Categories
Politics

Choose Grants Trump’s Request for Particular Grasp to Assessment Mar-a-Lago Paperwork

A federal judge on Monday intervened in an investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s handling of sensitive government records, ordering the appointment of an independent arbitrator to review a trove of materials released last month from Mr. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida were confiscated.

In a 24-page ruling, Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida also barred the Justice Department from using the seized materials for “investigative purposes” related to Mr. Trump’s ongoing investigation pending the arbitrator’s work , known as the Special Master, was completed.

The order would effectively bar federal prosecutors from using a key piece of evidence while they continue to investigate whether the former president unlawfully kept national defense documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate or impeded government efforts to get them back.

In her order, issued on the Labor Day holiday, Judge Cannon said she made her decisions “to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity in the exceptional circumstances.” However, their order would not affect a separate review of the documents by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Judge Cannon’s decision gave the Special Master sweeping powers to review materials extracted from Mar-a-Lago, some of which bore markings identifying them as top secret. It allowed anyone eventually appointed to the post to assess the documents not only for those protected by attorney-client privilege, a relatively common measure, but also for those potentially protected by executive privilege, the normally confidential internal Executive branch deliberations protects.

At a hearing on the issue last week, the Justice Department argued that since Mr Trump is a former President and the Department is itself, allowing a special master to conduct an executive privilege review of the seized material would be a radical and legally unfounded move Part of the current executive branch.

But Judge Cannon disagreed with the Justice Department, writing in the order that she was “unconvinced” by the government’s categorical claim that executive privilege did not apply in this context. She added that she felt the department’s position “arguably exaggerated the law” and that it made sense for her to set aside any documents that might be protected by executive privilege if the legal issues in the case are resolved.

“Even if any assertion of executive privilege by plaintiff in this regard ultimately fails, that possibility, even if probable, does not negate a former president’s ability to assert the privilege as a matter of first concern,” she wrote. “Because the eligibility review team did not search for any material that may be subject to executive privileges, further review is required for this additional purpose.”

A Justice Department spokesman did not initially respond to a request for comment, but Department officials last week discussed the possibility of an appeal should the judge rule in Mr Trump’s favour.

Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.

Categories
Politics

Sen. Graham says he was stating the plain with Trump riots declare

US Senator Lindsey Graham speaks at a press conference at the US Capitol on August 05, 2022 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images

US Senator Lindsey Graham on Saturday defended allegations that there would be “riots in the streets” if former President Donald Trump was prosecuted for misusing classified information, and said he condemned the violence used during the Capitol riots was seen last year.

“I was trying to state the obvious,” Graham, a South Carolina Republican and close Trump ally, told CNBC’s Steve Sedgwick at the Ambrosetti Forum in Italy.

“Here’s what I said, The raid continues [former] The home of President Trump, the likely candidate for 2024, better bears fruit here,” he added.

“Our country, the people on our side believe that there are no rules in the justice system regarding Trump. [it’s a case of] ‘Get him any way you get him,’ so I said if it’s like Clinton and he’s prosecuted, it’s going to be one of the most disruptive events in America,” Graham said.

Trump and his allies have argued that the FBI, which is investigating Trump for possible violations of the law related to espionage and obstruction of justice, treats him differently than Hillary Clinton, who is the subject of an FBI investigation into her use of a private email server, but was not prosecuted. Trump’s critics argue that the two cases are not comparable.

Graham said he opposed the violence seen in the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, saying “all these people who desecrated the Capitol should go to jail,” but said that any perceived injustice against Trump would have consequences.

“I don’t want to apologize to the January 6 folks because that seems to reinforce the narrative that this is okay. I said something I really believe in – if he does what she did with classified information and he’s prosecuted and she didn’t do it, that would create a problem.”

Graham said last week there would be “riots in the streets” if Trump were prosecuted for misusing classified information.

“I will say this, if there is an indictment against Donald Trump for misappropriating classified information after the Clinton debacle … there will be riots in the streets,” said Graham Trey Gowdy, a former Fox News Republican congressman.

Trump ‘was a consistent president’

Trump is under investigation and at risk of being charged for his handling of classified White House records he brought to his home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida.

Last week, the release of a heavily redacted affidavit showed how concerns about illegal activity and obstruction of justice led to an FBI raid at Trump’s resort in July.

Graham acknowledged that he believes in “the responsible use of classified information” but reiterated that “mishandling of classified information is really bad, but we can’t have a system where one person is prosecuted and the other isn’t.” .

When asked if Trump is the best person to represent the Republican Party in 2024, Graham said, “I think he might be.”

“Whether you like Trump or not, he’s been a consistent president … I think a strong American president, unpredictable, is a good thing as long as you keep him within bounds. His problem is personal, his policies have stood the test of time, but has he exhausted the American people in terms of his personality? The time will tell. But I’m saying this, if there’s a political debate after the Biden presidency in 2024, I think his chances are good. If it’s a personality contest, he’s going to get in trouble.”

Graham said he talks to Trump “all the time” and the former president still thinks he’s been “cheated.” Graham said he voted to confirm the 2020 election and that Biden is the legitimate president.

Trump “really believes the system has been rigged against him, and I said, ‘Mr. President, I’m not trying to tell you to change your beliefs. I’m trying to tell you that you have no chance of winning in 2020 unless you have a pretty good chance of winning 2024 if you want to,'” Graham said, noting that he told Trump when he made a comeback celebrates, “it will be one of the greatest political comebacks in American history”.

Speech and Debate Clause

A federal judge on Thursday denied Graham’s recent attempt to challenge a subpoena for his testimony before a special Georgia grand jury investigating possible criminal interference by Trump and his allies in the 2020 election.

However, the judge limited the scope of the subpoena by ordering that Graham not be questioned about phone calls he made with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his associates in the weeks following the November 2020 election between Trump and President Joe Biden Has.

It follows continued offers by Graham to avoid testifying on the grounds that his position as legislature grants him immunity under the US Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause.

Graham reiterated his position on Saturday, saying: “I did not start this debate. You have a prosecutor who has decided to investigate a national election and to call anyone and everyone connected to the role he played in the election United States Senator, in our Constitution we have a clause of immunity from speech or debates so we can’t be dragged into courts across the country every time we do something that someone doesn’t like.”

“I think the court will recognize that my activities as a United States Senator were covered by the speech and debate clause that the district attorney’s desire to bring me to Georgia exceeds the constitution.”

