Donald Trump speaks out on the FBI's raid on Mar-a-Lago: Fox News host Sean Hannity sits down with former President Trump in an exclusive interview to discuss the Mar-a-Lago raid and the two-tiered system of justice.
by Sean Hannity
Fox News
Sep 21, 2022
"'I just want you to know I've declassified everything in the world. I'm President, I can do it' — C'mon," Biden said shortly before departing the White House.
-- Biden mocks Trump's claims that he declassified documents found at Mar-a-Lago: 'C'mon', by John L. Dorman, Business Insider, Aug 27, 2022
Appeals court reverses Judge Cannon's ruling, FBI investigation of Trump/classified docs can resume
by Glenn Kirschner
Sep 22, 2022
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed Judge Aileen Cannon's order directing the FBI to stop investigating the crimes surrounding the classified documents Donald Trump stole from the White House and unlawfully concealed at Mar-a-Lago.
Notably, the three-judge appellate panel consisted of two federal judges who had been appointed by Trump. This video reviews some of the blunt, direct findings of the appellate court in reversing the thoroughly unsupportable ruling of Judge Cannon.
This video also takes on the recent interview of Trump by Sean Hannity in which Trump asserted that he could just magically think that classified documents are declassified and it would be so. The appellate court opinion had something to say about whether there was ANY evidence that Trump had declassified any of the documents that were seized from Mar-a-Lago.
So Donald Trump tells us that he can just imagine in his mind that things are Declassified, and poof, they're Declassified. Well, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion had a little something to say about declassification as well. "Plaintiff Trump suggests that he may have Declassified these documents when he was president, but the record contains no evidence that any of these records were Declassified, and the declassification argument is a red herring, because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal." In other words, that wouldn't magically convert it into the personal property belonging to Donald Trump. They still belong to the government. They still belong to We the People. And whether he thought them Declassified or not, he was still unlawfully concealing them at Mar-A-Lago. But you know, let Donald Trump continue to talk about his magical thinking regarding declassification, because his every word is admissible evidence as a statement of a party opponent. When he says things like, "Maybe I Declassified them magically in my mind," what is he actually communicating to us -- and ultimately, when we introduce those statements at his trial to the jury? That he didn't declassify anything! Because if he did, every copy of the document would have to be stamped "Declassified." Every copy of the document, either hard copy, or in electronic form, in the government's possession, would have to be marked as "Declassified." None of that happened! And by Donald Trump saying, "Well, yeah, I just thought, I thought magically, that everything was Declassified, so it was," what he's communicating is "I didn't actually declassify anything." And yes, those statements will come back to haunt him in a courtroom when we are trying this case to 12 citizens in a jury box sitting as the conscience of the community, listening to all of the evidence of Donald Trump's guilt. And they will be persuaded, Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, to hold Donald Trump accountable for his crimes. Because Justice matters.
Highlights:
13:16 >> President Trump: THE PROBLEM THAT YOU HAVE IS THEY GO INTO ROOMS -- THEY WON'T LET ANYBODY NEAR THEM, THEY WOULDN'T EVEN LET THEM IN THE SAME BUILDING. DID THEY DROP ANYTHING INTO THOSE FILES? OR DID THEY DO IT LATER? THERE'S NO CHAIN OF CUSTODY HERE WITH THEM.
>> Sean: WOULDN'T THAT BE ON VIDEOTAPE POTENTIALLY?
>> President Trump: NO, I DON’T THINK SO. THEY ARE IN A ROOM.
>> Sean Hannity: OKAY, SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS THE NEXT LOGICAL QUESTION. BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES -- YOU, UNLIKE SAY HILLARY CLINTON IN HER CASE -- A PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO DECLASSIFY. OKAY, YOU SAID ON TRUTH SOCIAL A NUMBER OF TIMES YOU DID DECLASSIFY THEM. OKAY, IS THERE A PROCESS? WHAT WAS YOUR PROCESS?
