Trump, Nuclear Weapon Document, Treason, and Espionage Act
This is for my lecture Sir/Pak Mohtar Mas’oed, Sir/Pak Ichlasul Amal (Birthday Aug 1st), & the late Sir/Pak Budi Winarno, who teach U.S. Domestic & Foreign Policy in International Relation UGM
(Because the scenario (immediately) of public trial to Trump, this page will be set likely “Live Update” format, not only my research last 6-days. Every time anyone refreshes this page-note, they may acknowledge that this note has already updated or expanded 1-2 paragraphs to sharpen or be more detailed on the Trump espionage case. In another case, judge has allowed the criminal fraud and tax evasion case against the Trump Organization and Allen Howard Weisselberg - Chief Financial Officer of Trump Organization, to go forward. It's scheduled to head to trial in October. The Jan. 6 hearings at times have resembled a criminal trial in absentia for Trump. In his 75th birthday, August 15th 2022 (Allen was born August 15th 1947 in Brooklyn New York), Allen nearing a plea deal with Manhattan prosecutors but would not cooperate with a broader investigation into Trump.)
“.. when a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace becomes a circus” 🎪 (Turkish Proverb)
=========
The documents seized by the FBI from former President Trump’s Mar a Lago home this week — and some marked top secret and above in court records — likely refers to intercepted communications. Donald John Trump is under investigation for potential obstruction of justice and violations of the Espionage Act. Search warrant allowed the FBI to search former Trump's Florida estate Mar-a-Lago “45 Office” along with “all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by Trump and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored. Trump attorney Lindsey Halligan, who was at Mar-a-Lago, tells the FBI targeted 3 rooms for the search - a bedroom, office and storage room. 30-40 FBI personnel conducting search, wore t-shirts, cargo pants, gloves and masks and brought 10-15 vehicles including a Ryder truck.
Trump’s mishandling of documents and refusal to yield power helped lead to the failure to turn over records in his final days in office. Government documents that Trump had accumulated were with him in roughly two dozen boxes in the White House residence. They were to go to the National Archives, but at least some ended up in Florida Mar-a-Lago. Matthew Evan Corcoran, another Trump’s lawyer, “has raised eyebrows within the DoJ for his statements to federal officials during the documents investigation. Officials are uncertain whether Mr. Corcoran was intentionally evasive or simply unaware of all the material still kept at Mar-a-Lago and found during the Aug. 8th search by the FBI.
Midnight Aug. 31th, DoJ filing has new details about Trump & co's apparent defiance of a May subpoena for docs marked as classified -- evidence that boxes were moved & concealed -- leading to the search warrant. Trump’s passports are part of the case: “The location of the passports is relevant evidence in an investigation of unauthorized retention and mishandling of national defense information; nonetheless, the government decided to return those passports in its discretion. The DoJ says the two expired passports were found in a drawer that contained classified documents and government records.
The DoJ asserts in a filing that some of the documents seized from Mar-A-Lago were so sensitive and classified that in some instances the FBI agents and the DoJ attorneys needed additional security clearances to review them. That the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many documents with classification markings as the “diligent search” that the former President’s counsel and other representatives had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representation made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter.
Many pointing out that Trump prompted this filing from DoJ by filing suit. The DoJ cites a ruling from another Trump-provoked legal battle — against the Jan. 6 committee — to bolster its case against Trump's executive privilege. Over 100 classified documents found during Mar-A-Lago search, DoJ says. A reminder that all this information is becoming public because the DoJ is responding to assertions and statements made by Trump’s attorneys in their suit. This is a photo of some of the documents the Justice Department says they found at Mar-A-Lago, was taken at “45 Office.”
At the end of the Trump administration, the WH counsel’s office identified roughly 2 dozen boxes containing material that had been taken to the residence over many months, that needed to be sent to the National Archives. Months later, NARA was still trying to get them. Meadows, the chief of staff, assured others he would take care of getting the material dealt with. But Meadows’ focus in final day was on trying to distribute material from the Russia investigation binder to conservative writers. In the final weeks, Trump brought the collection of KJU letters again.
HCS-O refers to HUMINT Control System-Operations, “used to protect exceptionally fragile and unique IC clandestine HUMINT operations and methods.” TS/SAP is Top Secret/Special Access Program S/FRD is Secret/Formerly Restricted Data, a control relating to nuclear weapons info designated by the Atomic Energy Act. Attorney General Merrick Brian Garland likely had reason to specify such markings in the subpoena. DoJ has said there was stuff marked HCS in the 15 boxes sent to National Archives earlier this year. Based on its response, the DoJ and FBI were shocked by the volume and sensitivity of material seized at Mar-a-Lago. The DoJ filing emits the strong stench of obstruction of justice at MAL. The Trump filings for a Special Master were a huge misstep. The DoJ has used its response to disclose damning proof of a series of crimes, which it would not otherwise have been able to do. The only details of note beyond the language of the cover sheets is three dates that are just barely discernible on the documents:
-May 9, 201(8?)
-Aug. 26, 2018
-Aug. 2(8?), 2018
DoJ suggests Trump counsel and Trump custodian — understood to be Christina Bobb — committed obstruction by representing that all docs from WH were in one storage location when they weren’t, and that all docs were turned over in response to subpoena when they weren’t. It is notable how many traditionally conservative, active duty FBI special agents absolutely fed up with being called crooks by the defeated former US President Donald John Trump. That the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many docs with classification markings as the “diligent search” that the former President’s counsel and other reps had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification.
The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation. DoJ says that not only is Trump's argument nonsense that some of the records should be barred by executive privilege — he never actually asserted executive privilege. One of Trump's attorneys signed a certification insisting that all materials subpoeaned by DoJ had been returned as of June 3. They noted that no one ever asserted Trump had declassified anything and treated the docs as though they remained classified. Trump's counsel also told DoJ that all responsive records were housed in one location — he store room — but refused to let investigators examine boxes to confirm everything had been turned over.