Categories
Politics

Put up-Roe Resolution, Abortion Tablet Suppliers Work to Broaden Entry

This company and others who are caring for patients who are 11 or 12 weeks pregnant can legally do so at their doctor’s discretion, as studies suggest that abortion pills are safe and effective at this stage. The World Health Organization supports medical terminations of pregnancy up to the 12th week of pregnancy.

dr Daniel Grossman, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said medical abortion is safe and effective late in the first trimester, but “there is a slightly higher risk of some complications, including heavy bleeding.” , and an additional dose of misoprostol is often required to fully expel the tissue.

Some services, including abortion telemedicine, automatically send a second round of the four misoprostol tablets to patients undergoing a late first trimester abortion.

Reproductive health experts said patients should be cautioned that expelled tissue earlier in pregnancy resembles a heavy period, but may appear more like a fetus at 10 weeks. dr Abigail RA Aiken, an associate professor at the University of Texas, Austin who leads a medical abortion research group, said preparing patients for what the tissue might look like could also help them protect themselves from legal risks in states that allow abortions forbid – for example , in a situation where a patient is surprised by what he sees and “then you expose that to someone who’s like, ‘Well, I’ll report you.'”

Joann, 23, a single mom, was 10 weeks pregnant when she decided to have an abortion, so she contacted Abortion Telemedicine. She said she initially intended to carry her pregnancy to term, but then her 3-year-old son was diagnosed with autism and her employer, the US military, decided to transfer her to another state. Joann, who asked to be identified by her first name only to protect her privacy, was in Colorado at the time, where abortion is legal but her community was conservative.

The service nurse told her that since she would be taking the pills after the 10th week of pregnancy, she would have to expect more pain and bleeding, advising that the tissue that was expelled might resemble a fetus “so I would be prepared.” . said John.

Categories
Politics

Lukoil Chairman Ravil Maganov is the eighth Russian vitality govt to die all of the sudden this yr

Russian President Vladimir Putin stands next to first executive vice president of oil producer Lukoil Ravil Maganov after awarding him with the Order of Alexander Nevsky during an awards ceremony at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia November 21, 2019.

Mikhail Klimentyev | Kremlin | Sputnik | via Reuters

WASHINGTON – The death of Ravil Maganov, chairman of Russian oil giant Lukoil, on Thursday in a Moscow hospital appears to be the eighth time this year that a Russian energy executive has died suddenly and under unusual circumstances.

Maganov died after falling from a window at the capital’s Central Clinical Hospital, according to Russia’s state-sponsored Interfax news agency. The circumstances of Maganov’s death were confirmed by Reuters, citing two anonymous sources. The oil company and its CEO had criticized the war in Ukraine and expressed their disapproval in a March 3 statement.

But Lukoil, the company Maganov helped build, said in a press statement the 67-year-old “died after a serious illness”. The Russian embassy in Washington did not respond to a request from CNBC for official comment.

The circumstances surrounding Maganov’s sudden death have attracted international attention, in part because seven other senior Russian energy executives have died untimely since January, according to reports from Russian and international news outlets.

Below is a list of these cases in chronological order.

  • In late January, Leonid Shulman, a top executive at Russian natural gas giant Gazprom, was found dead in the bathroom of a cottage in the village of Leninsky. The Russian media group RBC reported on his death but gave no cause.
  • On February 25, another Gazprom executive, Alexander Tyulakov, was found dead in the same village as Shulman, this time in a garage. According to Russian media outlet Novaya Gazeta, investigators found a note near Tyulakov’s body.
  • On February 28, three days after Tyulakov’s death, a Russian oil and gas billionaire living in England, Mikhail Watford, was found hanged in the garage of his country house. Investigators at the time reportedly said Watford’s death was “unexplained” but did not appear suspicious.
  • On April 18, a former vice president of Gazprombank, Vladislav Avayev, was found dead in his apartment in Moscow along with his wife and daughter, who also died. Authorities were treating the case as a murder-suicide, Radio Free Europe reported at the time. Gazprombank is Russia’s third largest bank and has close ties to the energy sector.
  • On April 19, a former deputy chairman of Novatek, Russia’s largest liquefied natural gas producer, was found dead in a holiday home in Spain. Like Avayev in Moscow, Sergei Protosenya was found with his wife and daughter, who were also deceased. And like Avayev said, police investigating the scene believed it was a homicide-suicide, a theory that Avayev’s surviving son has publicly denied.
  • In May, the body of billionaire and former Lukoil manager Alexander Subbotin was discovered in the basement of a country house in the Moscow region. The room where Subbotin died was allegedly used for “Jamaican voodoo rituals,” the Russian state media company TASS reported, citing local authorities.
  • In July, Yury Voronov, the CEO and founder of a shipping company servicing Gazprom’s Arctic projects, was found dead from an apparent gunshot wound in a swimming pool at his home in Leninsky, the same elite St. Petersburg condominium where Shulman and Tyulakov died earlier in the year.

CNBC Policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

Categories
Politics

Trump attorneys once more push for particular grasp in FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago

Attorneys for former President Donald Trump on Wednesday again urged a federal judge to appoint an independent “special master” to review documents seized by the FBI at Trump’s Florida home.

The tightly focused filing in US District Court in West Palm Beach came a day after the Justice Department argued that appointing a special master could harm the government’s national security interests.

The Justice Department filing also said that “efforts were likely made to obstruct the government’s investigation” regarding the records that were sent out after the end of his presidency at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

And the DOJ announced that the FBI had seized more than 100 classified documents from the Palm Beach resort during its search of the property earlier this month. The agency also shared a redacted FBI photo of documents with classification marks recovered from a container at Trump’s “45 Office.”

Trump’s legal team, in its Wednesday night response, accused the DOJ of “converting the scope of responding to a request for a special master into an all-encompassing challenge to any judicial review, present or future, of any aspect of his unprecedented conduct in this investigation.”

The government’s “extraordinary document” suggests “that the DOJ, and only the DOJ, should be charged with the responsibility of evaluating its unwarranted pursuit of criminalizing the possession of a former president’s personal and presidential records in a secure environment,” Trump’s attorneys wrote .

They also accused the DOJ of making several “misleading or incomplete statements.”[s] the alleged ‘fact'”, but offered few details.

Judge Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump, has scheduled a hearing at a West Palm Beach courthouse for Thursday at 1 p.m. ET.

