Federal prosecutors think a flooded server room at Mar-a-Lago containing surveillance footage is 'suspicious'

126
Walt Hickey
Mon, June 5, 2023 at 2:34 PM MDT



This image contained in a court filing by the Department of Justice on Aug. 30, 2022, and redacted by in part by the FBI, shows a photo of documents seized during the Aug. 8 search by the FBI of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.Department of Justice via AP

• 
  Federal prosecutors are investigating Trump and some members of his staff for obstruction of justice, CNN reports.
  
  
• One maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago helped an aide move classified documents ahead of the August FBI search.
  
  
• The same worker later drained a pool and flooded a server room containing surveillance logs.
  

Federal prosecutors investigating former President Donald Trump are suspicious of a series of events in October where a Mar-a-Lago employee drained a swimming pool and flooded a server room containing surveillance footage, CNN reports. The flooded room came two months after the FBI raided the residence and seized classified documents.

The Department of Justice is investigating Trump over his handling of classified documents that were brought with the former president back to his personal residence. In addition, prosecutors are reportedly investigating any attempts to obstruct justice that the former president or a member of his team may have done over the course of that documents investigation.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

CNN reports the special counsel's office is — in addition to Trump himself and his body man Walt Nauta — focussing their obstruction of justice investigation on a Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker.

This worker, who was not named in the report, was said to have aided Nauta in moving boxes of classified documents prior to the August search. The same worker was responsible for draining the pool and flooding the IT room.

The Trump Organization was subpoenaed for surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago in summer 2022, prior to the FBI search in August, according to CNN.

Per CNN, prosecutors heard testimony that the IT equipment stored in the flooded room was not damaged during the flood.



Read the original article on Business Insider


https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-prosecutors-think-flooded-server-203438907.html

 

In a witch hunt everything is suspicious or can be spun to look suspicious.

Thats how to know it is a witch hunt.

Facts, you see, don't matter.
In fact they get in the way of the witch hunt.
Which is why everything else has to be spun.

 

Looks like we agree. This is no witch hunt, as frump keeps complaining about. Now, the attack on Georgie Santos....that's a witch hunt (or so he claims).

 

30,31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 investigations
8 years
No perp walk.
Yes, it really is a witch hunt and yes his persecutors really are that incompetent.

 

And all civil.
You gotta admit, a lousy record.

Shooters conviction rate was 98%.
Second highest felony arrest record in the county.

Less than a 10 % ARREST record, 2.5% conviction rate?

Shooter woulda been fired.

Witch hunt.

 

You gotta be joking. You're actually bragging about your conviction rate as a cop? In the corner of a district where you were the Lone Ranger, with backup eight miles away in the next c0unty? Who'd you drag in to jail, a coyote and three skunks?

 

Shooter is in fact proud of the job he did.
Lots of DUI, the usual assaults, thefts, a homicide, even a kidnapping.
Really
And between thanksgiving and christmas lots of thefts and shoplifting, about half felonies. Car prowls are burglaries. Shooter caught a number of idiots prowling cars.

Shooter did his job and he did it very well.

You got a problem with it?

 

Jack Smith is 'keeping his cards close to his vest' as he takes meetings with Trump lawyers: NYT reporter

Matthew Chapman
June 5, 2023, 9:55 PM ET



Jack Smith, Donald Trump (Smith photo by Robin Van Lonkhuijsen for AFP/ Trump by Saul Loeb for AFP)


Former President Donald Trump's attorneys met with special counsel Jack Smith as the Mar-a-Lago classified documents probe appears to be drawing to a close.

In a panel on CNN that discussed recent evidence in the case, including a maintenance worker who flooded security servers at Trump's country club while draining the pool, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, appearing alongside former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, broke down how prosecutors are still not tipping their hand on upcoming charges.

"Elie, you're a former federal prosecutor," said anchor Kaitlan Collins. "When you look at something like this and you hear they've seized the phone of a maintenance worker here, what questions would you have?"

"The big question here is, was this on purpose or was this an accident?" said Honig. "I completely understand why prosecutors were charmed to this, right? Especially when you consider the timing. There's already been a subpoena at this point. You've already had the search warrant. And DOJ is trying to collect the surveillance and now the room where the surveillance is stored was damaged. You're looking for communications. You're looking for a text. You're looking for an email. Somebody gives an order. Why? Sometimes people think they've deleted their phones, deleted their texts, if you swipe and hit delete. That doesn't delete them. You can raise those up in the FBI lab. I guarantee they're doing forensics on those phones and looking for that kind of communication."

"Pretty extraordinary to see Trump's attorneys going into the Department of Justice, Justice Department, sitting down with Jack Smith," said Collins, turning to Haberman. "What is your response to how Trump responded to this? He posted on Truth Social, asking why he should be charged when other presidents have not been charged."

"We know — although the indications seem that it's likely or not — we know that the DOJ just said they're not charging anyone in connection with Mike Pence, for instance, for documents he had," said Haberman. "I think that's a comparison point. I have been hearing before this meeting took place, that Trump expected he is going to be charged. It's not that they have said this to him. It's just that he believes it. Now, these meetings — and you would know this better than me. DOJ officials, typically prosecutors at any level keep their cards close to the vest. I don't think this was different in this meeting. But I also don't think they came away thinking, oh, we've solved this. For somebody like Donald Trump who treats everything like a deal and exchange and transaction, I don't think this is the meeting he wanted."