A third White House counsel lawyer, was interviewed by the FBI in connection with the documents investigation. The lawyer, Scott Gast, was interviewed in the spring, two people briefed on the matter said. On the last day of the Trump administration, Meadows was supposed to meet with Ronald Klain, Biden’s Chief of Staff, whom Meadows had repeatedly pushed off for a transition. When Klain arrived, Meadows was not there. He was running late because he had to deal with Al Pirro’s pardon. That afternoon, Biden opened a desk drawer to find a letter from Trump. It was two large pages, Trump’s recognizable handwriting on them, visible to an aide.
Biden remarked Trump was more gracious than he’d expected. On August 22th, NBC News poll shows that 57% of voters believed the investigations into Trump should continue. Hence recent reporting on the Mar-a-Lago search has referred to Trump’s unauthorized retention of government secrets — to underscore how the investigation does not singularly turn on whether seized docs were classified. The statutes listed on the search warrant for which probable cause was found do NOT require that the documents be classified. Trump’s “declassification” defense is not just made-up and silly, it’s an irrelevant distraction to give defenders a talking point.
Aug 22th between 1-2 pm ET, Trump goes to court, 2 weeks after Mar-a-Lago search, to try to get a special master to sift out potentially privileged material. Case is assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee confirmed by the Senate about a week after Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election. Three Trump attorneys have signed on: Lindsey Halligan, Matthew Evan Corcoran, James Trusty.. Trump’s filing is replete with his political bombast but also confirms key elements of the timeline: (a) DoJ subpoenaed for records in May 2022, (b) DoJ subpoenaed for camera footage in June Notably, no Trump lawyers described their own interactions with DoJ. Trump expected to seek the appointment of a Special Master to determine what materials seized from Mar-a-Lago can be used in a criminal investigation.
On the same day (Aug 22th), DoJ signaled it has no objection to releasing a handful of other documents connected to the Mar-a-Lago search warrant. We may see these today. Florida Magistrate Judge Reinhart has filed a written order memorializing his decision to consider unsealing portions of the Mar-a-Lago affidavit. He notes that no one from Trump's team intervened. Also says he may ultimately agree with DoJ. Magistrate Judge Reinhart says he found the facts in the FBI affidavit "reliable" and may ultimately agree with DoJ to keep the document sealed after conferring this week. Reinhart identified another reason to keep at least portions of the affidavit sealed: Trump's own personal safety. This (Mar-a-Lago) saga was more seizure than search. FBI knew the documents were there, but Trump’s lawyers apparently wouldn’t give them back. I don’t think the FBI was investigating anything, or doing this to harass him. Certainly does not appear political in any way.
Trump says he wants a downplay in “the heat” and then says and does things that fan the flames of his supporters’ anger, telling them that he - and they - have been wronged. The FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago has emerged as the latest rallying cry for those on the right who have long been suspicious that the powers of the federal government could be turned against them. If Trump’s lawyers want to be aggressive, they can file a Rule 41 motion asking a judge to order that any seized property be returned. But I expect they will instead say it’s all political. Challenging the warrant would result in a hearing which they would likely lose. If the warrant was to seize classified documents, and they in fact found classified documents, there’s not much left to investigate. A criminal complaint and arrest warrant could be issued today. But I suspect they will wait for a grand jury indictment. Even, Judge Reinhart, was got threatened (his life, his synagogue, Temple Beth David in Florida) by Trump voters in Florida since Mar-a-Lago raid, today (once again) he say another reason to keep at least portions of the affidavit sealed: Trump's own personal safety.
Judge Reinhart says the public reporting about what was taken from Mar-a-Lago (i.e. nuclear or special access) has not been confirmed by DOJ. But even if true, he notes, the affidavit also reveals sources and methods that would be dangerous to disclose. Many people will be disappointed to find out how little information is contained in a search warrant. And property receipts tend to be very general. The real stuff is in the affidavit, which will apparently remain sealed.
A sign that Department of Justice Mar-a-Lago search was not solely about getting dox back, but also about potential criminal prosecution will be if DoJ assigns a criminal AUSA to the case, not only a Washington National Security Division lawyer. Bonus points if from Florida US Attorney's Office, which has venue. the FBI seized Trump’s passport effectively preventing foreign travel. This is huge. His foreign travel had to be the subject of the investigation. And worrying for U.S. allies. Another document in Mar-a-Lago, Trump bragged he had 'intelligence' about Macron's sex life. A spokesperson for the French embassy declined to comment on the item about the President of France.
A sign that Department of Justice Mar-a-Lago search was not solely about getting dox back, but also about potential criminal prosecution will be if DoJ assigns a criminal AUSA to the case, not only a Washington National Security Division lawyer. Bonus points if from Florida US Attorney's Office, which has venue. the FBI seized Trump’s passport effectively preventing foreign travel. This is huge. His foreign travel had to be the subject of the investigation.
In another case, Trump Organization CFO Allen Howard Weisselberg reportedly has agreed to cooperate against the Trump Org and Trump Payroll Corp. He is not cooperating against Trump personally, and because he was CFO, his plea would have been a huge problem for the Org even if he hadn’t cooperated. Also Weisselberg the ultimate mild-mannered accountant who kept the secrets, both of Trump and the father. But unlikely it seems to me to perjure himself, especially since that could trigger a much longer sentence. In case Georgia (Trump linked with Rudy Giuliani), The GBI [Georgia Bureau of Investigation] confirmed Tuesday that it has opened a criminal investigation of the incident. Computer trespass is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison."
*Jared Kushner departed to Saudi in Jan 6th 2021. Via his book, “Breaking History”
Former VP Mike Pence called on Republicans to stop attacking the nation’s top law enforcement agencies over the FBI’s search of Donald Trump’s home. Pence also said he would consider talking to the Jan. 6 committee if he were “summoned to testify.". January 6th federal prosecutor Thomas Windom has issued a grand jury subpoena to the National Archives for all of the White House records the agency provided to the January 6th House committee. "The subpoena, issued in May, made a sweeping demand for 'all materials, in whatever form’, given to the committee. Those materials include files of Trump’s top aides, his daily schedule and phone logs and a draft of [his] speech that preceded the riot."