>> President Trump: THERE DOESN’T HAVE TO BE A PROCESS AS I UNDERSTAND IT. DIFFERENT PEOPLE SEE DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IF YOU’RE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES YOU CAN DECLASSIFY JUST BY SAYING IT’S DECLASSIFIED. EVEN BY THINKING ABOUT IT, BECAUSE YOU ARE SENDING IT TO MAR-A-LAGO, OR TO WHEREVER YOU’RE SENDING IT. THERE DOESN’T HAVE TO BE A PROCESS. IT CAN BE A PROCESS, BUT IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE. THERE CAN BE A PROCESS, BUT THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. YOU’RE THE PRESIDENT. YOU MAKE THAT DECISION. SO WHEN YOU SEND IT, IT’S DECLASSIFIED. I DECLASSIFIED EVERYTHING. NOW I DECLASSIFIED THINGS THAT -- WE WERE HAVING A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH NARA. YOU KNOW, NARA IS A RADICAL LEFT GROUP OF PEOPLE RUNNING THAT THING. AND WHEN YOU SEND DOCUMENTS OVER THERE, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE’S A VERY GOOD CHANCE THAT A LOT OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WILL NEVER BE SEEN AGAIN. THERE’S ALSO A LOT OF SPECULATION BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DID, THE SEVERITY OF THE FBI COMING AND RAIDING MAR-A-LAGO. WERE THEY LOOKING FOR THE HILLARY CLINTON EMAILS THAT WERE DELETED, BUT THEY ARE AROUND SOMEPLACE. WERE THEY LOOKING FOR THE --
>> Sean Hannity: WAIT, WAIT. YOU'RE NOT SAYING YOU HAD IT?
>> President Trump: NO, NO, THEY MAY BE SAYING, THEY MAY HAVE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS IN THERE.
>> Sean Hannity: OKAY.
>> President Trump: AND A LOT OF PEOPLE SAID THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD GIVE THE KIND OF SEVERITY THAT THEY SHOWED BY ACTUALLY COMING IN AND RAIDING WITH MANY, MANY PEOPLE, IS THE HILLARY CLINTON DEAL, THE RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA STUFF. OR, I MEAN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS: THE SPYING ON TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN. SO THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN. SO WHY DID THEY COME IN AND DO THAT? ESPECIALLY SINCE WE WERE HAVING SUCH GREAT CONVERSATIONS, SEAN.
Transcript
>> Sean: WELCOME BACK TO HANNITY REPORTING FROM MAR-A-LAGO, AND HERE IS MORE OF MY INTERVIEW FROM EARLIER TODAY WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. LET’S TALK ABOUT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. WE'RE AT MAR-A-LAGO. WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU HEARD THAT YOUR PERSONAL HOME WAS BEING RAIDED? AND WHAT DID YOU THINK?
>> President Trump: I WAS IN NEW JERSEY. I GOT A CALL IN THE MORNING FROM SOMEBODY THAT IS HERE, A PERSON WHO WORKS, "SIR, THE FBI JUST CAME IN." I SAID, "WHAT? THE FBI WHO?" AND THEY GO, "THE FBI." AND I SAID, "HOW MANY PEOPLE?" "MANY, MANY PEOPLE, SIR. MANY, MANY PEOPLE." AND I COULDN’T BELIEVE IT. AND THEY WANTED TO DO IT QUIETLY, SILENTLY. AND I SAID, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN, 'SILENT'?" THEY’RE NOT SILENT, BECAUSE I WATCH THE WAY THEY WERE SO HORRIBLE TO SO MANY PEOPLE THAT YOU KNOW, AND THAT I KNOW, THAT ARE GOOD PEOPLE, WHERE THEY JUST ATTACKED THEM AT THEIR HOUSE. AND THEY WANTED TO DO IT QUIETLY. AND BY 4:00 IN THE AFTERNOON WE STARTED GETTING LITTLE STRANGE CALLS, LIKE FROM THE GROUP CALLED THE MEDIA, IF YOU’VE EVER HEARD OF THEM? AND THEY SAID, "SOMETHING STRANGE IS HAPPENING AT MAR-A-LAGO. THERE ARE PEOPLE STANDING AT THE GATES WITH AK-47s OR SOME KIND OF A VERY SOPHISTICATED GUN. AND WHAT IS HAPPENING AT MAR-A-LAGO?" AND WHEN I HEARD THAT I SAID, "WELL LET’S PUT OUT A NOTICE THAT WE WERE ATTACKED, OR RAIDED, OR BROKEN IN BY THE FBI. I COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
>> Sean: THEY WOULDN’T ALLOW YOUR LAWYERS TO GO WITH THEM AS THEY WENT THROUGH THIS ENTIRE FACILITY?
