Justice Dept. Intensifying Efforts to Determine
if Trump Hid Documents
Prosecutors investigating the former president’s
handling of classified material have issued a wave of new subpoenas and
obtained the confidential cooperation of a witness who worked at Mar-a-Lago.
By Maggie
Haberman, Adam Goldman, Alan Feuer, Ben Protess and Michael S. Schmidt
May 4, 2023
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/trump-documents-subpoenas-justice-department.html
Federal
prosecutors investigating former President Donald J. Trump’s handling of
classified documents have obtained the confidential cooperation of a person who
has worked for him at Mar-a-Lago, part of an intensifying effort to determine
whether Mr. Trump ordered boxes containing sensitive material moved out of a
storage room there as the government sought to recover it last year, multiple
people familiar with the inquiry said.
Through a
wave of new subpoenas and grand jury testimony, the Justice Department is
moving aggressively to develop a fuller picture of how the documents Mr. Trump
took with him from the White House were stored, who had access to them, how the
security camera system at Mar-a-Lago works and what Mr. Trump told aides and
his lawyers about what material he had and where it was, the people said.
At the
heart of the inquiry is whether Mr. Trump sought to hide some documents after
the Justice Department issued a subpoena last May demanding their return.
The
existence of an insider witness, whose identity has not been disclosed, could
be a significant step in the investigation, which is being overseen by Jack
Smith, the special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.
The witness is said to have provided investigators with a picture of the
storage room where the material had been held. Little else is known about what
prosecutors might have learned from the witness or when the witness first began
to provide information to the prosecutors.
But
prosecutors appear to be trying to fill in some gaps in their knowledge about
the movement of the boxes, created in part by their handling of another
potentially key witness, Mr. Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta. Prosecutors believe Mr.
Nauta has failed to provide them with a full and accurate account of his role
in any movement of boxes containing the classified documents.
In the past
few weeks, at least four more Mar-a-Lago employees have been subpoenaed, along
with another person who had visibility into Mr. Trump’s thinking when he first
returned material to the National Archives, according to people briefed on the
matter. Two people said that nearly everyone who works at Mar-a-Lago has been
subpoenaed, and that some who serve in fairly obscure jobs have been asked back
by investigators.
Prosecutors
have also issued several subpoenas to Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump
Organization, seeking additional surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago, his
residence and private club in Florida, people with knowledge of the matter
said. While the footage could shed light on the movement of the boxes,
prosecutors have questioned a number of witnesses about gaps in the footage,
one of the people said.
Two people
said that nearly everyone who works at Mar-a-Lago has been subpoenaed, and that
some who serve in fairly obscure jobs have been asked back by
investigators.Credit...Hilary Swift for The New York Times
But hoping
to understand why some of the footage from the storage camera appears to be
missing or unavailable — and whether that was a technological issue or
something else — the prosecutors subpoenaed the software company that handles
all of the surveillance footage for the Trump Organization, including at
Mar-a-Lago.
And they
recently subpoenaed Matthew Calamari Sr., the longtime head of security at the
Trump Organization who became its chief operating officer. His son, Matthew
Calamari Jr., who is the company’s corporate director of security, was
subpoenaed some time ago, according to a person familiar with the activity.
Both would
have insight into the security camera operation, according to people familiar
with the matter. Both Calamaris appeared before the grand jury gathering
evidence in the case on Thursday. CNN first reported that prosecutors planned
to question them.
One of the
previously unreported subpoenas to the Trump Organization sought records
pertaining to Mr. Trump’s dealings with a Saudi-backed professional golf
venture known as LIV Golf, which is holding tournaments at some of Mr. Trump’s
golf resorts.
It is
unclear what bearing Mr. Trump’s relationship with LIV Golf has on the broader
investigation, but it suggests that the prosecutors are examining certain
elements of Mr. Trump’s family business.
A spokesperson
for Mr. Trump called the case “a targeted, politically motivated witch hunt”
that is “concocted to meddle in an election and prevent the American people
from returning him to the White House.” The spokesperson accused Mr. Smith’s
office of harassing “anyone who has worked for President Trump” and of now
using the inquiry to target Mr. Trump’s business.
Investigators
have been piecing together Mr. Trump’s handling of government documents for
months, seeking information not just about his habits after leaving the White
House but also about his practices as president. Among the information they
have gathered in interviews concerned his habit of flushing material down
toilets, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Another
related line of inquiry for Mr. Smith’s team is whether Mr. Trump misled one of
his lawyers, M. Evan Corcoran, about the movement of classified documents
around Mar-a-Lago. In June, Mr. Corcoran helped draft a sworn statement, signed
by another lawyer, saying that a “diligent search” was conducted of the boxes
and that any classified documents were turned over to the Justice Department.
One of the
Justice Department subpoenas sought records pertaining to Mr. Trump’s dealings
with LIV Golf, which is holding tournaments at some of Mr. Trump’s golf
resorts.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
To obtain
Mr. Corcoran’s testimony on this subject, which would ordinarily be blocked by
attorney-client privilege, the special counsel’s office first had to convince a
judge that Mr. Trump may have misled him. In doing so, the prosecutors invoked
what is known as the crime-fraud exception, which allows them to pierce
attorney-client privilege when they have reason to believe that a client used
legal advice or legal services in furthering a crime.