Trump had sued to prevent the Justice Department from further examining materials stolen in the Mar-a-Lago raid until a special foreman is able to analyze them. This step is typically taken when there is a possibility that evidence should be withheld from prosecutors due to various legal privileges.

The DOJ told the judge Monday that its review of the seized materials was complete and that a law enforcement team had identified a “limited number” of materials that may be protected by attorney-client privilege. This privilege often relates to jurisprudence that protects the confidentiality of communications between an attorney and his client.

Trump’s lawyers responded Wednesday that the so-called Privilege Review Team was “utterly inadequate” in identifying all potentially privileged documents and separating them from the rest of the seized materials.

Trump and his office have publicly claimed that he declassified all documents seized by the FBI. But Trump’s legal team did not make that explicit argument in the civil suit before Cannon.

The DOJ said in Tuesday’s late night filing that when 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago were picked up by the National Archives in January, Trump “never asserted executive privilege over any of the documents and claimed that any of the documents in the boxes contain classification marks have been released.”

The administration also said no claims of declassification were made when FBI agents went to Mar-a-Lago on June 3, pursuant to a grand jury subpoena, to collect additional records in Trump’s possession that bore classification markings.

The DOJ said it received that subpoena in May after the FBI developed evidence that dozens of boxes of classified information — aside from the 15 boxes found in January — were still at Trump’s home.

“Upon submitting the documents, neither the attorney nor the administrator alleged that the former president had released the documents or made any claims for executive privileges. Instead, the attorney treated them in a manner that suggested the attorney believed the documents were classified: The submission included a single Redweld envelope, double-wrapped with tape, containing the documents,” the DOJ wrote.

At the same time, Trump’s records clerk had also produced an affidavit alleging that “any and all” documents were turned over in response to a grand jury subpoena, the DOJ wrote.

But the FBI “later discovered multiple sources of evidence,” indicating other classified documents remained at Mar-a-Lago, according to the DOJ’s filing.

“The government has also developed evidence that government records were likely hidden and removed from storage and that efforts were likely made to obstruct the government investigation,” the DOJ wrote.

This and other information prompted the government to request a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago, which was finally carried out on August 8.

In their Wednesday response, Trump’s attorneys wrote that the DOJ’s report of the June 3 meeting was “materially mischaracterized.”

“If the government made the same untrue statement in the affidavit in support of the search warrant, then they misled the magistrate judge,” the former president’s attorneys wrote.

Trump also accused the DOJ of being “very fraudulent” in a social media post earlier Wednesday night, sharing a photo that appears to show numerous classified papers strewn on a carpeted floor.

Trump clarified that the FBI “took them out of boxes and scattered them on the carpet so it looked like a big ‘find’ to them.”

“They dropped them, not me – very deceptive… And remember, we were unable to have ANY representative, including lawyers, present during the raid. They were told to wait outside,” Trump wrote.

Categories
Politics

Doug Mastriano’s Extraordinarily On-line Rise to Republicans’ Governor Nominee in Pa.

BLOOMSBURG, Pa. — In the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, Diane Fisher, a nurse from Weatherly, Pa., was surfing through videos on Facebook when she came across a livestream from Doug Mastriano, a Pennsylvania state senator.

Starting in late March 2020, Mr. Mastriano had beamed regularly into Facebook from his living room, offering his increasingly strident denunciations of the state’s quarantine policies and answering questions from his viewers, sometimes as often as six nights a week and for as long as an hour at a stretch.

“People were upset, and they were fearful about things,” Ms. Fisher said. “And he would tell us what was going on.”

Ms. Fisher told her family and her friends about what Mr. Mastriano billed as “fireside chats,” after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s radio broadcasts during the Depression and World War II. “The next thing you knew,” she recalled, “there was 5,000 people watching.”

Mr. Mastriano’s rise from obscure and inexperienced far-right politician to Republican standard-bearer in Pennsylvania’s governor’s race was swift, stunning and powered by social media. Although he is perhaps better known for challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election and calling the separation of church and state a “myth,” Mr. Mastriano built his foundation of support on his innovative use of Facebook in the crucible of the early pandemic, connecting directly with anxious and isolated Americans who became an uncommonly loyal base for his primary campaign.

He is now the GOP nominee in perhaps the most closely watched race for governor in the country, in part because it would place a 2020 election denier in control of a major battleground state’s election system. Both President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump are making campaign appearances in Pennsylvania this week. As the race enters its last months, one of the central questions is whether the online mobilization that Mr. Mastriano successfully wielded against his own party establishment will prove similarly effective against Josh Shapiro, his Democratic rival — or whether a political movement nurtured in the hothouse of right-wing social media discontent will be unable or unwilling to transcend it.

Mr. Mastriano has continued to run a convention-defying campaign. He employs political neophytes in key positions and has refused for months to interact with mainstream national and local reporters beyond expelling them from events. (His campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this article.)

He grants interviews almost exclusively to friendly radio and TV shows and podcasts that share Mr. Mastriano’s far-right politics, and continues to heavily rely on Facebook to reach voters directly.

“It is the best-executed and most radical ‘ghost the media’ strategy in this cycle,” said Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign adviser, who said other Republican strategists were watching Mr. Mastriano’s example closely.

“It’s never been done before. He’s on a spacewalk,” he said. “And the question we’re all asking is, does he make it back to the capsule?”

Although Mr. Mastriano no longer hosts fireside chats, his campaign posts several times more often a day on Facebook than most candidates, according to Kyle Tharp, the author of the FWIW newsletter, which tracks digital politics. His campaign’s Facebook post engagements have been comparable to those of Mr. Shapiro, despite Mr. Shapiro’s spending far more on digital advertising.

“He is a Facebook power user,” Mr Tharp said.

But Mr. Mastriano’s campaign has done little to expand his reach outside his loyal base, even as polls since the primary have consistently shown him trailing Mr. Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s attorney general, albeit often narrowly. And Mr. Mastriano’s efforts to add to his audience on the right through advertising on Gab, a platform favored by white nationalists, prompted a rare retreat in the face of criticism last month.

A career Army officer until his retirement in 2017 and a hard-line social conservative, Mr. Mastriano won a special election for the State Senate in 2019 after campaigning on his opposition to what he described as the “barbaric holocaust” of legal abortion and his see that the United States is an inherently Christian nation whose Constitution is incompatible with other faiths. But he was known to few outside his district until he began his pandemic broadcasts in late March 2020.

