FBI

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      FBI was reportedly warned agents were ‘sympathetic’ to Capitol rioters – as it happened

      by

      A top FBI official was warned that a large number of bureau employees were sympathetic to Capitol rioters who threatened the lives of law makers. NBC News reported that Paul Abbate, number two at the FBI, was warned about agents within the bureau showing sympathy to 6 January participants.The email, sent from an unnamed person, read: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}There’s no good way to say it, so I’ll just be direct: from my first-hand and second-hand information from conversations since January 6th there is, at best, a sizable percentage of the employee population that felt sympathetic to the group that stormed the Capitol… Several also lamented that the only reason this violent activity is getting more attention is because of ‘political correctness.The email also added that several agents felt that the Capitol riots were no different than racial justice protests that happened in summer 2020. Abbate responded to the email with: “Thank you [redacted] for sharing everything below.”The FBI declined to comment on the email, reported NBC. Washington continues to feel the aftershocks from yesterday’s January 6 committee hearing, and its vote to send a subpoena to Donald Trump. The congressional panel claims he was the singular figure responsible for the attack on the Capitol – but the summons is more of statement than an actual legal strategy. Nonetheless, it’s possible the former president may actually appear before the lawmakers. Reports indicate he would be open to doing so, but Trump has not publicly weighed in, yet.Here’s what happened today:
      The FBI’s No 2 waswarned that a number of its agents were sympathetic to the January 6 rioters. It’s unclear what impact that has had on the investigation into the attack.
      A new book argues that Democratic leaders missed an opportunity to get some Republicans onboard when they first impeached Trump in 2019, setting the stage for him to try to overturn the election the following year.
      Top lawmakers scrambled for help from the department of defense, the governor of Virginia and other parties after the Capitol was overrun on January 6, according to gripping footage shown at the congressional inquiry yesterday.
      The January 6 committee is investigating communications between a Secret Service agent and members of the Oath Keepers militia group, some of whom are currently on trial for seditious conspiracy charges in Washington.
      Congress may finally repeal the authorizations justifying American involvement in the Gulf war and the invasion of Iraq.
      A Democratic member of the January 6 committee said it will continue to wait for a response from Donald Trump to the subpoena it approved yesterday, which could compel his testimony before the panel investigating the Capitol attack.In a tweet, Adam Schiff rejected a letter Trump had sent to the committee’s chair that attacked its work and reiterated a number of baseless theories about alleged fraudulent conduct in the 2020 election:Trump’s unsworn “statement” about the work of @January6thCmte is not a substitute for testimony under oath.We await a serious response from the former president.Seven previous presidents have honored their responsibility to appear before Congress. Trump should do the same.— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) October 14, 2022
      Trump has not said if he will honor the subpoena, though reports have emerged that he is open to speaking to lawmakers. Should he choose to fight it, it’s unlikely the court battle would be resolved before the committee’s mandate runs out at the end of the year.Trump and his allies’ attempts to interfere with the election in Georgia is the subject of yet another investigation ensnaring the ex-president, and CNN reports one of his operatives has testified as part of the inquiry.Last week, Scott Hall spoke for more than three hours to a special grand jury empaneled by district attorney Fani Willis in Fulton county, Georgia to investigate the meddling campaign, CNN said. While it’s not known what he told the jurors, Hall, a Republican poll watcher in Fulton county, was part of a group who may have improperly accessed voter information in another county.Here’s more from CNN:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}On January 7, 2021, the day after the attack on the US Capitol, Hall and others connected to Trump lawyer Sidney Powell spent hours inside a restricted area of the Coffee County elections office, where they set up computers near election equipment and appeared to access voting data.
      Willis’s criminal investigation recently expanded to include the breach of voting systems in the deeply-red Coffee County by operatives working for Powell.
      Hall did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
      According to court documents obtained by CNN, Hall’s role investigating supposed voter fraud in Georgia is also referenced in a November 2020 email that the head of Trump’s election day operations in Georgia received from the state’s Republican Party Chairman.
      “Scott Hall has been looking into the election on behalf of the President at the request of David Bossie. I know him,” David Shafer, the Georgia Republican Party chairman wrote on November 20, 2020, to Robert Sinners, the head of Trump’s Georgia election day operations.
      Shafer, who was among the 16 individuals who served as a fake Trump elector in Georgia, has been informed he is a target in the Fulton County DA’s criminal investigation.Trump has broadcast plans to run for president again in 2024 practically since leaving the White House last year, and many fear he would steamroll his opponents in the primaries to win the GOP nomination, as he did in 2016.But unlike the campaign that delivered his shock victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton six years ago, Trump is a known quantity by now, and some Republicans think he’s simply unelectable, no matter how popular he may be among a segment of the party. Republican former speaker of the house Paul Ryan made that very argument yesterday in an interview for the Teneo Insights Series:VIDEO: Former Speaker Paul Ryan says former President Donald Trump won’t be the Republican nominee in 2024, when the RNC gathers in Milwaukee: “We all know he’s much more likely to lose the White House than anybody else running for president on our side of the aisle.” pic.twitter.com/JCE2TsHu7A— Jason Calvi (@JasonCalvi) October 14, 2022
      The January 6 committee made clear in its hearing yesterday that it continued to have reservations about the Secret Service’s candor with its investigation.The agency tasked with protecting the president and other top officials has been under scrutiny ever since it was revealed it permanently deleted all of agents’ text messages from around the time of the insurrection, citing a pre-planned technology upgrade.MSNBC has a good rundown of the lawmakers’ comments about the Secret Service:Today, there was pushback, of sorts, from a spokesman for the agency, Politico reports:Some pushback from the Secret Service to yesterday’s 1/6 hearing and allegations witnesses weren’t forthcoming. Spox says they’re continuing to cooperate with the committee More on @politicongress: https://t.co/G4pTLfxAaT pic.twitter.com/yEbjvdSRB9— Nicholas Wu (@nicholaswu12) October 14, 2022
      Speaking of books, former vice-president Mike Pence will release a memoir about his time serving under Donald Trump on 15 November.The New York Times has obtained the book’s description included on its jacket, which pretty much lines up with what is known about his relationship with the former president:A day after the J6 hearing went over again the danger Pence was in that day, the jacket copy from his upcoming book is revealed. Includes this bit: pic.twitter.com/TiHtZOgVTD— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 14, 2022
      In August, Vermont’s Democratic senator Patrick Leahy – the most senior lawmaker in all of Congress – published a memoir reflecting on his decades in Washington politics.That included the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which he opposed. Longtime Washington journalist Garrett M. Graff read Leahy’s book and noted that the senator’s opposition to the invasion had won the attention of some mysterious, like-minded individuals who sought the senator out:1) In the midst of the Iraq War debate, Leahy was one of the few Senators pushing back against the Bush admin race to war and the threats of WMDs. He’d been reading the classified intel that the Bush admin was providing to Congress and had real doubts that it justified war….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      2) The Sunday after he read the intel, he was out walking with his wife in his McLean neighborhood when “two fit joggers trailed behind us. They stopped and asked what I thought of the intelligence briefings I’d been getting.”…— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      3) The joggers asked Leahy if the briefers had showed him “File Eight”? Leahy writes, “It was obvious from the look on my face that I had not seen such a file. They suggested I should and that I might find it interesting.”….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      4) Leahy went back to the intel officers at the Capitol SCIF and requested “File Eight,” and it contradicted what the Bush administration was saying publicly about the WMDs….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      5) A few days later, Leahy and his wife are out walking in the neighborhood again and the same two joggers pass by, stop, and say, basically, “We heard you read Five Eight. Isn’t it interesting? Now you should ask for File Twelve” ….