During his
appearance before the grand jury in March, Mr. Corcoran testified that several
Trump employees had told him that the Mar-a-Lago storage room was the only
place where the documents were kept, according to people with knowledge of the
matter. The employees turned out to be wrong — when F.B.I. agents searched Mar-a-Lago
in August they found classified documents in Mr. Trump’s office and residence —
but at the time, that was a common belief within Mr. Trump’s inner circle.
Although
Mr. Corcoran testified that Mr. Trump did not personally convey that false
information, his testimony hardly absolved the former president, the people
with knowledge of the matter said. Mr. Corcoran also recounted to the grand
jury how Mr. Trump did not tell his lawyers of any other locations where the
documents were stored, which may have effectively misled the legal team.
Prosecutors
working under Mr. Smith have developed what multiple people familiar with the
investigation say is a wealth of testimony and evidence about Mr. Trump’s
behavior during the lengthy period when the National Archives and the Justice
Department sought to retrieve presidential materials from the former president.
After
months of requests, Mr. Trump in January 2022 turned over to the archives 15
boxes of material he had taken from the White House. Those boxes turned out to
contain reams of classified material, prompting a Justice Department
investigation and a subpoena in May of last year demanding the return of any
further documents in Mr. Trump’s possession.
Mr.
Corcoran turned over another set of documents in response to the subpoena. But
suspecting that Mr. Trump still had more based on witness testimony and video
footage, prosecutors sought a search warrant, which the F.B.I. used to scour
Mar-a-Lago in August, turning up more material despite the earlier statement
from the lawyers saying they had found nothing else there.
The Justice
Department investigation has returned repeatedly in recent weeks to a crucial
question: Did Mr. Trump instruct Mr. Nauta, or anyone else, to move boxes out
of the storage room before the lawyers conducted the “diligent search” of
Mar-a-Lago and said no classified records remained at the property?
Last fall,
prosecutors faced a critical decision after investigators felt Mr. Nauta had
misled them. To gain Mr. Nauta’s cooperation, prosecutors could have used a
carrot and negotiated with his lawyers, explaining that Mr. Nauta would face no
legal consequences as long as he gave a thorough version of what had gone on
behind closed doors at the property.
Or the
prosecutors could have used a stick and wielded the specter of criminal charges
to push — or even frighten — Mr. Nauta into telling them what they wanted to
know.
The
prosecutors went with the stick, telling Mr. Nauta’s lawyers that he was under
investigation and they were considering charging him with a crime.
The move
backfired, as Mr. Nauta’s lawyers more or less cut off communication with the
government. The decision to take an aggressive posture toward Mr. Nauta
prompted internal concerns within the Justice Department. Some investigators
believed that top prosecutors, including Jay Bratt, the head of the
counterespionage section of the national security division at the Justice
Department, had mishandled Mr. Nauta and cut off a chance to win his voluntary
cooperation.
More than
six months later, prosecutors have still not charged Mr. Nauta or reached out
to him to renew their conversation. Having gotten little from him as a witness,
they are still seeking information from other witnesses about the movement of
the boxes.
In
interviews recently, the Justice Department has been focused on Mr. Nauta and
the help he received from a Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker in moving boxes. They
have asked multiple people questions about it, as well as questions about the
security cameras and what they did and did not capture. They have asked
questions specifically about whether Mr. Nauta was walking to or from the
president’s residence on the property, according to a person briefed on the
matter.
In addition
to seeking testimony from the Calamaris and other Trump Organization employees,
the special counsel’s office has issued numerous subpoenas to the company
itself, seeking a variety of internal documents, according to people with
knowledge of the subpoenas.
Another
line of inquiry that prosecutors have been pursuing relates to how Mr. Trump’s
aides have helped hire and pay for lawyers representing some of the witnesses
in investigations related to the former president. They have been trying to
assess whether the witnesses were sized up for how much loyalty they might have
to Mr. Trump as a condition of providing assistance, according to people
briefed on the matter.
William K. Rashbaum
contributed reporting.
Maggie
Haberman is a senior political correspondent and the author of “Confidence Man:
The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America.” She was part of a team
that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers
and their connections to Russia. @maggieNYT
Adam
Goldman reports on the F.B.I. and national security from Washington, D.C., and
is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. He is the coauthor of “Enemies Within:
Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden's Final Plot Against
America.” @adamgoldmanNYT
Alan Feuer
covers extremism and political violence. He joined The Times in 1999.
@alanfeuer
Ben Protess
is an investigative reporter covering the federal government, law enforcement
and various criminal investigations into former President Trump and his allies.
@benprotess
Michael S.
Schmidt is a Washington correspondent covering national security and federal
investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one
for reporting on workplace sexual harassment and the other for coverage of
President Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia. @NYTMike

Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário