The Decision to Let an Attack Continue Should Be Made by
Here are the main takeaways from Garland's statement on the Mar-a-Lago search.
Image
All week, former President Donald J. Trump's allies pressed Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to explain the basis for the search warrant federal agents had executed at Mr. Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence — and he refused to break the silence he wears like his unwrinkled, federal blue suit.
On Thursday, Mr. Garland finally responded, summoning the news media to a seventh-floor briefing room at the headquarters of the Justice Department to offer a public rationale. The new information he provided was extremely limited, and largely dependent on whether Mr. Trump's lawyers choose to block the release of the warrant and other documents sealed by a federal judge.
But the fact that he felt compelled to speak at all says much about the high stakes and the depth of the possible pitfalls in a closely watched investigation.
Here are three takeaways.
Mr. Garland personally signed off on the search.
Justice Department officials have been exceedingly tight-lipped since Monday, when F.B.I. agents entered Mr. Trump's inner sanctum to emerge with boxes of sensitive documents the former president had taken with him to Florida. And they were particularly loath to discuss Mr. Garland's role — whether he had approved the search or even if he knew prosecutors with his national security division had made the extraordinary request to sift through the personal property of an ex-president.
That silence fueled speculation that Mr. Garland was somehow out of the deciders' loop, or that he wanted people outside the department to think the process was somehow on autopilot to provide himself with political cover.
Not so. Halfway through his terse, tense two-minute statement, he offered an unequivocal and resonant buck-stops-here assertion.
"I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter," Mr. Garland said.
The ball is in Mr. Trump's court.
Moments before Mr. Garland spoke, a top official in the Justice Department's national security division, counterintelligence chief Jay I. Bratt, filed a motion to unseal the search warrant, along with an inventory of items retrieved in the search.
The last sentence of the document contained a critical caveat. It gave Mr. Trump's legal team the opportunity to present a "countervailing" argument against releasing the warrant, putting the ultimate decision in the hands of the former president and the federal judge, Bruce Reinhart, presiding in the case.
Why is that important?
Because optics matter. A lot. Mr. Garland, above all else, wants to avoid accusations that he is litigating cases in the public arena, which he believes will fatally compromise any potential prosecutions, and further damage the already shaky reputation of federal law enforcement following the out-front behavior in 2016 of James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, regarding the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails.
Proposing that the documents be made public — while giving Mr. Trump's team the chance to thumbs-down their release — puts the onus of disclosure on the former president, and it affords Mr. Garland an opportunity to counter his critics, who have demanded he explain the rationale behind his actions.
Mr. Trump's team has not yet said what they will do. Judge Reinhart has given them until 3 p.m. Friday to make their case either way.
Will the warrant contain any bombshells?
A federal search warrant, especially one issued in such a high-profile, high-stakes case, is likely to contain at least some new information and insights. But in most instances, they do not contain a trove of new detail, current and former prosecutors say.
Much of the important information included in the Mar-a-Lago warrant is already public, including the name of the judge who issued it and the warrant's origins in a monthslong probe, initiated at the request of the National Archives into Mr. Trump's handling of sensitive White House documents after he left office in January 2021.
The most interesting, and perhaps damning information, is likely to be hidden inside supporting affidavits presented by the Justice Department to the judge. They might, for instance, contain details about witnesses who alerted the government about materials Mr. Trump did not turn over as part of previous negotiations with the department.
But those affidavits do not have to be been turned over to Mr. Trump's legal team under law, and the department is unlikely to ever release them to the public, officials said.
That leaves two other sets of documents: the inventories of materials sought by agents going into Mar-a-Lago, and the manifest of what they carted out.
If there are any major new revelations, they could be here. The Justice Department's request to unseal those records explicitly states that they be "redacted" to exclude the names of the law enforcement personnel who executed the warrant. What is less clear is how specific the descriptions on the lists of the documents are — which could make a significant difference.
Correction :
Aug. 11, 2022
An earlier version of this article mischaracterized how Attorney General Merrick B. Garland had described the Trump documents investigation. He called the Jan. 6 investigation "the most wide-ranging investigation, and the most important investigation" in Justice Department history; he did not call the Trump documents investigation the most consequential in history.
Aug. 11, 2022, 6:16 p.m. ET
Lawmakers of both parties welcomed the move to unseal the warrant.
Image
Lawmakers of both parties appeared to welcome Attorney General Merrick B. Garland's request on Thursday to unseal the warrant used in the F.B.I.'s search of Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald J. Trump's private club and home in Florida.
While several Republicans who had been calling for more transparency about the search suggested they would continue to scrutinize the justification for the search, Democrats on Thursday applauded Mr. Garland's announcement as indicative of the Justice Department's commitment to an impartial investigation.
"I agree with Ted Cruz and the many other Republicans in the House and Senate calling for publication of the search warrant," Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr., Democrat of Virginia, said on Twitter. "The Justice Department's motion to unseal the warrant is a key step to put the facts before the public. The ball is now squarely in Donald Trump's court."
The reactions to Mr. Garland's statements on Thursday continued to reveal a growing divide among Republican lawmakers, who have diverged significantly in how aggressively they have questioned the F.B.I.'s search.
Almost instantly after Mr. Trump acknowledged the F.B.I. search on Monday, a number of House Republicans, including Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, raced to portray it as politically motivated and impugn Mr. Garland's motives.
But in recent days, Republicans in the Senate, including majority leader Mitch McConnell, have been more circumspect about criticizing F.B.I. agents, particularly after a gunman attempted to breach an F.B.I. field office in Cincinnati on Thursday morning.
Instead, some have more gently expressed suspicion about the search and pressed for more information about the evidence that had led authorities to seek a warrant, which was approved by a federal judge.
"What I am looking for is the predicate for the search," Mr. Graham wrote on Twitter on Thursday. "Was the information provided to the judge sufficient and necessary to authorize a raid on the former president's home within ninety days of the midterm election?"
In the news conference Thursday, Mr. Garland strongly denounced the violent language used by some figures on the far right this week to attack employees of the F.B.I., noting the potential for real-life violence.
"I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked," he said.
Some Republicans, including Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, and Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois, echoed those concerns on Thursday, warning against the increasingly heated rhetoric.
"I have been ashamed to hear members of my party attacking the integrity of the FBI agents involved with the recent Mar-a-Lago search," Ms. Cheney wrote on Twitter. "These are sickening comments that put the lives of patriotic public servants at risk."
Mr. Kinzinger wrote, "Every Republican official who doesn't agree with those attacks MUST speak out if there are any patriots left."
Aug. 11, 2022, 5:38 p.m. ET
Trump allies are discussing the possibility of challenging the Justice Department's motion to unseal the Mar-a-Lago search warrant. They have contacted outside lawyers about helping them, according to a person briefed on the discussions.
Aug. 11, 2022, 5:07 p.m. ET
Trump is posting about the search of Mar-a-Lago on his Truth Social site, but not indicating whether he will fight the release of the search warrant. He said his lawyers established a "very good" relationship with federal investigators before the search. "They could have had whatever they wanted, if we had it," Trump wrote. He called the execution of the search warrant "crazy."
Aug. 11, 2022, 4:51 p.m. ET
The most informative — and sensitive — document connected to the search of Mar-a-Lago will not be made public for now.
Image
As remarkable as it was for the Justice Department to ask a federal judge on Thursday to unseal the warrant it used this week to search Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald J. Trump's private residence in Florida, the materials that prosecutors have agreed to make public are not the most informative or sensitive connected to the case.
The government is not yet seeking to release what is known as the affidavit in support of the warrant, a document that lays out all sorts of telling details about the larger investigation of Mr. Trump — chief among them the reasons prosecutors believed there was probable cause that evidence of a crime could be found at Mar-a-Lago.
Affidavits for warrants are typically sworn to by federal agents and are used to persuade judges that it is worth invading someone's privacy to collect proof of violations of the law. The affidavit supporting the search warrant for Mr. Trump's home and members-only club presumably contains things like the specific laws that the government believes were broken and a brief narrative of the inquiry into Mr. Trump's storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
It also likely includes a recitation of other methods — like grand jury subpoenas — that the government sought to use to retrieve the documents in an effort to persuade the judge that the search warrant was necessary.