The worst case on January 6th case? The Secret Service knew of a threat to Nancy Pelosi on January 6th days before the insurrection, but did not pass it along until hours after the Capitol had been breached. On January 4th 2021, Secret Service agents discovered a Parler account, which we’ve chosen not to name, posting a series of violent threats towards lawmakers. Other profiles with the same name appeared on Twitter, MeWe, Bitchute, YouTube and Facebook. This is deeply disturbing & requires a full investigation. The Capitol Police are responsible for protecting the Speaker. If it is true that the USSS failed to pass on intelligence about threats, that's very alarming.
The "crime-fraud exception" applies when the lawyer and client are working together to defraud someone, commit a crime, or cover one up. When the government investigates or prosecutes alleged corporate crime, a key question commonly emerges: Will the accused client waive attorney-client privilege and disclose relevant communications to the government?
This issue often arises because lawyers are routinely involved in corporate actions and decisions later subject to government scrutiny. “The extensiveness and complexity of the laws governing” corporate affairs “have made legal advice a crucial element of [not only] major business decisions,” but also of “more mundane kinds of corporate activity.” Douglas W. Hawes & Thomas J. Sherrard, Reliance on Advice of Counsel as a Defense in Corporate and Securities Cases, 62 Va. L. Rev. 1, 5 (1976). As the Supreme Court emphasized in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981), relying on attorneys is especially important “[i]n light of the vast and complicated array of regulatory legislation confronting the modern corporation.”
Ordinarily, the client—and only the client—has the authority to decide whether to waive attorney-client privilege on communications with counsel. Where an accused-client is cooperating with a government investigation or asserting an advice of counsel defense in response to formal charges, the waiver analysis is generally straightforward: the accused-client waives privilege and discloses relevant communications to the government. The resulting disclosure often reveals critical information to the government because of the substantial involvement of lawyers in much corporate conduct and decision-making.
But what if an accused-client is contesting culpability and does not agree to waive attorney-client privilege? Under the crime-fraud exception to privilege—which provides that communications with counsel “made in furtherance of a crime or fraud” are not privileged, In re Grand Jury Investigation (Schroeder), 842 F.2d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir. 1987)—the government may access attorney-client communications over an accused-client’s objection. In practice, if an accused asserts the privilege over communications relevant to the prosecution, the government frequently argues the crime-fraud exception applies and the accused should be required to disclose her pertinent communications with counsel.
On June 25, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals shed some light on the crime-fraud exception in a published opinion in In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena (Case: 21-11596). The investigation concerns a political candidate’s alleged improper use of campaign donations on personal expenses and inaccurate statements on federal filings about how donations were used (e.g., characterizing furniture purchased for the candidate’s mother’s house as “office supplies”). After the district court denied the campaign’s motion to quash a grand jury subpoena for testimony from the campaign’s outside attorney, the campaign appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. The issue was “whether the district court erred in compelling the attorney’s testimony before the grand jury.”
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court based on its application of a two-part test:
First, there must be a prima facie showing that the client was engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct when he sought the advice of counsel, that he was planning such conduct when he sought the advice of counsel, or that he committed a crime or fraud subsequent to receiving the benefit of counsel’s advice. Second, there must be a showing that the attorney’s assistance was obtained in furtherance of the criminal or fraudulent activity or was closely related to it.
The Court characterized the first prong as a “low hurdle” and found the government had met it by proffering “evidence that, if believed by a trier of fact, would establish the elements of” wire fraud. According to the Court, a prima facie showing does not mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but “some foundation in fact.” Stressing the distinction, the Court noted it was not “opin[ing] on whether the evidence proffered by the government would be sufficient to convict,” only that the government’s prima facie showing was sufficient.
In dicta, the Court justified the ease of the first prong on the basis that the Court does not want to convert “motions in opposition to grand jury subpoenas . . . into mini-trials.” If “courts always had to hear testimony and conflicting evidence on such matters, the rationale behind the prima facie standard—the promotion of speed and simplicity at the grand jury stage—would be lost.” That reasoning leaves a few issues unexplored in the context of grand jury subpoenas for privileged communications. To start, the opinion does not mention the foundational importance of attorney-client privilege. The privilege will only remain sacrosanct if invasions of privileged communications are broadly and consistently prohibited. Such intrusions must only happen in limited, specified, and unique circumstances. Further, the specter of “always ha[ving] to hear testimony and conflicting evidence” is at least conjectural and at worst exaggerated. Such fears, which may or may not be borne out by actual practice, become problematic if they fuel an over-correction and serve as a basis for chipping away at the “prima facie” standard. Unfortunately, American criminal jurisprudence relies in many instances on expedience-based justifications to abbreviate procedures.
As to the second prong, the Court observed that “the parties quarrel over the correct formulation.” The government contended: “all that need be shown is that the communication is related to the criminal or fraudulent activity established under the first prong.” The campaign countered: because “the purpose of the second prong is ‘identifying communications that should not be privileged because they were used to further a crime or fraud,’ only communications made in furtherance of a crime or fraud fit within the exception.” While “[c]ourts have enunciated slightly different formulations for the degree of relatedness necessary to meet th[e] standard,” the Court said that it has “[h]istorically” taken a “less restrictive view of the degree of relatedness required, explaining that ‘the requirement that legal advice must be related to the client’s criminal or fraudulent conduct should not be interpreted restrictively.’”
Ultimately, the Court avoided resolving the “the precise contours” of the second prong because “regardless of which formulation is utilized, the government prevails.” Assuming “the second prong of the exception covers only communications which ‘advance, or [which] the client [] intend[s] . . . to advance, the client’s criminal or fraudulent purpose,’ the attorney’s advice here would fit that description.” In so holding, the Court pointed to several key proffered facts: the campaign’s attorney advised the candidate “after the personal purchases were made, before the financial disclosure forms were filed,” and with “knowledge of the personal purchases—i.e., the ongoing criminal or fraudulent activity.” “Because the attorney’s role in the campaign was to ensure compliance with Georgia law as it related to the filing of the financial disclosure forms, and because the legal advice at issue was obtained after the personal expenditures were made and before the filing of the forms, the advice ‘advance[d], or [at the very least] the client [] intend[ed] the advice to advance, the client’s criminal or fraudulent conduct.’”
Notably, the Court emphasized that “the attorney’s own interview with the government” supports the government’s proffered facts, and the campaign “does not dispute” the proffered evidence. If it were otherwise, the Court may have analyzed further whether the government’s “showing” had satisfied the second prong.
