Categories
Politics

DOJ appeals particular grasp choice

Documents seized by the FBI from Mar-a-Lago

Source: Ministry of Justice

The Justice Department on Thursday appealed a federal judge’s decision to authorize a special master to review documents seized by the FBI from former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence.

The Justice Department also asked Judge Aileen Cannon to stay her related order, which bars the government from further reviewing classified documents found in last month’s search of Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Palm Beach resort .

The moves came three days after Cannon approved Trump’s request for a special foreman to sift through the seized materials to identify personal items and records protected by attorney-client privilege or executive privilege.

The DOJ opposed the request, saying it had already completed a privileged review of the documents and that a special master could harm the government’s national security interests.

The FBI seized more than 10,000 government records when it searched Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8. Many of these documents bore classification marks, including dozens of folders that were empty when picked up by the FBI.

Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, wrote in her ruling Monday in the US District of South Florida that “the country is best served with an orderly process that encourages interest and perceptions of fairness.”

The DOJ’s appeal was filed with the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over Florida district court cases.

The DOJ also asked Cannon to stay its order barring the agency from further reviewing and using the seized classified documents for criminal investigative purposes pending appeal. Last week, the department announced that the FBI had seized more than 100 classified documents during the raid.

The DOJ said in Thursday’s filing that it is likely to succeed in its appeal given the classified records, which represent a fraction of the documents found at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump “does not and could not claim that he possesses or possesses classified records, that he has a right to have those government records returned to him, or that he can make plausible claims of attorney-client records preventing the government from doing so would review or use them,” the DOJ wrote.

This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.

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

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

Greg Abbott Calls Texas Particular Session, in New Voting Rights Struggle

Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas on Thursday called a new special session of the Legislature that is set to begin on Saturday, renewing Republican efforts to overhaul the state’s elections and putting pressure on Democratic lawmakers who left the state for Washington last month to block the legislation.

Mr. Abbott, a Republican, stuck to his pledge “to call special session after special session,” releasing a 17-item agenda for the Republican-controlled Legislature with a new voting bill at the top. The list also included a host of other conservative goals, like restricting abortion access, limiting the ways that students are taught about racism and tightening border security.

His announcement sent national attention swinging back to a hotel in downtown Washington, where several dozen Democrats from the Texas House of Representatives are grappling with a familiar question: Stay or go back?

The Texas Democrats are torn over how much is left for them to accomplish in Washington, with some moderate members of the caucus believing that their point has been made. But more progressive members are pushing to stay in Washington and continue to call attention to voting rights, at least while the U.S. Senate remains in session.

“I’ve been very clear, as it relates to me, that as long as Congress is in town, working on voting rights, I will be here in Washington, D.C., advocating for voting rights,” said State Representative Trey Martinez Fischer, a Democrat who was one of the organizers of the initial flight from Austin.

President Biden’s administration, by contrast, appeared to suggest that it would support a return to Texas by the state lawmakers.

“Certainly, the president believes that, one, they’ve been outspoken advocates and champions of voting rights,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said at a news conference, adding that if the legislative calendar “required them to be there, we would support that.”

The lawmakers’ stay in Washington has amounted to a prolonged period of limbo; their trip has delayed Republicans’ attempt to pass an election bill, but it remains unlikely that it will be a fatal blow.

Federal officials celebrated their arrival in Washington, with Vice President Kamala Harris likening their departure from Texas to the voting rights march in Selma, Ala., and other famous civil rights protests of the 1960s. But the group lost momentum when several vaccinated legislators tested positive for the coronavirus.

In video chats, the Texas Democrats did their best to maintain pressure on both the White House and Democratic senators to find a path forward for federal voting legislation, and eventually coaxed more than 100 state legislators from other states to join them in Washington.

And the lawmakers’ visit to Washington has coincided with the renewal of talks toward a compromise voting bill. Eight Democratic senators, including Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, have been moving closer to a final draft to be introduced later this year. What prompted the end of congressional inertia, however, is unclear, and any federal voting bill would remain unlikely to move quickly through the chambers of Congress.

