His announcement came after the Justice Department, while arguing against releasing the documents, revealed new, if not extremely vague, details about the investigation into the Trump White House’s handling of classified documents. Rinehart on Thursday set the stage for the possible public release of a heavily redacted version of the affidavit in the Mar-a-Lago investigation. The judge plans to hear more from the Justice Department by next Thursday about how extensively investigators want to keep confidential the document that describes their investigative steps and the methods that lead to the need for an investigation. Rinehart said he is not yet convinced that the entire affidavit should remain withheld from the public. “I’m not prepared to find that the affidavit should be completely sealed” based on the record he now has, Rinehart said, adding that there are “portions” that could be unsealed. Prosecutors will have an opportunity to suggest corrections and explain why any information should be kept out of the public eye, Reinhart said. Those proposals will be submitted at noon ET on August 25th. Reinhart said he may then have additional confidential discussions with the Justice Department before making his decisions on transparency.
The unsealed document sharpens the focus on Trump as a possible subject of a criminal investigation
A document unsealed Thursday that offered details of crimes the Justice Department is investigating, including the “intentional withholding of national defense information,” sharpens the focus on the former president as a potential subject of the criminal investigation, several legal experts told CNN. Previously, search warrant documents listed only federal statutes, including the general law known as the Espionage Act. And the documents released so far have made it clear that Trump and others around him face potential legal exposure, including possible obstruction of justice. But the specific language about “deliberate retention” could indicate the role of the former President, who would have been authorized to possess national defense documents while in office, but not since he retired to his private club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida. The newly unsealed document was part of the warrant application and was among several largely procedural documents unsealed by the judge on Thursday.
Affidavit described how evidence of obstruction may be found at Mar-a-Lago, DOJ says
A Justice Department attorney said during the hearing that the probable cause affidavit used to obtain the warrant described how prosecutors could find “evidence of obstruction” on property grounds in Florida — a potential crime that itself search warrant revealed he was under investigation. “In this case, the court found probable cause that there is a violation of one of the interception statutes and that evidence of interception will be found at Mar-a-Lago,” said Jay Bratt, head of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence division. Obstruction of justice was one of three statutes cited in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant, which was unsealed last week, and Reinhart said during Thursday’s hearing that he “found that there is probable cause” that the statute had been violated. Bratt made the comments about obstruction being investigated while trying to underline the Justice Department’s fear that future witnesses might not be willing to provide information if too much were to come out of the investigation so far.
The Justice Department says the affidavit is lengthy, detailed and contained “significant information from the jury.”
Bratt revealed other details about the affidavit, describing it as lengthy, detailed and containing “significant information from the jury.”
He told the federal judge that letting the public read the affidavit would “provide a road map for the investigation” and even indicate next steps in the investigation.
Bratt’s comments in court underscored that this is an active, ongoing criminal investigation, with strong work on witness interviews and grand jury activity.
While acknowledging that there is a public interest in transparency, Bratt said there is “another public interest” in criminal investigations being able to proceed unhindered.
Creepy witness warnings reveal that there have been quite a few in this investigation
As Bratt warned that releasing the affidavit could have a chilling effect on witnesses involved in it and future investigations, he revealed that several witnesses are already involved in the document search. Some of those witnesses have very specific pertinent information that, if released, would reveal who they are, Bratt said. Bratt also raised concerns about the dangers facing the FBI since news of the Mar-a-Lago investigation broke, including the recent standoff at an FBI field office in Cincinnati and “amateur sleuths” on the Internet. He told the judge that if any of the other documents were released, the DOJ would want to redact even basic information about the agents who have worked on the case so far.