Search warrant affidavits are almost never made public before charges and often remain permanently under seal if charges are never filed. However, once prosecutors open a criminal case, any warrant affidavits used during the inquiry will generally be turned over to the defense — though not in a public manner — as part of the discovery process.
Aug. 11, 2022, 4:25 p.m. ET
To sum up what is happening here, Garland is basically calling Trump's bluff. Trump and his supporters have been portraying the Mar-a-Lago search as baseless and thus political — but Trump has chosen not to disclose the search warrant and list of what was taken, which would at least partially lay out its basis. Garland is proposing to show the public the documents that Trump has kept hidden.
Image
Aug. 11, 2022, 4:09 p.m. ET
Judge Bruce Reinhart, who will be overseeing the unsealing process, has issued an order requiring the Justice Department to serve a copy of its motion to Trump's lawyers. It says the Justice Department must then tell the judge by 3 p.m. on Friday whether Trump opposes the motion.
Aug. 11, 2022, 4:03 p.m. ET
Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is a close ally of Trump, released a statement in response to Garland's announcement saying, "What I am looking for is the predicate for the search. Was the information provided to the judge sufficient and necessary to authorize a raid on the former president's home within 90 days of the midterm election? I am urging, actually insisting, the D.O.J. and the F.B.I. lay their cards on the table as to why this course of action was necessary. Until that is done the suspicion will continue to mount." By that standard Graham will not be satisfied, as the Justice Department has not asked the judge to unseal the affidavit that justified the application for the search warrant.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:56 p.m. ET
Trump received a subpoena from the Justice Department ahead of the F.B.I.'s Mar-a-Lago search.
Image
Former President Donald J. Trump received a subpoena this spring in search of documents that federal investigators believed he had failed to turn over earlier in the year, when he returned boxes of material he had improperly taken with him upon moving out of the White House, three people familiar with the matter said.
The existence of the subpoena helps to flesh out the sequence of events that led to the search of Mr. Trump's Florida home on Monday by F.B.I. agents seeking classified material they believed might still be there, even after efforts by the National Archives and the Justice Department to ensure that it had been returned.
The subpoena suggests that the Justice Department tried other methods to account for the material before taking the politically explosive step of getting a search warrant and sending F.B.I. agents unannounced to Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump's home and members-only club.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:46 p.m. ET
Read the full transcript of Merrick Garland's comments on the F.B.I.'s search of Trump's home.
Image
Good afternoon.
Since I became attorney general, I have made clear that the Department of Justice will speak through its court filings and its work.
Just now the Justice Department has filed a motion in the southern district of Florida to unseal a search warrant and property receipt relating to a court-approved search that the F.B.I. conducted earlier this week.
That search was a premises located in Florida belonging to the former president. The department did not make any public statements on the day of the search. The former president publicly confirmed the search that evening, as is his right. Copies of both the warrant and the F.B.I. property receipt were provided on the day of the search to the former president's counsel, who was on site during the search.
The search warrant was authorized by a federal court upon the required finding of probable cause. The property receipt is a document that federal law requires law enforcement agents to leave with the property owner. The department filed the motion to make public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president's public confirmation of the search, the surrounding circumstances, and the substantial public interest in this matter.
Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy. Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor. Under my watch that is precisely what the Justice Department is doing. All Americans are entitled to the evenhanded application of the law, to due process of the law, and to the presumption of innocence.
Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations. Federal law, longstanding department rules, and our ethical obligations prevent me from providing further details as to the basis of the search at this time.
There are, however, certain points I want you to know.
First, I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter.
Second, the department does not take such a decision lightly. Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken.
Third, let me address recent unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the F.B.I. and Justice Department agents and prosecutors. I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked. The men and women of the F.B.I. and the Justice Department are dedicated, patriotic public servants. Every day they protect the American people from violent crime, terrorism, and other threats to their safety while safeguarding our civil rights. They do so at great personal sacrifice and risk to themselves. I am honored to work alongside them.
