Posts

Only Eric Herschmann (and Maybe Christina Bobb) Learned the Steve Bannon Lesson

/94 Comments/in , /by

There’s a lot to unpack in this NYT story about the in-fighting on Trump’s legal team.

It confirms that prosecutors have asked to interview Christina Bobb and notes that she “added language to” the declaration that Evan Corcoran wrote about his search for documents “to make it less ironclad a declaration before signing it.” (If I had to guess, I’d say this pertains to the limits on the search having taken place at Mar-a-Lago.) The story proclaims ignorance about whether Bobb actually has testified. But the shift in how DOJ has discussed Corcoran — describing him claiming he “was advised” about certain topics in the search warrant affidavit, but then stating he “represented” those same topics at the June 3 meeting in their response to Trump’s request for a Special Master — is consistent with Bobb refusing to be made the fall-gal. DOJ’s assertion that Trump’s lawyers might be “witnesses,” plural, in their motion for a stay to the 11th Circuit also suggests some inside knowledge about things that another Trump lawyer may have done (note, the reference in the affidavit to Corcoran as FPOTUS Counsel 1 suggests another Trump lawyer is described in it later in the affidavit).

NYT also describes Eric Herschmann’s famously candid opinions, this time about the value of Boris Epshteyn’s legal advice.

“I certainly am not relying on any legal analysis from either of you [Corcoran and John Rowley] or Boris who — to be clear — I think is an idiot,” Mr. Herschmann wrote in a different email. “When I questioned Boris’s legal experience to work on challenging a presidential election since he appeared to have none — challenges that resulted in multiple court failures — he boasted that he was ‘just having fun,’ while also taking selfies and posting pictures online of his escapades.”

I have been wondering whether Epshteyn, in particular, were just exploiting Trump for his own objectives before he moves onto some other convenient vehicle for extremism after Trump is crushed by legal troubles inadequately defended, and this anecdote would be consistent with that.

But the larger story describes how Herschmann refused to simply just bullshit his way through privilege invocations before a January 6 grand jury. The story is based on an email thread in which Corcoran — who helped Steve Bannon get convicted of contempt — attempted to persuade Herschmann to follow the exact same approach to testifying that Bannon (and John Rowley client Peter Navarro) adopted with the January 6 Committee: To refuse to testify based off a claim of Executive Privilege that Trump had not formally invoked.

Incidentally, that’s the very same approach Trump has used before Aileen Cannon. Thus far it has worked like a charm for her. It has been less successful with every other investigative body.

In fact, Herschmann seems to have made precisely the same point I have in the past, to Corcoran (and Rowley): Executive Privilege doesn’t work the way Corcoran claimed it did when he was busy shepherding Bannon to a contempt conviction.

In his emails to Mr. Corcoran and Mr. Rowley, Mr. Herschmann — a prominent witness for the House select committee on Jan. 6 and what led to it — invoked Mr. Corcoran’s defense of Mr. Bannon and argued pointedly that case law about executive privilege did not reflect what Mr. Corcoran believed it did.

So after repeated insistence that he get a real privilege invocation and after refusing to discuss these things without a documentary trail, the morning before Herschmann would have testified, Trump’s lawyers acceded to Herschmann’s demand for a proper invocation of privilege.

After ignoring Mr. Herschmann or giving him what he seemed to consider perplexing answers to the requests for weeks, two of the former president’s lawyers, M. Evan Corcoran and John Rowley, offered him only broad instructions in late August. Assert sweeping claims of executive privilege, they advised him, after Mr. Corcoran had suggested that an unspecified “chief judge” would ultimately validate their belief that a president’s powers extend far beyond their time in office.

[snip]

Mr. Corcoran at one point sought to get on the phone with Mr. Herschmann to discuss his testimony, instead of simply sending the written directions, which alarmed Mr. Herschmann, given that Mr. Herschmann was a witness, the emails show.

In language that mirrored the federal statute against witness tampering, Mr. Herschmann told Mr. Corcoran that Mr. Epshteyn, himself under subpoena in Georgia, “should not in any way be involved in trying to influence, delay or prevent my testimony.”

“He is not in a position or qualified to opine on any of these issues,” Mr. Herschmann said.

Mr. Epshteyn declined to respond to a request for comment.

Nearly four weeks after Mr. Herschmann first asked for an instruction letter and for Mr. Trump’s lawyers to seek a court order invoking a privilege claim, the emails show that he received notification from the lawyers — in the early morning hours of the day he was scheduled to testify — that they had finally done as he asked. [my emphasis]

So let’s talk about the timing of all this — and also about how Glenn Thrush, who is a politics reporter who knows fuckall about DOJ, keeps getting scoops about details that would be known to those being investigated, including this email chain that would be protected by the same principles of attorney-client privilege that Corcoran claimed to be vigorously protecting in it.

The emails were obtained by The New York Times from a person who was not on the thread of correspondence. Mr. Herschmann declined to comment.

According to a slew of reports, Herschmann was first subpoenaed around August 15. Given the timeline laid out in the story, describing that Herschmann asked for four weeks before getting a formal privilege letter, it would suggest he didn’t get a formal privilege invocation until around September 12 — days ago, perhaps even more recently than that.

According to an equally coordinated set of stories, the two Pats — Cipollone and Philbin, who happen to be law partners — were subpoenaed earlier than that. Those reports, which came out on August 3, eleven days before the stories about Herschmann being subpoenaed, described how there was some discussion about how to handle Executive Privilege claims.

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone in its investigation into the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol and efforts to overturn the 2020 election, sources with direct knowledge of the matter told ABC News.

The sources told ABC News that attorneys for Cipollone — like they did with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — are expected to engage in negotiations around any appearance, while weighing concerns regarding potential claims of executive privilege.

As ABC pointed out, before he testified to the January 6 Committee, Cipollone made a similarly big fuss about Executive Privilege.

But when he testified to the Committee, Cipollone made specious privilege invocations to avoid testifying about the former President cheering violence, including violence directed at his Vice President.

UNKNOWN: My question is exactly that, that it sounds like you from the very outset of violence at the Capitol, right around 2:00, were pushing for a strong statement that people should leave the Capitol. Is that right?