Trump’s lawyers did not try to weigh in on the release of the documents in court
A lawyer for Trump was present at the hearing, but did not speak before the judge or be asked to weigh in during the proceedings. The lawyer, Christina Bobb, told reporters before the hearing that she was there to watch. Trump is not officially involved in the controversy over the release of the warrant documents. Previously, when the Justice Department had asked a judge to unseal the subpoena itself and the receipt of the investigation, the judge instructed the Department to confer with Trump and then inform the court if Trump opposed the release of the documents . Before Thursday’s hearing, the judge set a 9 a.m. deadline. ET for the parties to file submissions responding to the DOJ’s filings in the dispute. It was notable that the Trump team had not until then sought to become formally involved in the controversy, particularly because Trump and his allies had been vocal outside the court about their desire to have the warrant documents released. Some of Bob’s public comments about the investigation were brought before Rinehart on Thursday, however. Charles Tobin — who advocated for the release of the affidavit on behalf of a variety of media outlets including CNN — pointed out that Bob had already provided information about an FBI subpoena over the Mar-a-Lago surveillance tape and that officials of the Department of Justice had visited Mar.-a-Lago in June. This story has been updated with additional developments. CNN’s Evan Perez contributed to this report.
title: “Evidence From Mar A Lago Search Documents Hearing Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-04” author: “Carol Midgley”
His announcement came after the Justice Department, while arguing against releasing the documents, revealed new, if not extremely vague, details about the investigation into the Trump White House’s handling of classified documents. Rinehart on Thursday set the stage for the possible public release of a heavily redacted version of the affidavit in the Mar-a-Lago investigation. The judge plans to hear more from the Justice Department by next Thursday about how extensively investigators want to keep confidential the document that describes their investigative steps and the methods that lead to the need for an investigation. Rinehart said he is not yet convinced that the entire affidavit should remain withheld from the public. “I’m not prepared to find that the affidavit should be completely sealed” based on the record he now has, Rinehart said, adding that there are “portions” that could be unsealed. Prosecutors will have an opportunity to suggest corrections and explain why any information should be kept out of the public eye, Reinhart said. Those proposals will be submitted at noon ET on August 25th. Reinhart said he may then have additional confidential discussions with the Justice Department before making his decisions on transparency.
The unsealed document sharpens the focus on Trump as a possible subject of a criminal investigation
A document unsealed Thursday that offered details of crimes the Justice Department is investigating, including the “intentional withholding of national defense information,” sharpens the focus on the former president as a potential subject of the criminal investigation, several legal experts told CNN. Previously, search warrant documents listed only federal statutes, including the general law known as the Espionage Act. And the documents released so far have made it clear that Trump and others around him face potential legal exposure, including possible obstruction of justice. But the specific language about “deliberate retention” could indicate the role of the former President, who would have been authorized to possess national defense documents while in office, but not since he retired to his private club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida. The newly unsealed document was part of the warrant application and was among several largely procedural documents unsealed by the judge on Thursday.
Affidavit described how evidence of obstruction may be found at Mar-a-Lago, DOJ says
A Justice Department attorney said during the hearing that the probable cause affidavit used to obtain the warrant described how prosecutors could find “evidence of obstruction” on property grounds in Florida — a potential crime that itself search warrant revealed he was under investigation. “In this case, the court found probable cause that there is a violation of one of the interception statutes and that evidence of interception will be found at Mar-a-Lago,” said Jay Bratt, head of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence division. Obstruction of justice was one of three statutes cited in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant, which was unsealed last week, and Reinhart said during Thursday’s hearing that he “found that there is probable cause” that the statute had been violated. Bratt made the comments about obstruction being investigated while trying to underline the Justice Department’s fear that future witnesses might not be willing to provide information if too much were to come out of the investigation so far.
The Justice Department says the affidavit is lengthy, detailed and contained “significant information from the jury.”
Bratt revealed other details about the affidavit, describing it as lengthy, detailed and containing “significant information from the jury.”
He told the federal judge that letting the public read the affidavit would “provide a road map for the investigation” and even indicate next steps in the investigation.
Bratt’s comments in court underscored that this is an active, ongoing criminal investigation, with strong work on witness interviews and grand jury activity.
While acknowledging that there is a public interest in transparency, Bratt said there is “another public interest” in criminal investigations being able to proceed unhindered.