In the live videos, Mr. Mastriano was unguarded and at times emotional, giving friendly shout-outs to familiar names in the chat window. His fireside chats arrived at a fertile moment on the platform, when conservative and right-wing activists were using Facebook to assemble new organizations and campaigns to convert discontent into action — first with the Covid lockdowns and, later, the 2020 election outcome.

Mr. Mastriano linked himself closely to these currents of activism in his home state, speaking at the groups’ demonstrations and events. A video he livestreamed from the first significant anti-lockdown rally on the steps of the State Capitol in Harrisburg in April 2020, armed with a selfie stick, eventually racked up more than 850,000 views.

After the presidential election was called for Mr. Biden on Nov. 7, 2020, Mr. Mastriano was greeted as a star at the first “Stop the Steal” rally at the capitol in Harrisburg that afternoon. He became one of the most prominent faces of the movement to overturn the election in Pennsylvania, working with Mr. Trump’s lawyers to publicize widely debunked claims regarding election malfeasance and to send a slate of “alternate” electors to Washington, on the spurious legal theory that they could be used to overturn the outcome. (He would later be present at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, though there is no evidence that he entered the building.)

When Republican colleagues in the State Senate criticized those schemes and Mr. Mastriano by name, he pointed to the size of his online army.

“I have more followers on Facebook alone than all 49 other senators combined,” Mr. Mastriano told Steve Turley, a local right-wing podcast host, in an interview. “That any colleague or fellow Republican would think that it would be a good idea to throw me under the bus with that kind of reach — I mean, they’re just not very smart people.”

Mr. Mastriano was eventually removed from the chairmanship of a State Senate committee overseeing an investigation he had championed into the state’s election results, and he was later expelled from the Senate’s Republican caucus — episodes that burnished his credentials with supporters suspicious of the state’s GOP establishment . His campaign for governor, which he formally announced this January, has drawn on not only the base he has cultivated since 2020 but also on the right-wing grass-roots groups with whom he has made common cause on Covid and the 2020 election.

“That whole movement is rock-solid behind him,” said Sam Faddis, the leader of UnitePA, a self-described Patriot group based in Susquehanna County, Pa.

When UnitePA hosted a rally on Aug. 27 in a horse arena in Bloomsburg, bringing together a coalition of groups in the state dedicated to overhauling the election system they insist was used to steal the election from Mr. Trump, many of the activists who spoke offered praise for Mr. Mastriano and his candidacy. From the stage, Tabitha Valleau, the leader of the organization FreePA, gave detailed instructions for how to volunteer for Mr. Mastriano’s campaign.

The crowd of about 500, most of whom stayed for all of the nearly six-hour rally, was full of Mastriano supporters, including Ms. Fisher. “He helped us through a bad time,” she said. “He stuck with his people.”

Charlie Gerow, a veteran Pennsylvania Republican operative and candidate for governor who lost to Mr. Mastriano in May, said this loyally following what Mr. Mastriano’s greatest strength. “He’s leveraged that audience on every mission he’s undertaken,” he said.

But with recent polls showing Mr. Mastriano lagging between 3 and 10 points behind Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Gerow is among the strategists doubting his primary strategy will translate to a general electorate.

“I think it’s going to be important for him to run a more traditional campaign, dealing with the regular media even when it’s unpalatable and unfriendly,” Mr. Gerow said.

Mr. Mastriano has also drawn criticism for his efforts to expand his social-media reach beyond Facebook and Twitter into newer, fringier spaces on the right.

In July, the liberal watchdog group Media Matters noted that Mr. Mastriano, according to his campaign filings, had paid $5,000 to the far-right social media platform Gab, which gained notoriety in 2018 after the suspect charged in the shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, in which 11 people were killed, used the platform to detail his racist and anti-Semitic views and plans for the shooting. Gab’s chief executive, Andrew Torba, who lives in Pennsylvania, has made anti-Semitic statements himself and appeared at a white nationalist conference this spring.

Mr. Torba and Mr. Mastriano had praised each other in a podcast interview in May, after which Mr. Mastriano had spoken hopefully of Gab’s audience. “Apparently about a million of them are in Pennsylvania,” he said on his own livestream, “so we’ll have some good reach.”

Mr. Torba, who did not respond to emailed requests for comment, has continued to champion Mr. Mastriano, describing the Pennsylvania governor’s race as “the most important election of the 2022 midterms, because Doug is an outspoken Christian,” in a video he posted in late July. He added, “We’re going to take this country back for the glory of God.”

But after initially standing his ground, Mr. Mastriano finally bowed to sustained criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike and closed his personal account with Gab early this month, issuing a brief statement denouncing anti-Semitism.

This month Mr. Shapiro, who is Jewish, spent $1 million on TV ads highlighting Mastriano’s connections to Gab. “We cannot allow this to become normalized — Doug Mastriano is dangerous and extreme, and we must defeat him in November,” said Will Simons, a spokesman for the Shapiro campaign.

The push reflected a view that one of Mr. Mastriano’s core vulnerabilities lay in his vast online footprint, with its hours of freewheeling conversation in spaces frequented by far-right voices.

Still, some Democrats who watched Mr. Mastriano’s rapid rise at close range have cautioned against counting him out. “Mastriano’s been underestimated by his own party,” said Brit Crampsie, a political consultant who was until recently the State Senate Democrats’ spokeswoman. “I fear him being underestimated by the Democrats. I wouldn’t rule him out.”

Categories
Politics

Some seized data may very well be shielded by attorney-client privilege

The Justice Department has completed its review of materials seized in the FBI raid of former President Donald Trump’s home Mar-a-Lago, including some information that may be protected by attorney-client privilege, the DOJ told a federal judge Monday.

The department’s completion of the review of the documents taken from Trump’s resort home could undermine his legal team’s bid to block the DOJ from further analyzing those materials until a so-called special master is able to examine them.

The “limited set” of potentially privileged information was identified by a team that is kept separate from the investigative squad that searched Trump’s Palm Beach, Florida, residence earlier this month, DOJ officials said in a court filing in US District Court in southern Florida on Monday morning.

The so-called privilege review team “completed its review of those materials” and is following a process to “address potential privilege disputes, if any,” according to that filing.

Former US President Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-A-Lago, Palm Beach, Florida on August 9, 2022.

