Consider This from NPR - What Is The Status Of All Of Trump's Legal Woes?

Episode Date: August 12, 2022

Former President Donald Trump is dominating headlines yet again. Earlier this week, the FBI took several boxes of secret and top secret documents from Mar-a-Lago during a search of Trump's home. And on Friday, a federal judge unsealed the warrant for the search – plus a list of what was taken from the property. NPR's Carrie Johnson explains what the unsealed warrant reveals, and what comes next. But the news from Mar-a-Lago is just the latest in a litany of legal battles entangling the former president. From the civil and criminal cases in New York, to the Georgia election interference case and the Jan 6th DOJ investigation – it can be hard to keep track of it all. Barbara McQuade is a professor at University of Michigan Law School and a former U.S. attorney, she helps us understand where these cases stand.In participating regions, you'll also hear a local news segment to help you make sense of what's going on in your community.Email us at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Support for NPR and the following message come from the Kauffman Foundation, providing access to opportunities that help people achieve financial stability, upward mobility, and economic prosperity, regardless of race, gender, or geography. Kauffman.org For three days following the FBI's search of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence, there was silence from a central figure, Attorney General Merrick Garland. Silence until Thursday afternoon. Good afternoon. Since I became Attorney General, I have made clear that the Department of Justice will speak through its court filings and its work. Garland's remarks

were unusual. The Attorney General doesn't tend to comment on ongoing investigations, which might explain why his words seem to be chosen so carefully. Just now, the Justice Department has filed a motion in the Southern District of Florida to unseal a search warrant and property receipt relating to a court-approved search that the FBI conducted earlier this week. That search was of premises located in Florida belonging to the former president. The department did not make any public statements on the day of the search. The former president publicly confirmed the search that evening, as is his right. Along with the dry procedural stuff, Garland also pushed back on the refrain coming from Trump and his supporters that the

search was politically motivated. Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy. Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor. Under my watch, that is precisely what the Justice Department is doing. Garland also answered a question many of us were asking all week. I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter. The press conference kicked off a day of waiting to see if and when that search warrant would be unsealed and revealed to the public. The Justice Department gave Trump's legal team a deadline, 3 p.m. on Friday, to object. And Trump himself said on his social media platform that he was, quote,

encouraging the immediate release of those documents. Something, by the way, Trump could do himself, since his lawyers were also given the documents. Then, just after 3 p.m. on Friday, the court was officially notified that Trump's legal team did not object to the warrant being unsealed, and a short while later, it was released to the public. Among the items taken from Mar-a-Lago, quote, miscellaneous top secret documents. Consider this, a federal search warrant confirms the FBI removed topret material from Donald Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago. Coming up, we'll walk through the implications of the warrant and catch you up on the numerous other legal probes the former president is entangled in. From NPR, I'm Mary Louise Kelly. It's Friday, August 12th.

This message comes from WISE, the app for doing things in other currencies. Send, spend, or receive money internationally, and always get the real-time mid-market exchange rate with no hidden fees. Download the WISE app today or visit WISE.com. T's and C's apply. It's Consider This from NPR. You could be forgiven this week for wondering if you had wandered into a time warp. Pick up a newspaper, turn on cable news. Once again, it is all

about Donald Trump. That unprecedented FBI search of the former president's home is triggering a political firestorm on the right. Sources telling ABC News the search is related to allegations the former president improperly removed documents. And by the way, he knows how to play this up in his favor. He more or less broke this news. We'll get back to the Mar-a-Lago FBI search in a bit.

First, let's run through the other investigations that Donald Trump is facing, because that case barely scratches the surface of his legal headaches. In Georgia, a district attorney is investigating whether Trump interfered with the 2020 election in that state. Remember this phone call he made to Georgia's secretary of state? So, look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. In New York, Trump faces a litany of legal problems. A DA in Westchester County is looking at tax issues surrounding a golf course. The Manhattan district attorney has filed criminal charges for tax evasion against the Trump

organization and its longtime chief financial officer. Just today, we learned that case will go to trial this fall. And not done yet. stay with me, New York Attorney General Letitia James is running a civil investigation into whether Trump's businesses inflated their value to get favorable loans. Plus, let's not forget about the House January 6th committee. To walk us through the many investigations underway, I spoke with Barbara McQuaid, professor at University of Michigan Law School and a former U.S. attorney appointed by then-President Obama. We started by talking about that civil probe in New York State. Earlier this week, Trump himself sat for a

deposition in the case, but he took the fifth, refused to answer questions. You know, this is actually a smart decision. You know, Donald Trump has famously said, only mobsters take the fifth, criminals take the fifth, decision. You know, Donald Trump has famously said only mobsters take the fifth, criminals take the fifth, etc. But when Bush came to shove, he did it himself. And it's really the best advice, I think, under the circumstances, because we know that in addition to Letitia James's civil investigation, meanwhile, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has also been looking into some of the same issues for criminal fraud. And so if Donald Trump were to make statements in this civil case, those statements could be used against him even in

a criminal case. Meanwhile, down in Georgia, there's a special grand jury investigating Trump's effort to overturn that state's election results. Rudy Giuliani, the president's former lawyer, has just been ordered by a Fulton County judge to testify. That's supposed to happen next week. There has been some discussion over whether local district attorney Fawny Willis might be more free to charge a former president than her federal counterparts. What do you think? Yeah, I don't know if the question about the should charge question is any different, whether you're a state prosecutor or a federal prosecutor. But in terms of can she charge, I think we may see charges there more quickly than we see federal charges. And that's for two reasons. One is the scope of her investigation is just much smaller. But the other is it appears that she's moving at a rapid clip. There's just less

