THREAD: What should we make of the search of Donald Trump's home at Mar-A-Lago?
1/ Today, Trump announced that the FBI raided his estate at Mar-A-Lago, including his private safe. Since then, multiple sources have confirmed that the FBI executed a search warrant at his residence. nytimes.com/2022/08/08/us/…
2/ Without knowing more, the execution of a search warrant at Trump's home is a very serious matter. You don't need to be a lawyer to figure out that you're in big trouble when the FBI executes a search warrant at your home.
3/ Typically I would advise a client that a FBI raid at your home means you will likely face charges.
That's because a federal judge determined there was good reason to believe a federal crime was committed and that evidence of the crime was in your home.
4/ To be clear, the execution of a search warrant doesn't necessarily mean that the evidence points to the owner of the home as the person who committed the crime. It just usually works out that way.
5/ To obtain the warrant, DOJ had to present a detailed affidavit to a judge walking through the evidence they have that a crime was committed and providing some reason to believe evidence of that crime is at Mar-A-Lago right now. It's not enough to show it was there months ago.
6/ It is reasonable to presume that top DOJ leadership, including Attorney General Merrick Garland, personally approved this warrant, which appears to be the first warrant executed at the home of a former President.
That suggests to me that they think the case is going places.
7/ However, this presumption is somewhat at odds with recent reporting from both New York Times and the Associated Press that the search warrant is related to classified material taken from the White House by Trump when he left office.
8/ James Comey was right when he testified that the DOJ typically does *not* prosecute cases involving the mishandling of classified material unless that material was deliberately transferred to a third party.
That suggests to me that there is something we don't know here.
9/ It's hard for me to believe Merrick Garland would authorize FBI agents to obtain a search warrant solely to find classified material, given that mishandling that material rarely results in a case that DOJ would charge.
That suggests to me that there is some plus factor here.
10/ So there is a lot we don't know right now.
To be clear, if current reporting is accurate, this is *not* about the fake electors scheme that also involves Trump. That is a separate issue and it's not clear whether records related to that scheme were at Mar-A-Lago.
11/ The FBI could seize evidence of other crimes in plain view, but unlike narcotics, the evidentiary value of documents is often not apparent at first sight.
It is also possible that FBI interviewed employees and others during the search. That is a common tactic.
12/ The bottom line is that we don't know enough yet to understand what this relates to and how serious of jeopardy Trump is in.
But you don't need me to explain to you that the Feds executing a search warrant at Trump's residence should be alarming to him.
13/ At the very least, it suggests that Merrick Garland has the will to go after Trump and makes criminal charges of Trump much more likely than they were before this news broke.
I don't believe Garland would have obtained this warrant if he thought it was leading nowhere. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: Will DOJ be able to force former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to testify to matters that are covered by attorney-client privilege or executive privilege?
1/ Yesterday ABC reported that former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone received a grand jury subpoena from federal prosecutors for his testimony in their ongoing criminal investigation.
THREAD: Has the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into Donald Trump? Does it matter?
1/ Yesterday the Washington Post reported that DOJ is "investigating President Donald Trump's actions as part of its criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results."
2/ The report was very significant news, but the Post's carefully-chosen language has raised questions.
Specifically, the Post said that DOJ is investigating "President Donald Trump's actions" but did not say whether Trump himself was under investigation.
THREAD: What should we make of reports that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was a surprise to DOJ, and that DOJ leadership has rarely discussed Trump's criminal culpability?
1/ Today the New York Times published a report by @ktbenner and @GlennThrush that offers a rare peek behind the curtain at DOJ and how they have investigated the January 6th attack.
2/ Perhaps the most interesting news is that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony "jolted top Justice Department officials into discussing the topic of Mr. Trump more directly" creating "pressure ... to scrutinize Mr. Trump's potential criminal culpability" which they rarely discussed.
THREAD: What should we make of Steve Bannon's offer to testify before the January 6th Committee?
1/ Today several news outlets reported that former Trump advisor (and pardon recipient) Steve Bannon intends to finally comply with the Congressional subpoena he received from the January 6th Committee.
THREAD: What should we expect from the testimony of Pat Cipollone?
1/ Today Pat Cipollone, Trump's former White House Counsel, reportedly testified for over eight hours in a transcribed and video recorded interview by the January 6th Committee. nbcnews.com/politics/congr…
2/ He was described to NBC News as a "cooperative witness within the parameters of his desire to protect executive privilege for the office of general counsel." (Link in last tweet.)