Trump FBI raid documents about Mar-a-Lago search unsealed

FBI agents found four dozen empty document folders marked "CLASSIFIED" during their raid last month of former President Donald Trump's residence at his Mar-a-Lago club, a newly unsealed court file revealed Friday. Agents found 43 of those empty folders marked classified in Trump's office, according to the Department of Justice's inventory of the seized items, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The remaining five empty folders with that marking were found in containers in a storage room. The FBI also found another 42 empty folders marked "Return to Staff Secretary/Miliary [sic] Aide," during the Aug. 8 raid, which was authorized to search for government documents removed from the White House when Trump left office in Jan. 2021, the filing said.

Documents seized by FBI from Mar-a-Lago Source: Department of Justice

Twenty-eight of those empty folders were found in Trump's office, while another 14 were in a storage room elsewhere, the document shows. And FBI agents found more than 10,000 government documents and photographs without classification markings, the filing shows. Among those were hundreds of photos and news articles, along with gifts, clothing, and books. The bombshell revelations raise the prospect that the DOJ has not yet recovered the documents that would have been in the empty folders. The DOJ is investigating possible crimes related to the removal of those and other government documents from the White House when Trump left office in Jan. 2021. By law, such records must be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

It was signed by Miami U.S. Attorney Juan Gonzalez, and Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence and export control section of the national security division of the Justice Department. "The seized materials will continue to be used to further the government's investigation, and the investigative team will continue to use and evaluate the seized materials as it takes further investigative steps, such as through additional interviews and grand jury practice," that notice says. "It is important to note, 'review' of the seized materials is not a single investigative step but an ongoing process in this active criminal investigation," the document says. Trump's spokesman in a series of tweets about the inventory of the seized items again criticized the raid. "The new 'detailed' inventory list only further proves that this unprecedented and unnecessary raid of President Trump's home was not some surgical, confined search and retrieval that the Biden administration claims, it was a SMASH AND GRAB," wrote the spokesman, Taylor Budowich. "These document disputes should be resolved under the Presidential Records Act, which requires cooperation and negotiation by NARA [National Archives and Records Administration], not an armed FBI raid," Budowich added.

Trump in a lawsuit filed in late August asked Cannon to appoint an independent watchdog, known as a special master, to review the items seized in the search before the DOJ is allowed to continue using the documents in the investigation. Trump's lawyers have said a special master could check to see if some documents would be prohibited from being used in the probe because they are protected by either attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. The DOJ has opposed the appointment of a special master, saying that it would delay the investigation, and that Trump does not own the documents. Cannon, during a court hearing in Florida on that dispute Thursday, said she will issue a ruling on the special master request in "due course."

Cannon, a Trump appointee, previously shared her "preliminary intent" to grant Trump's request for a special master. The judge suggested in Thursday's hearing that she is still considering that appointment, news outlets reported.

#Trump #FBI #raid #documents #MaraLago #search #unsealed https://www.globalcourant.com/trump-fbi-raid-documents-about-mar-a-lago-search-unsealed/?feed_id=19577&_unique_id=6312e08c77a91

Jerry Nadler beats Carolyn Maloney in NY House Democratic primary

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., Democratic candidate for New Yorks 12th Congressional District, campaigns at the 79th St. Greenmarket on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, on Sunday, August 21, 2022. Tom Williams | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images

Rep. Jerry Nadler will defeat his colleague Rep. Carolyn Maloney in a vicious House primary that locked the longtime New York Democrats in a battle for the heart of Manhattan, NBC News projected. The two lawmakers were pitted against each other after a redrawn district map spurred them to compete for a single seat in Congress. Nadler, 75, and Maloney, 76, have represented adjacent chunks of the island for about three decades. Both hold powerful seats in Congress: Nadler chairs the House Judiciary Committee, while Maloney leads the House Oversight Committee. Nadler's congressional district had included the Upper West Side, while Maloney's covered much of the eastern half of Manhattan. But their separate districts were combined in May, the result of a messy and highly controversial redistricting process. Both Nadler and Maloney announced they would run for the newly formed 12th Congressional District. Suraj Patel, who has challenged Maloney in two previous primary elections, was also on the ballot. Despite their long history, the primary fight between Nadler and Maloney was anything but neighborly. "He said, 'Step aside, I'm running.' And I said, 'Well, I'm running too. I'm not leaving,'" Maloney said in a New York Magazine profile of the race. "He said, 'I'm gonna win.' I said, 'I'm gonna win.' We haven't spoken since," she said. Maloney has also fanned rumors that Nadler won't serve out his full term if elected and that he's senile and unfit for office — charges Nadler's campaign has denied. Nadler has highlighted the differences in their voting records, saying Maloney has been "wrong on very major issues" including her "cowardly" vote for the Patriot Act, New York Magazine reported. Nadler has also made his Jewish faith a central part of his pitch to voters. Maloney, meanwhile, has sought to center her experiences as a woman in politics while touting her record on social issues — including abortion, a galvanizing topic in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Roe v. Wade. She has been endorsed by famed attorney and feminist activist Gloria Steinem. "You cannot send a man to do a woman's job," Maloney said in a recent television ad.