So now, with the Texas Democrats confronting an uncertain future, they are debating their next moves.

If they return, they could be subject to the as-yet-untested powers of the Republican Statehouse leadership to arrest and detain any lawmakers who do not show up for a legislative session while in the state of Texas.

While Speaker Dade Phelan, a Republican, can issue arrest warrants during a session that has been gaveled in, there has never been a test of that authority when a session has been called by the governor but cannot start because enough lawmakers have declined to show up. Mr. Phelan’s office believes he has the authority to request arrest warrants and send law enforcement officers to retrieve absentee lawmakers even if the session has not started.

Back in Austin, Republican members said they had been maintaining informal discussions with their Democratic colleagues in an attempt to re-establish a quorum and get back to work. The partisan strictures in the Texas Legislature are far less rigid than those in Congress, with no dividing aisle between Republicans and Democrats. Members of the opposing parties intermingle more on the House floor and often form working friendships.

“I can tell you they’ve been going on since they left three weeks ago,” State Representative Jim Murphy of Houston, the chairman of the 83-member House Republican Caucus, said of the largely ad hoc discussions. Most of the conversations were “just personal — largely people want to know if they’re going to return,” he added. “How committed are they? Are there some that are willing to come back? Are there things that need to happen to encourage them to return?”

“I’ve done some texting, some phone calling,” he said, though “not a whole lot.”

At least nine Democrats have remained in Austin for varying reasons, though most, if not all, have embraced their colleagues’ opposition to the voting bill.

But as Democrats consider their immediate future, Mr. Abbott did add a surprise item to the agenda that, while unclear in its scope or likelihood of success, could further complicate their calculations: “Legislation relating to legislative quorum requirements.”

Katie Rogers contributed reporting.

Categories
Politics

Decide appoints particular grasp for Trump lawyer’s prison case

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrive to speak to police gathered at Fraternal Order of Police lodge during a campaign event in Statesville, North Carolina, U.S., August 18, 2016.

Carlo Allegri | Reuters

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

Jones, who is a partner in the Bracewell firm, also will review electronic files recently seized from another Trump allied lawyer, Victoria Toensing, as part of the criminal probe of Giuliani.

The files of both lawyers were seized through search warrants.

Prosecutors had asked Manhattan federal Judge J. Paul Oetken on Thursday to appoint Jones as special master, and in a court filing told the judge that attorneys for Giuliani and Toensing supported that request.

“Judge Jones’s reputation for integrity and fairness made her the unanimous choice for all parties,” Giuliani’s lawyer, Arthur Aidala, told CNBC. “We look forward to working with her.”

Cohen, in a text message to CNBC, said, “Judge Jones was professional in the review and determination of attorney/client privilege of the more than 10 million documents in my case.”

“The choice of Judge Jones and the expeditious manner to which she conducts her court will not inure to the benefit of Rudy,” Cohen wrote.

In their request for Jones’ appointment, prosecutors noted that Giuliani previously had been a shareholder in the Bracewell firm, “which was then known as Bracewell & Giuliani.”

“In January 2016, Mr. Giuliani left the firm, and Judge Jones did not join the firm until July 2016,” prosecutors wrote. “None of the parties believe that Mr. Giuliani’s prior affiliation with Bracewell & Giuliani presents a conflict that would disqualify Judge Jones from being appointed as a special master or her firm assisting in her review.”

Prosecutors also told Oetken that another partner at Bracewell who had helped Jones in reviewing Cohen’s files for privileged material, and “who has a personal relationship with Mr. Giuliani,” will recuse himself from this matter in order to avoid the appearance of any conflict.”

Giuliani is under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

That office, which Giuliani once headed, in particular is eyeing whether he violated a law requiring people to register as agents representing the interests of foreign powers in certain cases. Giuliani during Trump’s presidency had pursued information about President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, among other things.

Giuliani had said he did nothing illegal.