Attorney-client privilege issues frequently arise in government investigations and prosecutions of white-collar crime. Our white-collar and government investigations team is deeply experienced in helping business clients navigate the many issues that arise in government investigations and prosecutions. Contact us to discuss your matter today.
For imagining a huge scale of document stolen (or “moved”) from White House to Mar-a-Lago: August 22th, Federal officials recovered more than 300 individual classified documents during 3 interactions at MAL in last eight months, more than 150 in the boxes that went to NARA in January. DoJ has also sought a second round of footage from surveillance cameras at Mar-a-Lago, spanning June 22, when the subpoena for the first round of footage went out, through Aug. 8 (raid Mar-a-Lago). The scope of the original number of documents, more than 150 discovered when National Archives officials retrieved 15 boxes, and what is said to be the sensitive nature of some of the material, prompted concern among DoJ officials. Glenn Gerstell, the top lawyer for the National Security Agency from 2015 to 2020, pronounced the idea that whatever Trump happened to take upstairs each evening automatically became declassified “preposterous.”
Trump himself is said to have gone through the boxes in late 2021, after nearly a year of archives officials trying to recover the material. Some of the documents retrieved in January related to the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI, across a number of national security matters. Documents were found in the storage area and …. in a container in a CLOSET in the Trump office, per people familiar with the matter. A little more on a statement signed by one of Trump's lawyers after the June 3 effort to fulfill the subpoena from May for additional classified documents: it was said to have been drafted by Matthew Evan Corcoran and signed by Christina Bobb. Trump knew what he had, what would be returned to Archives, and what he then illegally kept.
August 26th, 11.05 am ET, DoJ cited documents that could compromise human intelligence sources in its request to search Donald Trump's home, a redacted affidavit says. The FBI found at Donald Trump's home in May, according to the redacted affidavit:
— 15 boxes of documents
— 184 documents marked classified
— 67 documents marked confidential
— 92 documents marked secret
— 25 documents marked top secret
In the search warrant affidavit, the agent notes that 18 USC Sec. 793 (the Espionage Act provision at issue) does not talk about "classified information" specifically. This follows a section, a bit earlier, where Trump's lawyer (Alina Habba, Matthew Evan Corcoran, Christina Bobb, Lindsey Halligan) and Kash Patel claim Trump declassified everything. The agent notes areas at Mar-a-Lago that would not be appropriate for classified or NDI documents, and then asks for the warrant, focused on "45 Office" and storage rooms, but open to other places where records are stored. When you look at this information, even as heavily redacted as it is, it is damaging, I would argue, to the defeated former president Trump. Trump had information on US spies and documents that were not to be shared with foreign governments. These are sources and methods. These are the crown jewels of the intelligence agencies.
Trump himself is said to have gone through the boxes in late 2021, after nearly a year of archives officials trying to recover the material. Some of the documents retrieved in January related to the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI, across a number of national security matters. Documents were found in the storage area and …. in a container in a CLOSET in Trump office, per people familiar with the matter. A little more on statement signed by one of Trump's lawyers after June 3 effort to fulfill the subpoena from May for additional classified documents: it was said to have been drafted by Matthew Evan Corcoran and signed by Christina Bobb. Trump knew what he had, what would be returned to Archives, and what he then illegally kept.
This would indicate he either already did or was about to sell national secrets. If the FBI executes a search warrant at your home and takes both of your passport (personal and diplomatic), I’d guess you’re probably looking at an indictment. It’s possible that Trump retained his red “government official” passport, and a black “diplomatic” passport, which he no longer has a right to. Those would be “government records” seizable pursuant to the warrant. The U.S. government employees can get official passports for traveling on official business, which is separate from a personal passport. Normally you give up your official passport when you leave gov, but I assume former POTUSes have them indefinitely which is likely why had 2 copies of Diplomatic Passport (not only one). Trump claimed three his passports seized by FBI (not 2).
(But) August 15th 6 pm ET, first reportage by CBS, According to a DOJ official, the FBI is NOT in possession of former President Trump's passports. Trump had accused the FBI of stealing his three passports during the search of his Mar-a-Lago home.
August 15th, Federal prosecutors urge the judge not to unseal Trump Mar-A-Lago search warrant saying: "Disclosure at this juncture of the affidavit supporting probable cause would, by contrast, cause significant and irreparable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation." The government's motion seeking to keep Mar-a-Lago search affidavit sealed says it would reveal cooperating witnesses and possibly chill future witness cooperation.
Department of Justice also subpoenaed Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage from a 60-day period, including views from outside the storage room. The footage showed that, after one instance in which officials were in contact with Trump's team, boxes were moved in and out of the room. You know what every company does on an employee’s last day from his/her cubicle? Makes sure they aren’t walking out (physically or electronically) with documents. Does it still happen? Sure. But not multiple file boxes, or at least 35 boxes from White House to the Mar-a-Lago. “If you only start packing with two days left to go, you’re just running low on time,” a former aide Trump said.
Shortly before Justice Merrick Brian Garland made the announcement, a person close to Trump reached out to a Department of Justice (DoJ) official to pass along a message from the former president to the attorney general. When DoJ announces a press conference for a particular time and then is late getting going, it can mean they want something to be unsealed before they talk about it and it is taking longer than they anticipated for the court to do it. DoJ were waiting for their motion to unseal the search warrant & related materials to be docketed. That allowed Garland to explain that DoJ wants to say more -- since Trump, who could disclose them, isn't doing so -- but DoJ can't until judge gives permission.
Trump wanted Justice Garland to know he had been checking in with people around the country and found them to be enraged by the search. "'The country is on fire,' Trump said, according to a person familiar with the exchange. 'What can I do to reduce the heat?'" The Department of Justice (DoJ) is investigating Trump to determine if he violated federal laws by gathering, transmitting or losing defense information; concealed, removed, or mutilated government documents; or falsified records in federal investigations. Team of lawyers spewing lies in the press is a whole different thing than a lawyer signing their name to a lie as an official declaration of fact submitted to DoJ.
Justice Garland has said strongly and repeatedly: no one is above the law. There is a stronger case against Trump than others prosecuted for less egregious crimes (eg Petraeus, Berger). Then it is right to expect Trump will be charged. And any accomplices.
Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre (Aug 14th) reiterates the Biden administration's position on ABC that it'd be "inappropriate" to comment on the Mar-a-Lago investigation. She says Biden has "not been briefed" at all on the search.
Juxtaposition America. Democrats are spending this afternoon passing legislation to combat climate change while lowering prescription drug and electricity prices (Inflation Reduction Act). Republicans are spending it defending their one-term ex-president for maybe violating the espionage act.
Trump is First president to be impeached twice. First president to attempt a coup d'état. First president to have his home searched by the FBI. First president to take the Fifth Amendment. First to be investigated for espionage. He may be the first president to flee the country. The Fifth Amendment is meant to protect people from self-incriminating. With legal troubles mounting, it's better for Trump to keep his mouth shut. The recent case between Trump and the Jan. 6 select committee demonstrates that a claim of executive privilege must yield to Congress’s need for critical information.
In October 2nd 2017, Stefan C. Passantino, Trump attorney himself, circulated a PRA (Presidential Record Act) compliance reminder around the WH and he noted: "Failure to abide by these requirements may lead to administrative penalties. The willful destruction or concealment of federal records is a federal crime." Then stories started circulating in 2018 that Trump was destroying presidential records by tearing them up. That prompted another discussion with NARA officials. Earlier this year, Archivist David Ferriero responded to several congressional inquiries about the Trump White House's records preservation efforts during Trump's tenure and steps NARA took since January 20, 2021 to recover records not turned over. Did the back & forth between NARA & WH during Trump's 4 years as POTUS about preserving presidential records foreshadow what took place at Mar-a-Lago? I'm not sure. Congress note on the PRA Importantly, it states: "The PRA does not provide a deadline for the physical transfer of records materials, although it does provide for a transfer of legal responsibility for materials to the Archivist in 44 U.S.C. §2203." Stefan C. Passantino served in the Trump administration from January 2017 to August 2018 as Deputy White House Counsel.
Since the FBI raid to Trump’s home in August 7th, we started by talking about 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago, now (August 12th, 10.30 Pm ET) it’s 35 boxes. We started by talking about the Presidential Records Act, now we’re talking about stolen nuclear secrets and reams of classified data. While Trump faces legal jeopardy arising from the probable cause needed for search warrant of Mar-a-Lago & DOJ investigation must encompass his actions there is no confirmation yet of him being a target. We started with GOP rage, now we’re talking about the Espionage Act and Obstruction by Trump.
Until August 14th, 7-days after raid, no one media asking about what was in the first two batches of documents removed from Mar-a-Lago. did the FBI recover all the classified dox? Or has Trump already made use of them with third parties. Whichever Trump lawyer told DOJ there were no remaining documents at Mar-a-Lago is hopelessly compromised now - they either must disavow their client by telling DOJ & FBI that their client lied to them or risk being prosecuted themselves for complicity - they should withdraw. The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants must have a particular description of the evidence or contraband that the government has probable cause to seize.
This is part of what is called the particularity requirement. The government can only look for items that they have probable cause to seize, and the warrant only authorizes the seizure of what the government had probable cause to seize. If the FBI seizes items that were not of the form described or not for the crime indicated in the warrant, that would be a question of whether the plain view exception applies. If the incriminating nature of the items (based on some other crime not named in the warrant) was immediately apparent, the seizure is lawful. But if it wasn't, then seizing them is unlawful. Because very important to re-check very detail, that has to be causing DOJ a lot of sleepless nights since August 7th (raid Mar-a-Lago). The FBI search of Mar-a-Lago dealt w/ DOJ’s top in the monthslong showdown: retrieving classified information. Investigators are now pursuing their next steps, a process that may take months to play out. Now that DOJ has the sensitive documents back, it needs to decide whether to charge Trump or others.
A sealed docket entry was just made on the docket of DoJ headquarter in Washington DC. (August 15th) for the Trump warrant. First, with inquiry number 08/15/2022 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 55 restricted/sealed until further notice. (jmd) (Entered: 08/15/2022). Second, another sealed entry SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 56 restricted/sealed until further notice. (jmd) (Entered: 08/15/2022). Third, Docket Entry 57.
After the FBI raided Trump’s home, the FBI investigated an “unprecedented” number of threats against the bureau in wake of search of Mar-a-Lago, including against agents listed in court records as being involved in the search. The FBI and DHS issued a Joint Intelligence Bullet warning of "the potential for domestic violent extremists to carry out attacks in reaction to the FBI's recent execution of a court-authorized search warrant in Palm Beach, Florida (Mar-a-Lago, Trump mansion).
Armed Trump supporters have gathered outside the Phoenix, Arizona, FBI office after what they call the "unlawful" search of Mar-a-Lago. Douglas Anthony Ducey is an American businessman and Republican politician serving as the 23rd governor of Arizona since 2015 until now. Include a threat of a dirty bomb in front of the Hoover building & general calls for “civil war," per the memo reviewed by Wall Street Journal team reporter. The Florida Federal Magistrate Bruce Reinhart, a judge who approved the FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Palm Beach residence has faced an onslaught of antisemitic attacks and threats online, some of which targeted the synagogue he belongs to. Temple Beth David has canceled its Beach Shabbat last week under a deluge of antisemitic threats about Bruce Reinhart.
But, something weird: a third of the Supreme Court was appointed by a man who is being investigated by the FBI for violating the Espionage Act. The FBI removed 11 sets of classified documents, including some marked as Top Secret, as well as information about the President of France Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron, binders of photos, a handwritten note and an executive grant of clemency for Roger Jason Stone, Jr. Trump bragged he had 'intelligence' about Macron's sex life. A spokesperson for the French embassy declined to comment on the item about the President of France.
Shape-shifting defense has gone from Trump’s denial to “planted” evidence to new claim that he declassified them, though he lacks the power to do so alone. The National Archives has just issued a statement refuting Trump’s whataboutism to try to deflect attention from his own misconduct. Awkward whataboutism aired between Trump voters and high ranking GOP: can Trump be so sure that he declassified the evidence that the FBI planted? What's the narrative going to be about how, when they demanded the return of the docs, and subpoenaed them, he didn’t do it? Since Trump declassified all those documents they should be no problem at all to get under FOIA. The problem with the “Trump declassified everything by unwritten fiat” argument is not just the absence of any contemporaneous evidence that it happened; it’s that, if presidents had that kind of power, Biden could just reclassify everything Trump declassified in one fell swoop.