Correction: This report has been updated to correctly describe the area of Maloney's former congressional district.

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/jerry-nadler-beats-carolyn-maloney-in-ny-house-democratic-primary/?feed_id=14999&_unique_id=6305a1ae05c57

Judge orders Trump to give details about Mar-a-Lago warrant lawsuit

An aerial view of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home after Trump said that FBI agents raided it, in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S. August 15, 2022. Marco Bello | Reuters

A federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump ordered him Tuesday to answer several key questions about his new lawsuit related to the FBI raid on his Florida home, including why her court should be the one hearing the case and to more precisely explain what he wants her to do. Judge Aileen Cannon also ordered Trump to tell her how his suit affects another pending case involving the same search warrant before a federal magistrate judge in the same court, and whether the Department of Justice has been served with his lawsuit yet. Cannon also wants to know if Trump is seeking any injunctions related to material seized in the raid until the lawsuit is resolved. Cannon's order came a day after Trump filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, asking her to appoint a so-called special master to review documents seized Aug. 8 in the FBI raid on his Mar-a-Lago resort residence in Palm Beach.

The judge, whom Trump appointed to that court in 2020, gave him and his lawyers until Friday to answer her questions. Trump wants to block the DOJ from examining the seized documents until a special master looks at them. The step is typically taken when there is a chance that some evidence should be withheld from prosecutors because of various legal privileges. The DOJ is conducting a criminal investigation related to the documents being removed from the White House when Trump left office in January 2021. By law, presidential records are required to be turned over to the National Archives. A warrant authorizing the FBI's search-and-seizure operation at Mar-a-Lago shows that the DOJ is probing potential violations of laws related to espionage and obstruction of justice. Multiple sets of documents marked top secret were seized in the raid. Trump claims the raid was illegal and motivated by a desire to harm his chances of regaining the White House if he decides to run again.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

Cannon in her order Tuesday wrote: "The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief." "To facilitate appropriate resolution, on or before August 26, 2022, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to the Motion further elaborating on the following: (1) the asserted basis for the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction, whether legal, equitable/anomalous, or both; (2) the framework applicable to the exercise of such jurisdiction;" Cannon wrote. The judge also told Trump's team to detail "the precise relief sought, including any request for injunctive relief pending resolution of the Motion; (4) the effect, if any, of the proceeding before Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart; and (5) the status of Plaintiff's efforts to perfect service on Defendant." Reinhart signed the warrant authorizing the raid. He is considering requests by media outlets to unseal an affidavit that the DOJ filed, which laid out the need for the search and events leading up to it. Earlier Tuesday, the National Archives posted online a letter that said classified material was found in boxes that Trump turned over to that agency in January.

The material, which spans 700 pages, includes ones related to top secret, sensitive compartmented information and special access programs, the National Archives letter said.

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/judge-orders-trump-to-give-details-about-mar-a-lago-warrant-lawsuit/?feed_id=14894&_unique_id=6305516cb866f

Affidavit used in search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago to be partially unsealed, judge says

A federal judge said that parts of the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant for former President Donald Trump's resort home Mar-a-Lago can be unsealed, NBC News reported Thursday.

The decision from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart came after the Department of Justice asked him not to unseal the highly sensitive document, which details the government's view that it had probable cause to believe the search of Mar-a-Lago would turn up evidence of illegality.

The government's investigation into the records seized from Trump's Palm Beach, Florida, residence is still in its "early stages," argued Jay Bratt, head of a DOJ counterintelligence team, NBC reported.

The affidavit contains "substantial grand jury" information in a case with "national security overtones," Bratt reportedly said in the hearing.

Reinhart disagreed, saying he believed "there are portions of it that can be unsealed."

An aerial view of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home after Trump said that FBI agents raided it, in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S. August 15, 2022.

Marco Bello | Reuters

In a written order later Thursday, Reinhart wrote, "As I ruled from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing, I find that on the present record the Government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed."

The judge gave the government a week to file proposed redactions to the affidavit.

The prosecutors had previously urged the court to reject calls from media outlets and other entities to disclose the affidavit, which supported the search warrant used by FBI agents in the Aug. 8 raid on Mar-a-Lago.

Trump has publicly called for the affidavit to be released without redactions, though his lawyers have not yet filed a motion asking the judge to do so.

The former president "has made his view clear that the American people should be permitted to see the unredacted affidavit related to the raid and break-in of his home," his spokesman Taylor Budowich said on Twitter after the hearing. His tweets praised Reinhart for rejecting "the DOJ's cynical attempt to hide the whole affidavit from Americans," but insisted that "no redactions should be necessary."