Creepy witness warnings reveal that there have been quite a few in this investigation
As Bratt warned that releasing the affidavit could have a chilling effect on witnesses involved in it and future investigations, he revealed that several witnesses are already involved in the document search. Some of those witnesses have very specific pertinent information that, if released, would reveal who they are, Bratt said. Bratt also raised concerns about the dangers facing the FBI since news of the Mar-a-Lago investigation broke, including the recent standoff at an FBI field office in Cincinnati and “amateur sleuths” on the Internet. He told the judge that if any of the other documents were released, the DOJ would want to redact even basic information about the agents who have worked on the case so far.
Trump’s lawyers did not try to weigh in on the release of the documents in court
A lawyer for Trump was present at the hearing, but did not speak before the judge or be asked to weigh in during the proceedings. The lawyer, Christina Bobb, told reporters before the hearing that she was there to watch. Trump is not officially involved in the controversy over the release of the warrant documents. Previously, when the Justice Department had asked a judge to unseal the subpoena itself and the receipt of the investigation, the judge instructed the Department to confer with Trump and then inform the court if Trump opposed the release of the documents . Before Thursday’s hearing, the judge set a 9 a.m. deadline. ET for the parties to file submissions responding to the DOJ’s filings in the dispute. It was notable that the Trump team had not until then sought to become formally involved in the controversy, particularly because Trump and his allies had been vocal outside the court about their desire to have the warrant documents released. Some of Bob’s public comments about the investigation were brought before Rinehart on Thursday, however. Charles Tobin — who advocated for the release of the affidavit on behalf of a variety of media outlets including CNN — pointed out that Bob had already provided information about an FBI subpoena over the Mar-a-Lago surveillance tape and that officials of the Department of Justice had visited Mar.-a-Lago in June. This story has been updated with additional developments. CNN’s Evan Perez contributed to this report.
title: “Evidence From Mar A Lago Search Documents Hearing Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-18” author: “Miguelina Cherry”
His announcement came after the Justice Department, while arguing against releasing the documents, revealed new, if not extremely vague, details about the investigation into the Trump White House’s handling of classified documents. Rinehart on Thursday set the stage for the possible public release of a heavily redacted version of the affidavit in the Mar-a-Lago investigation. The judge plans to hear more from the Justice Department by next Thursday about how extensively investigators want to keep confidential the document that describes their investigative steps and the methods that lead to the need for an investigation. Rinehart said he is not yet convinced that the entire affidavit should remain withheld from the public. “I’m not prepared to find that the affidavit should be completely sealed” based on the record he now has, Rinehart said, adding that there are “portions” that could be unsealed. Prosecutors will have an opportunity to suggest corrections and explain why any information should be kept out of the public eye, Reinhart said. Those proposals will be submitted at noon ET on August 25th. Reinhart said he may then have additional confidential discussions with the Justice Department before making his decisions on transparency.
The unsealed document sharpens the focus on Trump as a possible subject of a criminal investigation
A document unsealed Thursday that offered details of crimes the Justice Department is investigating, including the “intentional withholding of national defense information,” sharpens the focus on the former president as a potential subject of the criminal investigation, several legal experts told CNN. Previously, search warrant documents listed only federal statutes, including the general law known as the Espionage Act. And the documents released so far have made it clear that Trump and others around him face potential legal exposure, including possible obstruction of justice. But the specific language about “deliberate retention” could indicate the role of the former President, who would have been authorized to possess national defense documents while in office, but not since he retired to his private club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida. The newly unsealed document was part of the warrant application and was among several largely procedural documents unsealed by the judge on Thursday.
Affidavit described how evidence of obstruction may be found at Mar-a-Lago, DOJ says
A Justice Department attorney said during the hearing that the probable cause affidavit used to obtain the warrant described how prosecutors could find “evidence of obstruction” on property grounds in Florida — a potential crime that itself search warrant revealed he was under investigation. “In this case, the court found probable cause that there is a violation of one of the interception statutes and that evidence of interception will be found at Mar-a-Lago,” said Jay Bratt, head of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence division. Obstruction of justice was one of three statutes cited in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant, which was unsealed last week, and Reinhart said during Thursday’s hearing that he “found that there is probable cause” that the statute had been violated. Bratt made the comments about obstruction being investigated while trying to underline the Justice Department’s fear that future witnesses might not be willing to provide information if too much were to come out of the investigation so far.
The Justice Department says the affidavit is lengthy, detailed and contained “significant information from the jury.”
Bratt revealed other details about the affidavit, describing it as lengthy, detailed and containing “significant information from the jury.”
He told the federal judge that letting the public read the affidavit would “provide a road map for the investigation” and even indicate next steps in the investigation.
Bratt’s comments in court underscored that this is an active, ongoing criminal investigation, with strong work on witness interviews and grand jury activity.
While acknowledging that there is a public interest in transparency, Bratt said there is “another public interest” in criminal investigations being able to proceed unhindered.
Creepy witness warnings reveal that there have been quite a few in this investigation
As Bratt warned that releasing the affidavit could have a chilling effect on witnesses involved in it and future investigations, he revealed that several witnesses are already involved in the document search. Some of those witnesses have very specific pertinent information that, if released, would reveal who they are, Bratt said. Bratt also raised concerns about the dangers facing the FBI since news of the Mar-a-Lago investigation broke, including the recent standoff at an FBI field office in Cincinnati and “amateur sleuths” on the Internet. He told the judge that if any of the other documents were released, the DOJ would want to redact even basic information about the agents who have worked on the case so far.
Trump’s lawyers did not try to weigh in on the release of the documents in court
A lawyer for Trump was present at the hearing, but did not speak before the judge or be asked to weigh in during the proceedings. The lawyer, Christina Bobb, told reporters before the hearing that she was there to watch. Trump is not officially involved in the controversy over the release of the warrant documents. Previously, when the Justice Department had asked a judge to unseal the subpoena itself and the receipt of the investigation, the judge instructed the Department to confer with Trump and then inform the court if Trump opposed the release of the documents . Before Thursday’s hearing, the judge set a 9 a.m. deadline. ET for the parties to file submissions responding to the DOJ’s filings in the dispute. It was notable that the Trump team had not until then sought to become formally involved in the controversy, particularly because Trump and his allies had been vocal outside the court about their desire to have the warrant documents released. Some of Bob’s public comments about the investigation were brought before Rinehart on Thursday, however. Charles Tobin — who advocated for the release of the affidavit on behalf of a variety of media outlets including CNN — pointed out that Bob had already provided information about an FBI subpoena over the Mar-a-Lago surveillance tape and that officials of the Department of Justice had visited Mar.-a-Lago in June. This story has been updated with additional developments. CNN’s Evan Perez contributed to this report.
title: “Evidence From Mar A Lago Search Documents Hearing Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-30” author: “Lisa Hamlin”
His announcement came after the Justice Department, while arguing against releasing the documents, revealed new, if not extremely vague, details about the investigation into the Trump White House’s handling of classified documents. Rinehart on Thursday set the stage for the possible public release of a heavily redacted version of the affidavit in the Mar-a-Lago investigation. The judge plans to hear more from the Justice Department by next Thursday about how extensively investigators want to keep confidential the document that describes their investigative steps and the methods that lead to the need for an investigation. Rinehart said he is not yet convinced that the entire affidavit should remain withheld from the public. “I’m not prepared to find that the affidavit should be completely sealed” based on the record he now has, Rinehart said, adding that there are “portions” that could be unsealed. Prosecutors will have an opportunity to suggest corrections and explain why any information should be kept out of the public eye, Reinhart said. Those proposals will be submitted at noon ET on August 25th. Reinhart said he may then have additional confidential discussions with the Justice Department before making his decisions on transparency.
The unsealed document sharpens the focus on Trump as a possible subject of a criminal investigation
A document unsealed Thursday that offered details of crimes the Justice Department is investigating, including the “intentional withholding of national defense information,” sharpens the focus on the former president as a potential subject of the criminal investigation, several legal experts told CNN. Previously, search warrant documents listed only federal statutes, including the general law known as the Espionage Act. And the documents released so far have made it clear that Trump and others around him face potential legal exposure, including possible obstruction of justice. But the specific language about “deliberate retention” could indicate the role of the former President, who would have been authorized to possess national defense documents while in office, but not since he retired to his private club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida. The newly unsealed document was part of the warrant application and was among several largely procedural documents unsealed by the judge on Thursday.