FBI search raises fresh question. A look at the statutes that were cited by the government in its warrant for the Mar-a-Lago search, how they’ve been used in prior investigations and what elements are required to prove a prosecutable crime. When the former Secretary of Homeland Security/former General Counsel Jeh Charles Johnson of the Department of Defense writes for Lawfare about Trump’s wrongful possession of classified documents, I pay attention. Jeh Charles Johnson is a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP. He was Secretary of Homeland Security (2013-2017); General Counsel of the Department of Defense (2009-2012); General Counsel, Department of the Air Force (1998-2001).
First, it is important to note that documents themselves are not classified; it is the substance of the information contained therein that is classified. A single document may contain classified and unclassified information, such that it could be released to the public or press in response to a Freedom of Information Act request with redactions of the classified information. This happens all the time. Indeed, the standard practice for the creation of any classified document is to mark the beginning of each paragraph with "(U)", "(S)" or "(TS)"—indicating whether the information in the particular paragraph is unclassified, or classified at the Secret or Top-Secret level.
Second, Charlie is correct that the classification and declassification of government documents, and the system created to accomplish that, is derived from the President's authority as commander-in-chief, not from a law passed by Congress. Thus, by definition, the executive authority that creates this system of classification, and all the processes and bureaucracy arising from it, can be overridden by the executive at any moment. (Here it is worth noting, as Charlie does, that there are criminal laws that forbid the concealment of sensitive government documents, regardless of whether and how they are classified.)
A very legitimate example of an exercise of the president's declassification authority is this: suppose the president is about to have a bilateral meeting with another head of state somewhere, and wants to share classified information with that president in the best interests of the United States and its relationship with that other nation’s government. Many classified documents bear the express marking "NOFORN"—i.e., it may not be shared with any foreign national. Undoubtably, a U.S. president has the authority to make a unilateral and summary decision to share that information with his or her foreign counterpart without following the normal and very cumbersome process for declassifying documents or information—though doing so may be deeply unwise without first consulting all the relevant national security agencies to understand the implications of revealing that classified information to another government.
Third, part and parcel of any act of declassification is communicating that act to all others who possess the same information, across all federal agencies. This point holds true regardless of whether the information exists in a document, an email, a power point presentation, and even in a government official's mental awareness. Otherwise, what would be the point of a legitimate declassification?
In light of all this, the defense asserted by Trump's team—that while in office Trump issued "standing orders" that any "documents removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them"—is nothing short of laughable. It's a little like saying that the speed limit on the New Jersey Turnpike is whatever speed the governor chooses to drive at in any given moment.
Should there be a criminal case against Trump for the removal and possession of sensitive government information at his personal residence, his defense will present the Nation and the courts with another example of a president who for four years was willing to push traditional and responsible uses of executive authority to absurd levels—the very definition of abuse of power.
As Jack Goldsmith noted in another context for Lawfare in 2017, in the first year of the Trump presidency, "[t]he current conundrum highlights again how very deeply our system of government depends on the People electing a President who is generally reasonable, prudent, and responsible."
In 2016 the American people engaged in a dangerous experiment: electing to the powerful office of the presidency a man with virtually no public office experience, no understanding of the Constitution or history, no respect for law, no moral compass, possessed only of autocratic impulses and a thirst for power for the sake of power. With the violent events of Jan. 6, 2021 and each new facet of the many investigations surrounding Trump, we continue to pay the price for that experiment. Whether our democracy recovers fully from this experiment remains an open question.
Case about Election in Georgia
If Trump had a policy of automatic declassification of documents that he took home, that doesn't actually help his criminal defense, but it should disqualify him from ever being President again in 2024, 2028, a lifetime. That's just a horrible, terrible, no-good policy that endangers national security. Declassification doesn't just affect Trump's ability to access secret documents - it affects everyone's. So, if Putin, MBS, Kim Jong-un, or a domestic terrorist requested access to the previously classified documents that Trump took home, they would be allowed.
After everything we've learned in the last week, American headed towards having a sensible core of Americans who, however they may have voted in the past, now understand that the former guy cannot be the future guy. That's completely insane, bizarre. Representative Michael Todd Whitaker Carey (R-OH), another attendee of the dinner at Trump’s golf club (August 10th), told that Trump has made his decision on whether to run for president in 2024 but would not share with the group what that decision was. GOP see Trump gaining 2024 ground with he base following FBI search. Outpouring of grievance. But also unsure of what DoJ is doing here. No visibility into scope of evidence, so hard to predict political fallout.
Even if this is just a post-hoc lie by Trump, I expect we will see people requesting the previously classified documents that Trump had, citing his automatic declassification policy. If Trump somehow wins this argument, some of our most secretive info will be made public. Putting the criminal case aside for a moment, no American should vote for a candidate that would so casually destroy national security so they could do some home reading. Taking Trump at his word means he should never be President again in a lifetime.
He’s been treated better. If you or someone were hanging on to classified documents about nuclear weapons, I don’t think the feds (FBI) would send a subpoena and wait 2 (two) months, in June 2022 before knocking on our doors. A lawyer for Trump signed a letter in June 2022 asserting that there was no more classified information stored at Mar-a-Lago. Matthew Evan Corcoran and Christina Bobb (both are Trump’s attorney) attended that meeting. Trump-world maintains it was all declassified. Corcoran is a partner at Silverman Thompson Slutkin White and is a former Assistant US Attorney. Bobb, who has a master’s in law from Georgetown University Law Center, was a judge advocate in the U.S. Marines, representing sailors and soldiers involved in court-martials or administrative separation hearings. Justice Merrick Brian Garland and the entire FBI are really patient about Trump. The FBI didn’t broadcast that they searched Trump’s home. They didn’t even send agents in FBI jackets. The only reason we know it happened is because TRUMP told us. The FBI didn’t try to embarrass Trump. The guy who publicized it should be the one who shows the warrant.