The search warrant itself had been publicly released with the DOJ's approval last week. That document and attachments indicated that the agents were looking for materials related to three criminal statutes, one of which was part of the Espionage Act.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, who said he personally approved the warrant, supported its disclosure in light of the "substantial public interest in this matter."

But the affidavit "presents a very different set of considerations," federal prosecutors wrote in a court filing Monday.

The still-sealed document contains "critically important and detailed investigative facts" about witnesses and other "highly sensitive information" related to the ongoing criminal probe, which "implicates national security," the prosecutors wrote.

If disclosed, the affidavit would be "highly likely to compromise future investigative steps," said the filing, which was signed by Bratt, the head of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the DOJ's National Security Division.

The current criminal investigation stems from a probe of government records that were transferred to Mar-a-Lago instead of the National Archives after Trump left office in 2021.

FBI agents sought all records and other evidence "illegally possessed" in violation of three criminal statutes, according to the search warrant and property receipt released last week. The agents seized 20 boxes of items and other materials, including multiple sets of documents marked top secret and classified, the property receipt showed.

None of the three statutes — Title 18 of the United States Code, Sections 793, 1519 and 2071 — hinge on whether the documents in question were classified.

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/affidavit-used-in-search-of-trumps-mar-a-lago-to-be-partially-unsealed-judge-says/?feed_id=12778&_unique_id=62fed845b483d

Men face sentencing for hate crimes in Ahmaud Arbery's death

SAVANNAH, Ga. -- Months after they were sentenced to life in prison for murder, the three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery in a Georgia neighborhood faced a second round of criminal penalties Monday for federal hate crimes committed in the deadly pursuit of the 25-year-old Black man.

U.S. District Court Judge Lisa Godbey Wood scheduled back-to-back hearings to individually sentence each of the defendants, starting with Travis McMichael, who blasted Arbery with a shotgun after the street chase initiated by his father and joined by a neighbor.

Arbery's killing on Feb. 23, 2020, became part of a larger national reckoning over racial injustice and killings of unarmed Black people including George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Kentucky. Those two cases also resulted in the Justice Department bringing federal charges.

When they return to court Monday in Georgia, McMichael, his father Greg McMichael and neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan face possible life sentences after a jury convicted them in February of federal hate crimes, concluding that they violated Arbery's civil rights and targeted him because of his race. All three men were also found guilty of attempted kidnapping, and the McMichaels face additional penalties for using firearms to commit a violent crime.

Whatever punishments they receive in federal court could ultimately prove more symbolic than anything. A state Superior Court judge imposed life sentences for all three men in January for Arbery's murder, with both McMichaels denied any chance of parole.

All three defendants have remained jailed in coastal Glynn County, in the custody of U.S. marshals, while awaiting sentencing after their federal convictions in January.

Because they were first charged and convicted of murder in a state court, protocol would have them turned them over to the Georgia Department of Corrections to serve their life terms in a state prison.

In a court filings last week, both Travis and Greg McMichael asked the judge to instead divert them to a federal prison, saying they won’t be safe in a Georgia prison system that’s the subject of a U.S. Justice Department investigation focused on violence between inmates.

Arbery’s family has insisted the McMichaels and Bryan should serve their sentences in a state prison, arguing a federal penitentiary wouldn’t be as tough. His parents objected forcefully before the federal trial when both McMichaels sought a plea deal that would have included a request to transfer them to federal prison. The judge ended up rejecting the plea agreement.

A federal judge doesn’t have the authority to order the state to relinquish its lawful custody of inmates to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, said Ed Tarver, an Augusta lawyer and former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Georgia. He said the judge could request that the state corrections agency turn the defendants over to a federal prison.

The McMichaels armed themselves with guns and jumped in a truck to chase Arbery after spotting him running past their home outside the port city of Brunswick on Feb. 23, 2020. Bryan joined the pursuit in his own truck, helping cut off Arbery's escape. He also recorded cellphone video of Travis McMichael shooting Arbery at close range as Arbery threw punches and grabbed at the shotgun.

The McMichaels told police they suspected Arbery had been stealing from a nearby house under construction. But authorities later concluded he was unarmed and had committed no crimes. Arbery's family has long insisted he was merely out jogging.

Still, more than two months passed before any charges were filed in Arbery's death. The McMichaels and Bryan were arrested only after the graphic video of the shooting leaked online and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation took over the case from local police.

During the February hate crimes trial, prosecutors fortified their case that Arbery's killing was motivated by racism by showing the jury roughly two dozen text messages and social media posts in which Travis McMichael and Bryan used racist slurs and made disparaging comments about Black people. A woman testified to hearing an angry rant from Greg McMichael in 2015 in which he said: “All those Blacks are nothing but trouble.”