>> President Trump: NO, THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW. WE SENT LAWYERS TO THE PROPERTY.
>> Sean: SO HERE'S MY QUESTION, BUT THEY DID ASK YOU TO TURN OFF YOUR SECURITY CAMERA?
>> President Trump: THAT'S RIGHT.
>> Sean: BUT YOU DIDN’T DO IT?
>> President Trump: THAT'S RIGHT.
>> Sean: WILL YOU RELEASE THOSE TAPES PUBLICLY?
>> President Trump: WELL, THEY’VE ASKED ME NOT TO DO IT, BECAUSE THEY FEEL THE FBI AGENTS MIGHT BE IN PHYSICAL HARM AND DANGER. BECAUSE THERE IS A FERVOR IN THIS COUNTRY. THIS COUNTRY IS SO TIRED OF THIS STUFF. SO I HAVE NOT DONE IT.
>> Sean: YOU COULD PIXEL OUT THEIR FACES TO PROTECT THEIR IDENTITY.
>> President Trump: I GUESS I COULD DO THAT. LOOK, I REALLY BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN THE FBI OUT OF THE TOP GROUPS, MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THE FBI, THEY PROBABLY VOTED FOR TRUMP. I DON’T WANT TO HAVE ANYBODY HURT. BUT THEY CAME ONTO THE SITE, THEY WOULDN’T ALLOW ANY LEGAL REPRESENTATION OR REPRESENTATION. SO THEY GO INTO THE ROOMS, LIKE MY BEDROOM, MY OFFICE, THEY GO INTO THE ROOMS --
>> Sean: YOUR WIFE’S CLOSET?
>> President Trump: WIFE’S CLOSET.
>> Sean: YOUR SON’S BEDROOM?
>> President Trump: MY SON’S BEDROOM, YEAH. THERE’S A PICTURE OF HUNTER BIDEN AND BARRON TRUMP. BARRON LOOKS SO INNOCENT, AND HUNTER DOESN’T LOOK SO INNOCENT. THEY SAID HIS ROOM WAS RAIDED, BUT HIS WASN’T. IT'S A TERRIBLE THING.
>> Sean: OKAY, SO THEY WENT TO A MAGISTRATE. MERRICK GARLAND HAS SAID, HE CAME OUT AND HE SAID, "I AUTHORIZED THIS." NOW IT’S INTERESTING, IS THEY WENT TO A MAGISTRATE, RIGHT HERE IN FLORIDA. A MAGISTRATE WHO HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY RECUSED HIMSELF FROM A CASE INVOLVING YOU BECAUSE OF, HE WAS PREJUDICED AGAINST YOU. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT WAS, WHAT, MONTHS EARLIER? WHY THEN DIDN'T HE RECUSE HIMSELF IN THIS CASE? AND PART TWO TO THIS QUESTION IS THIS: THEY TOOK YOUR PASSPORT, THEY TOOK YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS, THEY TOOK YOUR TAX RECORDS. AND PROBABLY THE SCARIEST PART TO ME, AND THIS IS WHY A BROAD WARRANT LIKE THIS, TO ME WOULD BE DANGEROUS -- WE DO HAVE A FOURTH AMENDMENT -- THEY ALSO TOOK, WHAT, 500 PAGES OF ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED INFORMATION? HAVE YOU GOTTEN THAT BACK, BY THE WAY?
>> President Trump: A LOT. I DON'T KNOW. I REALLY DON'T KNOW. THEY TOOK A LOT. I THINK THEY TOOK MY WILL. I FOUND OUT YESTERDAY. I SAID, "WHERE IS IT?" I THINK THEY TOOK MY WILL.
>> Sean: AM I IN IT?
>> President Trump: THAT COULD CAUSE A LOT OF PROBLEMS IF THAT GETS PUBLISHED, AND PEOPLE WHO WON’T BE SO HAPPY, OR MAY BE VERY HAPPY. I THINK THEY TOOK MY WILL. IT'S A HORRIBLE THING. THEY SHOPPED. THEY WENT TO A MAGISTRATE THAT HATES ME, A MAGISTRATE THAT RECUSED HIMSELF NOT LONG AGO IN ANOTHER CASE BECAUSE HE HATED TRUMP. HE IS A CLINTON PERSON, AND AN OBAMA PERSON. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT HE HATED TRUMP. AND FOR A SMALLER CASE THAT WAS LESS MEANINGFUL, HE DECIDED TO RECUSE HIMSELF. FOR A VERY IMPORTANT CASE FOR THE COUNTRY, HE DECIDED THAT, "I’LL TAKE THIS ONE." NOW HE DIDN’T DO IT BECAUSE OF HIS HATRED OF TRUMP. I DON'T KNOW WHY HE HATES ME, BUT HE HATES ME. MAYBE HE DOESN’T LIKE A STRONG MILITARY, LOW TAXES, GOOD EDUCATION.