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      6) [[Leahy explained to me when I asked him about this incident this month that “File Eight” and “File Twelve” are pseudonyms for specific secret codeword names the joggers told him to ask for.]] ….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      7) The next day, Leahy again goes to the Capitol SCIF and asks for “File Twelve.” It again contradicts what VP Cheney was saying publicly. Leahy decides to vote against the war based on these secret reports and tips…— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      8) I asked @senatorleahy about this incident when I interviewed him at @bearpondbooks earlier this month, if he knew the joggers ever, and he said, “You don’t understand—I didn’t *want* to know who they were.” …— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      A movement is gathering in the Senate to repeal Congress’ authorizations allowing the United States to attack Iraq.Democratic senator Tim Kaine and Republican senator Todd Young are backing a renewed effort to pass a bill repealing the two Authorizations for Use of Military Force enacted in 2002 and 1991, which gave legal justification for America’s involvement in the Iraq and Gulf wars, respectively. On October 16, 2002, Congress voted to authorize the use of military force against the regime of Saddam Hussein.As we mark the 20th anniversary, @TimKaine and I are calling for repeal of the 2002 AUMF, which the United States no longer requires. https://t.co/6zkMPx34o2— Senator Todd Young (@SenToddYoung) October 14, 2022
      The current war authorities are outdated, unnecessary, and could be subject to misuse by future presidents.Our bipartisan legislation will repeal the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs and reinstate Congress’ constitutionally-mandated oversight role of declaring and ending wars.— Senator Todd Young (@SenToddYoung) October 14, 2022
      We owe it to our nation’s service members, military families, and veterans to pass this legislation repealing the 2002 AUMF and formalize the end of the Iraq War.— Senator Todd Young (@SenToddYoung) October 14, 2022
      A similar attempt passed the House last year and had Joe Biden’s support, but ultimately didn’t make it through the Senate. The latest effort is expected to be included in a defense spending bill that will be a top priority when both houses of Congress reconvene next month.Few have embraced the baseless conspiracies about the 2020 election like Donald Trump, and he’s widely expected to run again for the presidency in 2024. The big question is: when will he announce it? Democrats hope he does so before the midterm elections, so they can refocus voters’ attention on all that went on during his administration.Politico reports that the former president is keeping it vague:Trump said at a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser last night that a ‘24 announcement was coming “very soon” and that people would be “very happy,” per two attendees— Alex Isenstadt (@politicoalex) October 14, 2022
      Meanwhile, Republican senators Tom Cotton and Tim Scott have both taken steps indicating they are contemplating a 2024 run, according to Politico.More than two-thirds of Republicans seeking office this November have cast doubt on the results of the 2020 election, reported the New York Times..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}They include candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, and the state offices of governor, secretary of state and attorney general — many with clear shots to victory, and some without a chance. They are united by at least one issue: They have all expressed doubt about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. And they are the new normal of the Republican Party.
      More than 370 people — a vast majority of Republicans running for these offices in November — have questioned and, at times, outright denied the results of the 2020 election despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, according to a monthslong New York Times investigation. These candidates represent a sentiment that is spreading in the Republican Party, rupturing a bedrock principle of democracy: that voters decide elections and candidates accept results.Read the full article here.Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden released a statement on a Thursday shooting in Raleigh, North Carolina, where five people were killed and two were injured.The suspect, a 15-year old white male, is in custody and in critical condition.From the White house press office:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Jill and I are grieving with the families in Raleigh, North Carolina, whose loved ones were killed and wounded in yet another mass shooting in America. We are thinking of yet another community shaken and shattered as they mourn the loss of friends and neighbors, including an off-duty police officer.As we mourn with the people of Raleigh, we are grateful for the law enforcement and other first responders, including federal law enforcement who were on the scene last night and into this morning. My Administration is working closely with Governor Cooper to assist local authorities in this investigation to the fullest extent needed. Enough. We’ve grieved and prayed with too many families who have had to bear the terrible burden of these mass shootings. Too many families have had spouses, parents, and children taken from them forever. This year, and even in just the five months since Buffalo and Uvalde, there are too many mass shootings across America, including ones that don’t even make the national news.
      For the lives we’ve lost and the lives we can save, I took historic action to stop gun violence in our nation, including signing the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years. But we must do more. We must pass an assault weapons ban. The American people support this commonsense action to get weapons of war off our streets. House Democrats have already passed it. The Senate should do the same. Send it to my desk and I’ll sign it. May God bless our fellow Americans we lost and their families and may He grant the wounded the strength to recover in Raleigh, North Carolina.A top FBI official was warned that a large number of bureau employees were sympathetic to Capitol rioters who threatened the lives of law makers. NBC News reported that Paul Abbate, number two at the FBI, was warned about agents within the bureau showing sympathy to 6 January participants.The email, sent from an unnamed person, read: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}There’s no good way to say it, so I’ll just be direct: from my first-hand and second-hand information from conversations since January 6th there is, at best, a sizable percentage of the employee population that felt sympathetic to the group that stormed the Capitol… Several also lamented that the only reason this violent activity is getting more attention is because of ‘political correctness.The email also added that several agents felt that the Capitol riots were no different than racial justice protests that happened in summer 2020. Abbate responded to the email with: “Thank you [redacted] for sharing everything below.”The FBI declined to comment on the email, reported NBC. Washington continues to feel the aftershocks from yesterday’s January 6 committee hearing, and its vote to send a subpoena to Donald Trump. The congressional panel claims he was the singular figure responsible for the attack on the Capitol – but the summons is more of statement than an actual legal strategy. Nonetheless, it’s possible the former president may actually appear before the lawmakers. Reports indicate he would be open to doing so, but Trump has not publicly weighed in, yet.Here’s what has happened today so far:
      A new book argues that Democratic leaders missed an opportunity to get some Republicans onboard when they first impeached Trump in 2019, setting the stage for him to try to overturn the election the following year.
      Top lawmakers scrambled for help from the department of defense, the governor of Virginia and other parties after the Capitol was overrun on January 6, according to gripping footage shown at the congressional inquiry yesterday.
      The January 6 committee is investigating communications between a Secret Service agent and members of the Oath Keepers militia group, some of whom are currently on trial for seditious conspiracy charges in Washington.
      Many people testified to the January 6 committee. Doing so did not come without costs.Here’s what Alyssa Farah, a former communications director in the Trump White House, said on “The View” about happened after the panel aired her testimony:”When I spoke out: death threats, harassment, I’ve been called a whore … It was young women that stepped up and came forward and gave the facts.”— “The View” co-host and former Trump Communications Director Alyssa Farah details her experience testifying before 1/6 Committee pic.twitter.com/mG2roFTDov— The Recount (@therecount) October 14, 2022
      And here is what she told the committee:”He was looking at the TV and he said, ‘Can you believe I lost to this fucking guy?'”— Former Trump Communications Director Alyssa Farah recalling what she says Trump said to her about a week after the election was called. pic.twitter.com/ckRbuiyYBs— The Recount (@therecount) October 13, 2022
      Did the January 6 committee’s hearings change your mind about what happened that day?Were you surprised by the evidence presented? Or are you wondering what the big deal is?Whatever your answers to these questions, the Guardian’s community team is looking for readers’ input, and has a survey you can fill out at the link below:US residents: share your views of the January 6 hearingsRead more More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Sources in Russian analyst’s Trump dossier fabricated, prosecutors argue

      by

      Sources in Russian analyst’s Trump dossier fabricated, prosecutors argueIgor Danchenko, who played a vital role in creating the Steele dossier, has been indicted on five counts of lying to the FBI A Russian analyst who played a major role in the creation of a flawed dossier about Donald Trump fabricated one of his own sources and concealed the identity of another when interviewed by the FBI, prosecutors said Tuesday.The allegations were aired during opening statements in the trial of Igor Danchenko, who is indicted on five counts of making false statements to the FBI.US justice department says Trump didn’t turn over all documents – reportRead moreThe FBI interviewed Danchenko on multiple occasions in 2017 as it tried to corroborate allegations in what became known as the “Steele dossier”.That dossier, by the British spy Christopher Steele – commissioned by Democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign – included allegations of contact between the Trump campaign and Russian government officials, as well as allegations that the Russians may have held compromising information over Trump in the form of videos showing him engaged in salacious sexual activity in a Moscow hotel.Specifically, prosecutors say, Danchenko lied when he said he obtained some information in an anonymous phone call from a man he believed to be Sergei Millian, a former head of the Russian American Chamber of Commerce.The prosecutor Michael Keilty told jurors in US district court in Alexandria that Danchenko had never spoken with Millian and that phone records showed he had never received an anonymous phone call at the time Danchenko claimed it occurred.Prosecutors also say Danchenko lied when he said he never “talked” with a man named Charles Dolan about the allegations contained in the dossier. Prosecutors say there is evidence that Danchenko “spoke with Mr Dolan over email” about very specific items that showed up in the dossier.The FBI needed to know that Dolan was an important source for Danchenko, Keilty said, because Dolan is a Democratic operative who has worked on the presidential campaign of every Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter, and thus would have had motivation to fabricate or embellish allegations against Trump.“Those lies mattered,” Keilty said.But Danchenko’s attorney, Danny Onorato, told jurors that his client had been completely truthful with the FBI.He pointed out that Danchenko had never said he was certain that Millian was the source of the anonymous call but that he had good reason to believe it. The government’s case required jurors to become “mind readers” to assess Danchenko’s subjective belief about the source of the phone call, Onorato said.And while phone records might not show a call, Onorato said, the government had no idea whether a call could have been placed with a mobile app rather than a traditional telephone provider. Indeed, Onorato said, it made more sense that such a call would have occurred using an internet app because so many of them conceal the source of the call, and the caller wanted to be anonymous.As for the allegations about his discussions with Dolan, Onorato said, Danchenko had answered the question truthfully because the two had not “talked” – but rather had conducted a written exchange. If the FBI had wanted to know about email exchanges, it should have asked a different question, Onorato said.“The law doesn’t let you rewrite the dictionary,” Onorato said.Keilty, in his opening, acknowledged to jurors that evidence would show the FBI made errors in conducting its investigations, but he said that shouldn’t exonerate Danchenko.“A bank robber doesn’t get a pass just because the security guard was asleep,” Keilty said.The first prosecution witness was the FBI analyst Brian Auten, who testified that information from the Steele dossier had been used to support a surveillance warrant against a Trump campaign official, Carter Page.Under questioning from Durham, Auten testified that the dossier had been used to bolster the surveillance application even though the FBI couldn’t corroborate its allegations.Auten said the FBI had checked with other government agencies to see if they had corroboration but nothing had come back. Auten and other FBI agents had even met with Steele in the United Kingdom in 2016 and offered him as much as $1m if he could supply corroboration for the allegations in the dossier, but none had been provided.Danchenko is the third person to be prosecuted by the special counsel John Durham, who was appointed to investigate the origins of “Crossfire Hurricane” – the designation given to the FBI’s 2016 investigation into Trump’s Russia connections. It is also the first of Durham’s cases that delves deeply into the origins of the dossier, which Trump derided as fake news and a political witch-hunt.TopicsFBIDonald TrumpDemocratsRussiaUS elections 2016US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      DoJ pushes back on Trump’s claims it planted evidence at Mar-a-Lago

      by

      DoJ pushes back on Trump’s claims it planted evidence at Mar-a-Lago Agency files slightly amended list of seized materials and an affidavit that the list reflects what was taken during search The Department of Justice has pushed back on the unsubstantiated claims from Donald Trump that the agency planted evidence during its search of Mar-a-Lago, submitting a slightly amended list of seized materials and an affidavit that the list reflects what was taken during the 8 August search.The FBI submitted a first version of the inventory list several weeks ago. It only had one business day to compile the first list but had more time to submit the most recent version, reported CNN.The agency also said that, in the updated version, it filtered out potentially privileged items.“I am not aware of any documents or materials seized from the Premises on that date by the FBI that are not reflected in the Revised Detailed Property Inventory … other than materials that the Privilege Review Team has not provided to the Case Team,” wrote an FBI agent in the affidavit.The unnamed agent noted that changes between the two versions were “minor”.Judge Raymond Dearie, the special master appointed to review the documents case, requested that the FBI submit an inventory to provide a “full and accurate” picture of what was obtained in the search.Dearie’s request came after Trump and several allies claimed, without evidence, that the FBI planted items during its search of the Florida mansion.Dearie has given Trump’s lawyers until Friday to provide any evidence to back up the accusation that the agency is “incorrectly describing” any materials. “This submission shall be Plaintiff’s final opportunity to raise any factual dispute as to the completeness and accuracy of the Detailed Property Inventory,” Dearie wrote.TopicsDonald TrumpMar-a-LagoUS politicsFBInewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump: US justice department appeals judge’s Mar-a-Lago investigation hold

      by

      Trump: US justice department appeals judge’s Mar-a-Lago investigation holdDoJ seeks to continue reviewing a batch of classified documents seized during an FBI search of Donald Trump’s Florida home The justice department asked a federal appeals court on Friday to lift a judge’s order that temporarily barred it from reviewing a batch of classified documents seized during an FBI search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida home last month.The department told the 11th circuit US court of appeals in Atlanta that the judge’s hold, imposed last week, had impeded the “government’s efforts to protect the nation’s security” and interfered with its investigation into the presence of top-secret information at Mar-a-Lago. It asked the court to remove that order so work could resume, and to halt a judge’s directive forcing the department to provide the seized classified documents to an independent arbiter for his review.Special master in Trump documents case described as fair and no-nonsenseRead more“The government and the public would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay” of the order, department lawyers wrote in their brief to the appeals court.US district judge Aileen Cannon’s appointment of a so-called special master to review the documents, and the resulting legal tussle it has caused, appear certain to slow by weeks the department’s investigation into the holding of classified documents at the Florida property after Trump left office. The justice department has been investigating possible violations of multiple statutes, including under the Espionage Act, but it remains unclear whether Trump, who has been laying the groundwork for a potential presidential run, or anyone else might be charged.The FBI says it took about 11,000 documents, including roughly 100 with classification markings found in a storage room and an office, while serving a court-authorized search warrant at the home on 8 August. Weeks after the search, Trump lawyers asked a judge to appoint a special master to conduct an independent review of the records.Cannon granted the request last week, assigning a special master to review the records and weed out any that may be covered by claims of attorney-client or executive privilege. She directed the department to halt its use of the classified documents for investigative purposes until further court order, or until the completion of the special master‘s work.On Thursday night, she assigned Raymond Dearie, the former chief judge of the federal court based in Brooklyn, to serve in the role. She also declined to lift her earlier order, citing ongoing disputes about the nature of the documents that she said merited a neutral review by an outside arbiter.“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,” she wrote.The justice department on Friday night told the appeals court that Cannon’s injunction “unduly interferes with the criminal investigation”, prohibiting investigators from “accessing the seized records to evaluate whether charges are appropriate”. It also prevents the FBI from using the seized records in its criminal investigation to determine which documents, if any, were disclosed and to whom, the department said.Though Cannon has said investigators are free to do other investigative work that did not involve a review of the documents, the department said on Friday that that was largely impractical. Noting the discovery of dozens of empty folders at Mar-a-Lago marked classified, it said the judge’s hold appeared to bar it 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”.The department also asked the appeals court to reject Cannon’s order that it provide the newly appointed special master with the classified documents, suggesting there was no reason for the arbiter to review highly sensitive records that did not involve questions of legal privilege.“Plaintiff has no claim for the return of those records, which belong to the government and were seized in a court-authorized search,” department lawyers wrote. “The records are not subject to any possible claim of personal attorney-client privilege. And neither Plaintiff nor the court has cited any authority suggesting that a former President could successfully invoke executive privilege to prevent the Executive Branch from reviewing its own records.”Cannon has directed Dearie to complete his work by 30 November and to prioritize the review of the classified documents. She directed the justice department to permit the Trump legal team to inspect the seized classified records with “controlled access conditions” something government lawyers said on Friday was needless and harmful.On Friday, Dearie, a former federal prosecutor, scheduled a preliminary conference with Trump lawyers and justice department lawyers for Tuesday afternoon.TopicsDonald TrumpUS politicsTrump administrationFBIMar-a-LagonewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge proposed by Trump named special master in Mar-a-Lago records case

      by

      Judge proposed by Trump named special master in Mar-a-Lago records caseJudge Cannon appointed Judge Raymond Dearie to vet documents and denied the DoJ’s plea to continue reviewing the seized records A federal judge has named Raymond Dearie, a senior US district judge with experience handling US national security matters, as an independent arbiter to vet records seized by the FBI from Donald Trump’s Florida estate in an ongoing criminal investigation.Mar-a-Lago documents: Trump delaying tactics causing ‘irreparable harm’ – DoJRead moreFlorida-based US district judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday appointed Dearie to serve as a special master in the legal fight between Trump and the Department of Justice over government documents the former president kept at his Florida resort.Dearie was one of two candidates for the post proposed by the former president, and the US justice department had said it would not oppose his appointment.In her order, Cannon also rejected the justice department’s demand that prosecutors would be allowed to continue their review of the seized records while the dispute is ongoing, and their assertion that the investigation is urgent due to the highly classified and sensitive material in the records.“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,” Cannon said in the ruling.Dearie, who is 78 and based in Brooklyn, is tasked with deciding whether any of the documents seized by the FBI during the August search are privileged – either due to attorney-client confidentiality or through a legal principle called executive privilege – and should be off limits to federal investigators.Dearie has until 30 November – after the midterms – to finish the review. Trump will be required to pay costs associated with the special master.Earlier this month, Cannon had granted a request by Trump’s lawyers to name a special master to vet the seized records. Mar-a-Lago a magnet for spies, officials warn after nuclear file reportedly foundRead moreTrump is under investigation by the justice department for retaining government records – some of which were marked as highly classified, including “Top Secret” – at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach after leaving office in January 2021. During a search of the property, FBI agents seized more than 11,000 records and 48 empty folders marked classified.The justice department also is looking into possible obstruction of the investigation after it found evidence that records may have been removed or concealed from the FBI when it sent agents to the property in June to try to recover all classified documents.Dearie served as US attorney in Brooklyn before being appointed to the federal bench there by Republican president Ronald Reagan in 1986, and was chief judge of that court from 2007 to 2011. He assumed what is called senior status – a sort of semi-retirement with a reduced case load – in 2011, a role in which he continues to serve.The justice department had said in a court filing on Monday that Dearie’s experience as a judge qualified him for the special master role, but opposed the other candidate proposed by Trump’s team, private attorney Paul Huck. Trump’s lawyers opposed the two retired federal judges proposed by the department.On the bench, Dearie was one of multiple judges presiding over cases against several men accused in 2009 of plotting to bomb New York City’s subway system at the direction of al-Qaida leaders.Dearie was appointed in 2011 to the foreign intelligence surveillance court, which reviews warrant applications from the US government on matters of national security, where he served until 2019.In 2017, he was one of four federal judges who approved warrants used to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page amid concern about Trump campaign contacts with Russians, according to papers released to media outlets that sued for the records. The justice department had opposed Trump’s request for a special master to review the seized documents to see if any should be withheld from investigators as privileged. In ruling in favor of Trump’s request for a special master, Cannon rejected the department’s arguments that the records belong to the government and that because Trump is no longer president he cannot claim executive privilege. Cannon was appointed to the bench by Trump in 2020.The documents probe is one of several federal and state investigations Trump is facing from his time in office and in private business as he considers another run for the presidency in 2024.TopicsDonald TrumpMar-a-LagoFloridaFBIUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell has phone seized by FBI at fast-food outlet

      by

      My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell has phone seized by FBI at fast-food outletProminent proponent of Donald Trump’s stolen election lie says he was questioned about Colorado electoral official Tina Peters Mike Lindell, the pillow salesman who became an enthusiastic mouthpiece for Donald Trump’s lie about a stolen election, has said he was forced to hand his phone to FBI agents who surrounded him at a fast-food drive-through.Trump says Pence is out as potential running mate, book revealsRead moreThe incident happened on Tuesday as Lindell, chief executive of My Pillow, was in line at a branch of Hardee’s in Mankato, Minnesota, his home town, following a hunting trip.“Cars pulled up in front of us, to the side of us, and behind us and I said those are either bad guys or the FBI,” the conspiracy theorist said on his internet show, the Lindell Report. “Well, it turns out they were the FBI.”Lindell said the agents questioned him about Tina Peters, a fellow election denier facing criminal charges in Colorado for tampering with voting machinery as a county clerk, and who in June lost a Republican primary to become the state’s top election official.Lindell campaigned for Peters, who in May was removed by a judge from running elections in Mesa county.An FBI spokesperson confirmed agents were “at that location executing a search warrant authorized by a federal judge” but would not give other details.Lindell, a close Trump ally, is one of the loudest proponents of Trump’s false claims that his 2020 defeat by Joe Biden was rigged, and has been widely ridiculed for his frequent claims that he has enough “evidence” to see Trump reinstated to the presidency.Lindell admitted earlier this month that he had spent up to $40m of his own money in the pursuit, including underwriting lawsuits in numerous states to try to eliminate voting machines he insists were to blame for Trump’s defeat.There is no evidence to support his allegations and Lindell has lost numerous legal challenges over machines manufactured by Smartmatic and Dominion.In April, he was sued for defamation by a Dominion Voting Systems employee, who claimed Lindell was engaged in “efforts to undermine faith in American democracy and enrich himself in the process”.Lindell said on Tuesday the FBI demanded his phone, which he handed over only after consulting his attorney.“They surrounded me at a Hardee’s and took my phone that I run all my business, everything with,” he said. “What they have done is weaponise the FBI, it’s disgusting. I don’t have a computer, that phone, everything was on everybody.”In a later interview with CNN, Lindell said he was surprised when the agents started asking questions about Peters, having assumed they were about to serve him a subpoena as part of the justice department investigation into the 6 January insurrection and other attempts to reverse Trump’s election defeat.“I said, ‘Come on, bring me to January 6. I want to be part of that show’,” he said he told them.“They thought they were there to intimidate me. They won’t intimidate me.“I want to say this for the record, they were pretty nice guys. None of them had an attitude.”TopicsUS newsUS elections 2020FBInewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats condemn Lindsey Graham’s nationwide abortion ban proposal – as it happened

      by

      Top Democrats have decried a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks proposed today by Republican senator Lindsey Graham.“Today, Senator Graham introduced a national ban on abortion which would strip away women’s rights in all 50 states. This bill is wildly out of step with what Americans believe,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.“While President Biden and Vice President Harris are focused on the historic passage of the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, health care, and energy – and to take unprecedented action to address climate change – Republicans in Congress are focused on taking rights away from millions of women,” Jean-Pierre continued, adding that the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress “are committed to restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade.”Democratic house speaker Nancy Pelosi joined in, saying, “The nationwide abortion ban proposal put forth today is the latest, clearest signal of extreme MAGA Republicans’ intent to criminalize women’s health freedom in all 50 states and arrest doctors for providing basic care. Make no mistake: if Republicans get the chance, they will work to pass laws even more draconian than this bill – just like the bans they have enacted in states like Texas, Mississippi and Oklahoma.”Republican senator Lindsey Graham caused quite the stir by proposing a nationwide ban on abortions past the 15-week mark, which even many fellow GOP lawmakers don’t support, at least not right now. The legislation could mark the start of a campaign to seek federal restrictions on the procedure after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade in June. Meanwhile, new inflation data showed prices continuing to rise – albeit at a slower rate – across the economy, dampening hopes that the wave of cost increases had faded for good.Here’s what else happened today so far:
      Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was among those downplaying Graham’s proposal, but the Kentucky lawmakers has previously said the chamber could consider a federal ban on abortion if the GOP wins a majority.
      Criminal referrals from the January 6 committee to the justice department are “likely”, a lawmaker on the panel said. More public hearings by the committee are also expected to be announced soon.
      Democrat and Republican lawmakers love trading stocks, according to an analysis from The New York Times that will likely add pressure on party leaders to ban congress members from owning or trading securities.
      A jury in Connecticut is considering how much to order conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay relatives of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre for spreading lies that the killings were a hoax.
      Lindsey Graham’s proposal to outlaw abortion after 15 weeks isn’t just unpopular with many of his fellow Senate Republicans – it would also appear to be unpopular with the Lindsey Graham of just a month ago, who said the question of abortion access should be left up to the states.Here’s a reminder from The Recount of what Graham had to say about the issue just this past August:Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in August: States should regulate abortion.Sen. Lindsey Graham in September: The federal government should regulate abortion. pic.twitter.com/VvMDZd9fsp— The Recount (@therecount) September 13, 2022
      The discomfort over the Republican abortion ban proposal extends beyond the Senate to the campaign trail, where several of the party’s nominees to the chamber are trying to distance themselves from it.Tiffany Smiley, the GOP Senate nominee in Washington state, says she wouldn’t get behind such a bill, Politico reports:A spokesperson for WA GOP nominee Tiffany Smiley also said she doesn’t support the Graham bill and that it should be left up to the states to decide their abortion laws— Marianne LeVine (@marianne_levine) September 13, 2022
      Joe O’Dea, a Republican vying for Colorado’s Senate seat, also opposed it, according to Politico. However Herschel Walker, who’s in a tight race for the senate seat occupied by Georgia Democrat Raphael Warnock, appeared to support it:Herschel Walker: “I believe the issue should be decided at the state level, but I WOULD support this policy.”Joe O’Dea of Colorado: “I don’t support Senator Graham’s bill. A Republican ban is as reckless and tone deaf as is Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer’s hostility to” compromise— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) September 13, 2022
      Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell may have downplayed the idea of a national abortion ban today, but don’t be surprised if he one day changes his mind.Consider his comments to USA Today in May, after a draft opinion leaked showing the supreme court was poised to overturn Roe v Wade, but before they officially did so later the following month.“If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies – not only at the state level, but at the federal level – certainly could legislate in that area,” the Kentucky lawmaker said. “And if this were the final decision, that was the point that it should be resolved one way or another in the legislative process. So yeah, it’s possible. It would depend on where the votes were.”That means Graham’s proposal, or one like it, could be put up for a vote if Republicans reclaim control of the Senate – which they’ll have a chance of doing in the November midterms.However, Democrats could use the filibuster to block any such legislation, and even the GOP’s most optimistic forecasts don’t have the party winning the 60 seats needed to overcome that. In the USA Today interview, McConnell also made clear he was not in favor of changing the chamber’s rules to make legislation easier to pass. “No carve out of the filibuster – period. For any subject,” he said.Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to make the most of Graham’s abortion ban proposal as they make their case to maintain control of Congress.Here’s top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer at a press conference today:Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) slams Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) proposed 15-week abortion ban:”What Senator Graham is introducing is a MAGA Republican nationwide abortion ban. If it walks like a nationwide abortion ban and talks like a nationwide abortion ban…” pic.twitter.com/CofXO5SUB4— The Recount (@therecount) September 13, 2022
      So much for that. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell has poured cold water on the party making any concerted effort to get a vote on Lindsey Graham’s proposed 15-week abortion ban.Here’s what CNN reports that McConnell, who would become Senate majority leader if the GOP wins a majority in the upper chamber in the midterm elections, had to say about the idea:McConnell on Graham’s bill: “you’ll have to ask him about it.” Says most Republicans want to leave it to the states— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) September 13, 2022
      A more immediate obstacle for Graham is the Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, which are sure to oppose his bill.Politico has more on the cool reception Lindsey Graham’s abortion ban has received in the Senate, particularly among his fellow Republicans.“That wasn’t a conference decision. It was an individual senator’s decision,” Texas’s Republican senator John Cornyn said in the piece, echoing the sentiment of several lawmakers from Republican-dominated states that are moving to restrict abortion, but wary of pursuing such bans nationwide.“My state, today, is working on this. I’m not sure what he’s thinking here. But I don’t think there will be a rallying around that concept,” Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican senator from West Virginia, said.Elsewhere, Democrats have seized on the proposal to attack Republicans. The Democratic Party of Virginia put out a statement accusing Jen Kiggans, a state senator vying for a US House seat against Democratic incumbent Elaine Luria, of changing her stance on abortion rights.“The reason why Jen Kiggans is trying to walk back her stance on abortion is that she knows her extreme anti-abortion agenda is out of touch with Coastal Virginians and will cost her the election,” the Democrats wrote.The full text of the 15-week abortion ban proposed by Republican senator Lindsey Graham can be read here, and contains an important detail about exactly what would be outlawed.“The term ‘perform’, with respect to an abortion, includes inducing an abortion through a medical or chemical intervention, including writing a prescription for a drug or device intended to result in an abortion,” according to the text of the bill.That likely means it would outlaw abortion pills that are seen as one of the best options for women to receive care in states where the procedure has been outlawed or restricted.Mail-order abortion pills become next US reproductive rights battlegroundRead moreThe Republican proposal to ban abortion after 15 weeks is only hours old, but it’s already become an issue on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania.According to Insider, John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee to represent the state in the Senate, has used the proposal to attack his Republican opponent, Mehmet Oz.Fetterman already using the Graham bill against Oz pic.twitter.com/gBkSslVOI4— bryan metzger (@metzgov) September 13, 2022
      Republican senator Lindsey Graham has proposed legislation to ban abortions nationally after 15 weeks, in what is likely the start of a campaign to seek federal restrictions on the procedure after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade in June. Meanwhile, new inflation data showed prices continuing to rise – albeit at a slower rate – across the economy, dampening hopes that the wave of cost increases had faded for good.Here’s what else happened today so far:
      Criminal referrals from the January 6 committee to the justice department are “likely”, a lawmaker on the panel said. More public hearings by the committee are also expected to be announced soon.
      Democrat and Republican lawmakers love trading stocks, according to an analysis from The New York Times that will likely add pressure on party leaders to ban congress members from owning or trading securities.
      A jury in Connecticut is considering how much to order conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay relatives of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre for spreading lies that the killings were a hoax.
      Further cracks have appeared in Graham’s insistence that his proposed 15-week abortion ban has wide political support.CNN reports that not all Senate Republicans are onboard with the measure:Senate GOP not on same page on Graham’s 15-week abortion. Thune supports it. Rick Scott said he’d “look at it.” Cornyn and Ron Johnson said it should be left to the states. Asked if he backs Graham bill, Johnson said it should be decided by “we the people” in the 50 states.— Manu Raju (@mkraju) September 13, 2022
      “I think there will be a couple of Democrats who will be with us, maybe, hope, pray,” Republican senator Lindsey Graham replied when asked about whether his proposed nationwide abortion ban after 15 weeks will win enough votes to pass the closely divided Congress. “I think the public’s with us,” he added.It’s unclear whether any Democratic votes would materialize for the proposal, but that party controls the House and Senate, and it’s unlikely they’ll even let the measure come up for a vote as long as that’s the case.As for public support for Graham’s proposal, a recent poll doesn’t bear that out. Earlier this month, a poll by The Wall Street Journal found 57% of respondents opposed an abortion ban at 15 weeks with exceptions for the health of a mother – exactly the kind of measure Graham proposed.In fact, the survey found voter support for abortion increasing overall since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade in June. While in March, 55% of voters said the procedure should be legal in all or most cases, that had risen to 60% in the phone survey conducted in mid-August.Top Democrats have decried a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks proposed today by Republican senator Lindsey Graham.“Today, Senator Graham introduced a national ban on abortion which would strip away women’s rights in all 50 states. This bill is wildly out of step with what Americans believe,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.“While President Biden and Vice President Harris are focused on the historic passage of the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, health care, and energy – and to take unprecedented action to address climate change – Republicans in Congress are focused on taking rights away from millions of women,” Jean-Pierre continued, adding that the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress “are committed to restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade.”Democratic house speaker Nancy Pelosi joined in, saying, “The nationwide abortion ban proposal put forth today is the latest, clearest signal of extreme MAGA Republicans’ intent to criminalize women’s health freedom in all 50 states and arrest doctors for providing basic care. Make no mistake: if Republicans get the chance, they will work to pass laws even more draconian than this bill – just like the bans they have enacted in states like Texas, Mississippi and Oklahoma.”Senator Lindsey Graham has unveiled his proposed nationwide abortion ban, which would outlaw the procedure after 15 weeks, with certain exceptions.“I think we should have a law on the books that says after 15 weeks, no abortion on demand except in cases of rape, incest, to save the life of the mother, and that should be where America’s at,” Graham said as he unveiled the legislation in the Capitol.Graham said the proposal, dubbed the “Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act”, would match similar laws in European countries. He said the 15-week threshold is when fetuses will feel pain, however that doesn’t quite match the science. Many scientists say fetuses can’t feel pain before 24 weeks, although the subject is complicated and continuing to be researched.Graham acknowledged the political realities of his proposal. “If the Democrats are in charge, I don’t know if we’ll ever have a vote on our bill.”As The Guardian has reported previously, late-term abortions are very rare in the United States.The truth about late-term abortions in the US: they’re very rareRead moreRepublican senator Lindsey Graham will soon introduce his legislation to ban abortions nationally. While it has no chance in the Senate as long as Democrats are in control, it will likely attract considerable support from Republican lawmakers, and could mark the start of the party’s effort to restrict the procedure nationwide thanks to the supreme court ruling overturning Roe v Wade.The Washington Post reports that Graham has said the ban will apply after 15 weeks of pregnancy – five weeks less than in previous versions of the legislation the South Carolina lawmaker has introduced:Breaking: Graham just told Fox News that his “late-term abortion act” is indeed a 15-week ban.This is pretty extraordinary language to be using for 15 weeks. When antiabortion groups use “late term abortions” (not a medical phrase), it’s usually understood to mean 21-24 weeks +— Caroline Kitchener (@CAKitchener) September 13, 2022
      You can watch the senator’s press conference here.A Connecticut jury began hearing arguments Tuesday in a trial to decide how much money conspiracy theorist and right-winger Alex Jones should pay relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy, for spreading a lie that the massacre was a hoax, The Associated Press reports.A settlement was ordered at trial against Jones last month in a civil case in Texas brought by parents of a child killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting with the current case in Connecticut pending.Critics have said many things of Jones and his platform Infowars, among them the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate and extremist groups in the US, whose spokesman said in August: “He has probably done more to further the cause of hate in this country than almost anyone outside of Donald Trump himself.”The AP writes today of this trial in Waterbury, Connecticut, not far from Sandy Hook:More than a dozen family members, including parents of some victims, filed into the courtroom to listen to the opening statements and first day of evidence.A jury of three men and three women along with several alternates will decide how much the conspiracy theorist should pay relatives of eight victims and an FBI agent who responded to the school.Judge Barbara Bellis found Jones liable without a trial last year after he failed to turn over documents to the families’ lawyers.On Tuesday, she sanctioned Jones for failing to turn over analytic data related to his website and the popularity of his show.She told his lawyers that because of that failure, they will not be allowed to argue he didn’t profit from his Sandy Hook remarks.Jones did not attend the opening of the trial Tuesday.He said on his show Monday that he would be traveling to Connecticut next week.The trial is expected to last about a month and feature testimony from both Jones and the families.More of the Guardian piece that contains that SPLC quote, above, here.‘He has done more to further the cause of hate in the US than almost anyone’: the rise and fall of Alex JonesRead more More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump lawyers urge judge to block DoJ’s bid to access Mar-a-Lago documents