Affidavit described how evidence of obstruction may be found at Mar-a-Lago, DOJ says
A Justice Department attorney said during the hearing that the probable cause affidavit used to obtain the warrant described how prosecutors could find “evidence of obstruction” on property grounds in Florida — a potential crime that itself search warrant revealed he was under investigation. “In this case, the court found probable cause that there is a violation of one of the interception statutes and that evidence of interception will be found at Mar-a-Lago,” said Jay Bratt, head of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence division. Obstruction of justice was one of three statutes cited in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant, which was unsealed last week, and Reinhart said during Thursday’s hearing that he “found that there is probable cause” that the statute had been violated. Bratt made the comments about obstruction being investigated while trying to underline the Justice Department’s fear that future witnesses might not be willing to provide information if too much were to come out of the investigation so far.
The Justice Department says the affidavit is lengthy, detailed and contained “significant information from the jury.”
Bratt revealed other details about the affidavit, describing it as lengthy, detailed and containing “significant information from the jury.”
He told the federal judge that letting the public read the affidavit would “provide a road map for the investigation” and even indicate next steps in the investigation.
Bratt’s comments in court underscored that this is an active, ongoing criminal investigation, with strong work on witness interviews and grand jury activity.
While acknowledging that there is a public interest in transparency, Bratt said there is “another public interest” in criminal investigations being able to proceed unhindered.
Creepy witness warnings reveal that there have been quite a few in this investigation
As Bratt warned that releasing the affidavit could have a chilling effect on witnesses involved in it and future investigations, he revealed that several witnesses are already involved in the document search. Some of those witnesses have very specific pertinent information that, if released, would reveal who they are, Bratt said. Bratt also raised concerns about the dangers facing the FBI since news of the Mar-a-Lago investigation broke, including the recent standoff at an FBI field office in Cincinnati and “amateur sleuths” on the Internet. He told the judge that if any of the other documents were released, the DOJ would want to redact even basic information about the agents who have worked on the case so far.
Trump’s lawyers did not try to weigh in on the release of the documents in court
A lawyer for Trump was present at the hearing, but did not speak before the judge or be asked to weigh in during the proceedings. The lawyer, Christina Bobb, told reporters before the hearing that she was there to watch. Trump is not officially involved in the controversy over the release of the warrant documents. Previously, when the Justice Department had asked a judge to unseal the subpoena itself and the receipt of the investigation, the judge instructed the Department to confer with Trump and then inform the court if Trump opposed the release of the documents . Before Thursday’s hearing, the judge set a 9 a.m. deadline. ET for the parties to file submissions responding to the DOJ’s filings in the dispute. It was notable that the Trump team had not until then sought to become formally involved in the controversy, particularly because Trump and his allies had been vocal outside the court about their desire to have the warrant documents released. Some of Bob’s public comments about the investigation were brought before Rinehart on Thursday, however. Charles Tobin — who advocated for the release of the affidavit on behalf of a variety of media outlets including CNN — pointed out that Bob had already provided information about an FBI subpoena over the Mar-a-Lago surveillance tape and that officials of the Department of Justice had visited Mar.-a-Lago in June. This story has been updated with additional developments. CNN’s Evan Perez contributed to this report.
title: “Evidence From Mar A Lago Search Documents Hearing Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-27” author: “Wanda Hawk”
His announcement came after the Justice Department, while arguing against releasing the documents, revealed new, if not extremely vague, details about the investigation into the Trump White House’s handling of classified documents. Rinehart on Thursday set the stage for the possible public release of a heavily redacted version of the affidavit in the Mar-a-Lago investigation. The judge plans to hear more from the Justice Department by next Thursday about how extensively investigators want to keep confidential the document that describes their investigative steps and the methods that lead to the need for an investigation. Rinehart said he is not yet convinced that the entire affidavit should remain withheld from the public. “I’m not prepared to find that the affidavit should be completely sealed” based on the record he now has, Rinehart said, adding that there are “portions” that could be unsealed. Prosecutors will have an opportunity to suggest corrections and explain why any information should be kept out of the public eye, Reinhart said. Those proposals will be submitted at noon ET on August 25th. Reinhart said he may then have additional confidential discussions with the Justice Department before making his decisions on transparency.