Giorgio Viera | AFP | Getty Images

Attorney-client privilege often refers to the legal doctrine that protects the confidentiality of communications between an attorney and their client. The DOJ’s filing provided no details about the potentially privileged materials.

The agency disclosed the privilege team’s review one week after Trump sued to block the DOJ from further investigating any materials taken in the raid until a court-appointed “special master” is able to analyze them.

Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, gave notice Saturday of her “preliminary intent to appoint a special master” in the case. Cannon ordered the government to publicly respond to Trump by Tuesday. She also ordered the DOJ to submit a sealed filing that provides more details about the seized materials, and she set a hearing for Thursday at 1 pm ET in a West Palm Beach courthouse.

In response, top DOJ counterintelligence official Jay Bratt assured the judge that the government will comply with those orders.

But “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 … identified a limited set of materials that potentially contain attorney-client privileged information” and ” completed his review of those materials,” Bratt wrote.

The DOJ and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, “are currently facilitating a classification review of materials recovered” from Trump’s residence, Bratt added. The ODNI “is also leading an intelligence community assessment of the potential risk to national security that would result from the disclosure of these materials,” he wrote.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to answer reporters’ specific questions about the DOJ probe later Monday, stressing that the agency is conducting its investigation independently and “we have not been involved.”

She noted, however, neither President Joe Biden nor anyone else at the White House has been briefed on the matter, but declined to comment on any classified materials prepared for the president.

Trump’s civil lawsuit is being overseen by a different judge than the one who approved the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. The affidavit for that search warrant — in which an FBI agent explained why the government had probable cause to believe the search would turn up evidence of illegality — was released Friday, albeit with heavy redactions.

The National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of records from Mar-a-Lago in January. The next month, NARA sent a referral to the DOJ that the records contained “highly classified documents intermingled with other records,” according to the affidavit. By law, presidential records must be turned over to the National Archives when a president departs office.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

The FBI launched a criminal investigation and found that the 15 boxes included 184 specific documents marked classified, 67 of which were marked “confidential,” 92 marked “secret” and 25 marked “top secret,” according to the affidavit.

The search warrant was revealed days after the FBI entered Mar-a-Lago in August. It indicated that FBI agents were looking for materials showing violations of laws against obstruction of justice and the removal of official records, as well as the US Espionage Act.

The FBI took at least 20 boxes of items in the August raid, including numerous sets of highly classified documents, according to a property receipt that was also made public by the DOJ.

Categories
Politics

Trump Doc Inquiry Poses Unparalleled Take a look at for Justice Dept.

WASHINGTON — As Justice Department officials haggled for months this year with former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers and aides over the return of government documents at his Florida home, federal prosecutors became convinced that they were not being told the whole truth.

That conclusion helped set in motion a decision that would amount to an unparalleled test of the Justice Department’s credibility in a deeply polarized political environment: to seek a search warrant to enter Mar-a-Lago and retrieve what prosecutors suspected would be highly classified materials, beyond the hundreds of pages that Mr. Trump had already returned.

By the government’s account, that gamble paid off, with FBI agents carting off boxloads of sensitive material during the search three weeks ago, including some documents with top secret markings.

But the matter hardly ended there: What had started as an effort to retrieve national security documents has now been transformed into one of the most challenging, complicated and potentially explosive criminal investigations in recent memory, with tremendous implications for the Justice Department, Mr. Trump and public faith in government.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland now faces the prospect of having to decide whether to file criminal charges against a former president and likely 2024 Republican candidate, a step without any historical parallel.

Remarkably, he may have to make this choice twice, depending on what evidence his investigators find in their separate, broad inquiry into Mr. Trump’s efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election and his involvement with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The department’s Jan. 6 investigation began as a manhunt for the rioters who attacked the Capitol. But last fall it expanded to include actions that occurred before the assault, such as the plan to submit slates of electors to Congress that falsely stated Mr. Trump had won in several key swing states.

This summer, prosecutors in the US attorney’s office in Washington began to ask witnesses directly about any involvement by Mr. Trump and members of his inner circle, including the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, had in efforts to reverse his election loss.

For all his efforts to distance the department from politics, Mr. Garland cannot escape the political repercussions of his decisions. How he handles Mr. Trump will surely define his tenure.

It is still unclear how either case will play out. Prosecutors working on the investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified information are nowhere near making a recommendation to Mr. Garland, according to people with knowledge of the inquiry. Court filings describe the work as continuing, with the possibility of more witness interviews and other investigative steps to come.

The Trump Investigations

Cards 1 of 6

The Trump Investigations

Numerous inquiries. Since former President Donald J. Trump left office, he has been facing several civil and criminal investigations into his business dealings and political activities. Here is a look at some notable cases:

The Trump Investigations

Jan 6 investigations. In a series of public hearings, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack laid out a comprehensive narrative of Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. This evidence could allow federal prosecutors, who are conducting a parallel criminal investigation, to indict Mr. Trump.

The Trump Investigations

Georgia election interference case. Fani T. Willis, the Atlanta-area district attorney, has been leading a wide-ranging criminal investigation into the efforts of Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia. This case could pose the most immediate legal peril for the former president and his associates.

The Trump Investigations

New York State civil inquiry. Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, has been conducting a civil investigation into Mr. Trump and his family business. The case is focused on whether Mr. Trump’s statements about the value of his assets were part of a pattern of fraud or were simply Trumpian showmanship.

So far, Mr. Garland has signaled that he is comfortable with owning all of the decisions related to Mr. Trump. He has resisted calls to appoint a special counsel to deal with investigations into the former president. In his first speech to the department’s 115,000 employees last year, he expressed faith that together they could handle any case. “All of us are united by our commitment to the rule of law and to seeking equal justice under law,” he said.

Over the course of this year, as prosecutors sought to understand how sensitive government documents ended up at Mr. Trump’s Florida resort, they began to examine whether three laws had been broken: the Espionage Act, which outlaws the unauthorized retention or disclosure of national security information; a law prohibiting the mishandling of sensitive government records; and a law against obstructing a federal investigation.

By summertime, the investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified information had started to yield compelling indications of possible intent to thwart the law, according to two people familiar with the work. While there was not necessarily ironclad evidence, witness interviews and other materials began to point to the possibility of deliberate attempts to mislead investigators. In addition to witness interviews, the Justice Department obtained security camera footage of various parts of Mar-a-Lago from the Trump Organization.

