U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling authorizes an outside expert to review records obtained during the Aug. 8 search and eliminate from the rest of the investigation anything that may be protected by claims of attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. Some of those records may eventually be returned to him, but the judge deferred a decision on that question. The order came despite strong objections from the Justice Department, which said an outside legal expert was unnecessary in part because officials had already completed their review of the potentially privileged documents. The order is almost certain to slow the pace of the department’s investigation into the presence of top-secret information at Mar-a-Lago, especially given the judge’s directive that the Justice Department cannot for now use any of the seized materials as part of her investigation into the illegal storage of government secrets on the Florida property. That order is in effect until the yet-to-be-named special master completes his work, “or further court order.” “The Court is aware that limitations on criminal prosecutions are frowned upon, but finds that these unprecedented circumstances warrant a brief pause to allow neutral third-party review to ensure a fair process with adequate safeguards,” wrote Cannon, a Trump appointee. in her 24-page order. Pages from the FBI’s affidavit in support of obtaining a search warrant for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property. (Jon Elswick/The Associated Press)
Seized material includes medical records, tax correspondence
Even so, it is not clear that the decision will have a significant effect on any investigative or prosecution decisions or the ultimate outcome of the investigation. A separate assessment by the US intelligence community of the risk posed by the apparent mishandling of classified records will continue at the judge’s order. “While this is a victory for the former president, it is by no means a landslide victory for him,” David Weinstein, a Florida criminal defense attorney and former Justice Department prosecutor, said in an email. “While it’s a setback for the government, it’s also not a devastating loss for them.” Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said Monday “the United States is reviewing the opinion and will consider appropriate next steps in the ongoing litigation.” A lawyer for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The department and Trump’s lawyers are due to submit a list of proposed special nominees by Friday. Trump’s lawyers had argued that a special master — usually an outside attorney or former judge — was necessary to ensure an independent review of records obtained during the investigation. Such a review was necessary, they said, in order to filter out any personal information or documents recovered by the FBI and return them to Trump, and so that any privileged documents could also be separated from the rest of the investigation. In that case, the seized records “include medical records, correspondence related to tax and accounting information,” according to the judge’s order. The judge said it was too early to know whether any of the records would be returned to Trump, but “at this time, the circumstances surrounding the seizure in this case and the associated need for adequate procedural safeguards are sufficiently compelling that at least pass the plaintiff. the doors of the court.” This image contained in a court filing by the Department of Justice, which was compiled in part by the FBI, shows a photo of documents seized during the Aug. 8 search. (Department of Justice/The Associated Press)
Judge judges seizure stigma in ‘a league of its own’
While Cannon did not order the Justice Department to immediately return any of the seized documents to Trump, she said she found persuasive his lawyers’ arguments that he faced potentially “irreparable harm” by being denied access to records that may have been of significant personal interest. . him. He said the investigative process had, so far, been “closed” for him. “In connection with the plaintiff’s previous position as president of the United States, the stigma attached to the subject matter seizure is of its own,” Cannon wrote. “A future indictment, based in any degree on assets that should be returned, would result in reputational damage of a distinctly different order of magnitude.” The Justice Department had argued against the designation, saying it was unnecessary because it had already reviewed potentially privileged documents and identified a limited subset of material that could be covered by attorney-client privilege.
WATCHES | What are the consequences of the judge’s decision?
Judge grants Trump’s request for special master to review seized documents
A US judge has granted former President Donald Trump’s request to appoint a special master to review documents seized by the Justice Department from Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, last month. The department had also said that Trump is not entitled to return any of the seized presidential records since he is no longer president and therefore the documents do not belong to him. And personal items recovered were combined with classified information, giving them potential value as evidence, the department said. Although prosecutors had argued that Trump, as a former president, had no legal basis to claim executive privilege over the documents, the judge said he was entitled to raise that as a concern and allowed the special master to seek records that could to be covered. from this privilege. “The major sticking point, I think, is that the executive privilege documents were included” in the judge’s ruling, said Richard Serafini, a Florida criminal defense attorney and former Justice Department prosecutor. He said he expected the department to appeal the order. Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump in 2020, indicated in a brief last month that she was inclined to appoint a special master and did so again during arguments last week, at one point asking, “ After all, what is the harm in appointing a special master to resolve these issues without creating undue delay?’