PAT CIPOLLONE: I was, and others were as well.

UNKNOWN: Pat, you said that you expressed your opinion forcefully. Could you tell us exactly how you did that?

PAT CIPOLLONE: Yeah, I can’t — I don’t have, you know, I have to — on the privilege issue, I can’t talk about conversations with the President, but I can generically say that I said, you know, people need to be told, there needs to be a public announcement fast that they need to leave the Capitol.

[snip]

UNKNOWN: Do you remember any discussion at any point during the day about rioters at the Capitol chanting hang Mike Pence?

PAT CIPOLLONE: Yes, I remember — I remember hearing that about that, yes. I don’t know if I observed that myself on TV.

UNKNOWN: I’m just curious. I understand the — the privilege line you’ve drawn, but do you remember what you can share with us about the discussion about those chants, the hang Mike Pence chants?

PAT CIPOLLONE: I can tell you my view of that.

UNKNOWN: Yeah, please.

PAT CIPOLLONE: My view of that is that is outrageous. And for anyone to suggest such a thing of the vice president of the United States, for people in that crowd to be chanting that I thought was terrible. I thought it was outrageous and wrong, and I expressed that very clearly.

ADAM SCHIFF: With respect to your conversations with Mr. Meadows, though, did you specifically raise your concern over the vice president with him, and — and how did he respond?

PAT CIPOLLONE: I believe I raised the concern about the vice president, and I — and I — again, the nature of his response, without recalling exactly was he — you know, people were doing all that they could.

ADAM SCHIFF: And — and what about the president? Did he indicate whether he thought the president was doing what needed to be done to protect the vice president?

UNKNOWN: Privilege. You have to assert it. That question would —

PAT CIPOLLONE: That would call for — I’m being instructed on privilege.

[snip]

LIZ CHENEY: And who on the staff did not want people to leave the Capitol?

PAT CIPOLLONE: On the staff?

LIZ CHENEY: In the White House, how about?

PAT CIPOLLONE: I don’t — I — I can’t think of anybody, you know, on that day who didn’t want people to get out of the — the Capitol once the — you know, particularly once the violence started, no. I mean —

ADAM SCHIFF: What about the president?

LIZ CHENEY: Yeah.

PAT CIPOLLONE: She said the staff, so I answered.

LIZ CHENEY: No, I said in the White House.

PAT CIPOLLONE: Oh, I’m sorry. I — I apologize. I thought you said who — who else on the staff. I — I — I can’t reveal communications, but obviously I think, you know, — yeah. [my emphasis]

Cipollone invoked Executive Privilege to avoid revealing details about Trump cheering the violence directed at his Vice President and hoping that rioters would stay at the Capitol. Cipollone made those privilege claims on July 8, two months before the rough date when, after much badgering, Herschmann succeeded in getting a letter invoking privilege from Trump’s lawyers.

That’s the only known formal invocation of Executive Privilege Trump has put in writing regarding January 6.

And if Herschmann got that letter on September 12, he would have gotten it after the two Pats testified in one-two fashion on September 2.

Email chains like this — by any measure, clearly privileged — usually get leaked (to politics reporters) when legally exposed individuals are trying to telegraph to each other important details about their testimony.

And whatever else this story conveys, it tells anyone who has already testified and invoked privilege that Chief Judge Beryl Howell has recently gotten, and will be deciding on, the first known formal invocation of privilege. Howell will be asked to weigh not just whether a White House Counsel can invoke Executive Privilege in a criminal investigation implicating the President, a topic about which Bill Clinton would have a lot to offer. She’ll also be asked, generally, about the privilege claims lawyers are making about an event — January 6 — that the Supreme Court has already decided Executive Privilege, at least, must be waived.

If Howell rejects Trump’s invocation of privilege with Herschmann, then any claims of Executive Privilege that the two Pats made in their one-two testimony on September 2 would fail as well.

And Pat Cipollone is a direct and credible witness to Trump’s cheers of violence directed at his Vice President.

The effort to get witnesses to invoke Executive Privilege without any formal invocation that Judge Howell would review is not new. Trump has been pursuing this for a year, first with Justin Clark telling Bannon to bullshit his way through privilege claims with the January 6 Committee, then with unnamed lawyers persuading Cipollone to bullshit his way through testimony to the January 6 Committee, and most recently to Evan Corcoran — who had a front row seat to see that not even former Clarence Thomas clerk Carl Nichols would buy such bullshit — continuing to pursue such an approach even after it led directly to Bannon’s conviction.

Eric Herschmann, at least (and possibly also Christina Bobb) has learned the lesson of Steve Bannon.

Share this entry

In Motion for a Stay, DOJ Raises Prospect that Trump Leaked Classified Documents

/147 Comments/in , /by

In the government’s motion for a stay submitted to the 11th Circuit last night, it suggested the investigation into Trump’s stolen documents may have expanded to focus on whether the former President shared the content of highly classified documents with others.

It describes that Aileen Cannon’s order only permitted the government to review the classified documents for hypothetical risk of future disclosure. It notes that that would prohibit the government from investigating whether these documents have already been disclosed. It then raises the empty folders as a problem that must be solved, in part by identifying the patterns of Trump’s theft to identify what else he may have stolen.

The district court specified that its order should not interfere with the IC’s “classification review and/or intelligence assessment,” A14, and later clarified that “to the extent that such intelligence review becomes truly and necessarily inseparable from criminal investigative efforts,” the order “does not enjoin the Government from proceeding with its Security Assessments,” A9. But that is not sufficient. The IC’s review and assessment seek to evaluate the harm that would result from disclosure of the seized records. A40-A41. The court’s injunction restricts the FBI—which has lead responsibility for investigating such matters in the United States—from using the seized records in its criminal-investigative tools to assess which if any records were in fact disclosed, to whom, and in what circumstances.

For example, the court’s injunction bars the government from “using the content of the documents to conduct witness interviews.” A9. The injunction also appears to bar the FBI and DOJ from further reviewing the records to discern any patterns in the types of records that were retained, which could lead to identification of other records still missing. See A42 (describing recovery of “empty folders with ‘classified’ banners”). And the injunction would prohibit the government from using any aspect of the seized records’ contents to support the use of compulsory process to locate any additional records.