This is all I can say right now. More information will be made available in the appropriate way and at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Thank you all for your questions. But as I said, this is all I can say at this time.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:45 p.m. ET
Trump could try to have his lawyers fight the documents being unsealed, but his allies at Judicial Watch, led by Tom Fitton, to whom Trump often listens closely, have already gone to court to get the warrant unsealed.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:44 p.m. ET
The application for the unsealing lays out arguments for why the government believes unsealing is appropriate in this case "absent objection from the former president." That means, at a minimum, there is going to have to be some process time for the court to see whether Trump's legal team wants to object. And it's no given that Trump will acquiesce. He has had it in his possession since the day of the search and has chosen not to release it.
Image
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:39 p.m. ET
The Justice Department is not asking the judge to unseal the affidavit investigators filed along with their request for the search warrant. That affidavit would explain what they were investigating and what evidence they had assembled to date in support of the idea that they would find more evidence if the search warrant were granted. So even if a judge granted the department's request, the public would not see the most important legal document associated with it.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:29 p.m. ET
The search warrant and its attachments are unlikely to be unsealed immediately. In its motion, the government said it would follow the judge's lead in terms of additional briefing if required. Presumably, Trump's lawyers could file their own papers contesting the release of the materials.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:19 p.m. ET
The fact that the public will potentially see the property list is important. But it's not clear, even if the F.B.I. retrieved sensitive documents, how specific officials will have been about the nature of those documents.
Image
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:19 p.m. ET
D.O.J.'s motion to unseal was signed by Jay L. Bratt, the chief of the department's counterintelligence and export control section, who met with Trump's lawyer in June to discuss classified documents that ended up at Mar-a-Lago.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:19 p.m. ET
This was a defense of the Justice Department's silence until now. Garland said the government's hands had been tied and he'll say more when he can — meaning, if and when a judge unseals the search warrant materials.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:18 p.m. ET
It's worth bearing in mind that a number of Republicans who are attacking the F.B.I. now praised them and demanded action in relation to Hillary Clinton.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:18 p.m. ET
"I will not stand by" during such attacks, Garland says.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:18 p.m. ET
Garland also addressed recent verbal attacks on aspects of the department in the wake of the search.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:17 p.m. ET
D.O.J.'s motion to unseal is seeking to make public the search warrant used at Mar-a-Lago, two attachments to it and property receipt for items taken from the property.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:17 p.m. ET
Garland said he had "personally approved" the decision to seek the search warrant. That takes some of the focus off F.B.I. director Chris Wray, who has become a target on the right.
Image
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:17 p.m. ET
Garland made clear that Trump and his lawyer had the warrant and receipt from Day 1 and could have released it. Since they're not doing so, the Justice Department is asking the court to permit the government to do so.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:16 p.m. ET
"Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock" of the department and democracy, Garland said, adding that it will be applied without fear or favor.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:16 p.m. ET
Garland said the search warrant was issued by a judge "on the finding of probable cause." He said that given Trump confirmed the search and the "surrounding circumstances and the substantial public interest."
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:15 p.m. ET
D.O.J. has filed a motion to unseal "limited warrant materials" connected to search on Monday at Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago.
Image
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:15 p.m. ET
As Garland spoke, it was worth taking stock that Trump's advisers have essentially filled the void in the three days since the search of the former president's property.
Aug. 11, 2022, 3:11 p.m. ET
Garland moves to make public the warrant and supporting documents used in the search of Mar-a-Lago.
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland moved on Thursday to make public the warrant used in the F.B.I.'s search of former President Donald J. Trump's residence in Florida — and said he had personally approved the search after "less intrusive" attempts to retrieve documents taken from the White House by Mr. Trump failed.
In a clipped, two-minute statement to reporters at the Justice Department's headquarters in Washington, Mr. Garland, who previously declined to comment on the search, said he decided to make a public statement because Mr. Trump had confirmed the action. The attorney general also cited the "surrounding circumstances" of the case and the "substantial public interest in this matter."