Defense attorneys for the three men argued the McMichaels and Bryan didn’t pursue Arbery because of his race but acted on an earnest — though erroneous — suspicion that Arbery had committed crimes in their neighborhood.

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/men-face-sentencing-for-hate-crimes-in-ahmaud-arberys-death/?feed_id=8109&_unique_id=62f0bfc9c23ef

SEC charges former GOP Rep. Stephen Buyer with insider trading

(File 1988) House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Stephen Buyer (R/IN) carries his research materials away at the conclusion of the impeachment proceedings December 12.

Reuters

WASHINGTON -- Former Indiana Republican Rep. Stephen Buyer has been charged with insider trading, using accounts owned by his wife and long-time mistress to hide some of the transactions, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced Monday.

Buyer, who left Congress in 2011, is accused of trading on non-public information he received as a consultant after he left office.

According to the civil complaint filed in Manhattan federal court, Buyer bought more than $1.5 million in stock in two separate companies, Sprint and Navigant Consulting, based on insider information over the span of two years.

He sold the shares of Sprint in 2018 after its merger with T-Mobile leaked, for a profit of at least $107,000 according to the SEC. He sold the Navigant shares in 2019 after news became public that Navigant would be acquired by Guidehouse LLP.

Buyer used several different accounts, including his wife Joni Buyer's brokerage account, to purchase the shares. Joni Buyer is not accused of any legal wrongdoing, but she is named in the charges because she technically benefitted from the ill-gotten gains in her investment account.

Buyer allegedly spread the stock purchases across 7 different accounts, including two separate IRA's belonging to him alone, an investment account belonging to his wife Joni Buyer; a joint account owned by the couple; a joint account Buyer shared with his son; a joint account Buyer shared with his cousin, and a 7th account owned by a woman identified only as "Friend-1."

According to the SEC complaint, Buyer began a romantic relationship with the unidentified woman in 2006. In 2018, Buyer used the woman's IRA account to purchase more than $12,000 worth of stock in Sprint. A year later, he allegedly used her account again to purchase $22,000 of stock in Navigant, shortly before both companies were acquired by Buyer's consulting clients.

"When insiders like Buyer – an attorney, a former prosecutor, and a retired Congressman – monetize their access to material, nonpublic information, as alleged in this case, they not only violate the federal securities laws, but also undermine public trust and confidence in the fairness of our markets," said Gurbir S. Grewal, Director of the SEC Enforcement Division, in the SEC press release.

A lawyer for Buyer could not immediately be identified for comment.

Buyer served in Congress from 1993-2011, where he represented Indiana's 4th congressional district, which was previously numbered as its 5th.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/sec-charges-former-gop-rep-stephen-buyer-with-insider-trading/?feed_id=1974&_unique_id=62ded996bbf39

Steven Bannon jurors reach verdict in Trump aide contempt trial

Former U.S. President Donald Trump's White House chief strategist Steve Bannon arrives following his trial on contempt of Congress charges for his refusal to cooperate with the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, at U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., July 22, 2022. 

Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

A federal court jury reached a verdict Friday in the trial of Steve Bannon, the former top Trump White House aide who is charged with criminal contempt of Congress.

The verdict is expected to be announced shortly in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Bannon is accused of willfully failing to comply with subpoenas issued by the House select committee that is investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol by a mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump.

He faces a minimum criminal sentence of 30 days in jail if convicted of two counts of contempt.

Prosecutor Molly Gaston told jurors in her closing arguments that Bannon "chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance with the law."

"When it really comes down to it, he did not want to recognize Congress' authority or play by the government's rules," Gaston said. "Our government only works if people show up. It only works if people play by the rules. And it only works if people are held accountable when they do not."

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

Bannon's lawyers did not present a defense during the trial, which began Monday with jury selection.

His attorneys were hamstrung by pretrial rulings by the judge in the case, who severely limited the evidence they could present at trial.

During his own closing arguments Friday, Bannon's lawyer Evan Corcoran tried to suggest that Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who is chair of the Jan. 6 committee, did not sign a subpoena for Bannon, NBC reported. Corcoran dropped that line of argument after the prosecution objected.

Corcoran also asked jurors to set aside memories of Jan. 6 in their deliberations.

"None of us will soon forget January 6, 2021," Corcoran said. "It's part of our collective memory. But there's no evidence in this case that Steve Bannon was involved at all. For purposes of this case we have to put out of our thoughts January 6."

Jurors began their deliberations at just before 11:40 a.m. ET, after the closing arguments concluded.

This is breaking news. Check back for updates.

Source https://www.globalcourant.com/steven-bannon-jurors-reach-verdict-in-trump-aide-contempt-trial/?feed_id=300&_unique_id=62daefcd8aedd