Podcast Summary
New charges and defendant in Florida related to Trump's deletion of security footage: Prosecutors continue to investigate Trump's handling of classified documents and obstruction of justice, with new charges and a new defendant emerging in Florida.
This week brought unexpected developments in the legal proceedings against Donald Trump, with new charges and a new defendant emerging in Florida related to the deletion of security footage and obstruction of justice. The timing and details of these new charges echo the cover-up theme seen in the initial indictment, highlighting Trump's efforts to mishandle classified documents and obstruct investigations. The tight control over information shown by the prosecutors in this case mirrors the approach taken during the Mueller investigation, despite the challenges of dealing with leaks and public discussions from defense lawyers and witnesses. Overall, these developments underscore the ongoing investigations into Trump's actions and the importance of holding individuals accountable for obstructing justice and mishandling classified materials.
Trump Aides Accused of Destroying Surveillance Footage: Former President Trump and associates allegedly obstructed justice by attempting to destroy surveillance footage relevant to an ongoing investigation. An employee refused to comply, and the footage may provide damning evidence.
Former President Trump and his associates are accused of attempting to obstruct justice by trying to destroy surveillance footage relevant to an ongoing investigation. This was revealed in a new indictment, which shows that on June 22, 2021, the Department of Justice (DOJ) requested the security footage from Trump's business organization. The next day, Trump's aide, De Oliveira, spoke with another aide, Nada, who was supposed to travel with Trump but instead went to Mar-a-Lago to help ensure the videos were destroyed. An employee, Tavares, refused to do so and was identified as employee 4 in the indictment. Trump's previous attempts to obstruct justice included moving boxes and communicating with his attorneys about deleting documents. The obstruction of justice charges become more significant as the government is believed to have obtained the surveillance footage, which could provide damning evidence.
Trump's former lawyer, Cohen, indicted for obstruction and false statements, attempted to hide evidence after subpoena: People's belief in secure messaging apps doesn't guarantee protection during investigations. Transparency and cooperation are key.
The recent indictment of Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, for obstruction of justice and making false statements to Congress about Trump's business dealings in Russia, is particularly damning due to Trump's attempt to hide the evidence after being subpoenaed. The use of encrypted messaging apps like Signal, which people believe to be secure, can actually be a disadvantage for those under investigation as cooperating witnesses can provide access to these messages to the government. This situation is reminiscent of Paul Manafort's case, where he was charged with obstruction after the initial indictment due to his efforts to tamper with witnesses. Unlike Trump and Cohen, there is no evidence of obstruction in the cases of Mike Pence or Joe Biden. The government's ability to access information, even if people believe it to be secure, is a crucial reminder of the importance of transparency and cooperation during investigations.
New charge against Trump involves a previously mentioned but not directly charged document: Former President Trump is charged with obstructing justice and retaining classified documents, including one document that was previously mentioned but not directly charged. The new charge involves a recording of Trump discussing the document's classified nature, adding evidentiary issues to the trial.
Former President Donald Trump and two associates are charged with obstruction of justice and the retention of classified documents, including one document that was previously described in the indictment but not directly charged. This document, which is now charged, is significant because it is alleged that Trump discussed it on tape, confessing to its classified nature. Trump had previously denied the existence of such a document, but the indictment now makes it clear that it was at Mar-a-Lago at some point and was returned to the National Archives. The addition of this charge raises evidentiary issues regarding the admissibility of the tape recording at trial. Trump's defense had been that he was merely blustering about the document's existence, but the new charge strengthens the government's case.
Newly unsealed evidence strengthens case against Trump: Investigation against Trump advances with damning tape and document contradicting his previous statements on classified document return
The newly unsealed evidence in the ongoing investigation against Donald Trump includes a damning tape recording and document that contradict previous statements made by the former president regarding the return of classified documents. Special Counsel Jack Smith appears concerned with the timing of the case and has decided to move forward with the investigation, despite potential delays from superseding indictments. The first indictment was issued in June, and the superseding indictment came at the end of July, with new charges possibly arising from witness testimonies that emerged after the initial indictment. The government and defense teams are still in the process of arguing over protective orders for classified information, which cannot be provided until the order is signed. The new evidence includes a document that was in Florida before being returned to the National Archives and Trump's confession on tape regarding the document. This evidence is incredibly damning and strengthens the case against Trump for obstruction and potential mishandling of classified documents.
Discussing Classified Info at Trump's Private Residences: A Security Risk: The government is concerned about the potential risk to national security from discussing or describing classified info at Trump's Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster residences due to lack of proper security compared to a SCIF.
Former President Donald Trump's request to discuss and potentially view classified documents at his private residences, Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster, is a significant issue due to the lack of security these locations provide compared to a Secure Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). The government's concern is that discussing or even describing classified information outside of a SCIF, where it could be intercepted or accessed by unauthorized individuals, poses a risk to national security. The debate revolves around whether Trump wants to view the documents themselves or merely discuss their content, but the bottom line is that these locations do not offer the same level of security as a SCIF.
Grand jury meets over 7 hours, speculation of potential indictment: The grand jury met for over 7 hours, but it's unclear if they voted on an indictment. Trump's lawyers met with the special counsel, and an appeal of the search warrant could be the next step.
The grand jury meeting regarding the ongoing investigation into former President Trump lasted over seven hours, leading to widespread speculation about a potential indictment. However, it's unlikely that a vote was cast during that session, as grand juries only need to find probable cause. Two of Trump's lawyers met with the special counsel, and while the details of the meeting are unclear, reports suggest that the defense was informed to expect an indictment. The next step could be an appeal of the initial decision to search Mar-a-Lago, which the defense team may file with the Department of Justice. Overall, the investigation continues to unfold, with significant developments potentially on the horizon.
DOJ Determines No Abuse of Discretion, Not Approval: The DOJ is not granting approvals for indictments but determining if there's been an abuse of discretion under special counsel rules. An absence of abuse finding doesn't mean approval. The Amaralago case illustrates this. If an appeal arises, the DOJ will address it promptly. Yesterday's grand jury proceedings could lead to indictment presentation soon.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is not approving indictments, but rather determining if there has been an abuse of discretion under special counsel rules. The absence of an abuse finding does not equate to approval. The Amaralago case serves as an example. If an appeal is raised, it's expected that the DOJ will swiftly address it. Yesterday's grand jury proceedings likely set the stage for a final vote and indictment presentation. The only alternative is if the grand jury requires additional information from a witness. However, it's unlikely that such a need would have been deferred. Stay tuned for updates, as significant developments could occur in the near future. Additionally, there's ongoing activity in Georgia, where authorities are preparing for potential indictments related to the January 6th insurrection investigation. Two prosecutors, federal and state, are collaborating on this investigation, focusing on various aspects of the events leading up to and including January 6th.
Upcoming Trump indictments could lead to significant crowds and security concerns: Former President Trump faces potential indictments in federal and state cases, which could lead to large crowds and increased security measures due to his calls for protests and online rhetoric.
The upcoming indictments of former President Donald Trump in both a federal and state case could lead to significant crowds and potential security concerns. The indictments, which could come down in the same week, have the potential to be a microcosm of the larger investigation. While peaceful protests are protected by the First Amendment, the context of Trump's calls for protests and his rhetoric online could lead to larger crowds and the need for increased security measures. The identity of the assigned judge in both cases will also be crucial in determining the potential outcome and timeline of the trials before the general election. Overall, the upcoming indictments could lead to interesting times and significant developments in the ongoing investigation into Trump's business dealings.