Disregarding a sworn declaration from a senior FBI official, the court dismissed such concerns as “hypothetical scenarios” and faulted the government for not identifying an “emergency” or “imminent disclosure of classified information.” A11. But the record makes clear that the materials were stored in an unsecure manner over a prolonged period, and the court’s injunction itself prevents the government from even beginning to take necessary steps to determine whether improper disclosures might have occurred or may still occur.

Significantly, the government doesn’t even use language to suggest that these documents were compromised, without Trump’s involvement — that some fake Rothschild or a hotel valet had snuck into the closet and stolen documents. It suggests these documents may have been disclosed, intentionally and knowingly.

This is not the only hint in the filing that the investigation may have expanded beyond mere unauthorized retention of classified records.

The motion also describes that Trump’s lawyers might be witnesses, plural, suggesting that Jim Trusty could be hidden in the search affidavit as the FPOTUS Counsel 2 implied by the affidavit’s description of Evan Corcoran as FPOTUS Counsel 1 (Christina Bobb is referred to merely as Individual 2).

The government came very close to saying that Judge Cannon has prohibited the government from preventing leaks in process.

Share this entry
[Photo: National Security Agency, Ft. Meade, MD via Wikimedia]

Trust: In Bid for Stay, DOJ Likened Trump to Catastrophic Intelligence Compromise

/92 Comments/in , , /by

There’s a detail in DOJ’s request for a stay of Judge Aileen Cannon’s injunction on using stolen Trump documents to investigate Trump that hasn’t gotten enough attention.

A footnote modifying a discussion about the damage assessment the Intelligence Community is currently doing referenced a letter then-NSA Director Mike Rogers wrote in support of Nghia Pho’s sentencing in 2018. [This letter remains sealed in the docket but Josh Gerstein liberated it at the time.]

[I]n order to assess the full scope of potential harms to national security resulting from the improper retention of the classified records, the government must assess the likelihood that improperly stored classified information may have been accessed by others and compromised. 4

4 Departments and agencies in the IC would then consider this information to determine whether they need to treat certain sources and methods as compromised. See, e.g., Exhibit A to Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Pho, No. 1:17-cr-631 (D. Md. Sept. 18, 2018), D.E. 20-1 (letter from Adm. Michael S. Rogers, Director, National Security Agency) (“Once the government loses positive control over classified material, the government must often treat the material as compromised and take remedial actions as dictated by the particular circumstances.”).

Even on its face, the comment suggests the possibility that the Intelligence Community is shutting down collection programs because Trump took documents home.

But the analogy DOJ made between Trump and Pho, by invoking the letter, is even worse.

I’ve written about Pho, who with Hal Martin, is believed to be the source of the files leaked by Shadow Brokers and, with them, two devastating global malware attacks, WannaCry and NotPetya.

Over a month ago, I suggested that the IC likely had Pho and Martin in mind as they considered the damage Trump may have done by doing the same thing; taking highly classified files home from work.

[T]he lesson Pho and Martin offer about how catastrophic it can be when someone brings classified files home and stores them insecurely, no matter their motives — are the background against which career espionage prosecutors at DOJ will be looking at Trump’s actions.

But with the footnote, I’m no longer the only one to make such an analogy. DOJ did so too, in an unsuccessful effort to get Judge Cannon to understand the magnitude of the breach she was coddling.

As you read this letter, replace Pho’s name with Trump’s. It reads almost seamlessly.

That’s the analogy DOJ made between Trump and someone his own DOJ prosecuted aggressively.

Pho retained classified information outside of properly secured spaces and by doing so caused very significant and long-lasting harm to the NSA, and consequently to the national security of the United States.

[snip]

[T]he exposure of the United States’ classified information outside of secure spaces may result in the destruction of intelligence-gathering efforts used to protect this nation. Mr. Pho, who voluntarily assumed this responsibility, ignored his oath to his country and the NSA by taking classified information outside of secure spaces, thereby placing that information in significant jeopardy.

[snip]

Mr. Pho’s conduct in improperly and unlawfully retaining national defense information, which included highly classified information, outside of secure space had significant negative impacts on the NSA mission.

[snip]

Techniques of the kind Mr. Pho was entrusted to protect, yet removed from secure space, are force multipliers, allowing for intelligence collection in a multitude of environments around the globe and spanning a wide range of national security topics. Compromise of one technique can place many opportunities for intelligence collection and national security at risk.

By removing such highly classified materials outside of secure space, Mr. Pho subjected those materials to compromise. It is a fundamental mandate in the Intelligence Community that classified material must be handled and stored in very specific and controlled ways. If classified material is not handled or stored according to strict rules, then the government cannot be certain that it remains secret. Once the government loses positive control over classified material, the government must often treat the material as compromised and take remedial actions as dictated by the particular circumstances. Depending on the type and volume of compromised classified material, such reactions can be costly, time consuming and cause a shift in or abandonment of programs. In this case, the fact that such a tremendous volume of highly classified, sophisticated collection tools was removed from secure space and left unprotected, especially in digital form on devices connected to the Internet, left the NSA with no choice but to abandon certain important initiatives, at great economic and operational cost.

In addition, NSA was faced with the crucial and arduous task of accounting for all of the exposed classified materials, including TOP SECRET information, the unauthorized disclosure of which, by definition, reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security. Accounting for all of the exposed classified material was necessary so that NSA could attempt to assess the damage that resulted from the classified and diverted critical resources away from NSA’s intelligence-gathering mission.

The detrimental impacts of Mr. Pho’s activities are also felt in other less tangible ways, including a loss of trust among colleagues and essential partners who count on NSA to conduct its mission.

[snip]

Trust is an essential component of all of the work that is done by NSA employees. It is affirmed by our sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, sealed by our signed obligations to protect national defense information.

[snip]

This trust extends to a circle with other U.S. intelligence agencies, who share valuable intelligence insights; military personnel, who share details of their operational plans; and international partners, who share their sovereign secrets with us, all for common objectives.

[snip]

Future decisions about sharing will be weighted with considerations of the breach of trust by one party.

There’s little that distinguishes Pho’s compromise from Trump’s. While Trump didn’t load all this stuff online like Pho did, he brought it to a thinly-protected country club aggressively targeted by foreign intelligence services — a more obvious target than Pho’s desktop computer.