Minutes before Mr. Garland took the podium, a top official in the Justice Department's national security division filed a motion to unseal the warrant — along with an inventory of items retrieved in the search — redacted to prevent the release of national security information.
It is not clear how quickly the warrant and the other documents could be made public or whether Mr. Trump will object.
The former president's lawyers have the opportunity to challenge the motion. His legal team did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Judge Bruce Reinhart, the judge in the case, issued an order requiring the Justice Department to serve a copy of its motion to Mr. Trump's lawyers. Mr. Trump and his legal team have until 3 p.m. tomorrow to oppose the motion.
Mr. Garland's decision to make a public statement came at an extraordinary moment in the Justice Department's 152-year history, as the sprawling investigation of a former president who remains a powerful political force gains momentum. Prosecutors from an array of the department's divisions and regional offices are taking new actions, seemingly every day.
Mr. Garland, a laconic former judge, had come under increasing pressure this week to provide more public information about why the Justice Department decided that a search was necessary and who approved it — or at least to offer an explanation of the legal processes undertaken by his subordinates.
But he seemed, even on Thursday, to do so with considerable reluctance. And he reiterated his oft-stated commitment to conducting the inquiry within the confines of the legal system rather than in public, with a goal of protecting the rights of targets of the investigation and its integrity.
"Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy," said Mr. Garland, who refused to answer reporters' shouted questions as he walked slowly out of the seventh-floor briefing room.
"Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye," the attorney general added. "We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all."
His move is less noteworthy for its legal import than its political significance: By giving Mr. Trump the right to oppose the motion in court, Mr. Garland's team is aiming to shield the Justice Department from accusations that it is unilaterally releasing material intended to embarrass him.
Mr. Garland will also be able to claim to his critics that he has publicly addressed the F.B.I. search and shown the public his legal justification for the action, even though the documents being released are likely to contain minimal new details and be riddled with redactions.
Nor does the department plan to release affidavits — which contain much more information about the behavior of Mr. Trump and evidence presented by others — that were used to obtain the warrant, officials said on Thursday.
Mr. Garland did not directly address an episode earlier on Thursday, in which a man in body armor tried to breach an F.B.I. office outside Cincinnati. Justice Department officials said at the time that Mr. Garland did not have enough information to determine his motive. After fleeing the F.B.I. office premises, the man, who had a gun, was killed Thursday evening in a standoff with law enforcement officers, according to a spokesman for the Ohio State Highway Patrol. Investigators are looking into whether he had ties to extremist groups, including one that participated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, according to two law enforcement officials familiar with the matter.
Mr. Garland, a former midlevel prosecutor, went out of his way to counter claims by Mr. Trump and his supporters that agents with the bureau or Justice Department lawyers were motivated by politics or behaved inappropriately in the course of requesting and executing the search warrant.
"I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked," Mr. Garland said.
He added: "The men and women of the F.B.I. and the Justice Department are dedicated, patriotic public servants. Every day, they protect the American people from violent crime, terrorism and other threats to their safety while safeguarding our civil rights. They do so at great personal sacrifice and risk to themselves. I am honored to work alongside them."
Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, said in an internal email earlier in the day said he would adjust the bureau's "security posture" as needed. He also defended the work of the agents involved in the Trump case.
"We don't cut corners," he wrote. "We don't play favorites."
Mr. Trump's aides and allies have questioned why a search was necessary, saying that the former president was cooperating with requests to return the materials he had taken with him when he left the White House. Several prominent Republicans, including former Vice President Mike Pence, had called for Mr. Garland to offer an explanation of his actions.
The F.B.I. search was undertaken after federal prosecutors subpoenaed documents that were believed to be improperly removed from the White House and stored in a room at Mar-a-Lago without appropriate security safeguards, according to people familiar with the matter. Some of them are believed to be classified.
Mr. Garland did not say how or when it became clear to his team that 15 boxes of material that Mr. Trump turned over this year was insufficient. But he cast his decision to approve the warrant as a necessity.
"The department does not take such a decision lightly," Mr. Garland said. "Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken."