The unsealed document sharpens the focus on Trump as a possible subject of a criminal investigation
A document unsealed Thursday that offered details of crimes the Justice Department is investigating, including the “intentional withholding of national defense information,” sharpens the focus on the former president as a potential subject of the criminal investigation, several legal experts told CNN. Previously, search warrant documents listed only federal statutes, including the general law known as the Espionage Act. And the documents released so far have made it clear that Trump and others around him face potential legal exposure, including possible obstruction of justice. But the specific language about “deliberate retention” could indicate the role of the former President, who would have been authorized to possess national defense documents while in office, but not since he retired to his private club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida. The newly unsealed document was part of the warrant application and was among several largely procedural documents unsealed by the judge on Thursday.
Affidavit described how evidence of obstruction may be found at Mar-a-Lago, DOJ says
A Justice Department attorney said during the hearing that the probable cause affidavit used to obtain the warrant described how prosecutors could find “evidence of obstruction” on property grounds in Florida — a potential crime that itself search warrant revealed he was under investigation. “In this case, the court found probable cause that there is a violation of one of the interception statutes and that evidence of interception will be found at Mar-a-Lago,” said Jay Bratt, head of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence division. Obstruction of justice was one of three statutes cited in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant, which was unsealed last week, and Reinhart said during Thursday’s hearing that he “found that there is probable cause” that the statute had been violated. Bratt made the comments about obstruction being investigated while trying to underline the Justice Department’s fear that future witnesses might not be willing to provide information if too much were to come out of the investigation so far.
The Justice Department says the affidavit is lengthy, detailed and contained “significant information from the jury.”
Bratt revealed other details about the affidavit, describing it as lengthy, detailed and containing “significant information from the jury.”
He told the federal judge that letting the public read the affidavit would “provide a road map for the investigation” and even indicate next steps in the investigation.
Bratt’s comments in court underscored that this is an active, ongoing criminal investigation, with strong work on witness interviews and grand jury activity.
While acknowledging that there is a public interest in transparency, Bratt said there is “another public interest” in criminal investigations being able to proceed unhindered.
Creepy witness warnings reveal that there have been quite a few in this investigation
As Bratt warned that releasing the affidavit could have a chilling effect on witnesses involved in it and future investigations, he revealed that several witnesses are already involved in the document search. Some of those witnesses have very specific pertinent information that, if released, would reveal who they are, Bratt said. Bratt also raised concerns about the dangers facing the FBI since news of the Mar-a-Lago investigation broke, including the recent standoff at an FBI field office in Cincinnati and “amateur sleuths” on the Internet. He told the judge that if any of the other documents were released, the DOJ would want to redact even basic information about the agents who have worked on the case so far.
Trump’s lawyers did not try to weigh in on the release of the documents in court
A lawyer for Trump was present at the hearing, but did not speak before the judge or be asked to weigh in during the proceedings. The lawyer, Christina Bobb, told reporters before the hearing that she was there to watch. Trump is not officially involved in the controversy over the release of the warrant documents. Previously, when the Justice Department had asked a judge to unseal the subpoena itself and the receipt of the investigation, the judge instructed the Department to confer with Trump and then inform the court if Trump opposed the release of the documents . Before Thursday’s hearing, the judge set a 9 a.m. deadline. ET for the parties to file submissions responding to the DOJ’s filings in the dispute. It was notable that the Trump team had not until then sought to become formally involved in the controversy, particularly because Trump and his allies had been vocal outside the court about their desire to have the warrant documents released. Some of Bob’s public comments about the investigation were brought before Rinehart on Thursday, however. Charles Tobin — who advocated for the release of the affidavit on behalf of a variety of media outlets including CNN — pointed out that Bob had already provided information about an FBI subpoena over the Mar-a-Lago surveillance tape and that officials of the Department of Justice had visited Mar.-a-Lago in June. This story has been updated with additional developments. CNN’s Evan Perez contributed to this report.