And whether the IC knows about the extent of the compromise right now, or whether something he made available will shut down shipping and hospitals and drug manufacturing in two years time, as Pho’s compromises did, the IC has to act as if these files have already been compromised.

That’s what the footnote says.

As I said, Trump’s own DOJ ratcheted up prosecutions in the wake of the Pho and Martin compromises. And now Trump — along with a judge he appointed — are trying to make sure he evades the same justice that his own DOJ demanded of others.

Update: Clarified that Martin and Pho are believed to be the source of the files leaked by Shadow Brokers, but not the leakers themselves.

Go to emptywheel resource page on Trump Espionage Investigation.

Share this entry

Aileen Cannon’s Special Master Is Designed to Preempt Decisions Reserved for a Jury

/217 Comments/in , /by

As I reported, Aileen Cannon denied the government’s motion for a stay and issued her order laying out what she expects Raymond Dearie to do. Having considered her order, I’m fairly certain that this is a plan not for a Special Master, but rather a plan to seize back the materials, and along the way, punish the government for having the audacity to investigate Trump, much less tell him what is and is not classified.

Here are the relevant documents and some other Special Master materials to compare to.

Cannon opinion denying stay

Cannon’s order of appointment

Raymond Dearie declaration

Joint response on Special Master

Trump proposal for Special Master

DOJ proposal for Special Master

Kimba Wood’s order of appointment for Michael Cohen (docket)

Paul Oetken’s order of appointment for Rudy Giuliani (docket)

Analisa Torres’ order of appointment for Project Veritas (docket)

Before I lay out how Cannon has set up this SM review to allow herself the means to steal US government property and punish the government, consider the following:

  • Cannon has already upended the logic of a lawful warrant, in which the government has presumptive retention of the seized materials, by instead assuming that the government can only retain materials they prove ownership of. Cannon has largely ignored the nature of the suspected crimes here, and the degree to which her decisions would claw back materials that are evidence of a crime.
  • Cannon has created the harm she intends to correct, most obviously by refusing to let the government share potentially privileged material, and then pointing to their retention of potentially privileged material as the harm she must address.
  • Cannon has already told the government, repeatedly, that she can override their classification decisions and withhold materials based on an Executive Privilege claim that under the Presidential Records Act, would prove it belongs in NARA (indeed, at each step, Cannon has been more insistent that Trump has EP claims than he has).

Cannon’s order denying the stay continues those three stances. She cited her own claim — based off misrepresentations and inventions — that were disputes about privilege and non-evidentiary personal material.  Rather than demand that Trump show ownership and harm (the standards she needed to find under binding precedent), she instead said he simply hadn’t had a chance to make his case:

Plaintiff has not had a meaningful ability to concretize his position with respect to the seized materials given (1) the ex parte nature of the approved filter protocol, (2) the relatively generalized nature of the Government’s “Detailed Property Inventory” [ECF No. 39-1], and (3) Plaintiff’s unsuccessful efforts, pre-suit, to gather more information from the Government about the content of the seized materials

Again, it was Cannon’s own order that forestalled a privilege discussion, and she now cites it to justify her decision. Cause the harm, then fix it. Finally, she lays out a claim that the government does not have a monopoly on determining what is classified.

The first premise underlying the Motion is that all of the approximately 100 documents isolated by the Government (and “papers physically attached to them”) are classified government records, and that Plaintiff therefore could not possibly have a possessory interest in any of them.

From the very start, Aileen Cannon has asserted — often more aggressively than Trump — that the government cannot make decisions with regards to classification and privilege that, under the Constitution, are reserved for the government.

With all that in mind, consider the following aspects of her order. First, taken literally, her order instructs the government to give Dearie the actual documents seized, not copies.

At a minimum, the Government shall make available to the Special Master the Seized Materials, the search warrant executed in this matter, and the redacted public versions of the underlying application materials for the search warrant. [my emphasis]

Effectively, she took out the government’s use of the word “copy” in this passage.

In particular, the government will provide to the Special Master a copy of the Seized Materials without Classification Markings, the search warrant executed in this matter, and the redacted public version of the underlying application materials for the search warrant.

In both the Rudy and Cohen Special Master reviews, the government provided the Special Master copies. Admittedly, those reviews were largely digital evidence, but her order states the government only needs to give copies of potentially privileged items to Dearie.

The Privilege Review Team shall provide copies of the potentially privileged documents to Plaintiff’s counsel. [my emphasis]

That is, taken literally, Aileen Cannon is ordering the government to deliver 11,258 government documents — the originals — into the possession of a Special Master controlled by her, the disposition of which she will determine. That disposition will, in many ways, pertain to classification and Executive Privilege, topics about which she has already asserted she can override the government.

The first thing Dearie is to do after receiving these materials is to double check the government’s inventory.

Verifying that the property identified in the “Detailed Property Inventory” [ECF No. 39-1] represents the full and accurate extent of the property seized from the premises on August 8, 2022, including, if deemed appropriate, by obtaining sworn affidavits from Department of Justice personnel;

I’ve not seen this in Special Master reviews before. It seems designed to give Trump and Cannon reason to invent a Fourth Amendment harm (again, at the Special Master stage, not at a suppression stage) where there is none.

For each of the reviews she is asking Dearie to conduct, the two sides present their designations. If they agree, the items are disposed of according to the “parties’ agreement.”

If the Privilege Review Team agrees with Plaintiff’s position, the subject document shall be handled in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

[snip]

If the Government agrees with Plaintiff’s position, the subject item or document shall be handled in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

The problem with even this part of her order is that the parties don’t agree what happens with the various categories! Trump’s proposal only addresses what happens with Presidential Records. He concedes they should go to NARA, but he wants to be able to challenge access once they get there.

Once the Special Master has completed the review process set forth in this Order and any dispute has been fully adjudicated, any documents identified as Presidential records will be returned to the Archivist of the United States, and the process under the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. § 2204, will be followed to determine the assertion of any restriction on access.

The implication is that personal items — even items responsive to the warrant — will go back to Trump’s possession.