>> Sean: HE MIGHT LIKE $6 A GALLON GASOLINE.
>> President Trump: WELL, HE'S GOT IT.
Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart's recusal from former President Donald Trump's RICO lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and others has become a major talking point among Trump's attorneys and supporters, who have cast doubt over Reinhart's ability to sign off on the search warrant for Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.
Former federal prosecutors who spoke to Newsweek said that the recusal does raise questions about Reinhart's impartiality regarding Mar-a-Lago and argued that it would benefit the public interest for the judge to disclose what grounds prevented him from presiding over the Clinton suit.
In the civil case, Trump is accusing dozens of actors of conspiring with Clinton to topple his presidency.
In a June 22 filing, Reinhart recused himself from the case and asked that it be reassigned pursuant to subsection 455 under Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which states that any justice, judge or magistrate shall disqualify themselves from "any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Reasons for recusal based on impartiality can range from personal bias concerning a party to financial interests in the litigation to having served in private practice on the matter in the case. However, the code does not require judges to specify exactly why they believe their impartiality could be questioned. So, Reinhart's recusal does not provide any information as to why he disqualified himself in Trump v. Clinton et. al.
"There's a tremendous lack of transparency about the reasons [for recusal]," former federal prosecutor Shanlon Wu told Newsweek. "It's opaque, it's a black box."
Wu explained that while the code "pretty much leaves it up to the judge when to recuse," it's the appearance of impartiality that judges are supposed to be concerned with. He said that if the American public doesn't believe the judicial system is impartial, it essentially loses its effectiveness in society.
"So a lot of the reason for that lack of stating-all-the-reasons-out is to put a bigger burden on the judiciary to police itself," he said. "It's not just your financial disclosures that somebody's overseeing. Instead, you need to oversee it."
Neama Rahmini, a former federal prosecutor, said that from some of Reinhart's previous statements, it seems like the perception of bias caused him to recuse himself. If the bias was against Trump, Rahmini said, "logic would suggest that he should recuse himself in both cases."
"It is surprising that a judge was recused themselves in a case involving one party, but not a second case involving the same party," he said. "The only logical way it would make sense is if he has some pro-Hillary Clinton bias, but he's neutral when it comes to Trump."
Wu said if Reinhart were to be more detailed and specific about why he recused himself in the Clinton suit, it would stop a lot of speculations, but he noted that it is very uncommon for judges to offer additional reasoning for a recusal from a case.
-- Judge in Trump Raid Should Explain Recusal in Clinton Case: Ex-Prosecutors, by Katherine Fung ON 8/23/22 AT 6:00 AM EDT, Newsweek
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
U.S. Code
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1)“proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2 )the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908; Pub. L. 93–512, § 1, Dec. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 1609; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 214(a), (b), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2661; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1007, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4667; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)
>> Sean: LEMME GO THROUGH THIS. BEFORE YOU LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PROCESS. MY UNDERSTANDING, WHAT I’VE READ, YOU HAVE THE GSA, THEY PACK ALL THE BOXES. OKAY. DID YOU PACK ANY BOXES?