What we consider before using anonymous sources.
How do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even satisfied with these questions, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.

The heavily redacted affidavit explaining the government’s desire for a search warrant said that the Justice Department had “probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at” Mar-a-Lago, and that “the government has well-founded concerns that steps may be taken to frustrate or otherwise interfere with this investigation if facts in the affidavit were prematurely disclosed.”

But a decision about whether to charge Mr. Trump over attempts to obstruct the investigation, or his handling of sensitive national security information, would involve a variety of considerations.

At the heart of the case would be evidence uncovered by the FBI, which is still trying to understand how and why government records made their way to Mar-a-Lago and why some stayed there despite repeated requests for their return by the National Archives and a later subpoena from the Justice Department.

But the highly classified nature of some of the documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago and the possible evidence of obstruction are only some elements that will go into any final decision about pursuing a prosecution.

Career national security prosecutors will conduct a robust analysis of whether that evidence persuasively shows that laws were broken. That process will include a look at how the facts have been applied in similar cases brought under those same laws, information that prosecutors examined when they investigated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the former CIA director David H. Petraeus.

Key developments in the inquiries into the former president and his allies.

In the case involving Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server, for instance, officials in the national security division asked prosecutors to dive deep into the history of the Espionage Act. At issue was whether her handling of classified information indicated she had engaged in gross negligence. One compelling case of gross negligence that they did find, involving a former FBI agent, included far more serious factors. After examining past examples, they found that her case did not meet that standard. In the end, the consensus was not to charge Mrs. Clinton.

But Mr. Trump’s case presents the additional question of obstruction of justice, and the possibility that evidence could show that he or his legal team defied the Justice Department to hold onto documents that belonged to the government.

That in some ways echoes a previous obstruction inquiry conducted by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who examined whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election. His final report showed that Mr. Trump tried to curtail, or even end, the special counsel inquiry as he learned more about it. But Mr. Mueller declined to say whether Mr. Trump had broken the law, allowing the attorney general at the time, William P. Barr, to clear Mr. Trump of that crime.

There is no way to know whether the Justice Department has facts regarding obstruction that meet its standard of prosecution, which is evidence that would “probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”

But the Justice Department’s own legal filings have thrust the question of obstruction into public view. Should Mr. Garland find that there is not enough evidence to indict Mr. Trump, the Justice Department under two successive administrations will have chosen not to recommend prosecuting Mr. Trump for that crime.

If Mr. Garland chooses to move forward with charges, it will be a historic moment for the presidency, a former leader of the United States accused of committing a crime and possibly forced to defend himself before a jury of his fellow citizens. It is a process that could potentially unfold even as he runs again for the White House against an incumbent whose administration is prosecuting him.

That, too, runs huge risks for the department’s credibility, particularly if the national security threat presented by Mr. Trump’s possession of the documents, inevitably disclosed at least in part during the course of any trial, do not seem substantial enough to warrant such a grave move.

Mr. Garland and his investigators are fully aware of the implications of their decisions, according to people familiar with their work. The knowledge that they will be scrutinized for impropriety and overreach, they say, has underscored the need to hew to the facts.

But a decision to prosecute — or to decline to prosecute — has political implications that Mr. Garland cannot escape. And no matter of judiciousness can change the fact that he is operating within an America as politically divided as it has been in decades.

Mr. Trump’s supporters have viewed any investigative steps around the former president as illegitimate attacks by a partisan Justice Department that is out to get him. And his detractors believe that any decision not to prosecute, no matter the evidence, would show that Mr. Trump is indeed above the law.

Categories
Politics

Dr. Ouncessides with vitality trade after receiving oil, gasoline donations

dr Mehmet Oz has championed the oil and gas industry as he sees to win a coveted Senate seat in Pennsylvania.

The former TV personality’s vocal support for the energy business follows years of industry donations to his nonprofit and then his campaign, according to financial records reviewed by CNBC. Oz also has a personal stake in oil and gas through investments in two major energy companies, according to his financial disclosures.

Pennsylvania’s next senator will be a key vote for the energy industry, as it has a major presence in the Keystone State. Pennsylvania is the nation’s second-largest natural gas producer after Texas and the third-largest coal producer, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Oz backed the energy industry this year as Americans felt the strain from spiking gas prices. In a recent interview, he ripped President Joe Biden after he called on companies that run gas stations to bring down prices at the pump.

“Now, they’re blaming the energy companies for the gas prices. And I’m thinking, like most Americans, what are you talking about? I mean, you did things that make it, make it impossible for these companies to exist, ” Oz said in a July interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. He called Biden’s comments “class warfare.”

As Oz champions oil and gas in his bid to represent Pennsylvania in the Senate, both his campaign and personal coffers have benefited from the industry and its executives.

Oz, a veteran physician and television host, is running against Democrat John Fetterman for a Senate seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Pat Toomey. Oz is trailing Fetterman by just under 8 percentage points in an average of recent polls, according to RealClearPolitics. Fetterman’s campaign has raised over $25 million, while Oz and his team have brought in just over $18 million, according to data from the nonpartisan OpenSecrets.

Oz and his wife, Lisa, have a financial stake in the industry he has championed, as they own shares of oil and gas giants ConocoPhillips and Pioneer Natural Resources, according to their financial disclosure report. The filing notes they own shares of ConocoPhillips valued between $15,001 and $50,000 and Pioneer stock valued between $1,001 and $15,000.

Oz’s connections to the industry formed before he pursued politics.

His nonprofit HealthCorps, which promotes itself as a group aiming to help teens with their health and wellness, has seen at least $210,000 in contributions from gas and oil producer Continental Resources since 2016, according to the group’s annual financial reports. Continental’s support has continued into Oz’s Senate bid: The company’s founder and chair, Harold Hamm, endorsed Oz for Senate in an April campaign video.

The backing from energy industry leaders has led to contributions to Oz’s campaign.

Hamm is among a group of over a dozen oil and gas industry leaders who have combined to contribute over $200,000 to Oz’s campaign since he announced his run for Senate late last year, according to a CNBC review of Federal Election Commission filings. Others with ties to the oil and gas business who have donated at least $2,900 to Oz’s campaign include Jimmy Haslam, an owner of the Cleveland Browns and chair of Pilot Company, a business that owns fueling stations across the country. His father and Pilot founder, James Haslam II, also donated to the Oz campaign.