DOJ doesn’t actually address what happens with personal items, aside from giving NARA a chance to dispute Trump’s claim. But it only envisions returning privileged items, and in that case, only those that are attorney-client privileged.

iii. For any documents and items claimed by Plaintiff as personal documents and items – not privileged, the Special Master will review the claim in consultation with NARA;

iv. For any documents claimed by Plaintiff as personal documents – privileged as attorney-client communications or qualified work-product immunity, the Special Master will submit those additional potentially privileged documents to the government’s filter team and follow the process in 4(a);

v. For any documents identified as Presidential records – not claimed by Plaintiff as subject to Executive Privilege, those documents shall remain in custody of the government, with copies sent to the Archivist of the United States, and may be used by the government forthwith for any lawful purpose, including in the government’s criminal investigation;

vi. For any documents identified as Presidential records – claimed by Plaintiff as subject to Executive Privilege, copies of those documents will be sent to the Archivist of the United States, and the process under the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., may thereafter be followed.

Cannon, on her own, gave Dearie authority to make Rule 41(g) determinations, meaning Trump can demand stuff lawfully seized under a warrant rather than waiting until he is charged and suppressing it.

Evaluating claims for return of property under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure;

Because Cannon didn’t decide what will happen with various categories of documents, it is guaranteed there will be disputes.

That may be by design. In cases where there is a disagreement, Dearie makes a decision, but if one side still disagrees, then it goes to Cannon. She will not review his recommendation in such cases, she will make a de novo determination.

If the Government agrees with Plaintiff’s position, the subject item or document shall be handled in accordance with the parties’ agreement. If the Government disagrees with Plaintiff’s position, the dispute shall go to the Special Master for a report and recommendation and, if either party objects to the report and recommendation, to the Court for de novo review and decision.

To be clear: both sides asked Cannon to apply a de novo standard in case of a challenge to Dearie’s ruling (it may be standard for that circuit). It is a problem primarily because she hasn’t determined what will happen to various categories of items. And about several of those items — such as classified documents that Trump claims he owns — she has already said she sides with him.  So all Trump has to do to steal classified documents, Aileen Cannon has made clear, is appeal Dearie’s decisions, and she’ll do what she has said she would do from the start: override the government’s decisions about both classification and Executive Privilege.

Cannon’s stated predisposition in the matter is problematic for another reason. There’s boilerplate that appears at the end of Special Master appointments. This is Trump’s version (DOJ’s version has stronger language about a protective order).

15. The Special Master will be discharged or replaced only upon order of this Court.

16. The parties and their agents and employees will observe faithfully the requirements of this Order of Appointment and cooperate fully with the Special Master in the performance of their duties.

17. The parties and their agents and employees will observe faithfully the requirements of this Order of Appointment, cooperate fully with the Special Master in the performance of their duties, and comply with the judicial protective order that shall follow – which will set forth restrictions on the disclosure by any person with access to Seized Materials and any documents generated in connection with this Order of Appointment.

18. The Court reserves the right to remove the Special Master if the Court finds that the parties are not expeditiously completing this work. [my emphasis]

But in her order, Cannon replaced the boilerplate about removing the Special Master if things are not moving along with language that gives her authority to remove him unbound by any specific reason.

17. The Special Master shall be discharged or replaced only upon order of this Court. The Court reserves the right to remove the Special Master.

18. The parties and their agents and employees shall faithfully observe the requirements of this Order and fully cooperate with the Special Master in the performance of their duties.

19. Consistent with and in furtherance of this Order, the Court will separately enter a judicial protective order that sets forth restrictions on disclosure for both the Special Master and the parties, and any agents or employees thereof. The parties shall submit a proposed protective order within five (5) calendar days following the date of this Order. [my emphasis]

In other words, the same judge who has unilaterally decided that she can override government determinations about classification and Executive Privilege has also reserved for herself the right to replace Dearie for no reason.

And to be honest, while the statement Dearie signed is entirely boilerplate, I am concerned that if there are materials pertaining to Carter Page’s FISA in there (I think it likely that Trump had a copy somewhere, though both earlier batches of documents included FISA information so the government may already have it back), then it would represent a conflict, because it might make him a witness to claims Trump wants to make about injury to himself.

3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

At the very least, the terms of this order, combined with Cannon’s repeated insistence that she has the authority to override the government on issues of classification and privilege means she will decide, herself, issues that would go to the core of the crimes of which Trump is suspected. In Espionage Act trials, juries get to decide whether something is National Defense Information, but Cannon has set this review up such that she can decide all those issues on her own, without a jury, before Trump is ever charged.

But it is really really easy to see how Cannon replaces Dearie with Paul Huck Jr, who is basically a Republican lobbyist, and with him starts to invent more harms she can then adjudicate. And at that point, Judge Cannon would use this Special Master review to make yet more false claims of abuse on the part of DOJ.

Go to emptywheel resource page on Trump Espionage Investigation.

Share this entry

Judge Aileen Cannon Deems Grand Jury Subpoenas Toilet Paper

/193 Comments/in , /by

In Judge Aileen Cannon’s order blowing off national security in favor of Donald Trump’s claims of being a victim, she never once names the crimes under investigation.

Not the Espionage Act, 18 USC 793.

Not removing government documents, 18 USC 2071.

And definitely not obstruction, 18 USC 1519.

Her silence about the crimes for which a magistrate judge found probable cause is critical to the scheme behind her order.

That’s because — in a breathtaking paragraph — she suggests that the classification marks on the documents Trump stole are up for debate.

The Motion primarily seeks a stay of the September 5 Order insofar as it temporarily enjoins, in conjunction with the Special Master’s review of the seized materials, approximately 100 documents “marked as classified (and papers physically attached to them)” [ECF No. 69 p. 2 n.1]. In isolating the described documents from the larger set of seized materials, the Motion effectively asks the Court to accept the following compound premises, neither of which the Court is prepared to adopt hastily without further review by a Special Master. The first premise underlying the Motion is that all of the approximately 100 documents isolated by the Government (and “papers physically attached to them”) are classified government records, and that Plaintiff therefore could not possibly have a possessory interest in any of them. The second is that Plaintiff has no plausible claim of privilege as to any of these documents [ECF No. 69 p. 7 (categorically asserting that the “classified records at issue in this Motion . . . do not include personal records or potentially privileged communications”)]. The Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion. [my emphasis]

Had she discussed the Espionage Act, she might consider that it doesn’t matter whether Trump claims to have declassified the documents. What matters is if they are National Defense Information.

