Department accommodation can shorten the delay in appointing a neutral arbitrator to review documents seized at Mar-a-Lago.
The US Justice Department said it would accept one of Donald Trump’s offers for a neutral arbitrator to review documents seized in FBI raid of former president Mar-a-Lago estate last month.
In a court filing late Monday, the department’s attorneys said that, in addition to the two retired judges they had previously recommended to fill the “special employer” role, they also would be pleased with one of the Trump team’s picks.
Raymond Dearie, the former chief justice of the federal court in the Eastern District of New York, is now in a senior active status and the department said he has indicated he is willing and “able to do the job quickly.” if appointed.
Trump’s team said earlier on Monday that it opposes both options by the Justice Department.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon agreed with the request from Trump’s team to freeze the government review files until a special master is appointed to examine the documents for any potential executive privileges or attorney-client privileges.
For now, Cannon is deciding whether to bring 78-year-old Dearie to the case.
The Department of Justice accommodation can help speed up the selection process and shorten any delays caused by the appointment of a special expert.
Part is conduct an investigation about Trump’s possible mishandling of classified material in an unprecedented criminal investigation into a former president.
The search warrant for Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida home, says federal agents are investigating potential violations of three different federal laws, including one that regulates the collection, transmission, or loss of defense information under the Espionage Act.
An unsealed property receipt also shows the FBI seized 11 sets of classified documents, some of which were marked not only as top secret but also as “sensitive intercepted information.”
That term refers to a special category intended to protect the most important national secrets that, if disclosed publicly, could cause “especially severe” damage to U.S. interests. .
Trump’s team has refuse the poll is “erroneous”, and earlier this week argued in a court filing that US law allows presidents with “extraordinary discretion” to label documents from their administration as president. or personal.
His lawyers described the investigation as a “dispute over document storage that has gotten out of hand” and accused the government of seeking to turn the former president’s hold on “personal and presidential records.” is a crime.
They also rejected the argument that US national security could have been compromised by Trump’s possession of the files, saying there was no indication that the confidential files were likely to be disclosed to anyone. .
Trump’s legal team urged Cannon to uphold the directive temporarily halting key aspects of the Justice Department criminal investigation.
Ministry of Justice last weekend appeal order of the judge, asking Cannon – a Trump appointee – to partially suspend her own ruling and allow a review of classified documents to proceed with an appeal pending the proceedings.
Department lawyers have rejected the idea that documents belonging to Trump or Mar-a-Lago are authorized to store them.
Meanwhile, a congressional committee said in a letter Tuesday that the National Archives remains uncertain that it has the authority to keep all of Trump’s presidential records even after the FBI’s investigation. review.
The House Oversight and Reform Committee revealed that staffers at the Archives on an August 24 call could not guarantee that they had all of Trump’s presidential records. The committee in the letter asked the Archives to conduct an assessment of whether any of Trump’s records remain untested and are likely in his possession.
“In light of revelations that Mr Trump’s representatives misled investigators about his continued possession of government property and documents found at his club included dozens of ’empty folders’ for classified material, I am deeply concerned that sensitive presidential records may remain outside the control and oversight of the United States Government,” wrote Representative Carolyn Maloney, chair of the Oversight Committee. in the letter.
The House committee has authority over the Presidential Records Act, a 1978 law requiring the preservation of White House documents as property of the United States government.