But, a similar argument might apply to the speed of the government’s action: you say these documents are so terribly sensitive (because of the Nuclear Document; Macron’s issues, and another)? Then why did you wait a year to come and get them when you believed they were in an unauthorized place?
Every Former Presidents (including Trump) did not “get” security clearances. They gain access to classified info by virtue of their election, and are the US government ultimate classification (and declassification) authority. Reasons make a subpoena inappropriate to recover classified docs. First, classified documents are the property of the US government. In the hands of an unauthorized person, they are contraband. Second, by definition, the disclosure of classified information could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security. A subpoena does not limit the receiving party’s use of additional people (attorneys, clerks, mail rooms) to fulfill the production. Third, the government may need to prove the expected damage.
John Bolton, who served as Trump’s third national security adviser over 17 months, said he had never heard of the standing order (of declassification) that Mr. Trump’s office claimed to have in place. It is, he said, ‘almost certainly a lie. The top lawyer at the National Security Agency during Trump's presidency says Trump's latest defense - claiming he had a standing order declassifying the info in whatever docs he happened to take from the Oval Office to the residence - is "preposterous."
The best parts are that Trump himself assigned the FBI director Christopher Asher Wray (long-life Republican member) that raided him, and in 2018 he changed the sentencing for this exact crime from 1 year in prison to 5 years in prison. Trump says he won’t oppose the release of the Mar-a-Lago warrant and receipt: “Not only will I not oppose the release of documents related to the “Un-American”, unwarranted, and unnecessary raid, I’m going a step further by encouraging the immediate release of those documents.” Wray became the eighth Director of the FBI on August 2, 2017, Trump appointed him. 5 Years and 6 days after to be Director of the FBI, Wray raid Mar-a-Lago.
This is what declassified TOP SECRET/SI looks like. Note the original classification has a strike through it, plus the EO box with date of declass/release. Without that, it remains SCI which must be handled in proper channels, i.e. in a SCIF.
The search was part of an effort to account for some of the most highly classified material in government, known as Special Access Programs (SAP). SAPs are above top secret and sometimes not even known to congress. There are levels of security classification for the US Government, with the highest degree being “Top Secret“, 2nd is “Classified”, and 3rd is Classified”. Each one of those has an increasing degree of sensitivity. There is nothing normal about a former president taking top-secret documents from the White House. This is not furniture. These are our nation’s most sensitive secrets. SAPs are "need to know" programs and equipment that if disclosed would critically damage the program or national security. These are protected by employing dramatically enhanced security measures to strictly enforce programs where selected people have a need-to-know.
Not all SAPs are that close to the vest, but they’re all closely guarded secrets that could cause “grave harm” to the United States if revealed. For context on special access programs, during Operation Neptune Spear (killing Bin Laden in Abbottabad Military Complex-Residence, Pakistan), the group of people in the White House who knew about it was in the single digits. Hillary Clinton (Former Secretary of the State, at the moment) found out a few weeks before. The director of NCTC found out 2 weeks before. AG and FBI and DHS found out the day before.
The type of classified national security information protected under EO 13526 is wide-ranging from military plans, weapons systems, or operations; foreign government information; intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods; foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources; scientific technological, or economic matters relating to the national security; U.S. Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, or plans or protection services relating to the national security; or development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.
Classification is irrelevant. Government documents that pertain to the national defense may not be withheld from the government upon request for return. The obstruction charge in the warrant suggests Trump tried to conceal what he had. Federal agents sought the search warrant after learning new info *from people close to Trump* about how he treated sensitive documents, including one who gave them reason to believe he was hording additional documents. Trump "told close associates that he regarded some presidential documents as his own personal property." Trump resisted handing over some of the boxes. He eventually agreed to hand over some boxes' giving them what he believed they were entitled to,'" said an adviser.
So far, Alina Habba, Trump’s attorney, says she has advised him that if he just says he won’t run for president, all these investigations and charges will go away and be dropped. Trump's lawyers will not object to the release of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant. It amazes how Fox News doesn’t believe a word of what law enforcement says when they execute a search warrant against Donald Trump but believes every single claim by law enforcement when they execute an unarmed Black man.
Contrary, the intel Trump stole is so sensitive that FBI agents will begin FINGER PRINTING each document to find out who actually touched them. Those of us who have had access to classified Top Secret/SCI info know the FBI’s work doesn’t end with recovering information improperly stored. This is the sort of stuff that a National Security Advisor could access. Which might inform us about why Mike Flynn, convicted of & pardoned for working for a foreign government, was so enthusiastic for Trump to declare martial law and seize direct control of the Army & FBI. If you touched one of those documents you may want to get a lawyer and call the FBI before they get to you. Fingerprinting will be important in identifying conspirators — finding Trump fingerprints on the documents is largely irrelevant as he is already admitting he read the dox when he took them to the WH residence. But if FBI found Putin or MBS finger printing, that’s Espionage by Trump.
There must also be a “damage assessment” to identify every single person who may have had unauthorized access. Trump possessed documents classified above top secret that could reveal intel sources on US payroll. The issues involved in Trump’s apparent mishandling of documents are complex. First, it’s probably illegal; second, it might jeopardize national security; third, it displays contempt for institutions.
Trump under investigation per search warrant for:
1] 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation
2] 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
3] 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
Perhaps lawyer knowingly and willfully made a false statement in violation of 18 USC 1001. Or Trump lied to lawyer and he can be liable for the false statement due to the aiding and abetting statute 18 USC 2. Or both. Prosecutors could indict Trump — under 18 USC 1001/1519 — if he intentionally gave his lawyer false info to pass to DOJ. Smart prosecutors can put lawyer on stand and ask narrow questions. Let’s stop falling for Trump’s diversionary tactic of focusing on his latest absurd “defense” du jour —and instead keep asking why he still has not said why he took the documents, why he did not return them, and what he did with them and/or or was planning to do with them?
Trump apparently leaked the warrant to Breitbart (not Fox News or OAN). The DOJ had sought to redact or shield the names of agents involved. What we need is a framework for describing the far-right that builds on what we know about Christian belief and identity while accounting for secular media and influences, to spotlight “whataboutism” abour Trump - Espionage. Trump took no caution. The Breitbart article has names of agents, which obviously puts a target on their back. Reprehensible.