Cannon’s silence about obstruction is even more outlandish. No one contests that these documents are marked classified! Trump has not even formally contested they’re classified. But the entire question is what to do about documents marked classified.

If the are marked as classified — which no one contests! — then they were responsive to the May 11 subpoena. And if Trump withheld documents responsive to the May 11 subpoena, he committed the crime of obstruction.

And that’s why Aileen Cannon doesn’t want to talk about the crimes under investigation here. Because once you do, then there’s no question but those documents marked as classified are either evidence of the crime, Espionage Act, or the crime, obstruction — and probably both.

Go to emptywheel resource page on Trump Espionage Investigation.

Share this entry

Aileen Cannon Orders Government to Share Classified Information with Trump’s Counsel

/68 Comments/in , /by

I’ll have a lot more to say about Judge Aileen Cannon’s order blowing off National Security in favor of Trump’s half-assed claims of being a victim. Her order is a radical assault on national security and rule of law.

But for the moment, I want to look at this part of her work flow order.

Make available for inspection by Plaintiff’s counsel, with controlled access conditions (including necessary clearance requirements) and under the supervision of the Special Master, the documents marked as classified and the papers attached to such documents; and

It orders the government to make the classified documents stolen by Trump available to his attorneys, including Evan Corcoran, who is either a witness or a subject of this investigation. None are known to be cleared. Aside from Jim Trusty, it’s not clear how quickly any of them can be cleared.

In her order, she claims this involves sharing only with the Special Master, Raymond Dearie.

The Government also presents the argument, in passing, that making the full scope of the seized materials available to the Special Master would itself create irreparable harm [ECF No. 69 p. 18]. Insofar as the Government argues that disclosure to a Special Master of documents marked as classified necessarily creates an irreparable injury because the special master process in this case is unnecessary, the Court disagrees for the reasons previously stated. Separately, to the extent the Government appears to suggest that it would suffer independent irreparable harm from review of the documents by the Court’s designee with appropriate clearances and controlled access, that argument is meritless

But these are completely contradictory. One document says the government must share classified information with Trump’s people. The other document says, “it’s only Raymond Dearie, don’t worry your little heads.”

And she just waves her hands and says the government must share this stuff, “including necessary clearance requirements,” without acknowledging that she doesn’t get to decide that. If the government says that none of Trump’s lawyers can be cleared, they get to say that (again, I expect fewer concerns about Trusty, but major concerns about Corcoran).

That’s par for the course of this order.

Go to emptywheel resource page on Trump Espionage Investigation.

Share this entry

“A Coat Rack with Suit Jackets, as Well as Interior Décor Items Such as Wall Art and Frames”

/62 Comments/in , /by

As expected, MJ Bruce Reinhart has released a less redacted version of the Trump search warrant affidavit.

The newly unsealed information pertains to the two grand jury subpoenas — the May 11 and the June 24 one. The description of the second one confirms what I’ve been noting: that the video surveillance subpoena was dated June 24, not June 22 as Trump’s people have been saying.

It requested video going back to January 10. Trump’s camp had said they only turned over two months of video (which may be true — they may simply not archive more than two months of video). But DOJ attempted to get video from before Trump packed up the first set of boxes returned to NARA, suggesting they’ve known all along how he was sorting this.

Trump provided DOJ with the video on July 6, just about the date I guessed they would have gotten it. That means DOJ only took a month to write the affidavit to search Trump’s home.

There’s a slightly different description of the classifications of the documents that Evan Corcoran turned over. It reveals that at least one of those documents was marked FISA, as was true of the first batch.

The newly unsealed passages also reveal that along with all his stolen documents, Trump had, “a coat rack with suit jackets, as well as interior decor items such as wall art and frames.”

Finally, it appears that Jay Bratt or the FBI specifically asked Corcoran if he knew of documents stored “in any private office space.” He said no.

Update: Here’s the government reply on their motion for a stay. My favorite sentence is where DOJ has to point out to Judge Cannon that she can’t invoke Executive Privilege for Trump, nor can a Special Master.

In any event, it is Plaintiff—not the Court and not a special master—who would need to make an assertion of executive privilege and supply reasons supporting that assertion. He has provided none.

And then they spend a whole paragraph describing how, if Trump is really trying to assert ownership over classified documents via a claim he both declassified and designated them privileged, then he can’t withhold via an Executive Privilege claim from an investigation into 18 USC 793.

Plaintiff’s suggestion that he “may have categorized certain of the seized materials as personal [records] during his presidency” pursuant to the PRA, D.E. 84 at 15, if true, would only supply another reason that he cannot assert executive privilege with regard to those records. If Plaintiff truly means to suggest that, while President, he chose to categorize records with markings such as “SECRET” and “TOP SECRET” as his personal records for purposes of the PRA, then he cannot assert that the very same records are protected by executive privilege—i.e., that they are “Presidential communications” made in furtherance of the “performance of his official duties.” Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 447, 456; see 44 U.S.C. § 2201(3) (defining “personal records” as records “of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President”). In any event, whether Plaintiff declared documents with classification markings to be his “personal” records for purposes of the PRA has no bearing on the government’s compelling need to review them, both for national security purposes and as part of its investigation into the potentially unlawful retention of national defense information.

 

Share this entry

Carolyn Maloney Provides NARA Cause to Assert Standing

/104 Comments/in , /by

Carolyn Maloney, fresh off losing her primary, sent a letter to Acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall as part of a pre-existing inquiry into Trump’s stolen documents.

Noting that, “NARA’s staff recently informed the Committee that the agency is not certain whether all presidential records are in its custody,” she asked for two things from Steidel Wall: To ask Trump to issue a declaration stating that he has returned everything and to provide the Oversight Committee a review of whether the government has gotten everything back.

I urge NARA to seek a personal certification from Donald Trump that he has surrendered all presidential records that he illegally removed from the White House after leaving office. I also ask that the agency conduct an urgent review of presidential records recovered from the Trump White House to assess whether presidential records remain unaccounted for and potentially in the possession of the former president.