>> President Trump: NO, THEY WORK TOGETHER WITH PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD CLASSIFY THEM, BUT GSA WAS INVOLVED. THAT'S GOVERNMENT SERVICES. THEY ARE FANTASTIC PEOPLE. AND THEY PACKED THEM. AND NOT ONLY THAT, AND THEY BROUGHT THEM IN, ALONG WITH PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I DON’T KNOW WHO THEY ARE, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WORKING IN THE WHITE HOUSE. THEY PACKED THEM UP, BUT NOT THAT -- CLOTHING, MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF PICTURES, YOU KNOW. THEY TAKE SO MANY PICTURES EVERY DAY, AND THEY GIVE YOU COPIES OF ALL THE STUFF. AND IT’S BOXES AND BOXES OF PICTURES. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, TREMENDOUS -- EVEN KITCHEN THINGS. YOU HAVE TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF DIFFERENT ITEMS. MUCH CLOTHING. I MEAN, SHIRTS, AND EVERYTHING. SPORTS GEAR. SO ALL OF THE STUFF. NOW, JUST TO SHOW YOU, THERE ARE MANY PICTURES OF THIS STUFF STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE. NOT IN THE BASEMENT. NOT IN THE BASEMENT. THEY’RE STANDING OUTSIDE. I WAS GOING TO SAY, "LIKE JOE", BUT I DECIDED NOT TO, BECAUSE I WANT TO BE A VERY NICE PERSON. BUT LISTEN, SEAN, STANDING OUTSIDE, BOXES, GETTING READY TO BE PUT BY THE GSA, I ASSUME, INTO A TRUCK, AND BROUGHT DOWN TO PALM BEACH. THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WAS HIDING. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. YOU GET TOGETHER WITH GSA. NOW YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, THEY BRING IT DOWN, BUT NARA, AND YOU TALK, AND YOU WORK, AND YOU NEGOTIATE. I MEAN, THEY DID IT. IT’S NOT THAT OLD. I THINK IN THE 1970s EXACTLY FOR THIS. AND WE WERE HAVING VERY NICE DISCUSSIONS. NO PROBLEM. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE GOT HIT VERY HARD BY THE FBI.
>> Sean: LET’S BACKTRACK A LITTLE. IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES RECORD ADMINISTRATION, I GUESS THEY HAD BEEN NEGOTIATING, THEY CAME AND GOT 15 BOXES. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY SENT YOU A LETTER, THANKING YOU AND YOUR TEAM FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>> President Trump: THEY ACTUALLY THANKED US, YEAH.
Archives asked for records in 2021 after Trump lawyer agreed they should be returned, email says
by Josh Dawsey and Jacqueline Alemany
The Washington Post
Updated August 24, 2022 at 6:56 p.m. EDT| Published August 24, 2022 at 4:47 p.m. EDT
About two dozen boxes of presidential records stored in then-President Donald Trump’s White House residence were not returned to the National Archives and Records Administration in the final days of his term even after Archives officials were told by a Trump lawyer that the documents should be given back, according to an email from the top lawyer at the record-keeping agency.
“It is also our understanding that roughly two dozen boxes of original presidential records were kept in the Residence of the White House over the course of President Trump’s last year in office and have not been transferred to NARA, despite a determination by Pat Cipollone in the final days of the administration that they need to be,” wrote Gary Stern, the agency’s chief counsel, in an email to Trump lawyers in May 2021, according to a copy reviewed by The Washington Post.
The email shows NARA officials were concerned about Trump keeping dozens of boxes of official records even before he left the White House — concerns that only grew in the coming months as Trump repeatedly declined to return the records. It also showed that Trump’s lawyers had concerns about Trump taking the documents and agreed that the boxes should be returned — at least according to the top Archives officials — while Trump kept the documents.
The previously unreported email — sent about 100 days after the former president left office with the subject line “Need for Assistance re Presidential Records” — also illustrates the myriad efforts Archives officials made to have documents including classified material returned over an 18-month period, culminating with an FBI raid this month at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida.
Cipollone was the White House counsel for Trump and was designated by Trump as one of his representatives to the Archives. A spokeswoman for Cipollone declined to comment Wednesday.
Stern does not say in the email how he determined that the boxes were in Trump’s possession. He wrote that he also had consulted another Trump lawyer during the final days of Trump’s presidency — without any luck. “I had also raised this concern with Scott in the final weeks,” Stern writes in the email, referring to Trump lawyer Scott Gast, who is also copied on the email.
In the email, Stern again asks for the documents to be returned.
Gast did not respond to a request for comment. A Trump spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Archives did not respond to a request for comment.
Stern’s email to three Trump lawyers takes an almost pleading tone at times. Cipollone is not copied on the email, which is sent to Gast and two longtime Cipollone deputies.
Stern cites at least two high-profile documents that the Archives knew at the time were missing — letters from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and a letter from former president Barack Obama at the beginning of Trump’s presidency.
“We know things are very chaotic, as they always are in the course of a one-term transition,” Stern wrote. “ … But it is absolutely necessary that we obtain and account for all presidential records.”