bureaucracy for her to work through. She gets to make the decision. She's not, you know, it's not seven layers of review. And so I think for both of those reasons, it may be more likely that she files charges than that we see federal charges. Meanwhile, another meanwhile, here in Washington, there's, of course, the Congressional Committee investigating January 6th. They are paused for summer recess, but they're not done. And then a parallel investigation being conducted by the Justice Department into the events of January 6th. They have subpoenaed, among others, Pat Cipollone, former President Trump's White House counsel. What's the status of this one? negotiate or litigate his claims of attorney clients and executive privilege. But ultimately, the law favors the Justice Department getting his testimony. And that could be really important. I think the only other person who might know more about Trump's role in all of the January 6 activities is Mark Meadows. His former chief of staff. Yes. And I think we'll have to wait to

see whether he is a defendant, a witness, or neither. So at some point, Merrick Garland is going to have to make a decision about charging. I don't anticipate that will be before the midterm elections. I think there's just too much work to do. But I think in the early part or mid part of 2023, he's going to have to make a decision whether to charge or decline to bring charges. So the former president is keeping his lawyers busy, to put it mildly. If you were an attorney for Donald Trump, which if any of these probes would be keeping you awake at night? I think in the short term, the Georgia probe, because I think that's the one that's most likely to result in charges in the short term. Also, you know, this takes a lot of steps to get there. But if Donald Trump is elected president again and takes office in 2025, he could pardon himself for a federal offense.

He can't pardon himself for a state court offense in Georgia. So I think that's the one that I'd be keeping my eye on, at least for the moment. You just teed up my next question. Any of this effectively able to stop him from launching another White House bid? I don't think so. You know, there's been some talk this week that one of the charges, 18 U.S.C. Section 2071, has a provision in it for someone who wrongfully retains government documents shall be disqualified from serving in future federal office. But I can't imagine that that would pass constitutional muster when it comes to the president. So I don't think so. I think we could have this very unusual situation where someone could be charged in simultaneously running for president. That was University of Michigan Law School Professor Barbara McQuaid.

Let's get back to the big news this week, the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago. We learned Friday afternoon that the FBI took several boxes of secret and top-secret documents from Mar-a-Lago during the search of former President Donald Trump's home. That, after a federal judge unsealed the warrant for the search and a list of the things taken from the property. Well, now that we know a little bit more about what the Justice Department collected, my colleague Elsa Chang spoke with NPR Justice Correspondent Kerry Johnson, who has been closely following the story. Okay, so first things first, what do these new documents tell us about the basis, the legal basis for the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago? Sure, we have a set of documents now. First, we have the search warrant, which was approved by

a judge who found that probable cause, there was probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. And the second thing we have is a property receipt. That's kind of a list of things the FBI seized from former President Trump's office and basement in Florida this week. The FBI wrote that it took documents at top secret level. That's a very high level of classification. They also took a grant of clemency to Roger Stone, a longtime political advisor to former President Trump, and some information about the president of France. Federal agents also took other secret papers and a binder of photos, but nothing much more specific than that. Okay, and to be very clear here, Trump has not been charged with any wrongdoing, but holding on to classified documents is against the law, right, Carrie? There are a number of criminal statutes that could come into play here that were mentioned in these court documents, including laws against

obstructing federal investigations, another law that makes it a crime to conceal, remove, or mutilate government documents. And there's also a section of the Espionage Act that involves gathering, transmitting, or losing sensitive information related to the national defense. But to stress here, there's no criminal case against the former president right now, and indicting a former president would be an enormous step for the justice system and for the whole country. Absolutely. Okay. Now, I know there's a whole lot more that remains under seal, including an affidavit that would explain why the Justice Department decided to take action. When do you think we might see that affidavit?

You know, hard to say right now. A number of media organizations have asked the court to release that affidavit, which would explain the reason why the FBI thought there was probable cause and thought they would find that evidence at Mar-a-Lago. In typical cases, the public doesn't see this kind of stuff until someone's charged with a crime and then is then challenging the basis for the search. But at this stage, the DOJ doesn't usually say anything. Attorney General Merrick Garland explained why this case is different in a short statement on Thursday. The department filed the motion to make public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president's public confirmation of the search, the surrounding circumstances, and the substantial public interest in this matter.

Attorney General Garland asked the judge to make these pages public and Trump did not object, which is why we're seeing them now. Right. Okay. And just catch us up. What has Trump been saying about this search so far? Trump's been all over the map this week. First, he claimed without evidence the FBI had planted evidence in Florida. Then he posted on social media the idea of this whole matter as a hoax, like the probe of Russian election interference in 2016, which was not a hoax. And earlier today, Trump said former President Obama took materials when he left the White House, and Trump alleged some of those documents were classified.

That prompted the National Archives to put out a statement refuting those claims. The archive says it worked closely with Obama. It has millions of pages of documents and more classified documents, but none of them are in Obama's control. They're all under the archives' control, unlike these materials found at Mar-a-Lago this week. That was NPR Justice Correspondent Carrie Johnson. It's Consider This from NPR.

I'm Mary Louise Kelly.