[snip]

[T]he Committee requests that NARA conduct an urgent review of presidential records from the Trump Administration to identify any presidential records or categories of presidential records, whether textual or electronic, that NARA has reason to believe may still be outside of the agency’s custody and control. Please also assess any other limitations on the completeness, accuracy, and accessibility of presidential records provided to NARA by the Trump Administration. Please provide the Committee an initial assessment of NARA’s findings from this review by September 27, 2022.

In addition, I urge NARA to seek from former President Trump a written certification that he has surrendered all presidential records or classified materials, has not made any copies or reproductions of such materials, and has not transferred any records or government documents to any party other than NARA or DOJ since his term ended.22 Although the President is not required under current law to provide such a certification, I believe that the exceptional circumstances in this case warrant that Mr. Trump do the same so Congress and the American people can fully understand the impact of his actions on our nation’s security, take mitigating action, and consider legislative reforms. [my emphasis]

Steidel Wall will never get Trump to issue such a declaration. But it will highlight the important question — particularly given the caveat that Christina Bobb added into her own declaration — about whether Trump shared or disseminated these records.

The rumors that he did are so abundant I’m hearing them an ocean away.

Maloney might have more success with her request for a report on whether NARA got everything back. There’s just one problem.

NARA doesn’t have the documents. The FBI does. But the FBI isn’t allowed to do anything with them, under Judge Aileen Cannon’s injunction.

This request from Maloney gives Steidel Wall cause to intervene and to do so on fairly urgent timeline. She has a legitimate request from Congress, after all!

Mind you, the place where Steidel Wall would be required to intervene is in DC, not in Florida.

Which may be the entire point of Maloney’s letter.

Go to emptywheel resource page on Trump Espionage Investigation.

Share this entry

Donald Trump Agrees He Is Living By Barack Obama’s Rules

/51 Comments/in , /by

I’ve been waiting for something like this: the moment where Donald Trump concedes that Barack Obama — Hawaiian birth certificate and all — will play a key role in decisions about his ridiculous claims about hoarding classified documents.

Midway through Trump’s bid to convince Aileen Cannon to reject DOJ’s motion for a stay of her injunction against using the documents marked with classification marks seized from Trump’s beach resort, he notes that the only power he ever had to classify and declassify documents was governed by an Executive Order signed by Barack Obama on December 29, 2009.

The Government does not contest—indeed, it concedes—that the President has broad authority governing classification of, and access to, classified documents. [ECF No. 69 at 10, 18 (quoting Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988))]. In fact, the Government advocates that “the protection of classified information must be committed to the broad discretion of the agency responsible, and this must include broad discretion to determine who may have access to it.” [ECF No. 69 at 18 (quoting Egan, 484 U.S. at 529)]. Congress provided certain parameters for controlling classified information but primarily delegated to the President how to regulate classified information. 50 U.S.C. § 3161. At the same time, Congress exempted the President from complying with such requirements. See id. § 3163 (“Except as otherwise specifically provided, the provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to the President . . .”).

President Obama enacted the current Executive Order prescribing the parameters for controlling classified information in 2009. See Exec. Order 13526 (Dec. 29, 2009). That Executive Order, which controlled during President Trump’s term in office, designates the President as an original classification authority. See id. § 1.3(a)(1). In turn, the Executive Order grants authority to declassify information to either the official who originally classified the information or that individual’s supervisors—necessarily including the President. § 3.1(b)(1), (3). Thus, assuming the Executive Order could even apply to constrain a President, cf. 50 U.S.C. § 3163, the President enjoys absolute authority under the Executive Order to declassify any information. There is no legitimate contention that the Chief Executive’s declassification of documents requires approval of bureaucratic components of the executive branch. Yet, the Government apparently contends that President Trump, who had full authority to declassify documents, “willfully” retained classified information in violation of the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 793(e); [ECF No. 69 at 9].7 Moreover, the Government seeks to preclude any opportunity for consideration of this issue.

7 Of course, classified or declassified, the documents remain either Presidential records or personal records under the PRA. [ed: See this post for how Trump debunked this claim. My emphasis]

Donald Trump concedes that Executive Order 13526 governed the classification and declassification of information on December 29, 2009. It continued to govern the classification and declassification of information on January 20, 2017. It continued to govern the classification and declassification of information on January 20, 2021. It continues to govern the classification and declassification of information today.

Donald Trump agrees that he never altered this EO. He agrees that he is bound by it still, unless the lawful President, a guy named Joe Biden, decides to change it.

This is a virtual capitulation to the arguments DOJ is making, including that the classification review of the documents he stole, the review ongoing as we speak, will be determinative of the classification status of those documents.

But it’s also a concession that he is bound by everything in the EO. There’s a whole bunch of things Trump concedes when he concedes that point (including that classified information must be kept secure).

One of those things, however, is that former Presidents — and the propagandists who work for them — still must get waivers to bypass Need to Know restrictions on classified information.

Sec. 4.4. Access by Historical Researchers and Certain Former Government Personnel.

(a) The requirement in section 4.1(a)(3) of this order that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need to-know the information may be waived for persons who:

(1) are engaged in historical research projects;

(2) previously have occupied senior policy-making positions to which they were appointed or designated by the President or the Vice President; or

(3) served as President or Vice President.

(b) Waivers under this section may be granted only if the agency head or senior agency official of the originating agency:

(1) determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of the national security;

(2) takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is safeguarded in a manner consistent with this order; and

(3) limits the access granted to former Presidential appointees or designees and Vice Presidential appointees or designees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a Presidential or Vice Presidential appointee or designee. [my emphasis]

This part of the EO — an EO that Trump, who served but no longer serves as President, agreed he is bound by — does not say that such access must be waived. It says it may be.

May. Not must.

Moreover, this waiver requires that before waiving the Need to Know rule, agency heads first determine, in writing, that giving former Presidents and their propagandists access to classified information, “is consistent with the interest of national security.”

Right there, in the middle of his filing arguing that maybe the classification decisions Joe Biden’s Administration is making right now can be overridden by a Special Master, Donald Trump agrees that the Barack Obama order he says he is bound by means not even he gets access to this information without a waiver, and even then, only if the agency heads that own the information say it won’t make the country less safe.

