{"id":1634078,"date":"2022-09-06T11:47:39","date_gmt":"2022-09-06T15:47:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1634078"},"modified":"2022-09-06T12:00:20","modified_gmt":"2022-09-06T16:00:20","slug":"special-master-order-reveals-bidens-direct-involvement-in-trump-raid-and-six-other-bombshells","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/special-master-order-reveals-bidens-direct-involvement-in-trump-raid-and-six-other-bombshells\/","title":{"rendered":"Special Master Order Shows Biden\u2019s Direct Involvement in Trump Raid and 6 Other Bombshells"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">28<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fspecial-master-order-reveals-bidens-direct-involvement-in-trump-raid-and-six-other-bombshells%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1634078&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>A federal judge on Monday granted former President Donald Trump\u2019s request for the appointment of a special master to review the documents seized by the FBI during a raid on his Mar-a-Lago home last month. Presiding Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, further held that the Department of Justice cannot review or use for criminal investigative purposes any material seized pending the review process.<\/p>\n<p>Besides handing Trump a victory in his battle for some oversight of the Biden administration\u2019s digging into his documents, Cannon highlighted several significant facts over the course of her <a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/22275413-trump-special-master-ruling\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">24-page order<\/a> that further call into question the DOJ\u2019s targeting of Trump.<\/p>\n<p>Here are the seven top-line takeaways:<\/p>\n<h2>1. President Biden Was Directly Involved<\/h2>\n<p>In the order granting Trump\u2019s request for the appointment of a special master, Cannon began by providing a summary of the backdrop that led to the search. Throughout 2021, Trump and the National Archives and Records Administration (\u201cNARA\u201d), \u201cengaged in conversations concerning records from [Trump\u2019s] time in office,\u201d the court noted. Those discussions resulted in Trump in January 2022 transferring 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago to NARA. NARA subsequently informed the Department of Justice that some items in the boxes contained markings of \u201cclassified national security information.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Following the archive\u2019s outreach to the Justice Department, NARA notified Trump on April 12, 2022, that it intended to provide the 15 boxes to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Trump\u2019s attorneys sought a delay in the transfer to assess whether any documents contained privileged material. But then, as Cannon wrote, after obtaining a short delay, on May 10, 2022, NARA informed Trump it would proceed with \u201cprovid[ing] the FBI access to the records in question, as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In including this quote in her order, Cannon cited the letter the NARA\u2019s acting archivist sent to Trump\u2019s lawyer. That letter explained that Biden had decided to defer to the archivist\u2019s \u201cdetermination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not [the archivist] should uphold the former President\u2019s purported \u2018protective assertion of executive privilege.\u2019\u201d Acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall then explained in the letter that based on her consultation with the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, she had decided not to honor Trump\u2019s claim of privilege.<\/p>\n<p>While the media has previously highlighted those aspects of the <a href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763\/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.1_7.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">letter,<\/a> Monday\u2019s order highlighted a key sentence in that same letter that went less noticed by the press: \u201cNARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question, as <em>requested by the incumbent President<\/em>, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\n<p>This language indicates that Biden did not merely defer to the NARA but asked the NARA to give the documents to the FBI. Of course, deferring to the NARA\u2019s judgment equated to Biden authorizing the hand-off to the FBI, but this passage suggests a more direct connection between Biden and the investigation into Trump.<\/p>\n<h2>2. Timeline of the Trump Targeting Is Suspect<\/h2>\n<p>A second significant detail revealed by Monday\u2019s order concerns the timeline of events, which the court exposed by providing a clear chronology. On May 10, 2022, the archivist informed Trump\u2019s lawyers that the \u201cNARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question, as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.\u201d And on May 11, 2022, before the DOJ received possession of the 15 boxes from NARA, the DOJ \u201cobtained a grand jury subpoena,\u201d for \u201c[a]ny and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and\/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But why would the DOJ seek a grand jury subpoena for any and all documents in Trump\u2019s possession bearing classification markings <em>before <\/em>reviewing the material provided by the NARA? And given that the DOJ obtained the subpoena the day after the NARA told Trump\u2019s lawyer \u201cthe incumbent President\u201d had requested the archive provide the documents to the FBI, one must ask: Did Biden direct the DOJ to obtain the grand jury subpoena?