Trump ‘took secret US nuclear program documents’, says indictmentThe indictment reads that Trump stored in his boxes “information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack, and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack”.
It goes on:
The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.
Key events
Show key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this feature
What we know so farThank you for reading along as we learn the latest on the criminal charges being brought against Donald Trump. As always, you can find more of our coverage and analysis here.
Here’s a quick recap of today’s developments:
Former US president Donald Trump faces 37 counts in connection with keeping hundreds of classified documents in his possession after leaving the White House, according to a 49-page federal indictment unsealed Friday afternoon.
The National Archives issued a rare statement to respond to misleading statements made by Trump’s legal team. Detailing aspects of the Presidential Records Act, the Archives made it clear that “there is no history, practice, or provision in law for presidents to take official records with them when they leave office.”
Trump twice disclosed national security information in separate incidents in 2021 and took steps to retain classified documents that he knew he could not keep because they had been subpoenaed by the justice department, the indictment reads.
The former president also hoarded materials of the highest sensitivity after he left the White House, including documents on US nuclear programmes, potential military vulnerabilities of the US and allies, and plans for US retaliation in the event of an attack, it says.
Special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the Mar-a-Lago documents case, said in a brief remarks Friday that his office intended to seek “a speedy trial” against Trump, adding that was “consistent with the public interest”. However, Smith did not say exactly when a trial may be possible.
The indictment also named Trump’s former valet, Walt Nauta, as a co-defendant, alleging that he entered into a conspiracy with Trump to obstruct justice, withheld documents or records, corruptly concealed documents in a federal investigation, engaged in a scheme to conceal and made false statements.
Trump is expected to surrender himself to authorities in Miami on Tuesday at 3pm ET. Posting on Truth Social, Trump announced he would be represented by defence lawyer Todd Blanche, while his attorneys Jim Trusty and John Rowley released a statement to say that they had quit working for him.
A federal judge appointed by Trump who last year drew scrutiny for a ruling that was seen as deferential to the former president may oversee proceedings in the case over his possession of classified documents, a source familiar with the summons told the Guardian.
Have a good evening!
As we noted earlier, the federal judge initially put in place to oversee this criminal case against Trump was appointed by him and has acted favorably to him in the past. Aileen Cannon, a former prosecutor who ruled in Trump’s favor last year during the investigation – temporarily stalling the FBI’s probe – could significantly shape the outcome.
As the Washington Post reports, Cannon could be the decider on whether Trump goes to trial before next November’s election, what evidence can be heard, and what counts or motions are included.
Nominated by Trump in 2020, she was confirmed with help from Democrats (12 Democratic Senators voted in her favor to be exact) and has been on the bench for less than two years. The Post notes that she joined the conservative Federalist Society in law school, commenting that she agreed with “the limited role of the judiciary to say what the law is — not to make the law,” during her confirmation hearing.
As promised by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican representatives are rising to Trump’s defense by attempting to poke holes in the Justice Department investigation.
In a letter issued to Attorney General Merrick Garland today, Congressman and Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan raised questions around the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago that led to the discovery of classified materials Trump had previously claimed he no longer possessed.
“The indictment creates, at the minimum, a serious appearance of a double standard and a miscarriage of justice,” he says in the letter, adding that “additional information recently obtained by the Committee about the Department’s execution of a search warrant on President Trump’s residence only reinforces our grave concerns that your reported actions are nothing more than a politically motivated prosecution.”
As the New York Times reports, Jordan relied on “selective excerpts from an interview” with a former top FBI official, Steven D’Antuono, who raised concerns about the search warrant. Highlighting only the parts of the interview Jordan believed would help his case, he left out details shared by D’Antuono that Democrats said at the time did not cast Trump in a positive light. D’Antuono also told the panel that Trump was present when his lawyer turned over a letter to investigators misleading them that all classified documents were returned, signifying his direct involvement what might be an act of obstruction.
Here’s more from the Times:
But Mr. Jordan omitted several facts from his letter in an apparent effort to place Mr. D’Antuono’s account in the worst possible light.
Mr. D’Antuono has told associates that he was not opposed to executing the search warrant, but wanted to give Mr. Trump’s legal team one last chance to hand over the documents before sending agents into his club — a position that his superiors overruled.
Prosecutors believed that Mr. Trump’s lawyers had already misled them once, falsely certifying to the F.B.I. and the Justice Department that they had searched for documents at the club and turned over everything they could find. The 37-count indictment against Mr. Trump and one of his aides released on Friday laid out in detail the actions the former president took to deceive prosecutors and cause the lawyers to make the false certification.”
Good afternoon readers! Gabrielle Canon here, taking over on the west coast.
The National Archives has released a statement with a “Frequently Asked Questions” section that goes into detail on expectations and the Presidential Records Act, directly countering claims made by Trump and his legal team.
“The Presidential Records Act (PRA) requires the President to separate personal documents from Presidential records before [sic] leaving office,” the Archives wrote. “There is no history, practice, or provision in law for presidents to take official records with them when they leave office to sort through, such as for a two-year period as described in some reports.”
Tim Parlatore, who served as part of Trump’s legal team until recently, has repeatedly said the former president was operating within his rights, telling CNN that a president “is supposed to take the next two years after they leave office to go through all these documents to figure out what’s personal and what’s presidential.”
The National Archives made it clear in their statement that this is not true and also highlighted how previous presidents handled their transition out of office. » …
Read More