The attorney general's public reticence on the status of the various investigations involving Mr. Trump and his supporters is rooted in the searing experiences of the department's recent past. Mr. Garland and his inner circle are eager to avoid the approach adopted by James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, whose public statements about investigations into Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign were seen as a political and legal disaster.
The Justice Department had previously provided no information about the precise nature of the material it was seeking to recover, but it signaled that it involved classified information.
The search of Mar-a-Lago added an explosive dimension to the array of investigations into Mr. Trump, including separate inquiries by the Justice Department into his efforts to remain in office despite his loss in the 2020 election.
A senior White House official said that President Biden and his top staff members were not given advance notice of the attorney general's remarks and learned about it through the news.
Adam Goldman and Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.
Aug. 9, 2022, 6:10 p.m. ET
Here's a look at the timeline related to the F.B.I.'s search of Mar-a-Lago.
Image
When F.B.I. agents took the stunning step of searching former President Donald J. Trump's home in Florida on Monday, the warrant for which may be unsealed as soon as Friday, the focus quickly turned to Mr. Trump's history of improperly keeping records and documents from his time in the White House at his Florida residence.
Over the past year and a half, Mr. Trump has repeatedly faced questions about the nature of documents he turned over to the government, as well as others he kept after leaving office that by law were required to be handed over to the National Archives and Records Administration.
Here is a timeline of Mr. Trump's dealings with the National Archives, as well as efforts by lawmakers and Justice Department officials to identify and reclaim a variety of sensitive documents Mr. Trump may have stashed at his home in Florida.
January 2021
On Jan. 19, the day before he left office, Mr. Trump sent a letter to David S. Ferriero, the archivist of the United States, naming seven senior officials as his representatives to handle all future requests for presidential records. They included Mark Meadows, his chief of staff, and several White House lawyers, including Pat A. Cipollone and Patrick F. Philbin.
Through their work in the White House Counsel's Office, several of Mr. Trump's representatives had helped fight requests from Congress for White House records during Mr. Trump's first impeachment in 2019.
Mr. Trump left the White House on the morning of Jan. 20, just hours before President Biden was inaugurated. Accounts of the former president's departure described a highly disorganized exit with slapdash packing, especially as aides had spent the weeks before focused on contesting the results of the 2020 election and preparing for Mr. Trump's defense in a second impeachment trial that was held in February.
The National Archives said it received a collection of documents from the White House at the end of the administration. It later said that many had been torn up and taped back together, and that others were handed over in scraps that officials had never reconstructed.
January 2022
It was later revealed that in mid-January, the National Archives had succeeded in retrieving 15 boxes of materials taken from the White House at the end of Mr. Trump's term and stored at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump's private club and residence in Palm Beach, Fla. The agency said it had negotiated with Mr. Trump's lawyers throughout 2021 to have the materials returned.
The boxes included a number of personal letters and gifts Mr. Trump had received, including correspondence with Kim Jong-un and a congratulatory letter that former President Barack Obama left for Mr. Trump.
"These records should have been transferred to NARA from the White House at the end of the Trump administration in January 2021," the National Archives said in a statement.
February 2022
Sometime after receiving the boxes, the National Archives discovered what appeared to be classified information within the documents Mr. Trump had held onto and flagged the incident to the Justice Department for guidance. The agency publicly confirmed on Feb. 18 that it had found documents marked as containing "classified national security information" among the boxes.
The finding raised concern among lawmakers, who started investigating through the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
In a letter on Feb. 24, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, the committee's chairwoman, requested a detailed accounting from the National Archives of the contents of the boxes found at Mar-a-Lago, including anything that Mr. Trump had shredded or tried to destroy.
"I am deeply concerned that former President Trump may have violated the law through his intentional efforts to remove and destroy records that belong to the American people," she wrote.
April 2022
In response to the National Archives' referral to the Justice Department in February, federal authorities apparently began their own investigation into how classified information ended up at Mr. Trump's Florida home.