<\/p>\n<h2>3. Not So Fast Joe \u2014 Trump\u2019s Executive Privilege Can\u2019t Be So Quickly Sidestepped<\/h2>\n<p>Another important detail from Monday\u2019s order concerned the court\u2019s handling of Trump\u2019s request for a review of the seized material to address issues of \u201cexecutive privilege.\u201d In opposing Trump\u2019s request for a special master, the Biden administration argued that Trump lacked the right to assert \u201cexecutive privilege\u201d against the current executive branch. The court concluded that the Biden administration\u2019s \u201cposition arguably overstates the law,\u201d noting that the Supreme Court has not \u201crule[d] out the possibility of a former President overcoming an incumbent President on executive privilege matters.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cFurther, just this year,\u201d Cannon continued, \u201cthe Supreme Court noted that, at least in connection with a congressional investigation, \u2018[t]he questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns.\u2019\u201d To protect former President Trump\u2019s ability to raise a question of executive privilege, then, a special master should review the documents and make an initial assessment, the court concluded.<\/p>\n<p>This analysis tees up the possibility that Trump will later assert executive privilege, prompting a showdown with the Biden administration.<\/p>\n<h2>4. Members of the Investigative Team Saw Confidential Attorney-Client Documents<\/h2>\n<p>While the Biden administration had not reviewed the seized documents to assess any potential executive privilege concerns, a Privilege Review Team had screened the material to determine if it is protected by attorney-client privilege. Because it had already screened the material, the government objected to the appointment of a special master to conduct \u201canother round of screening,\u201d arguing in essence, that such screening would be \u201cunnecessary.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe Court takes a different view on this record,\u201d Cannon explained in rejecting the government\u2019s argument. The court then stressed that the evidence suggests the Privilege Review Team\u2019s initial screening for potentially privileged material was faulty.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe Privilege Review Team\u2019s Report references at least two instances in which members of the Investigative Team were exposed to material that was then delivered to the Privilege Review Team and, following another review, designated as potentially privileged material,\u201d Cannon noted. \u201cThose instances alone, even if entirely inadvertent, yield questions about the adequacy of the filter review process.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The federal judge further expressed concern about the fact that \u201cthe Filter Review Team\u2019s Report does not indicate that any steps were taken after these instances of exposure to wall off the two tainted members of the Investigation Team,\u201d with the \u201ctainted members\u201d being the ones who had seen the material presumed protected by attorney-client privilege.<\/p>\n<p>While a special master cannot address the issue of the \u201ctainted members\u201d on the investigative team, the court\u2019s highlighting of the problem will likely push the DOJ to keep those agents away from any related part of the investigation. But what the special master can do is review the documents and determine if others were protected by attorney-client privilege. If so, the DOJ will have bigger problems.<\/p>\n<h2>5. DOJ Seized a Lot of Personal Material<\/h2>\n<p>Another revelation from Monday\u2019s order concerned the amount of personal material the FBI seized. \u201cThe Government\u2019s inventory reflects a seizure of approximately 11,000 documents and 1,800 other items from Plaintiff\u2019s residence,\u201d the court wrote. Of the material seized, the court said approximately 100 documents contained classification markings. But the FBI also seized some 500 pages of material potentially protected by attorney-client privilege, medical documents, correspondence related to taxes, and accounting information.<\/p>\n<p>Further, as the court noted, \u201cthe Government also has acknowledged that it seized some \u201c[p]ersonal effects without evidentiary value.\u201d And \u201csome of the seized items (e.g., articles of clothing)\u201d were \u201creadily identifiable as personal property.\u201d The FBI had also seized three of Trump\u2019s passports, but those items have already been returned to the former president.<\/p>\n<p>That the FBI seized Trump\u2019s passports, articles of clothing, medical records, and accounting and tax documents during the raid of Mar-a-Lago highlights both the breadth (and lack of particularity) of the search warrant and the potential for the Biden administration to use the search as a fishing expedition.<\/p>\n<h2>6. FBI Suggested Trump Committed a Crime by Returning a Torn-Up Document to the NARA<\/h2>\n<p>The sixth revelation came not directly from the court\u2019s opinion but from the government filings referenced in Monday\u2019s order and specifically the DOJ\u2019s response brief in opposition to Trump\u2019s request for the appointment of a special master.<\/p>\n<p>In its response brief, the government wrote that on February 9, 2022, the special agent in charge of NARA\u2019s Office of the Inspector General made a referral of Trump to the DOJ. The government further <a href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763\/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.0_3.