US national security

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Bedminster golf club tape casts doubt on Trump account of Iran document

      by

      Donald Trump repeatedly talked about a document on Iran that he described as having come from the “defense department” in an audio recording from July 2021 that cast doubt on his recent assertions that the material he was referring to was a stack of printed news clippings.The actual audio of the recording, played publicly for the first time by CNN and obtained by the Guardian, reveals the full extent of Trump’s discussion that was only partially included in the indictment and could make for a compelling presentation if deemed admissible at trial.The tape also included passages where Trump acknowledged that he could not declassify materials because he was no longer president.The tape was made at his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey the summer after Trump left office, during a meeting with a publisher and a writer working on a memoir by Trump’s final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to people familiar with the matter.The discussion captured by the tape involved Trump trying to rebut reporting that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Mark Milley, feared he might attack Iran. Trump was claiming that the situation was reversed, and told participants to “look” at what he was holding.“He said I wanted to attack Iran,” Trump said on the tape, seemingly referring to Milley. “Isn’t it amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look – this was him. This is off the record but they presented me this, this was him. This was the defense department and him.“This was him. All sorts of stuff. Pages long. Let’s see here,” Trump said, appearing to shuffle papers. “Isn’t that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is highly confidential, this is secret information.”Trump added: “This was done by the military, given to me. I think we can, probably – see as president, I could have declassified. Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret” – to which a staffer responds, laughing: “Now we have a problem.” Trump then called for someone to bring out Coca-Cola drinks.Notably, the manner in which Trump referred to the Iran document at the time appears to be at odds with how he described the material in a Fox News interview conducted last week, after he was charged in the classified documents case.In the interview, Trump suggested that he was not trying to show off any “secret” or “highly confidential” documents, but he was instead referring to clippings of news articles about Milley and military plans for Iran.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“There was no document,” Trump said. “That was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or it may not, but that was not a document. I didn’t have a document per se. There was nothing to declassify. These were newspaper stories, magazine stories and articles.”A Trump spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment.Whether the audio recording is deemed to be admissible at trial remains uncertain, and federal prosecutors did not charge Trump with retaining an Iran document, an indication that they did not conclusively identify the material Trump discussed despite months of investigation.The admissible evidence would be limited to materials that help establish Trump’s possession of the documents was unauthorized, and that Trump retained the documents with the knowledge that doing so was illegal. More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Ellsberg and Trump both took classified documents. Their reasons couldn’t be more different | Rebecca Solnit

      by

      On Friday, a man who leaked classified national security documents to the press died at the age of 92 at his home in the San Francisco Bay Area. On Tuesday, a man who took classified documents to his Miami home that was also a resort frequented by a wide array of characters, refused to surrender them, and unleashed a flock of lies about the whole business, was arraigned on 37 felony charges.We know that Daniel Ellsberg leaked documents in the hopes of stopping a war, preventing deaths, and exposing a government that had through five presidencies lied about that war in Vietnam to justify and perpetuate it. We don’t know exactly why Donald J Trump absconded from the White House with top secret material. But there are no good explanations for those boxes stacked on the stage, in the bathroom and spilling on to the floor of a storeroom, and dragged back to another insecure location at Trump’s country club in New Jersey, or for his refusal to surrender the material when the government demanded it.The reasons to protect national security are pretty much built into the term itself. The reasons to violate national security vary widely. Whistleblowers such as Ellsberg are often high-profile figures acting on principle, not as enemies of the regime but as opponents of policies and as champions of justice or the right of the public to know. They seek to hold government accountable, often out of a patriotic loyalty trying to make the government what it should be.Ellsberg was a strong defender of Edward Snowden, who in 2013 exposed the US government’s post-9/11 violation of privacy laws to spy on US citizens. Snowden was akin to Ellsberg as an insider, an expert and a man who made a careful and considered decision about both what to leak and how. There has, of course, also been a steady trickle of spies on all sides who sold intelligence to foreign nations for money or occasionally because they were seduced by an agent of a foreign regime.Donald Trump was never a spy so far as we know, but he was a sieve when it came to state secrets and a beneficiary of leaks that seemed intended to serve exactly that purpose. In June and October of 2016, Wikileaks dumped information hacked from Democrats with the apparent intent of aiding Trump’s election. In 2020, a lawyer for the Wikileaks head, Julian Assange, told a British court: “US President Donald Trump offered to pardon WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange if he said that Russia had nothing to do with WikiLeaks’ publication of Democratic party emails in 2016.” In May of 2017, Trump spilled high-level intelligence to the Russian foreign secretary and ambassador; in the memorable picture of the meeting he looks baffled, and they look like the cats that just ate the canary.Ellsberg, who at the time of his momentous act was himself in the business of national security and held a high-security clearance, handed over the Pentagon Papers to newspapers who themselves took huge risks to publish them. As the New York Times summarized it, the documents Ellsberg and his close allies so painstakingly and surreptitiously photocopied, were “7,000 government pages of damning revelations about deceptions by successive presidents who exceeded their authority, bypassed Congress and misled the American people” in order to fight an unwinnable war against a remote and impoverished country that posed no military threat to the US.In an email in which he disclosed that he had only months to live Ellsberg reiterated: “When I copied the Pentagon Papers in 1969, I had every reason to think I would be spending the rest of my life behind bars. It was a fate I would gladly have accepted if it meant hastening the end of the Vietnam war, unlikely as that seemed.” Later in life he admitted that his action didn’t end the war, but it helped end the Nixon presidency, making an end to the war possible. He infuriated and terrified Richard Nixon, who used illegal methods to try to undermine Ellsberg. Those acts by a sitting president instead undermined the case against Ellsberg, whose criminal charges were dismissed.Ellsberg devoted the rest of his long life to speaking up about the dangers of nuclear weapons and war, human rights, the overreaches of the federal government, and further wars including George W Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was a beloved figure in the San Francisco Bay Area, often seen at anti-nuclear demonstrations, arrested dozens of times in protest.Ellsberg’s death and Trump’s indictment, so close together this week, remind us that national security is regularly violated, sometimes by idealists committed to the public good, sometimes by opportunists serving themselves. Ellsberg’s life is also remarkable as an example of someone who changed his mind, his life and his values – he was a cog in the machinery of war, and then he risked his future to stand against that war and the government perpetrating it.A great truth teller has left us. A liar whose mendacity has no equal remains for us to deal with.
      Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. Her most recent books are Recollections of My Nonexistence and Orwell’s Roses More

    • 38 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Daniel Ellsberg obituary

      by

      Daniel Ellsberg, who has died aged 92, was the most important whistleblower of our times. His 1971 leaking of what became known as the Pentagon Papers showed conclusively that virtually everything the American public had been told by its leaders about the Vietnam war, from its origins to its current conduct, was false.The leak itself did not end the war, and Ellsberg regretted not having come forward years earlier. He spent the rest of his life as a peace activist, encouraging others on the inside to reveal government malfeasance, and supporting those who did, including the 2003 GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun. But his leaks did result in a landmark decision in favour of freedom of the press, and, ironically, led to the downfall of the US president Richard Nixon. It is not unreasonable to set Ellsberg’s leak alongside President John F Kennedy’s assassination as the ground zero of today’s distrust of politics.Before working on the Pentagon Papers, officially a study titled A History of Decision-Making in Vietnam 1945-68 commissioned from the Rand Corporation research organisation by the secretary of defense Robert McNamara, Ellsberg had spent two years at the US embassy in Saigon, advising on General Edward Lansdale’s “pacification” programme. As he sifted through the material gathered for the report, including evaluations which deemed the war unwinnable, he realised the enormity of the political fraud.He began copying the documents, with the help of a former Rand colleague Anthony Russo, and in 1971, as the US extended the war with bombings of Laos and Cambodia, resolved to make them public. The chair of the senate foreign relations committee, William Fulbright, turned him down, as did the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee and owner Katharine Graham; Graham was close to the secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who had known Ellsberg at Harvard; he advised her Ellsberg was “unbalanced and emotionally unstable”. Matthew Rhys played Ellsberg in the 2017 film The Post which loosely covers those events.Neil Sheehan of the New York Times was a reporter Ellsberg admired in Vietnam; Sheehan convinced the Times to take the papers, the first instalment of which revealed that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the casus belli which launched full-scale US participation in the conflict, had been bogus.The Nixon administration obtained an injunction prohibiting further publication; the supreme court’s overturning of that injunction, dismissing the idea of “prior restraint”, remains a cornerstone of US journalistic freedom. But leakers themselves were not protected. Ellsberg was hidden by anti-war activists while Mike Gravel, the US senator from Alaska, entered most of the leaked papers into the congressional record, and the Post played catch-up.Meanwhile Nixon, furious at the leaks, created the so-called “plumbers” covert special investigation unit, to discover if Ellsberg had further material that might affect him directly, and to discredit him. When the plumbers’ bungled break-in at the Watergate offices revealed an earlier burglary of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office, the ensuing chain of scandal and cover-up eventually forced Nixon’s resignation to avoid impeachment.Ellsberg grew up the very definition of a true believer in America. Both his father, Harry, a structural engineer, and mother, Adele (nee Charsky), were the children of Russian Jewish immigrants, but had converted to Christian Science. When Daniel, born in Chicago, was six, his father found work in Detroit, building Ford’s massive Willow Run factory.Daniel won a scholarship to the elite Cranbrook school in the Detroit suburbs; a talented pianist, he practised for four to six hours a day to fulfil his mother’s dream. But in 1946, rushing to Denver for a family gathering, his father fell asleep while driving and rammed into a bridge. His mother and younger sister, Gloria, both died; Daniel recovered from his severe injuries, but ceased playing the piano.He won a scholarship to Harvard, where he studied economics, edited the college paper, and finished third in his class. Upon graduation he married a Radcliffe student, Carol Cummings, whose father was a colonel in the Marine Corps, and took up a Wilson fellowship for a year’s study at King’s College, Cambridge. In 1954, accepted as a Harvard junior fellow to pursue his doctorate, he instead joined the Marines, becoming a rare first lieutenant given command of a full company.He returned to Harvard in 1957. His dissertation, Risk, Ambiguity and Decision, contained what is now known as the Ellsberg paradox, which delineated how the preference for well-defined probabilities, over the uncertainty of ambiguity, influences decision-making, especially as it reinforces preconceived ideas. It became an important part of game theory, and Ellsberg went to work for Rand on the Department of Defense’s Command and Control research, much of which was devoted to spitballing Fail Safe/Dr Strangelove scenarios, as detailed in his 2017 book The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.In 1964 he went to the Department of Defense, as special assistant for international security to McNamara’s number two, John McNaughton, before moving to the State Department and Vietnam. In 1967 he rejoined Rand to work on McNamara’s project, but was increasingly tormented by Kissinger and Nixon’s Vietnam policy; they believed that if the US opened relations with China and entered into a detente with Russia, those countries would pressure North Vietnam to come to the table while the US bombed incessantly.Ellsberg began joining anti-war campaigners, including the poet Gary Snyder, and was inspired by Randy Kehler, a draft-resister who spoke of welcoming imprisonment for his belief. Ellsberg left Washington for MIT’s Centre for International Studies a year before leaking the papers. His first marriage had ended in divorce; in 1970 he married Patricia Marx, a peace activist.In June 1971, he surrendered himself to the US attorney in Boston; asked on the courthouse steps how he felt about going to prison, Ellsberg replied: “Wouldn’t you go to prison to end this war?” He became the first civilian charged with violating the 1917 Espionage Act, and faced a maximum sentence of 115 years. The District Court judge William Byrne ruled irrelevant his public-interest defence, that the documents were “illegally classified”, and so it has been for every whistleblower since. But Byrne eventually dismissed the case because of government malfeasance, including the plumbers’ break-ins, as well as Nixon’s wiretapping of Kissinger’s aide Morton Halperin, and John Ehrlichman’s offering Byrne the directorship of the FBI.In 1974, Ellsberg’s moving interviews were a major part of the Oscar-winning Vietnam documentary Hearts and Minds. In 1978 he was awarded the Gandhi prize by Promoting Enduring Peace. In the next 40 years he was arrested around 50 times at anti-war protests. He likened the weapons of mass destruction excuse for invading Iraq in 2003 to the Gulf of Tonkin affair, and over the years supported leakers who revealed government deceptions, including Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner, who was sentenced to five years in prison for leaking a single page from an in-house National Security Agency magazine showing the NSA had concluded Russia interfered in US elections, while the government was maintaining they had not.He recognised a practical corollary to the Ellsberg paradox: the more secrets you are able to access, the less able you become to act sensibly with them. In 2021, Ellsberg released government memos from 1958, showing that the joint chiefs of staff had prepared a nuclear first-strike against Chinese bases on Quemoy and Matsu during the Taiwan Strait crisis, with a full nuclear attack planned on China should they respond. His point was that little had changed since the Pentagon Papers.Ellsberg was played by James Spader in the 2003 film The Pentagon Papers, and was the subject of a 2009 documentary, The Most Dangerous Man in America. His memoir, Secrets, appeared in 2003 and in 2021 Risk Ambiguity and Decision was updated as a book, once again challenging the concept of rational decision.Ellsberg is survived by his wife and their son, Michael, and his son, Robert, and daughter, Mary, from his first marriage. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower, dies aged 92

      by

      Daniel Ellsberg, a US government analyst who became one of the most famous whistleblowers in world politics when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, exposing US government knowledge of the futility of the Vietnam war, has died. He was 92. His death was confirmed by his family on Friday.In March, Ellsberg announced that he had inoperable pancreatic cancer. Saying he had been given three to six months to live, he said he had chosen not to undergo chemotherapy and had been assured of hospice care.“I am not in any physical pain,” he wrote, adding: “My cardiologist has given me license to abandon my salt-free diet of the last six years. This has improved my life dramatically: the pleasure of eating my favourite foods!”On Friday, the family said Ellsberg “was not in pain” when he died. He spent his final months eating “hot chocolate, croissants, cake, poppyseed bagels and lox” and enjoying “several viewings of his all-time favourite [movie], Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”, the family statement added.“In his final days, surrounded by so much love from so many people, Daniel joked, ‘If I had known dying would be like this, I would have done it sooner …’“Thank you, everyone, for your outpouring of love, appreciation and well-wishes. It all warmed his heart at the end of his life.”Tributes were swift and many.Alan Rusbridger, the former editor-in-chief of the Guardian, said Ellsberg “was widely, and rightly, acclaimed as a great and significant figure. But not by Richard Nixon, who wanted him locked up. He’s why the national interest should never be confused with the interest of whoever’s in power.”The Pulitzer-winning journalist Wesley Lowery wrote: “It was an honor knowing Daniel … I’ll remain inspired by his commitment to a mission bigger than himself.”The writer and political commentator Molly Jong-Fast said: “One of the few really brave people on this earth has left it.”The MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan said: “Huge loss for this country. An inspiring, brave, and patriotic American. Rest in power, Dan, rest in power.”The Pentagon Papers covered US policy in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967 and showed that successive administrations were aware the US could not win.By the end of the war in 1975, more than 58,000 Americans were dead and 304,000 were wounded. Nearly 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers were killed, as were about 1 million North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong guerillas and more than 2 million civilians in North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.The Pentagon Papers caused a sensation in 1971, when they were published – first by the New York Times and then by the Washington Post and other papers – after the supreme court overruled the Nixon administration on whether publication threatened national security.In 2017, the story was retold in The Post, an Oscar-nominated film directed by Steven Spielberg in which Ellsberg was played by the British actor Matthew Rhys.Ellsberg served in the US Marine Corps in the 1950s but went to Vietnam in the mid-60s as a civilian analyst for the defense department, conducting a study of counter-insurgency tactics. When he leaked the Pentagon Papers, he was working for the Rand Corporation.In 2021, a half-century after he blew the whistle, he told the Guardian: “By two years in Vietnam, I was reporting very strongly that there was no prospect of progress of any kind so the war should not be continued. And that came to be the majority view of the American people before the Pentagon Papers came out.“By ’68 with the Tet offensive, by ’69, most Americans already thought it was immoral to continue but that had no effect on Nixon. He thought he was going to try to win it and they would be happy once he’d won it, however long it took.”In 1973, Ellsberg was put on trial. Charges of espionage, conspiracy and stealing government property adding up to a possible 115-year sentence were dismissed due to gross governmental misconduct, including a break-in at the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, part of the gathering scandal which led to Nixon’s resignation in 1974.Born in Chicago on 7 April 1931, Ellsberg was educated at Harvard and Cambridge, completing his PhD after serving as a marine. He was married twice and had two sons and a daughter.After the end of the Vietnam war he became by his own description “a lecturer, scholar, writer and activist on the dangers of the nuclear era, wrongful US interventions and the urgent need for patriotic whistleblowing”.Ellsberg contributed to publications including the Guardian and published four books, among them an autobiography, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, and most recently The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.In recent years, he publicly supported Chelsea Manning, the US soldier who leaked records of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, who published Manning’s leaks, and Edward Snowden, who leaked records concerning surveillance by the National Security Agency.On Friday, the journalist Glenn Greenwald, one of the Guardian team which published the Snowden leaks in 2013, winning a Pulitzer prize, called Ellsberg “a true American hero” and “the most vocal defender” of Assange, Snowden, Manning and “others who followed in his brave footsteps”.Steven Donziger, an attorney who represented Indigenous people in the Amazon rainforest against the oil giant Chevron, a case that led to his own house arrest, said: “Today the world lost a singularly brave voice who spoke truth about the US military machine in Vietnam and risked his life in the process. I drew deep inspiration from the courage of Daniel Ellsberg and was deeply honored to have his support.”In 2018, in a joint Guardian interview with Snowden, Ellsberg paid tribute to those who refused to be drafted to fight in Vietnam.“I would not have thought of doing what I did,” he said, “which I knew would risk prison for life, without the public example of young Americans going to prison to make a strong statement that the Vietnam war was wrong and they would not participate, even at the cost of their own freedom.“Without them, there would have been no Pentagon Papers. Courage is contagious.”Three years later, in an interview to mark 50 years since the publication of the Pentagon Papers, he said he “never regretted for a moment” his decision to leak.His one regret, he said, was “that I didn’t release those documents much earlier when I think they would have been much more effective.“I’ve often said to whistleblowers, ‘Don’t do what I did, don’t wait years till the bombs are falling and people have been dying.’” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Will this latest Trump indictment embolden the Maga base? – podcast

      by

      On Tuesday, Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to all 37 counts related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents, becoming the first former US president to face federal criminal charges.
      This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to a former Department of Justice prosecutor, Ankush Khardori, about the potential for further political violence in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election as Trump spouts baseless claims against Joe Biden

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      White House pushes for renewal of electronic surveillance law provision

      by

      The White House is stepping up pressure on lawmakers to renew a section of electronic surveillance law which permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the US.The provision, known as section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa), is set to expire at the end of the year. But its renewal is facing pushback from privacy advocates and lawmakers, some citing examples in which law enforcement search requests were misused to conduct illegal surveillance on US citizens.On Monday, Joe Biden’s administration circulated examples showing the US had used electronic surveillance under section 702 to catch fentanyl smugglers as well as the ransomware hackers who temporarily shut down the Colonial Pipeline Company in a 2021 cyber-attack that led to gas shortages along the eastern seaboard.The public campaign to build support for the provision comes as a poll released last week showed that the public is growing more skeptical of the need to sacrifice civil liberties for security.The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released last week found that 28% of adults support the government listening to phone calls and emails made outside the US without a warrant while 44% oppose the practice.More broadly, 48% of Americans said they believe it is necessary to sacrifice their rights and freedoms to prevent terrorism, down from 54% in 2021 and nearly two-thirds in 2011, a decade after the 9/11 attacks.The decline in support for foreign surveillance was notably sharp among Republicans, with just 44% saying that it is sometimes necessary compared with 69% in 2011. Among Democrats, support remained relatively constant, dropping to 55% from 59% in 2011.Republican opposition to the renewal of section 702 in some cases has responded to the failure of the FBI to clearly identify the Steele dossier – also known as the Trump–Russia dossier – as a political opposition research report without merit.Ahead of a Senate hearing into the issue on Tuesday, South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham – the top Republican on the judiciary committee – said the FBI’s mistakes had damaged its reputation with Congress and the public. Nonetheless, Graham insisted that section 702 should be reauthorized.“What I’m trying to tell my constituents back home [is] the threats to the country are growing – they’re not lessening,” Graham said. “Bottom line is: let’s reauthorize this program and build in some safeguards.”Illinois’s Democratic US senator Dick Durbin, the panel’s chairman, said he’d need to “see more” of the FBI’s current reforms to support the provision’s renewal.But civil liberties groups have come out strongly against reauthorization, which is required every five years.“Although purportedly targeted at foreigners, section 702 has become a rich source of warrantless government access to Americans’ phone calls, texts, and emails,” the Brennan Center for Justice, one of 21 civil liberties groups, said in a letter on Monday opposing the renewal of section 702.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe groups said they opposed the reauthorization of the surveillance provisions the government “is using to gain warrantless access to Americans’ communications, without significant and wide-ranging surveillance reforms”.In 2022 alone, the groups said, “the FBI conducted more than 200,000 warrantless searches of section 702 communications to find Americans’ information” and that, in turn, had converted section 702 “into something Congress never intended: a domestic spying tool”.On Monday, Biden administration officials said they opposed proposals to require the FBI to get a warrant every time it searches for an American’s information.“We must not forget the lessons of 9/11,” said Matthew Olsen, the assistant attorney general for national security. “Unduly limiting the FBI’s ability to access lawfully collected information and imposing artificial barriers between foreign intelligence and criminal investigations will set us back decades. It will put our nation at grave risk.”In its effort to turn around opinion, the White House offered examples of when the provision had been used effectively, including learning of Beijing’s efforts to track and repatriate Chinese dissidents and to warn an American who was the target of foreign spies seeking information about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.The FBI said it has instituted better training and new rules that have sharply reduced the number of searches for American citizens after agents were found to have wrongly run queries for the names of a congressman on the House intelligence committee, people linked to the January 6 Capitol attack and participants in the 2020 protests after a Minneapolis police officer’s murder of George Floyd.The bureau said it would now immediately suspend any employee’s access to section 702 databases for any incident involving “negligence”. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      What’s going to happen when Donald Trump shows up for his arraignment?

      by

      Donald Trump will make his first court appearance on Tuesday after being charged with 37 criminal counts related to his handling of classified documents after leaving the presidency. He is set to appear at 3pm at the federal courthouse in Miami.It will be Trump’s second arraignment this year. In April, he was arraigned in Manhattan on separate criminal charges related to his hush money payments to the adult film star Stormy Daniels.What is an arraignment and how is it different from an indictment?The document when someone is charged with a crime is called an indictment – the indictment involving Trump was unsealed on Friday. An arraignment is a defendant’s first appearance in front of a judge in a criminal case.The defendant is formally notified of the charges against them and enters a plea. The judge who oversees the arraignment considers whether to grant bail and allow the defendant to be released pending trial. The judge who oversees the arraignment may not be the same judge who oversees the rest of the case.What is going to happen when Trump shows up in court?Trump’s initial appearance is likely to be brief. He will be formally presented with the 37 criminal charges against him and informed of the penalties, and then he can enter a plea. Trump will almost certainly plead not guilty.Defendants can choose to have the indictment read to them in open court, but many choose to waive that in order to get the hearing over quickly, said Barbara McQuade, who served as the US attorney for the eastern district of Michigan from 2010 to 2017.The judge can also set bail and decide to detain a defendant in custody while trial is pending.“The judge will consider the bail issue, but I would be stunned if Trump were held pending trial. A more likely scenario is that Trump will be ordered to surrender his passport and promise to pay some sum of money if he fails to appear,” McQuade said in an email.“The court may consider as a condition of bond some sort of gag order prohibiting Trump from discussing the case, the prosecutor or the judge, but that can be tricky in light of first amendment concerns because Trump is running for president,” she added.Defendants in federal cases are often fingerprinted and have their mugshot taken, McQuade said. But when Trump was arraigned on state charges in New York earlier this year, authorities did not take a mugshot. McQuade said she expected Trump to be fingerprinted. But neither a mugshot nor handcuffs were likely, she said, because people already know what Trump looks like and the former president already has Secret Service protection.Who is the judge overseeing the hearing?Magistrate judge Jonathan Goodman is scheduled to be the judge on duty at the federal courthouse in Miami when Trump appears. He will reportedly oversee the initial appearance, the Miami Herald and NBC News reported on Monday. Magistrate judges handle initial appearances and assist federal judges with other matters.Goodman is a former newspaper reporter and civil litigator who has been a magistrate judge since 2010, according to the Miami Herald. He is well-respected and known for his dry humor, the paper reported.While Goodman will handle Trump’s initial appearance, the overall case will be overseen by US district judge Aileen Cannon, whom Trump appointed to the federal bench in 2020. At an earlier stage in the case, Cannon issued a series of rulings in favor of Trump and was later rebuked by an appeals court. Those rulings have prompted concerns that Cannon will favor Trump as she oversees the case.Will the appearance be televised?No. Federal courts do not allow cameras or recordings in the courtroom.Goodman denied a request evening from a coalition of news organizations that filed a request on Monday to allow for limited recording in the courtroom or the hallways leading to the courtroom. They also requested that the court release same-day audio of the proceedings. “Allowing photographs would undermine the massive security arrangements put in place,” Goodman wrote in an order on Monday evening. He said that he expected an expedited transcript of the proceedings to be available on Tuesday.Cecilia Altonga, the chief district judge for the southern district of Florida, also entered an order on Monday barring reporters from bringing any electronics into the courthouse building.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWill Trump be placed in jail before or after the hearing?No. Trump does not pose the kind of flight risk that would require detaining him.Why is the case being heard in Miami?Because Trump kept the classified documents at issue at his home in Mar-a-Lago, the special counsel, Jack Smith, chose to file charges in the southern district of Florida, the federal jurisdiction where Mar-a-Lago is located. That decision was deliberate and is somewhat of a risk. Smith could have tried to file the charges in Washington DC, where a federal grand jury had been investigating the matter, but it would have probably prompted a legal battle over the proper venue for the case. By filing in Florida, Smith took that issue off the table.But filing the case in Florida also brings its own risks. Most notably, the case will be overseen by Cannon, who has issued rulings favorable to Trump in the past. A jury in Miami may also be more conservative and Trump-friendly than a jury in Washington.Who are Trump’s lawyers?It’s not entirely clear who will make up Trump’s legal team. Two of his attorneys abruptly resigned last week after he was indicted.Trump will appear on Tuesday with Todd Blanche, a defense lawyer also representing him in the Manhattan case, and Boris Epshteyn, another lawyer and controversial top aide who has drawn attention from federal prosecutors himself. He may also appear with Chris Kise, a former solicitor general of Florida who has represented Trump in the documents case. Trump was still interviewing local lawyers on Monday to help represent him.What is Trump charged with again?Trump is charged with 31 counts of unauthorized retention of national defense information, a violation of the Espionage Act. Each count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.Trump and Waltine Nauta, his valet, face additional charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice, tampering with grand jury evidence and concealing evidence in a federal investigation. Each of those charges is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.Trump and Nauta also face additional charges of making a false statement. Those carry a maximum sentence of up to five years in prison.What happens next?After the appearance, Cannon is likely to set a scheduling order laying out deadlines and a timeline for discovery, motions and a trial. Smith, the special counsel, requested that Trump get a speedy trial last week. But there are likely to be extensive disputes over discovery and classified materials that will drag the case out.“I think an initial trial date of next spring or summer is most likely, but with more adjournments before the trial actually starts if the motions get messy, which seems likely in light of Trump’s combative nature,” McQuade said. “I’m sure [the Department of Justice] will want to try the case before election day and Trump will want to stall. Judge Cannon gets to decide.”Hugo Lowell contributed reporting More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump finds no new lawyers in time for Mar-a-Lago documents arraignment

      by

      Donald Trump is expected to be represented at his first court appearance to face federal criminal charges for retaining national security materials and obstruction of justice by two of his existing lawyers, after struggling to recruit a local Florida lawyer willing to join his legal defense team.The lawyers making an appearance with Trump on Tuesday will be the top former federal prosecutor Todd Blanche and the former Florida solicitor general Chris Kise, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump’s co-defendant, his valet Walt Nauta, will be represented by Stanley Woodward.Trump and his legal team spent the afternoon before his arraignment interviewing potential lawyers but the interviews did not result in any joining the team in time for Trump’s initial court appearance scheduled for 3pm ET on Tuesday after several attorneys declined to take him as a client.Trump has also seemingly been unable to find a specialist national security lawyer, eligible to possess a security clearance, to help him navigate the Espionage Act charges.The last-minute scramble to find a veteran trial lawyer was a familiar process for Trump, who has had difficulty hiring and keeping lawyers to defend him in the numerous federal and state criminal cases that have dogged him through his presidency and after he left the White House.After interviewing a slate of potential lawyers at his Trump Doral resort, the former president settled on having Kise appearing as the local counsel admitted to the southern district of Florida as a one-off, with Blanche being sponsored by him to appear pro hac vice, one of the people said.Blanche and Kise had dinner with Trump and other advisers on Monday at the BLT Prime restaurant at the Doral.Among the Florida lawyers who turned down Trump was Howard Srebnick, who had discussed defending the former president at trial as early as last week in part due to the high fees involved, but ultimately declined the representation after conferring with his law partners, the person said.The other prominent lawyer who declined to work with Trump was David Markus, who recently defended the Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum against charges that he lied to the FBI and funnelled campaign contributions into his personal accounts, the person said.Trump and his team have interviewed the corruption attorney Benedict Kuehne, who was indicted in 2008 for money laundering before the charges were dropped, the person said. But he has his own baggage as he faces disbarment for contempt of court in a recent civil suit he lost.The other interviews are understood to have been with William Barzee, as well as Bruce Zimet, the former chief assistant US attorney in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach.Part of the problem of recruiting new lawyers has been Trump’s reputation for being a notoriously difficult client who has a record of declining legal advice and seeking to have his lawyers act as attack dogs or political aides rather than attorneys bound by ethics rules, people close to the process said.The other concern for the top lawyers in Florida being contacted by Trump’s advisers has been the perceived reputational damage that could come from defending the former president, the people said, not just because of his politics but also because of the strength of the indictment.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBy using Trump’s own taped admissions about retaining national defense information and the witness accounts of his employees, the indictment gave compelling evidence of Trump’s efforts to hoard the country’s most sensitive secrets and obstruct the government’s attempts to get them back.Trump is said to still be searching for a lawyer in the mold of Roy Cohn, the ruthless New York fixer who defended and mentored him before he was later disbarred – and the fear of potentially being asked to take similar actions has been a persistent issue.That fear has loomed large for numerous lawyers Trump’s advisers have contacted, the people said, in particular after Trump might have made Evan Corcoran, another former lawyer who withdrew from his defense in the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation, into a witness against him.According to the indictment, after Trump was issued a subpoena last year seeking the return of any classified documents, Trump took steps to remove boxes of documents from a storage room that Corcoran intended to search through in order to find materials responsive to the subpoena.The steps Trump took to have those boxes removed from the storage room, an episode now at the heart of the obstruction charge, caused Corcoran to certify a false certification to the justice department confirming that no further documents were at the property, the indictment said.As Trump’s search for new lawyers in Florida continues, Blanche is expected to take the lead role in the Mar-a-Lago documents case in addition to leading the team defending Trump against state charges in New York for paying hush money to an adult film star in 2016.Though Kise is expected to appear alongside Blanche in federal district court in Miami, he has primarily handled civil litigation for Trump since he came off the documents case last October and is not expected to be on the trial team proper, a person familiar with the matter said.The scramble to find Florida lawyers came after Jim Trusty and John Rowley, the two remaining Trump lawyers after the earlier resignation of Tim Parlatore and the recusal of Corcoran, became the latest casualties of a legal team undermined by turmoil and infighting, the Guardian previously reported. More