quotes from sensitive conversations.

Mr. Corcoran, who was brought into Mr. Trumps orbit by a political and legal adviser to the former president, Boris Epshteyn, did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, said in a statement that the attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest and most fundamental principles in our legal system and he accused the Justice Department of trying to deny Mr. Trump this basic right.

Mr. Cheung added that whether attorneys notes are detailed or not makes no difference these notes reflect the legal opinions and thoughts of the lawyer, not the client. And he maintained that Mr. Trump had tried to cooperate when Justice Department officials came to the property in June last year.

In an early scene in his account, Mr. Corcoran describes meeting Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago last spring to help him handle a subpoena that had just been issued by a federal grand jury in Washington seeking the return of all classified material in the possession of his presidential office, the people familiar with the matter said.

After pleasantries, according to a description of the recorded notes, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Corcoran if he had to comply with the subpoena. Mr. Corcoran told him that he did.

That exchange could be useful to prosecutors as they collect evidence on whether Mr. Trump sought to obstruct the subpoena process and interfere with the governments broader efforts to retrieve all of the sensitive records that he took with him from the White House.

But people close to Mr. Trump have said the conversation could be read in a more favorable light as a client merely asking his lawyer about how he should proceed.

The recording also describes how Mr. Corcoran conducted a search of a Mar-a-Lago storage room in an effort to comply with the subpoenas request for documents, the people familiar with the account said. Mr. Corcoran told a grand jury in May that several employees at the compound had told him everything he needed was being kept in the storage room, located in the basement of the property, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

Mr. Corcoran subsequently handed over to Justice Department officials more than three dozen documents he turned up in his search, and drafted a letter to the department stating that a diligent search had not found any more.

The notes in the recording do not suggest that Mr. Corcoran was waved away from searching anywhere other than the storage room, the people familiar with them said. But they also indicate that no one at Mar-a-Lago including Mr. Trump spoke up to tell him that he should look elsewhere.

In the end, it turned out the employees who directed Mr. Corcoran to the storage room were wrong. In August, when F.B.I. agents descended on Mar-a-Lago with a court-approved search warrant, they found classified documents not only in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, but also in Mr. Trumps office.

The issue of who moved boxes into and out of the storage room and why has become one of the central parts of Mr. Smiths investigation. Prosecutors have focused much of their attention on Walt Nauta, an aide to Mr. Trump who took part in moving boxes, and on another Mar-a-Lago employee, Carlos Deoliveira, a maintenance worker who helped Mr. Nauta.

Mr. Smiths team has also focused on a related question: whether there were any efforts to interfere with the governments attempts to obtain security camera footage from Mar-a-Lago that could shed light on how the documents were kept in the storage room and who had access to them. Mr. Corcorans notes provide some details about Mr. Nautas involvement in the search.

They say, for instance, that Mr. Nauta unlocked the storage room door for Mr. Corcoran, according to the people familiar with them. They also say that Mr. Nauta brought Mr. Corcoran some tape so that he could seal in a folder the classified documents he found, in preparation for giving them to prosecutors.

There is also a reference to Mr. Corcorans meeting with the prosecutors, which took place at Mar-a-Lago on June 3 last year. He and another lawyer for Mr. Trump, Christina Bobb, met Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterespionage section of the national security division of the Justice Department, to turn over the documents he found and convey the letter asserting that to the best of their knowledge no more remained at Mar-a-Lago.

The notes refer to Mr. Trumps appearance related to Mr. Bratts visit, according to one person briefed on the contents of the notes.

Judge Howells memorandum compelling Mr. Corcoran to answer questions in front of a grand jury and to produce his notes described the lawyer as essentially a casualty of Mr. Trumps months of gamesmanship with investigators and National Archives officials about returning the documents, according to a person familiar with the memos contents.

As The New York Times reported in April, Judge Howell wrote in the memorandum, according to the person familiar with its contents, that Mr. Trumps earlier actions and misdirection of archives officials efforts to retrieve what turned out to be more than a dozen boxes of records were a dress rehearsal for the May subpoena.

See the original post here:
Trump Lawyer's Notes Could Be a Key in the Classified Documents ... - The New York Times

Donald Trump, the Presidential Records Act and ‘Clinton’s sock … – Reuters

(Reuters) - If you believe the most ardent defenders of newly indicted former president Donald Trump, theres a silver bullet hiding in Bill Clintons sock drawer.

The reference to Clintons socks, which has cropped up not just in the former presidents Truth Social feed and at conservative news outlets but even in Trump court filings, stems from a 13-year-old case in which the right-leaning nonprofit Judicial Watch sought access to 79 audio tape recordings of Clinton interviews conducted by the historian Taylor Branch while Clinton was in office.

During his presidency, according to GQ magazine in a 2009 Q&A with Branch, Clinton squirreled away the cassettes in his sock drawer. But for Trumps purposes, what matters is Clintons handling of the tapes after he left office: Clinton designated the recordings as personal records, not official presidential records, that were therefore not required to be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration under the Presidential Records Act.