Stern did not state in the email what the Archives believed had been in the boxes kept in the White House residence. But he did cite the correspondence between Trump and Kim as an example of an item the former president requested “just prior to the end of the administration.”
Stern wrote, “it is our understanding that in January 2021, just prior to the end of the administration, the originals were put in a binder for the president, but were never returned to the office of Records Management for NARA.”
Throughout the fall of 2021, Stern continued to urge multiple Trump advisers to help the Archives get the records back, according to people familiar with the conversations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Trump only decided to give some of the documents back after Stern told Trump officials that the Archives would soon have to notify Congress, and Stern told Trump advisers that he did not want to escalate and notify Congress, these people said.
“‘We just want everything back’ was his message,” according to one Trump adviser.
Trump then returned 15 boxes of documents to the Archives in early 2022, and Archives officials urged Trump’s team to continue looking for more material at the beachfront club. But they also referred the matter to the Justice Department after realizing there were hundreds of pages of classified material in the boxes returned to the National Archives.
After extensive interviews with Trump aides, FBI officials raided Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8 and seized an additional 11 sets of classified records after executing a search warrant — adding to the large volume of secret government documents recovered from the former president’s club.
The Post has previously reported on the former president’s long-standing habit of retiring to his private residence in the White House with official documents that regularly piled up. In interviews with former White House staffers, they recalled sending boxes of disorganized materials to the residence with Trump’s body man, at the then-president’s request.
Trump and his advisers have claimed that there was a standing declassification order for all documents taken to the residence, but multiple senior former administration officials have said they knew of no such order. Trump has also lamented to friends that he did not give the documents back because they were his personal property and did not belong to the U.S. government.
***
WaPo: White House Lawyer Told Archives That Trump Was Squirreling Away Docs While He Was In Office: This story goes from bad to worse.
by LIZ DYE
Abovethelaw.com
August 25, 2022 at 2:14 PM
Another day, another hugely damaging revelation about Trump’s deliberate removal (cough, cough theft) of government documents, as the Washington Post reveals that the National Archives (NARA) was already trying to retrieve material Donald Trump had squirreled away in his residence before he even left office. And they knew he had it because White House Counsel Pat Cipollone told them they should collect that stuff before Trump made off with it.
“It is also our understanding that roughly two dozen boxes of original presidential records were kept in the Residence of the White House over the course of President Trump’s last year in office and have not been transferred to NARA, despite a determination by Pat Cipollone in the final days of the administration that they need to be,” NARA’s General Counsel Gary Stern wrote to Trump’s lawyers in May 2021.
The email was part of a long campaign to get back government property, including not only the highly classified documents which prompted the Justice Department to open a grand jury investigation and execute that search warrant on August 8, but also items of a purely sentimental value, such as a “love letter” from North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and a mock-up bollard from his “F U Mexico” wall.
The Post reports that Stern spent months trying to get the documents back, to no avail, despite the intercession of Cipollone and his former deputy Pat Philbin.
“We know things are very chaotic, as they always are in the course of a one-term transition,” Stern wheedled, “ … But it is absolutely necessary that we obtain and account for all presidential records.”
In fact, Trump only started returning some of the stuff he improperly retained (cough, cough stole) when NARA said it was going to have to refer the matter to Congress.
Kinda gives the lie to Team Trump’s shouting from the rooftops and then in that garbage motion they filed Monday that “All facts laid out herein show that there was complete cooperation between President Trump, his team, and the appropriate agencies.”
So perhaps it’s not surprising that Cipollone and Philbin, as well as John Eisenberg, all of whom had dutifully worked to flout congressional oversight and hide the fact that Trump had attempted to extort the President of Ukraine for dirt on Joe Biden, refused to play along when NARA went looking for a Trumpland lawyer to review the seized documents before they could be released to DOJ as part of its investigation.
But you know who did play along? Evan Corcoran, the Baltimore lawyer who put his name on that ridiculous motion claiming total cooperation, despite the fact that he, as one of the the only lawyers willing to do it, had been negotiating with the Justice Department and the Archives for months, even as his client retained numerous top secret government documents after being subpoenaed for their return. Although props for describing Trump as “voluntarily accept[ing] service of a grand jury subpoena,” while glossing over the fact that he never complied with it.
Not a great look, TBH.