      by

      Trump lawyers urge judge to block DoJ’s bid to access Mar-a-Lago documentsEx-president’s team reiterates request for special master to review seized materials and asks judge to uphold earlier order Lawyers for Donald Trump asked a federal judge on Monday to deny the justice department’s request to regain access to some documents the FBI seized from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort and restart the criminal investigation into his unauthorized retention of government documents.The response from the Trump legal team reiterated that it wanted a so-called special master to review all of the seized materials, asking the judge to uphold her earlier order barring prosecutors from using the documents in a criminal investigation until the process was complete.But in the 21-page filing, Trump’s lawyers interpreted the Presidential Records Act in sometimes unusual ways, and accused the justice department of criminalizing what they considered a dispute between Trump and the National Archives about how documents should be handled.“In what at its core is a document storage dispute that has spiraled out of control,” the response from the Trump legal team said, “the government wrongfully seeks to criminalize the possession by the 45th president of his own presidential and personal records.”The fight over the documents Trump took to his Florida resort has become a protracted and increasingly tangled fight. But at its heart is the treatment of secret government files, some of which have been reported to be highly sensitive, even involving nuclear secrets.Democrats and others have argued that Trump has behaved outrageously in relation to the documents and that the case should end with a prosecution. Trump and his defenders have played down the affair, characterizing it as either politically motivated or blown out of proportion.Trump’s lawyers appeared to principally advance the argument that the justice department’s request last week to US district judge Aileen Cannon to regain access to about 100 documents marked classified should not be granted, because Trump may have secretly declassified those documents.The justice department had asked in its request that prosecutors be allowed to resume working with the 100 documents as documents marked classified could never be personal or presidential records, and Trump therefore had no “possessory interest” – the key legal standard – in the materials.It also complained that the documents marked classified needed to be reviewed by the FBI, a division of the justice department, in the risk assessment being conducted by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which has been halted because officials were unsure about the scope of Cannon’s order.The FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago about 11,000 documents and 48 empty folders marked classified. The risk assessment into the empty folders, for instance, was to be completed by the FBI – but Cannon’s order threw that review into limbo, the justice department said.But in the new filing, Trump’s lawyers – without explicitly stating so – suggested that the special master needed to examine those 100 documents for potential privilege protections before prosecutors or the FBI could look at them, because Trump may have declassified them.The question about whether the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago marked classified – even after Trump’s lawyers represented to the government it had complied with a subpoena demanding any documents marked classified – were actually declassified has become a central issue in the case.For weeks, Trump and his allies have claimed the documents marked classified stored at Mar-a-Lago were declassified subject to a “standing declassification order” – though his lawyers have never actually said this in court filings, which require statements to be wholly truthful.The latest filing from the Trump legal team, as with previous court submissions, once more danced around whether Trump actually declassified the materials without cutting either way, and left unclear whether he had actually designated some of the seized materials personal records.Trump’s lawyers in essence appeared to be making the sort of arguments criminal defense attorneys might make in a motion to suppress after a client has been indicted, rather than in a typical fourth amendment claim pre-indictment, former US attorney suggested.The Trump legal team in the filing offered a particularly unusual reading of the Presidential Records Act, on which the entire legal argument is based, claiming the provision that says the National Archives “shall” become the custodian of presidential records, did not mean that it “must”.TopicsUS newsDonald TrumpUS politicsFBInewsReuse this content More