Other top energy donors in recent months include Brad Cox, the chair of oil producer Cox Operating, and Janet Cafaro, the president of Silcor Oilfield Services, FEC records show.

Jimmy Haslam and his wife, Susan “Dee” Haslam, combined to give $50,000 to the per-Oz super PAC American Leadership Action.

Jimmy and Dee Haslam told CNBC in a statement that they have “tremendous respect for the long, successful career Dr. Oz has had in the private sector and appreciate that he now wants to serve his country by bringing his expertise and experience to the United States Senates.” The Haslam family, as of 2015, had a net worth of $6 billion, according to Forbes.

Representatives for Cox and Cafaro did not return requests for comment.

Hamm told CNBC in a statement that he considers Oz a “friend.” He said the two have known each other for almost a decade, with the goal of bringing HealthCorps’ services into Oklahoma schools.

Hamm explained that he believes Oz will be a key advocate for the energy sector, which has enriched the oil billionaire. He and his family have a net worth of at least $21 billion, according to Forbes.

“Dr. Oz will champion American energy in the US Senate much like he’s championed health his entire career,” Hamm said.

The nonprofit’s annual reports from 2016 through 2020 give a range of how much donors contributed to HealthCorps. Continental Resources regularly ranked among the Oz group’s top backers. The company is often listed as donating between $50,000 and $99,999 during those years. A HealthCorps filing says it received a range of $10,000 to just under $25,000 from Continental in 2018.

In its earlier filings before 2016, HealthCorps lists Continental as either a “national” or a “community” sponsor. The group’s website notes that its national sponsors contribute $1 million and its community donors write checks for $250,000. The disclosures pre-2016 do not say or show a range of how much the company gave those years.

Oz’s support from the massive energy industry coincides with an apparent shift in his opinion on fracking, which allows companies to drill deep into the earth for oil and gas resources. Critics say that fracking hurts the environment by harming water supplies and polluting the air.

Before Oz ran for Senate, he repeatedly wrote columns that took aim at fracking, noting its potential threat to public health, Vice reports.

“And in Pennsylvania, there are multiple reports of air and water contamination, possibly from hydraulic fracturing sites, causing folks breathing problems, rashes, headaches, nosebleeds, numbness, nausea and vomiting,” Oz said in a 2014 column critical of fracking.

Brittany Yanick, a spokeswoman for the Oz campaign, said the candidate has not changed his view on fracking and is a strong supporter of the drilling method. She also took aim at Fetterman’s position on the issue.

“As a scientist, Dr. Oz understands that, like with COVID, the Biden administration is ignoring the science and the benefits of natural gas in order to satisfy the radical Left, the same liberal Democrats that are supporting radical environmental measures and funding John Fetterman’s campaign,” Yanick said in an emailed statement. “John Fetterman has called fracking a ‘stain’ on Pennsylvania, he’s called for a moratorium on fracking, and he would be a rubber stamp for the failing Biden Agenda.”

Fetterman has a mixed history with where he stands on fracking. Inside Climate News reported that Fetterman dropped his support for a fracking moratorium after his failed 2016 primary run for Senate. His position evolved after the state moved toward stricter regulations on fracking.

Emilia Rowland, a spokeswoman for Fetterman’s campaign, told CNBC that “John does not support a ban on fracking in Pennsylvania and that includes a moratorium on new fracking sites.” She said he hasn’t taken any campaign money from the fossil fuel industry.

“John believes fully heartedly that we have to preserve the union way of life for the thousands of workers currently employed by the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania and the communities where they live. We can’t just abandon these people, and tell them to go learn how to code,” Rowland said in a statement. “It’s a totally false choice that we have to choose between jobs and a clean environment. That’s just not true. We can have both.”

Still, Oz appears more vocal than Fetterman in publicly supporting the oil and gas industry. In a recent op-ed, he said it’s “gross, and deeply unpatriotic” for oil companies to charge high gas prices while their businesses are making massive profits. Fetterman namechecked Chevron, Exxon and Shell in the op-ed.

Oz has rubbed elbows with industry officials during his campaign.

He was invited to a June “energy industry meet and greet” by longtime lobbyist Missy Edwards. The invite says the meeting was set to take place at Edwards’ offices in Washington. Her current clients include Southern Company and General Motors, OpenSecrets says.

A spokeswoman for General Motors said she was “not sure if GM had a representative in attendance.” Edwards and a representative for Southern Company did not return requests for comment.

Categories
Politics

Trump’s Authorized Group Scrambles to Discover an Argument

On May 25, one of former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers sent a letter to a top Justice Department official, laying out the argument that his client had done nothing illegal by holding onto a trove of government materials when he left the White House.

The letter, from M. Evan Corcoran, a former federal prosecutor, represented Mr. Trump’s initial defense against the investigation into the presence of highly classified documents in unsecured locations at his members-only club and residence, Mar-a-Lago. It amounted to a three-page hodgepodge of contested legal theories, including Mr. Corcoran’s assertion that Mr. Trump possessed a nearly boundless right as president to declassify materials and an argument that one law governing the handling of classified documents does not apply to a president .

Mr. Corcoran asked the Justice Department to present the letter as “exculpatory” information to the grand jury investigating the case.

Government lawyers found it deeply puzzling. They included it in the affidavit submitted to a federal magistrate in Florida in their request for the search warrant they later used to recover even more classified materials at Mar-a-Lago — to demonstrate their willingness to acknowledge Mr. Corcoran’s arguments, a person with knowledge of the decision said.

As the partial release of the search warrant affidavit on Friday, including the May 25 letter, illustrated, Mr. Trump is going into the battle over the documents with a hastily assembled team. The lawyers have offered up a variety of arguments on his behalf that have yet to do much to fend off a Justice Department that has adopted a determined, focused and so far largely successful legal approach.

“He needs a quarterback who’s a real lawyer,” said David I. Schoen, a lawyer who defended Mr. Trump in his second Senate impeachment trial. Mr. Schoen called it “an honor” to represent Mr. Trump, but said it was problematic to keep lawyers “rotating in and out.”

Often tinged with Mr. Trump’s own bombast and sometimes conflating his powers as president with his role as a private citizen, the legal arguments put forth by his team sometimes strike lawyers not involved in the case as more about setting a political narrative than about dealing with the possibility of a federal prosecution.