In his bid to claw back classified information he stole, Donald Trump admits he’s still living by Barack Obama’s rules. And those rules, the rules Trump admits he is bound by, say he can only even access this information if Avril Haines and Paul Nakasone and William Burns and Chris Wray say he can.

Go to emptywheel resource page on Trump Espionage Investigation.

Share this entry
[Photo: National Security Agency, Ft. Meade, MD via Wikimedia]

The Full-Fitton: Trump’s Funny Math with the Federal Records Act

/25 Comments/in , /by

As I laid out here, you really don’t need to get further than the second paragraph of Trump’s response to DOJ’s bid for a stay on Judge Aileen Cannon’s injunction against using seized evidence of obstruction and Espionage Act violations to find evidence of a crime. In that paragraph, Trump confesses that the FBI did seize documents marked as classified — and therefore documents responsive to a May 11 subpoena — from Mar-a-Lago on August 8; that’s tantamount to a confession to obstruction.

I want to look at another funny thing he does, before I move to the subject of his gaslighting (whether these documents are genuinely classified or not, which is irrelevant to the crimes under investigation).

Trump is trying to stall the Espionage and obstruction investigation into him. But he’s also attempting to either claw back documents into his own possession, or to bottle them up at the Archives under separate legal challenges. As such, he’s adopting Tom Fitton’s argument — based on a very different set of Bill Clinton records that weren’t seized from his home via a lawful warrant but were instead FOIAed — that he designated many of these documents as personal records while still President, so they don’t even have to be in the Archives.

Critical to that argument is that documents are either Presidential Records or personal records, and the latter don’t have to be in the Archives, and so (he makes several huge logical jumps) they can’t be used in a criminal prosecution against him.

The PRA further distinguishes records as either Presidential or personal. 44 U.S.C. § 2201. Presidential records are defined as: documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. 44 U.S.C. § 2201(2).

The PRA expressly excludes personal records from the definition of Presidential records. See id. § 2201(2)(B). Personal records are defined as “documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, [sic] of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” Id. § 2201(3). The PRA thus “distinguishes Presidential records from ‘personal records’” and “requires that all materials produced or received by the President, ‘to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.’” Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Archives & Recs. Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 291 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting 44 U.S.C. § § 2203(b)). “The categorization of the records during the Presidency controls what happens next . . . . The statute assigns the Archivist no role with respect to personal records once the Presidency concludes.” Id. (emphasis added). “The PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only ‘assumes responsibility for the Presidential records.” Id. (quoting 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f)(1)). “[T]he PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President.” Id. at 301 (describing categorization decision by former President Clinton as not within the discretion of the Archivist as the subject materials “were not provided to the Archives at” the end of the Clinton presidency).

Critically, the former President has sole discretion to classify a record as personal or Presidential. See Jud. Watch, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d at 301 (“Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President.”). The power of the Archivist is not greater than that of the President. Specifically, the PRA states “the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.” 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f)(1). This section should not be interpreted as weakening a President’s authority under the Act. See Jud. Watch, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d at 300 (“[T]he plain language of section 2203(f) of the PRA does not say . . . that the Archivist must assume custody and control of all materials that fall within the definition of Presidential records.”).

Accordingly, all of the records at issue in the Government’s motion fall into two categories: (1) Presidential records, governed exclusively by the Presidential Records Act; and (2) personal records, the determination of which was in President Trump’s discretion. See id. To the extent President Trump may have categorized certain of the seized materials as personal during his presidency, any disagreement as to that categorization is to be resolved under the PRA and cannot possibly form the basis for any criminal prosecution. [my emphasis]

He’s not wrong about the Presidential Records Act reserving personal records. The category of personal records might even exempt documents pertaining to his coup attempt from storage at the Archives (though if Trump had made that designation, then he could not exempt them from subpoena under a claim of Executive Privilege, nor could he later claim those records memorialized his official acts).

(3) The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof,2 of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—

(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;

(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and

(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

If these documents hadn’t been seized via a lawful warrant authorizing the seizure of everything stored with documents bearing classification marks, the government might have a tough fight to get them.

This is also the reason why Trump wants the Archivist excluded from any Special Master proceeding — so Trump can persuade someone, in secret, that he actually designated such records personal and such a claim would stand up under the PRA, without leaving a record for such time as FBI subpoenaed the very same documents as personal documents.

But Trump chose to hoard classified records and as a result, the FBI was forced to get a warrant and seize records more broadly.

Still, as far as it goes, the Fitton argument is that everything is either a Presidential Record or a personal record, and the latter don’t belong in the Archives, and that should trump (heh) their seizure with a lawful warrant that authorized the seizure of everything stored with or in the same place as documents marked as classified.

Except in the paragraph immediately before the Fitton argument, Trump concedes that’s not right. Before you split things into Presidential and personal records, you need to split them into Presidential and Federal Records.

All government records (classified or otherwise) fall into two basic categories, either under the PRA or the Federal Records Act (“FRA”). “The FRA defines a class of materials that are federal records subject to its provisions, and the PRA describes another, mutually exclusive set of materials that are subject to a different, less rigorous regime. In other words, no individual record can be subject to both statutes because their provisions are inconsistent.” Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 1 F. 3d 1274, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

That is, he admits his two-category sorting is false.

And then he just drops the FRA, never to mention it again.

Even setting aside the example of Mike Ellis — who on January 8, 2021, was discovered to have brought a compartmented NSA document to the White House and, at first, “refused to return the document, retained it for the White House archives, and, based on what the NSA employee saw, placed the document in a container that did not meet the security storage requirements for such a sensitive program” — there would be a number of other documents, classified and not, that were brought to the White House but which remained agency records. Another category of agency documents, for example, are those pertaining to the Russian investigation, which should never have been at the White House in the first place, but which Trump wants to own for all time by simultaneously claiming he declassified and then made personal records of them.

None of those records would fit into Trump’s neat binary.

So he just ignores that and goes full-Fitton and hopes Aileen Cannon will ignore that bit.

Go to emptywheel resource page on Trump Espionage Investigation.

Share this entry