Trump himself is under criminal investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

Categories
Entertainment

Bo Burnham’s ‘Inside’: A Comedy Particular and an Impressed Experiment

The incentives of the internet that reward outrage, excess, and sentimentality are the villains of this show. In a dizzying homage to “Cabaret,” Burnham plays the MC of the internet in sunglasses, greeting everyone with a decadent selection of options as the disco lights swirl. It is a lyrically dense song with camera work that gets faster with its rhythm. Burnham’s shot sequencing plays just as often against the meaning of a song, for example when he triggers a glamorous split screen to complement a comic song with his mother via FaceTiming.

“Inside” is the work of a comic with artistic means that most of its colleagues ignore or overlook. Burnham, who once published a volume of poetry, has not only become just as meticulous and creative with his visual vocabulary as he is with his language.

Some of the show’s narrative can indulgently overheat and play with clichés about the brooding artist’s process, but Burnham anticipated these and other criticisms and incorporated them into the special, including the idea that paying attention to potential bugs fixes them. “Self-knowledge does not release anyone from anything,” he says.

True, but it can deepen and clarify art. “Inside” is a tricky work that, despite all the overstepping of boundaries, in the end remains a comedy in the spirit of neurotic, self-hating stand-ups. Burnham impales himself as a virtuous ally with a white savior complex, a tyrant, and an egoist who draws a Venn diagram and locates himself at the intersection between Weird Al and Malcolm X, an artist whose career was born and flourished there the ultimate joke.

Burnham lingers behind the scenes with his technical tinkering – handling lights, editing, line exercises. He is neglected, increasingly unshaven and has a Rasputin-like beard. The aesthetics telegraph authenticity and vulnerability, but the breathtaking final shots of the special reveal the misdirection at work and encourage skepticism about the performativity of such realism.

Towards the end he appears completely naked behind his keyboard. It’s an image that suggests a man is baring himself until you realize he’s in the spotlight.

Categories
Entertainment

Can You Love a Stand-Up Particular About Loathing?

The climax is the breakup, a story centered around how his girlfriend Rowan Atkinson, the comedian best known for playing English comic book institution Mr. Bean, is a specialist in physical problems. In a sad pout, Acaster describes the particularly comical horror of being a young comic that is “left over for Mr. Bean,” a sentence he repeats in a horror film with the urgency of violins. It’s a masterpiece of cringe comedy that he keeps digressing to anticipate criticism that it’s bitter and petty.

Acaster isn’t a comic strip that tells the truth and doesn’t care what people think. He seems concerned about his doing well, but uses his own sensitivity to add another layer of tension to his stories. By explaining the fallout with his agent, he shows he’s fair, so much so that he says he’ll only tell the story from his point of view. It begins, “The first thing you need to know is that I ruined everything and made it laugh.”

It is a familiar trick to ridicule someone by imagining the terrible logic of their thinking, but few have committed to it as completely or as long. Many of Acaster’s jokes have a theatrical quality, and in addition to act-outs, there is an elaborate pantomime with props. He even makes a short chunk of ordering food in a restaurant to illustrate his point of view on Brexit.

He carries out his fights with gusto, and in his argument with his agent, he reminds you of his struggles with mental health that led him to see the therapist, resulting in the most explosive fight on the show. When he takes out his cell phone to read his private text messages to him, he smiles like someone enjoying the pleasure of playing dirty.

This is a show that has clearly gone through many incarnations so with the purchase of Cold Lasagna Hate Myself 1999 you may get another 40 minute performance on similar subjects. Cold lasagna is never actually mentioned, but even “hating myself” seems strange as there is so much other loathing going on here.

Muted anger is sometimes a setup, sometimes a punch line, but always essential to this show. At one point, Acaster says he’s traveled all over the country, adding, “Let me tell you, I hate Britain, absolutely hate it.”

Then he always apologizes about the exact order of the words. “I put it wrong,” he says and pauses. “I hate the British.”

Categories
Politics

Louisiana Particular Election Units Up a Democratic Showdown

However, Ms. Peterson’s best applause could also reflect her best chance of prevailing.