“There seems to be a huge disconnect between what’s actually happening — a real live court case surrounding a real live investigation — and what they’re actually doing, which is treating it like they’ve treated everything else, recklessly and thoughtlessly,” Chuck Rosenberg, a former US attorney and FBI official, said of Mr. Trump’s approach. “And for an average defendant on an average case, that would be a disaster.”

Mr. Trump’s team had a few small procedural wins. On Saturday, a federal judge in Florida signaled that she was inclined to support Mr. Trump’s request for a special master to review the material seized by the government in the search of Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8.

It is not clear how much the appointment of a special master would slow or complicate the government’s review of the material. Mr. Trump’s team has suggested that it would be a first step toward challenging the validity of the search warrant; but it also gives the Justice Department, which is expected to respond this week, an opportunity to air new details in public through their legal filings.

Takeaways From the Affidavit Used in the Mar-a-Lago Search

Cards 1 of 4

Takeaways From the Affidavit Used in the Mar-a-Lago Search

The release on Aug. 26 of a partly redacted affidavit used by the Justice Department to justify its search of former President Donald J. Trump’s Florida residence included information that provides greater insight into the ongoing investigation into how he handled documents he took with him from the White House. Here are the key takeaways:

Takeaways From the Affidavit Used in the Mar-a-Lago Search

The government tried to retrieve the documents for more than a year. The affidavit showed that the National Archives asked Mr. Trump as early as May 2021 for files that needed to be returned. In January, the agency was able to collect 15 boxes of documents. The affidavit included a letter from May 2022 showing that Trump’s lawyers knew that he might be in possession of classified materials and that the Justice Department was investigating the matter.

Takeaways From the Affidavit Used in the Mar-a-Lago Search

The material included highly classified documents. The FBI said it had examined the 15 boxes Mr. Trump had returned to the National Archives in January and that all but one of them contained documents that were marked classified. The markings suggested that some documents could compromise human intelligence sources and that others were related to foreign intercepts collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Takeaways From the Affidavit Used in the Mar-a-Lago Search

Prosecutors are concerned about obstruction and witness intimidation. To obtain the search warrant, the Justice Department had to lay out possible crimes to a judge, and obstruction of justice was among them. In a supporting document, the Justice Department said it had “well-founded concerns that steps may be taken to frustrate or otherwise interfere with this investigation if facts in the affidavit were prematurely disclosed.”

Some of the Trump lawyers’ efforts have also appeared ineffective or misdirected. Mr. Corcoran, in his May 25 letter, made much of Mr. Trump’s powers to declassify material as president, and cited a specific law on the handling of classified material that he said did not apply to a president. The search warrant, however, said federal agents would be seeking evidence of three potential crimes, none of which relied on the classification status of the documents found at Mar-a-Lago; the law on the handling of classified material cited by Mr. Corcoran in the letter was not among them.

Two lawyers who are working with Mr. Trump on the documents case — Mr. Corcoran and Jim Trusty — have prosecutorial experience with the federal government. But the team was put together quickly.

Mr. Trusty was hired after Mr. Trump saw him on television, people close to the former president have said. Mr. Corcoran came in during the spring, introduced by another Trump adviser during a conference call in which Mr. Corcoran made clear he was willing to take on a case that many of Mr. Trump’s other advisers were seeking to avoid, people briefed on the discussion said.

What we consider before using anonymous sources.
How do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even satisfied with these questions, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.

Mr. Trump’s allies have reached out to several other lawyers, but have repeatedly been turned down.

Mr. Corcoran in particular has raised eyebrows within the Justice Department for his statements to federal officials during the investigation documents. People briefed on the investigation say officials are uncertain whether Mr. Corcoran was intentionally evasive, or simply unaware of all the material still kept at Mar-a-Lago and found during the Aug. 8 search by the FBI

Mr Corcoran did not respond to a request for comment. Taylor Budowich, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, said only that Mr. Trump and his legal team “continue to assert his rights and expose the Biden administration’s misuse of the Presidential Records Act, which governs all pertinent facts, has been complied with and has no enforcement mechanism.”

Even before Mr. Corcoran joined the team, Mr. Trump’s legal filings in various cases read like campaign rally speeches that he had dictated to his lawyers. The former president has a history of approaching legal proceedings as if they are political conflicts, in which his best defense is the 74 million people who voted for him in the 2020 election.

The closest thing to a legal quarterback in Mr. Trump’s orbit is Boris Epshteyn, a onetime lawyer at the Milbank firm who was a political adviser to Mr. Trump in 2016, ultimately becoming a senior staff member on his inaugural effort and then a strategic adviser on the 2020 campaign.

Mr. Epshteyn has championed Mr. Trump’s claims, dismissed by dozens of courts, that the election was stolen from him, and has risen to a role he has described to colleagues as an “in-house counsel,” helping to assemble Mr. Trump’s current legal team.

Mr. Trump’s advisers continue to insist that he was cooperating before the search in returning the documents. They have also suggested that they were quick to respond to Justice Department concerns, citing what they described as a request in June that a stronger lock be placed on the door leading to the storage area where several boxes of presidential records had been kept.

Yet the unsealed affidavit showed a portion of a letter from a Justice Department lawyer sent to Mr. Trump’s lawyers that did not specify anything about a lock and read less like a request than a warning.

The classified documents taken from the White House “have not been handled in an appropriate manner or stored in an appropriate location,” the letter read. “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 further notice.”

During the Aug. 8 search, the FBI found additional documents in that area and also on the floor of a closet in Mr. Trump’s office, people briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Trump and a small circle within his group of current advisers maintain that he was entitled to keep documents he took from the White House, or that he had already declassified them, or that they were packed up and moved by the General Services Administration — an assertion flatly denied by that federal agency.

Mr. Trump, people familiar with his thinking say, sees the attorney general, Merrick B. Garland, not as the federal government’s chief law enforcement officer, but merely as a political foe and someone with whom he can haggle with about how much anger exists over the situation.

Shortly before Mr. Garland announced that he was seeking to unseal the search warrant, an intermediary for Mr. Trump reached out to a Justice Department official to pass along a message that the former president wanted to negotiate, as if he were still a New York developers.

The message Mr. Trump wanted conveyed, according to a person familiar with the exchange, was: “The country is on fire. What can I do to reduce the heat?”

A Justice Department spokesman would not say if the message ever made it up to Mr Garland; but the senior leadership was befuddled by the message, and had no idea what Mr. Trump was trying to accomplish, according to an official.