In April, the Justice Department instructed the National Archives not to share any further details about the materials found at Mar-a-Lago with the House Oversight Committee, suggesting that the F.B.I. was in the preliminary stages of a criminal investigation.
May 2022
In early May, the Justice Department issued a subpoena to the National Archives to obtain the classified documents found within the boxes recovered from Mar-a-Lago. The authorities also requested interviews with several White House officials present in the final days before Mr. Trump left the White House. These steps appeared to confirm that the Justice Department had begun a grand jury investigation into whether Mr. Trump had mishandled the sensitive documents, and that its investigative efforts were picking up steam.
At some point in the spring, a small group of federal agents, including at least one involved in counterintelligence, also made an unusual visit to Mar-a-Lago to seek out more information about classified documents that might have been stored there. Mr. Trump and at least one of his lawyers were said to have been present for part of the meeting. It was not immediately clear when the visit took place.
August 2022
On Monday, F.B.I. agents descended on Mr. Trump's home, breaking open a safe as they conducted the search in what seemed to be the latest attempt to obtain information related to his handling of classified materials.
In an interview on "Real America's Voice" on Tuesday, Christina Bobb, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, appeared to confirm that agents were looking for presidential records, some of which may have contained classified information.
On Wednesday, during a deposition in New York, Mr. Trump refused to answer questions from the state's attorney general, Letitia James, citing the Fifth Amendment. Since March 2019, Ms. James has been investigating whether the former president fraudulently inflated the value of his assets to secure loans and other benefits.
Shortly after the questioning began, Mr. Trump's office released a statement that he would invoke his right against self-incrimination and cast the inquiry as part of a grander conspiracy against him, linking it to the F.B.I. search at Mar-a-Lago on Monday.
On Thursday, one of Mr. Trump's representatives to the National Archives disclosed that the former president had been subpoenaed this spring to return the classified documents months before the F.B.I. searched his Florida residence, suggesting that the Justice Department had tried other methods to account for the materials.
After the disclosure of the subpoena, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland moved to make public the warrant and supporting documents used in the search and said he personally approved the decision after the "less intrusive" attempts had failed.
Late on Thursday night, Mr. Trump said he would not oppose the motion to release the warrant and an inventory of items retrieved in the search on Monday. But his lawyers have until not officially responded to the Justice Department; they have until 3 p.m. Eastern on Friday to formally state whether Mr. Trump has any objection.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that a list of documents removed from Mr. Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence include materials marked as top secret and meant to be viewed only in secure government facilities.
Aug. 8, 2022, 9:05 p.m. ET
What is a federal search warrant?
Image
Federal law enforcement officials obtain search warrants when they need to move quickly on a criminal investigation, or are concerned that sensitive materials they need might be in danger of being moved, concealed, altered or destroyed.
The request for a search warrant is made by a federal law enforcement agency if officials conclude that information, often documents or electronic devices, related to a criminal investigation can be found at someone's residence, business, car or other property.
A search warrant is not in itself an indication or accusation of the subject's guilt.
Nonetheless, the use of such a warrant does indicate a sense of prosecutorial urgency — and is used only when "it appears that the use of a subpoena, summons, request, or other less intrusive alternative means of obtaining the materials would substantially jeopardize the availability or usefulness of the materials sought," according to the Justice Manual, the department's official guidebook on criminal procedure.
Neither the Justice Department nor the F.B.I. has the authority to act unilaterally. A federal judge or magistrate must approve of the request, and jurists often demand highly specific limitations on the search to protect a person's Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure before granting a warrant.
Law enforcement agencies must meet certain legal benchmarks, litigated over decades, before a judge can sign off.
First, they must prove "probable cause," evidence that the search is likely to find evidence of illegality; if the warrant is found to lack such proof, the search is considered unlawful under a 2004 precedent.
In addition, the courts have ruled that a search warrant should describe the location and nature of the search with "particularity" — to prevent agents from misusing a warrant to conduct a search that goes beyond the parameters of what has been specifically requested.
taylorhavendecked.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/08/11/us/garland-trump-statement-doj
0 Response to "The Decision to Let an Attack Continue Should Be Made by"
Post a Comment