“There has never been an African American woman in Washington in the history of Louisiana in the federal delegation,” she said. “When women aren’t at the table, we’re usually on the menu.”

At a moment when black women want to see more of their peers in positions of power – a view that makes up a large part of the democratic base when black women run in high profile elections in places like New York City, Virginia and Ohio this year – this is it Message clearly in response.

“I’m all for women now, we just need a representation,” said Angela Steib, a Donaldsonville resident who attended the meeting.

For his part, Mr. Carter is quick to point out his support from a number of local women leaders, including the Helena Moreno, President of the New Orleans City Council – and to say that he would be more effective in Washington than Ms. Peterson because she acknowledges she is persistent.

“We have a completely different style,” he said.

Philosophically, the two weren’t that far apart in the past. But Ms. Peterson has tried to outstrip Mr. Carter on the left in this race by portraying herself as an insurgent, despite her service as former state chairman and her list of endorsements, which include support from Stacey Abrams and Emily’s List , trumpets, the group that supports women who are for abortion rights.

When asked to describe her political style, she avoided an ideological label and instead called herself “responsive” and “honest”. Mr. Carter said, “I’m center left.”

In a sleepy spring special election, however, the winner can be determined by which of the two top candidates has a stronger organization. Both have long histories in the local office, both have sought this seat in the past and have been financially competitive despite Emily’s ruse given Ms. Peterson third party help that Mr. Carter lacks on the radio waves.

Categories
World News

‘Particular and Stunning’ Whistled Language Echoes Round This Island

Two pipers may have difficulty understanding each other, especially on their first few meetings – and have to ask each other to repeat sentences – like strangers speaking the same language with different accents. But “after they whistle together for a while, communication becomes as easy as if they were speaking Spanish,” Correa said.

As in many languages, whether whistled or not, there is a generation gap in La Gomera.

Ciro Mesa Niebla, a 46-year-old farmer, said he had trouble whistling with a younger generation who were educated in school because he said, “I’m a mountain guy who learned to speak at home whistle that our family used to run. But I don’t have the vocabulary of those kids who learn to whistle in the salon, which is a bit too fancy for me. “

Some elderly residents have also stopped whistling because of dental problems. Mr Márquez continues whistling with his prosthesis, “but it’s not as easy and loud as if I could press my finger on my real teeth,” he said.

Due to its different geography, it is easy to see why the whistle was used in the Canaries. Most of the islands have deep gorges running from high peaks and plateaus to the sea, and it takes a lot of time and effort to go even a short distance overland. Whistling emerged as a good alternative for conveying a message. The sound is further than the screaming – up to two miles over some canyons and in favorable wind conditions.

Elderly La Gomera residents remember how Silbo was used as warning language, particularly when a police patrol was discovered looking for contraband. In a recent fictional film, “The Whistlers,” gangsters use Silbo as their secret code language.

Some other islands in the archipelago have their own whistling languages, but their use has faded, although another island, El Hierro, has recently started teaching their version. “Silbo wasn’t invented on La Gomera, but it’s the island where it’s best preserved,” said David Díaz Reyes, an ethnomusicologist.

Categories
Politics

Behind Trump Clemency, a Case Research in Particular Entry

Philip Esformes acquired a $1.6 million Ferrari and a $360,000 Swiss watch and traveled around the United States on a private jet, a spending spree fueled by the spoils from what federal prosecutors called one of the largest Medicare fraud cases in history.

“Philip Esformes is a man driven by almost unbounded greed,” Denise M. Stemen, an agent in the F.B.I.’s Miami field office, said last year after Mr. Esformes, 52, a nursing home operator, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for the two-decade scheme that involved an estimated $1.3 billion worth of fraudulent claims.

That prison term ended suddenly this week, when President Trump commuted what remained of Mr. Esformes’s sentence.

His rapid path to clemency is a case study in how criminals with the right connections and resources have been able to cut through normal channels and gain the opportunity to make their case straight to the Trump White House.

For Mr. Esformes, that involved support from a Jewish humanitarian nonprofit group that advances prisoners’ rights and worked with the White House on criminal justice issues, including clemency and legislation overhauling sentencing laws that was championed by Mr. Trump and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and adviser.

Mr. Esformes’s family donated $65,000 to the group, the Aleph Institute, over several years starting after his indictment, according to the group.

His name adorns a school in Chicago associated with the Chabad-Lubavitch group of Hasidic Jews, whose leader at the time was involved in the creation of the Aleph Institute in the early 1980s. His father is a rabbi in Florida. His family has also donated for years to the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, to which Mr. Kushner has longstanding ties.

In the announcement of the commutation, the White House said Mr. Esformes had been “devoted to prayer and repentance” while in prison and is in “declining health.”

Alan M. Dershowitz, a longtime supporter of clemency who works with the Aleph Institute on a volunteer basis, said the group “played a significant role” in Mr. Esformes’s clemency effort and “put together the papers” for the petition.

Mr. Trump has largely overridden a highly bureaucratic process overseen by pardon lawyers for the Justice Department and handed considerable control to his closest White House aides, including Mr. Kushner. They, in turn, have outsourced much of the vetting process to political and personal allies, allowing private parties to play an outsize role in influencing the application of one of the most unchecked powers of the presidency.

Among those allies is the Aleph Institute, a well-known force in criminal justice issues which beyond Mr. Esformes’s case has also weighed in on less high-profile clemency requests to Mr. Trump.

The White House on Wednesday specifically cited Aleph in announcing Mr. Trump’s commutation of what supporters had contended was a disproportionately severe 20-year sentence given to Daniela Gozes-Wagner, a single mother and midlevel manager in Houston, in a health care fraud and money laundering case.

Clemency efforts represent a small fraction of the work done by the Aleph Institute, which has championed fewer than 50 such cases, a majority of which involve prisoners who are not Jewish and are indigent, according to the group.

“Aleph has worked with more than 35,000 inmates and their families since its inception,” Rabbi Sholom D. Lipskar, the institute’s founder, said in a statement on Thursday. “Almost all of the people Aleph works with are destitute, and the same is true for almost all the clemency cases.”

Aleph has helped advance at least five of the 24 commutations handed down by Mr. Trump, including the recipient of the president’s very first commutation — issued in 2017 to Sholom Rubashkin, the chief executive of a kosher meat processing company who was convicted in 2009 on fraud charges — and three commutations announced on Wednesday.

“They are a major, major force of pushing commutations,” said Mr. Dershowitz, who recommended a number of clemency petitions that Aleph supported, and says he personally spoke to Mr. Trump about Mr. Rubashkin’s case.

Mr. Dershowitz said donations to Aleph were “absolutely not” a factor in deciding which clemency cases to support.

“The people who make those decisions are completely independent,” he said. “I can tell you categorically that Aleph is supporting people who A, are not Jewish, and B, who have made no contributions whatsoever.”

Like several of the lawyers who work with the Aleph Institute — including Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton, and the former federal prosecutor Brett L. Tolman — Mr. Dershowitz has ties to the Trump White House of the sort that tend to be coveted by clemency seekers hoping for the president’s attention.

He and Mr. Starr represented Mr. Trump during his impeachment trial, while Mr. Tolman advised the White House on the criminal justice reform overhaul pushed by Mr. Kushner and signed into law by Mr. Trump in 2018.

Mr. Dershowitz, Mr. Starr and Mr. Tolman have all lent their names to clemency efforts championed by the Aleph Institute, as have other prominent Republicans like the former F.B.I. director Louis J. Freeh and the former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey, both of whom are featured on the Aleph Institute’s website endorsing the group’s work.