Trump needs to be stopped. The screenshot below is from the DOJ filing asking the Court to unseal the warrant. The footnote indicates that the DOJ had redacted or shielded the names of the agents involved. Breitbart has included names of agents in its article about the warrant and inventory. Trump released it with their names, and now they need federal protection against death threats and the like. The day after a Trump supporter tried to kill FBI agents, Trump leaked the names of FBI agents who served his warrant to Breitbart and Breitbart published it. More proof Trump is a criminal and despises rules of law and all who believe in the Constitution.
Reality Winner went to jail for five years for leaking one document in violation of 18 USC 793.went to jail for five years for leaking one document in violation of 18 USC 793. For the crime of mishandling national defense information the Trump administration sent Reality Winner to jail for five years, the longest sentence ever for an Espionage Act violation. According to Alison Grinter Allen, Winner's lawyer, she left prison early as a result of "good behavior" while inside, and not because of compassionate release.
The fact that the search warrant was based on §§ 793, 1519, and 2071, but “not” 1924, suggests that the Department of Justice was worried about affirmative misuse of materials in Trump’s possession — and not just that he was wrongfully retaining them. 1519 is an obstruction statute. Inclusion of 1519 suggests to me that the DOJ is accusing Trump of deliberately concealing from the government his possession of these documents, even after they asked for them back. 1519 is about more than just holding on to documents; it’s about messing with them. And if the concern was that Trump was simply retaining classified information, why use 793 but not 1924? This is all speculation, but it sure points to something beyond mere retention.
To be sure, some criminal statutes will have potential legal fights given they were not designed for use against POTUS, but there are clear provisions of Espionage Act that can apply to Trump without no allegations of "spying" or actual use against the US. A former president taking highly classified documents is unheard of — it’s a serious breach of national security and a potential violation of the Espionage Act.
House Intel Chair Adam Bennett Schiff and Oversight Chair Carolyn Bosher Maloney are asking ODNI to initiate a damage assessment of Trump's handling of documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump’s conduct has potentially put our national security at grave risk. This issue demands a full review, in addition to the ongoing law enforcement inquiry. “If the Trump people represented that they provided all the classified or national security information and didn't, that's a serious problem,” Rep. Schiff added.
Senator Collins comments on the first bipartisan request for info surrounding the Mar-a-Lago search, which came from Warner/Rubio, the Intel Committee leaders. “It’s imperative that the committee receive all classified documents found during the search as well as the FBI affidavit.” Senate Intel spokesperson says Warner & Rubio asked DOJ & ODNI to “provide the committee with the classified documents that were seized in the search of Mar a Lago, and an assessment of potential risks to national security as a result of their mishandling. The Senate Intelligence Committee is charged with overseeing counterintelligence matters, including the handling and mishandling of classified information, which appears to be at the core of the search of Mar a Lago.”
The law applies to anyone who “willfully retains” national defense info and fails to return it to the gov't upon request; while serious, this does not necessarily mean spying. Section 793 of the Espionage Act of 1917: "willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States". Note that prosecution under the Espionage Act does not require proof of espionage, just that the subject “willfully retains” classified material and fails to deliver it upon official request. If the former president, himself, cannot get his lies correct, why are so many elected officials still standing by him and being further humiliated by his stupidity? Trump is on Truth Social admitting he was in possession of the documents, and now he is trying to explain it away.
For his entire presidency, Trump didn't care about intelligence briefings, and he didn't read much of anything. But suddenly, on his way out of the White House, he decided to take a few reading materials that just happened to be classified. After a four year assault on the keepers of America’s secrets, perhaps the least surprising thing Donald Trump did during his final days in office was ship boxes of sensitive material from the White House to his oceanside palace in Florida. Someone informed the FBI about the documents, and the FBI were forced to act.
From Day 1, a smash-and-grab Presidency, and there is absolutely nothing surprising that the last thing Trump did was grab the most sensitive national security secrets he could in the hopes he could sell them to Saudi Arabia, Putin, or anyone else. Now, Trump tried to hide the documents, and when he was subpoenaed to return the documents, he ignored the subpoena. Let me repeat that. Trump tried to hide the documents and ignored a subpoena. Trump could've argued that the documents were accidentally transported to his home; his people were incompetent. However, the fact he was given multiple opportunities to return the documents demonstrates he knew what he was doing. The DOJ will indict Trump.
In March 1st 2019, The White House chief of staff at the time, John Kelly, wrote a contemporaneous internal memo about how he had been “ordered” by the president to give Jared Kushner the top-secret clearance. Some Trump allies had warned senior GOPers to scale back the attacks on the DOJ and FBI because the fact set that would ultimately emerge could be problematic for Trump.. Every GOPers needs to be on record of whether they're fine with Trump and Kushner selling our nuclear secrets to the Saudis. Because at minimum, they tried to. The Saudis hired a law firm (with ties to Trump) to lobby on behalf of Saudi nuclear aspirations. King & Spalding, an international law firm headquartered in Atlanta that reportedly has worked for Trump’s real estate concerns, disclosed that Saudi Arabia was paying the firm up to $450,000 for a 30-day period.
The disclosures were made in a filing with the Justice Department, as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Since leaving office, the Saudis have "invested" $2 billion with Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and paid Trump untold sums to host two professional golf tournaments at his properties. Saudi Arabia invested in the LIV-Golf tournament too. In February 2019 (3,5 years ago), Whistleblowers raised grave concerns with the Trump Administration’s efforts to transfer sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.
Certain nuclear information would have very high economic value to Saudi Arabia, Russia, and other governments. The search of Mar-a-Lago triggered shockwaves across Russia, with outraged Kremlin propagandists claiming that hundreds of FBI agents and packs of dogs were involved in the raid of Trump's estate, predicting civil war in the US and threatening to pitch in. Former National Security Adviser under the Trump Administration, Michael Flynn, pushed a project to share nuclear power technology with Saudi Arabia despite the objections of ethics and national security officials, according to a new congressional report citing whistleblowers within the administration. It’s as if some intel showed Trump had sold some secrets to foreign adversaries, making the need to secure them an emergency requiring immediate action.