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">explained<\/a> that \u201cthe NARA Referral was made on two bases: evidence that classified records had been stored at the Premises until mid-January 2022, and evidence that certain pages of Presidential records had been torn up. Related to the second concern, the NARA Referral included a citation to 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2071.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>This passage proves intriguing for two reasons. First, it appears the special agent in charge made a criminal referral of the former president because documents Trump had returned to the archivist had been torn up at some point. This reference screams \u201cwitch hunt,\u201d which leads to the second point: The unredacted portions of the search warrant <a href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854\/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.102.1_7.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">affidavit<\/a> omit any reference to the torn documents.<\/p>\n<p>Rather, the unredacted portions of the search warrant affidavit speak of the government \u201cconducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces, as well as the unlawful concealment or removal of government records.\u201d The affidavit continues by noting that \u201cthe investigation began as a result of a referral the United States National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) sent to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on February 9, 2022,\u201d which \u201cwere reported by NARA to contain, among other things, highly classified documents intermingled with other records.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>None of the unsealed portions of the affidavit reference the second basis for the referral \u2014 that Trump returned torn documents. Maybe such references were black-out, but if so, the DOJ lacked a solid reason for the redactions given they revealed the same facts in the briefing. Or maybe the DOJ realized that using torn documents as a pretext to search the home of a former president would paint the raid as political \u2014 because it sure does make the special agent in charge\u2019s referral look political.<\/p>\n<h2>7. Leaks Look Bad Too<\/h2>\n<p>In granting Trump\u2019s request for the appointment of a special master, Cannon stressed that the special master would help maintain institutional trust in a case heavily politicized. She further noted that a special master would serve to ensure \u201cthe integrity of an orderly process amidst swirling allegations of bias and media leaks.\u201d Here, the court noted that \u201cwhen asked about the dissemination to the media of information relative to the contents of the seized records, Government\u2019s counsel stated that he had no knowledge of any leaks stemming from his team but candidly acknowledged the unfortunate existence of leaks to the press.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Those \u201cunfortunate\u201d leaks provide further proof of the politicization of this entire affair: In three weeks\u2019 time, Mar-a-Lago has sprung more leaks than have escaped from Special Counsel John Durham\u2019s team over three years. And while the special master may not be able to silence the deep-state leakers, he or she will provide a check to the Biden administration.<\/p>\n<p>But first, the parties must, as the court put it, \u201cmeaningfully confer\u201d and then submit a joint filing to the court of a list of proposed special master candidates and a detailed proposal of the master\u2019s duties, limitations, and ability to speak privately with Trump and the government, and other logistical information.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\" \/>\n<p>Margot Cleveland is The Federalist&#8217;s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today.<\/p>\n<p>Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize\u2014the law school\u2019s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time.<\/p>\n<p>As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.<\/p>\n<div class=\"article-comments mt-30 mt-sm-60\">\n<div class=\"article-comments-container d-flex flex-column align-items-center py-30\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"img-fluid mb-20\" src=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/fdrlst-mark.svg\" alt=\"The Federalist logo eagle mark\" width=\"110\" height=\"106\" \/>Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.<\/p>\n<p><a class=\"btn btn-on-white\" href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/plans\/pricing\/\">Subscribe<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A federal judge on Monday granted former President Donald Trump\u2019s request for the appointment of a special master to review the documents seized by the FBI during a raid on<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":1634080,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1634078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1634078","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1634078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1634078\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1634080"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1634078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1634078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1634078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}