Mr. Freeh and Mr. Dershowitz have also worked with Gary Apfel, a lawyer who works on a volunteer basis with the Aleph Institute, including on the clemency campaign for Mr. Esformes. The three lawyers were registered lobbyists for Dan Gertler, an Israeli billionaire whose assets were frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2017 because of corrupt mining deals in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Mr. Apfel, Mr. Freeh, Mr. Starr and Mr. Mukasey did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Dershowitz said the Aleph Institute’s effectiveness stemmed from the thoroughness of the clemency applications it submits to the White House.

He said that staff members in the White House Counsel’s Office, which has worked with Mr. Kushner’s team to vet the applications presented to Mr. Trump, told him that “the counsel’s office relies heavily on the credibility of Aleph, and they prove credible repeatedly.”

The Aleph Institute was founded nearly four decades ago by Rabbi Lipskar of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement of Hasidic Jews, at the direction of the movement’s leader, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, who emphasized the rehabilitation of prisoners. The Aleph Institute had a budget of $6.9 million during the 12-month period from fall 2018 to fall 2019. The group takes its name from the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet and supports a range of programs beyond clemency, including criminal justice reforms and expanded religious and social services for prisoners and military personnel.

Rabbi Lipskar said in an interview in August that the organization was working on a commutation for Mr. Esformes but had not yet met with anyone in the White House.

He said he did not remember precisely how he came to learn about the case of Mr. Esformes.

Mr. Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, have their own connections to Chabad-Lubavitch, having chosen a home in Washington within walking distance to a Chabad synagogue where they attend Shabbat services. The weekend before the 2016 election, they visited the grave site of Rabbi Schneerson. The Kushner family foundation has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to projects and institutions associated with Chabad, according to a tally by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

After Mr. Esformes was indicted, Rabbi Lipskar said he visited Mr. Esformes in prison at least 25 times and “became almost like his personal rabbi.”

Mr. Esformes’s father “ramped up his financial commitment to Aleph,” according to a 2019 court filing by Mr. Esformes’s lawyers. They said the money was donated partly “in appreciation for all that Aleph has done for Mr. Esformes” and was given to the group “generously, if not exclusively selflessly.”

The donations, which began in 2016 and ended in 2019, totaled $65,000, according to Aleph.

Most donors behind Aleph Institute are not public, but its board members include the Miami-based real estate developers Sonny Kahn, Alberto Kamhazi and Russell Galbut, as well as David Schottenstein, a member of the Ohio family that created retail giants like DSW and American Eagle.

Its mission comports with the particular value assigned by the Chabad-Lubavitch tradition on rehabilitating and freeing incarcerated people, stemming partly from the imprisonment of its founding rabbi in late 18th-century Russia on politically motivated charges.

Clemency Power ›

Presidential Pardons, Explained

President Trump has discussed potential pardons that could test the boundaries of his constitutional power to nullify criminal liability. Here’s some clarity on his ability to pardon.

    • May a president issue prospective pardons before any charges or conviction? Yes. In Ex parte Garland, an 1866 case involving a former Confederate senator who had been pardoned by President Andrew Johnson, the Supreme Court said the pardon power “extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.” It is unusual for a president to issue a prospective pardon before any charges are filed, but there are examples, perhaps most famously President Gerald R. Ford’s pardon in 1974 of Richard M. Nixon to prevent him from being prosecuted after the Watergate scandal.
    • May a president pardon his relatives and close allies? Yes. The Constitution does not bar pardons that raise the appearance of self-interest or a conflict of interest, even if they may provoke a political backlash and public shaming. In 2000, shortly before leaving office, President Bill Clinton issued a slew of controversial pardons, including to his half brother, Roger Clinton, over a 1985 cocaine conviction for which he had served about a year in prison, and to Susan H. McDougal, a onetime Clinton business partner who had been jailed as part of the Whitewater investigation.
    • May a president issue a general pardon? This is unclear. Usually, pardons are written in a way that specifically describes which crimes or sets of activities they apply to. There is little precedent laying out the degree to which a pardon can be used to instead foreclose criminal liability for anything and everything.
    • May a president pardon himself? This is unclear. There is no definitive answer because no president has ever tried to pardon himself and then faced prosecution anyway. As a result, there has never been a case which gave the Supreme Court a chance to resolve the question. In the absence of any controlling precedent, legal thinkers are divided about the matter.
    • Find more answers here.