Judicial Watch sued over that designation, arguing that the tapes captured classified information including Clinton conversations with foreign leaders.

But in a 2012 opinion, the trial judge overseeing Judicial Watchs lawsuit ruled that even if the tapes should have been designated to be presidential records, she could not order the National Archives to recategorize them.

The [Presidential Records Act] does not confer any mandatory or even discretional authority on the archivist, wrote U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in that 2012 ruling. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the president.

That language, as Ill explain, has emboldened Trump supporters who contend that under Jackson's analysis, the Justice Department had no authority to seize documents from Mar-a-Lago.

That theory is vigorously disputed by national security experts, including former National Archives litigation director Jason Baron, who is now a professor at the University of Maryland, and Bradley Moss of the Mark S. Zaid law firm.

Both Baron and Moss told me by email that there are clear distinctions between the audiotapes at issue in the Clinton case and the classified records in the Trump criminal case.

The Clinton tapes, Baron said, were in the nature of a diary or journal in recorded form, fitting the definition of a personal record in the Presidential Records Act. But the documents with classified markings that were seized from Mar-a-Lago, Baron said, were official government records that should never have been transferred out of the government's hands.

Moreover, Moss said, the question of whether the documents were personal or presidential records is beside the point in a case involving the Espionage Act, like the one against Trump.

Whether as a presidential record or a personal record, the records at issue in this indictment still have classification markings and contain information relating to the national defense, he said.

Trump defense counsel Todd Blanche did not immediately respond to a query sent to his law firm.

Judicial Watchs Tom Fitton nevertheless maintained in an interview on Friday that Jacksons opinion in the Clinton case shows Trump had unfettered power to designate documents as personal records outside of the reach of the National Archives.

The strong opinion from the court says the president has prerogatives that cannot be second-guessed, Fitton said. These are not presidential records, he added. These are personal records.

Under Fittons theory, Trump who has said he is innocent of all wrongdoing -- cant be criminally liable for refusing to turn over documents he designated to be personal. Trumps attorneys posited a similar argument in a brief last November to a special master appointed to review the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago.

The Presidential Records Act, Trumps brief said, gave Trump the sole authority to decide how to categorize his records. When he made a designation decision, he was president of the United States; his decision to retain certain records as personal is entitled to deference, and the records in question are thus presumptively personal, the brief said. (The merits of that argument were never decided because the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in December that the special master should not have been appointed.)

Fitton told me he explained his Presidential Records Act theory to the Washington, D.C., grand jury in the Trump document case last winter. Fitton said prosecutors seemed to use his four-hour grand jury session to sus out Trumps potential defense.

Special counsel Jack Smith and his team, Fitton joked, probably didnt think much of it hence the indictment.

It nevertheless seems likely that Fitton and other Trump allies will continue to use the sock drawer case to argue that the Justice Department is selectively prosecuting the former president.

Fitton, for instance, accused the Justice Department of flipping its position on presidential discretion under the Presidential Record Act to go after Trump. In the Clinton case, he said, the Justice Department argued that the Archive was not empowered to recategorize material that Clinton had designated to be a personal record. The department, Fitton said, abandoned that stance when it seized Trump's documents.

Its so outrageous, he said. I think this is a substantial issue.

That argument could have political salience among Trump backers asserting that the Justice Department has been weaponized to pursue the former president. But as a matter of law, said professor Margaret Kwoka of Ohio State University, Jacksons ruling in the Judicial Watch case isnt going to be much help for Trump. These are completely different kinds of records, she said. And there are different legal obligations when it comes to the handling of classified records.

In other words, for a former president accused of repeatedly violating the Espionage Act, the sock drawer case is probably more of a red herring than a silver bullet.

Read more:

Trump risked national secrets, US prosecutors allege in indictment

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.

Thomson Reuters

Alison Frankel has covered high-stakes commercial litigation as a columnist for Reuters since 2011. A Dartmouth college graduate, she has worked as a journalist in New York covering the legal industry and the law for more than three decades. Before joining Reuters, she was a writer and editor at The American Lawyer. Frankel is the author of Double Eagle: The Epic Story of the Worlds Most Valuable Coin.

Read more from the original source:
Donald Trump, the Presidential Records Act and 'Clinton's sock ... - Reuters

Eric Holder Says It Would Be ‘Absurd’ For Trump To Serve As President If Convicted – Yahoo News

Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama, on Sunday said it would be simply absurd for Donald Trump to serve as president again if he is found guilty of mishandling classified documents.

The former president, who is currently the front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination, was indicted on 37 counts over keeping top secret documents after he left the White House in January 2021 and allegedly obstructing government efforts to recover them.

Despite the damning charges, which include willful retention of national defense information and conspiracy to obstruct justice, Trump has continued to claim hes innocent and appears determined to stay in the 2024 presidential contest.

The notion that you could have a trial, defend it, be convicted, somehow win the election, be sworn in as a president, or whenever it happens, that seems inconsistent with our notion of fairness, of the rule of law, Holder said on MSNBCs Inside with Jen Psaki.

Holder added that he would hope that an impeachment proceeding would be triggered if Trump were to be found guilty while in office, and that he would ultimately be removed from the role.

The notion that a convicted felon ... would serve as president of the United States is absurd, is simply absurd, Holder said.

But Trump has said he has no intention of stepping aside.

Ill never leave, Trump told Politico Saturday. Look, if I would have left, I would have left prior to the original race in 2016. That was a rough one. In theory that was not doable.

Holder also expressed concern about Aileen Cannon, the judge who will preside over the case, saying she doesnt have the legal acumen to oversee a case of this importance.

Cannon, who was appointed by Trump in 2020, was criticized over her decision to grant the former presidents request for a special master to review the documents the FBI obtained during a search of Mar-a-Lago in August. Her ruling was overturned by a federal appeals court.

Story continues

I would hope that she would see within herself, or that somehow, some way, she is convinced that she should get off the case and some other judge should handle this matter, Holder said. I dont have confidence in her abilities to be fair, or to be seen as fair.

He added that Cannon as a presiding judge would have the power to affect the case in a number of ways.

But the one that concerns me the most is the notion of delay, and pushing this case, you know, past the general election, certainly well into the primary season, just by the way in which she schedules things, Holder added.

Read the original here:
Eric Holder Says It Would Be 'Absurd' For Trump To Serve As President If Convicted - Yahoo News

Ripple Releases Hinman Docs, Info Suggests SEC Collaboration with Vitalik – The Crypto Basic

Ripple finally released the Hinman docs, revealing that Hinman ignored warnings from SEC officials and worked closely with Vitalik.

In a significant development in the Ripple vs. SEC lawsuit, Ripple has finally made public the long-awaited Hinman documents, shedding light on William Hinmans controversial speech and revealing a potential collaboration with Vitalik Buterin.

The recently released emails and speech drafts, unveiled after 18 months and multiple court orders, provide crucial insights into the behind-the-scenes details of Hinmans statement. Less than a month after Judge Torres ruled that the docs should be made public.

Stuart Alderoty, Ripples Chief Legal Officer, claims that the documents expose Hinmans disregard for warnings about the lack of basis for his analysis and its deviation from established legal principles outlined by the Howey test. This speech not only confused the market but also exposed gaps in regulatory oversight.

In his June 2018 speech, Hinman introduced the idea that a token would no longer be considered a security once it achieved a specific level of decentralization. He proposed new criteria to determine this threshold.

Initially presented as Hinmans personal opinion, the speech gained significance when the SEC later embraced it as guidance, with former SEC Chairperson Jay Clayton publicly endorsing it. Despite the SECs changing stance on the speech during legal proceedings, it remains accessible on the agencys website.

The newly revealed documents highlight concerns raised by senior SEC officials during the drafting phase. The Head of Trading and Markets (T&M) highlighted issues about the broad array of factors, suggesting they exceeded the scope of the established Howey analysis.

T&M recommended aligning the new factors more closely with the Howey test, but Hinman ignored this suggestion.

The Office of General Counsel (OGC) and T&M criticized a factor regarding the retention of interest in a digital asset, considering it legally irrelevant. However, despite objections, Hinman chose to include this factor in the final version of the speech.

Furthermore, the documents disclose that Hinman overlooked the initial jurisdictional inquiry into whether a digital asset met the legal criteria of a security. Instead, he focused on the potential benefits of SEC oversight, neglecting this regulatory loophole in his analysis.

On June 4, 2018, Hinman expressed that the SEC should not regulate Ether (ETH) as a security. Interestingly, the documents unveil that Hinman would later contact Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Ethereum, to confirm the operational structure of the Ethereum Foundation.

However, the OGC expressed concerns about explicitly mentioning ETH in the speech, as it could potentially restrict the agency from adopting a different position on ETH in the future. Nonetheless, ETH was still cited as an example in the final version of the speech.

In response to these revelations, Ripple demands the immediate removal of Hinmans speech from the SECs website. Ripples Chief Legal Officer calls for an investigation into the influences on Hinman, identification of potential conflicts of interest, and an understanding why the SEC promoted the speech despite its potential to cause further confusion.

Ripple also argues that Hinmans speech should no longer be considered in discussions on security classifications. The focus should instead be on impartially applying existing laws within jurisdictional boundaries rather than creating new laws, as Hinman allegedly did.

Follow Us on Twitter and Facebook.

Disclaimer: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basics opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.

-Advertisement-

Follow this link:

Ripple Releases Hinman Docs, Info Suggests SEC Collaboration with Vitalik - The Crypto Basic