Thread by @BVanGrack

For yet another week, attorneys from Counterintelligence & Export Control Section (CES) led the Mar-a-Lago investigation. While CES’s involvement is expected, the absence of local prosecutors is surprising. 🧵on DOJ staffing and what to look for as the investigation advances. 1/

Within DOJ there are subject matter experts who work directly at the headquarters of DOJ (called Main Justice attorneys) and local prosecutors who work in one of 94 districts across the country each led by a US Attorney (called Assistant US Attorneys (AUSAs)). 2/

Main Justice attorneys only work on cases involving their subject matter, but work on such cases throughout the country. AUSAs handle every criminal case in their district, although they individually often specialize in a particular subject matter. 3/

CES is a group of Main Justice attorneys within the DOJ National Security Division that handle cases involving mishandling/disclosing of classified info, including 18 USC 793, which is at issue in the MAL investigation. 4/

Under the Justice Manual, which serves as a guide for DOJ attorneys, no case involving mishandling/disclosing classified info can be opened without CES approval. In practice, that means a CES attorney is involved—in some way—in every such case. 5/

justice.gov/jm/jm-9-90000-…

CES’s level of involvement depends on the case and the district. For example, in districts w/ significant experience w/ such cases, like in DC, New York, and Virginia, CES may play a secondary/supporting role. In districts w/ less experience, CES's role is more prominent. 6/

For major cases concerning mishandling/disclosing classified info, CES often takes the initial lead b/c those cases can implicate complex natsec issues and require significant coordination w/ intel community. For example, CES led Edward Snowden & David Petraeus investigations. 7/

But even in cases where CES takes the initial led, AUSAs are involved in charging decisions and take a larger role as case progresses. That's especially true when the case heads to trial—where AUSAs would have more experience and better understand local practice. 8/

So it is not surprising to see CES in the lead for arguably the most significant and scrutinized mishandling of classified info investigation ever. What is surprising is that we have not seen any AUSAs involved in the case. 9/

The grand jury subpoena was issued out of the District of Columbia, but only signed by a CES attorney—Jay Bratt. And the request to disclose information from the DC grand jury was only signed by CES attorneys. 10/

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

CES does not typically run grand jury investigations without an AUSA, and so the absence of an AUSA from DC on the subpoena or the disclosure request is unusual. As is the fact that no AUSAs from Florida signed a filing or appeared at a hearing. 11/

All of which signals there is no US Attorney’s Office playing a prominent role in the investigation, at this time. That doesn’t mean no AUSAs are involved, but their work would likely be advisory or administrative. 12/

At some point, if DOJ needs to put witnesses in the grand jury to collect evidence or begins drafting charges, it is inconceivable that a US Attorney’s Office/AUSAs would not become more integrated in the investigation and play a more prominent role. 13/

But until that happens, until we learn about or see AUSAs involved in hearings, named in filings, and participating in interviews, this investigation is likely in its early stages. 14/