Mr. Kushner, who had championed a criminal justice overhaul that Mr. Trump signed into law, is seen by supporters of overhauling the criminal justice system as an ally who is willing to consider recommendations on sentencing changes and clemency petitions. The legislation expanded early release programs and modified sentencing laws, including mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, to more equitably punish drug offenders. But it fell short of more expansive measures sought by many activists.

Mr. Kushner also had a personal connection to the issue. His father, Charles Kushner, served 14 months in a federal prison in Alabama for tax evasion, witness tampering and making illegal donations. The elder Kushner was among those pardoned on Wednesday by Mr. Trump.

Mr. Kushner played a role in recommending that Mr. Trump commute the sentence of Mr. Rubashkin, the former kosher meat processing executive whose commutation in 2017 was supported by Aleph Institute.

At the White House Hanukkah party last year, Mr. Trump praised one of the group’s leaders, Zvi Boyarsky, a Chabad rabbi, for his leadership in generating support among lawmakers, judges, prosecutors and Jewish groups for the criminal justice reform legislation.

Rabbi Boyarsky thanked Mr. Trump for commuting Mr. Rubashkin’s sentence, calling the president “God’s angel.”

In the summer, Rabbi Lipskar said Rabbi Boyarsky might approach the White House regarding Mr. Esformes’s case.

This year, the Aleph Institute hired Mr. Tolman, a former United States attorney from Utah, to lobby on criminal justice issues, including the so-called trial penalty, when defendants who refuse plea deals offered by prosecutors receive far longer sentences after being convicted at trial.

Two of the people whose sentences were commuted by Mr. Trump on Wednesday, Mark A. Shapiro and Irving Stitsky, were each sentenced to 85 years in prison for their roles in a $23 million real estate scheme after they turned down plea agreements of less than 10 years each.

The White House specifically credited Mr. Tolman and the Aleph Institute for supporting the commutations.

Mr. Dershowitz, whose brother’s daughter-in-law has worked with the group on alternative sentencing, called the case “a paradigmatic trial penalty case.”

Mr. Tolman, who was paid $50,000 to lobby for the Aleph Institute this year, did not respond to questions about his work for the group or with the White House, except to say in an email, “I have not done any work on behalf of Philip Esformes.” He referred questions about the case to the Aleph Institute.

Mr. Esformes was convicted of a scheme in which he directed employees to pay doctors kickbacks in cash, using code words like “fettuccine.”

He then took a cut worth about $37 million of the illegal profits, prosecutors said, using the money to pay for items such as escorts, travel expenses and a bribe to a coach at the University of Pennsylvania to help his son gain admission.

At his sentencing last year, Mr. Esformes described himself as “reckless, impulsive” and “arrogant,” and said he had “cut corners without fear of consequences.” He added, “There’s no one to blame but myself.”

The judge overseeing the case called Mr. Esformes’s behavior a violation of trust of “epic proportions.”

But supporters of Mr. Esformes say he was a victim of misconduct by prosecutors in his case, who were found by a magistrate judge to have improperly gained access to dozens of boxes of documents compiled by his lawyers, material that should have been protected under attorney-client privilege.

“It is a litany of the worst prosecutorial misconduct I have ever seen and fatally damaged any chance Esformes had for a fair trial,” Roy Black, a lawyer for Mr. Esformes, said in a statement. “This is why the president decided to commute the sentence.”

In March, Mr. Esformes’s lawyers had asked a federal judge to release him, claiming “pulmonary and upper respiratory problems” as well as the threat of the coronavirus. But federal prosecutors strongly objected to his release, disputing the claims of declining health. The judge rejected the request.

“Virtually every person over the age of 50 has some health condition that could conceivably put that person at a greater risk of succumbing to the coronavirus,” Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. wrote in April, “but this does not entitle every inmate over 50 to be released.”