Watch the segment below or at this link.



https://www.rawstory.com/jack-smith-meeting/

 

Shooter, pull your pants up. With an arrest record like that (DUIs, shoplifting), it's obviously better than that of Garland and Smith. Yours is bigger than theirs.

 

thought so.
pigeon
chess

 

Maggie Haberman Sources Say Trump Believes He’ll Be Charged Criminally — And DOJ Meeting Did Not ‘Dispel’ That
By Tommy ChristopherJun 6th, 2023, 10:27 am

New York Times correspondent and CNN analyst Maggie Haberman told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins she’s heard ex-President Donald Trump expects to be charged criminally in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents probe — and the DOJ meeting with Trump’s lawyers did nothing to “dispel” that.

Trump lawyers Lindsey Halligan, John Rowley, and James Trusty met with Justice Department prosecutors Monday afternoon, which prompted Trump to lash out on social media.

On Monday night’s edition of CNN Primetime, Haberman — Haberman — an influential analyst with a network of Trumpworld sources — said she’s heard Trunp has long believed he will be charged in the case, and added “I don’t think anything took place in this meeting that dispelled that”:


COLLINS: And while we’re learning about all this, this meeting happened. Pretty extraordinary to see Trump’s attorneys, going into the Justice Department, sitting down with Jack Smith.

What is your sense, on how Trump is responding to this? Because he tweeted after, or he posted on Truth Social, I should say, asking why he would be charged, when other presidents have not been charged.

HABERMAN: Right. Well remember this is —

COLLINS: We don’t know that he’s going to be charged.

HABERMAN: We don’t, although the indications seem that it’s likelier than not. We know that the DOJ just said that they’re not charging anyone, in connection with Mike Pence, for instance, for documents that he had. And I think that’s a comparison point.

I had been hearing before this meeting took place that Trump expected he is going to be charged. That’s not because they have said this to him. It’s just that he believes it. And I don’t think anything took place in this meeting that dispelled that.

Now, these meetings, and you would know this better than me, DOJ officials, typically prosecutors actually, at any level, keep their cards close to the vest. I don’t think this was different, in this meeting. But I also don’t think they came away thinking “Oh, you know, we’ve solved this.”

And for somebody, like Donald Trump, who treats everything like it’s a deal, and an exchange, and a transaction, I don’t think this is the meeting he wanted.

COLLINS: So, what is the thinking behind why he thinks he’s going to be charged? Just because of how he’s seen this investigation progress?

HABERMAN: Yes, because they keep coming, and coming, and coming, and because they have subpoenaed almost everybody around him, because they have pierced attorney-client privilege, in the case of one of his lawyers. And because all indications are that they don’t believe what they’re being told.

HONIG: So, Maggie’s right, that in these meetings, prosecutors do and say as little as humanly possible. When I would have these meetings, I would say, “Thanks for coming. Floor is yours.” And then at the end, I’d say “Thank you very much.”

COLLINS: That’s it?

HONIG: “We’ll take it under advisement.”

Absolutely. It’s great for prosecutors, because you do get a little bit of a preview of what the defense is likely to be.

Now, if as I think you’re reporting, Kaitlan, is the Trump team went in there, and just aired grievances. “This is unfair. How about Biden?” That kind of thing? Then it’s a complete waste of an opportunity by the Trump team. It’s a tactical mistake.

Because what good defense lawyers do is go in and tell prosecutors, “Here’s some holes in your case. You may have a problem with intent. You may not be able to prove some other element.” And that can actually make a difference. I take that into account, in these types of scenarios.

HABERMAN: I will say, Jim Trusty, who is one of the lawyers, who was there —

COLLINS: Yes.

HABERMAN: — was actually pretty well-regarded at the DOJ.

HONIG: Yes.

HABERMAN: I’d be surprised — when he worked there. I’d be surprised —

COLLINS: He knows Jack Smith.

HABERMAN: Yes. He knows Jack Smith.

I would be surprised if he walked in and didn’t handle that professionally. We just don’t know —

HONIG: Yes.

HABERMAN: — how this interaction was handled. But again, I just don’t know that it matters, at this point.

Watch above via CNN Primetime.


https://www.mediaite.com/news/maggi...iminally-and-doj-meeting-did-not-dispel-that/

 

'He jerked them around': Barr smashes Trump’s DOJ 'witch hunt' excuse

David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement
June 6, 2023, 3:58 PM ET



Bill Barr (Brendan Smialowski:AFP)


Bill Barr, once Donald Trump‘s favorite attorney general and the one who was seen as his “faithful protector and personal henchman” for his “willingness to enable Trump’s darkest impulses,” came out swinging against his former boss Tuesday, refuting his “witch hunt” claims, and saying the ex-president “jerked” DOJ around over hundreds of classified and top secret documents he refused to return.

“I think if based on the facts, as the facts come out, I think over time, people will say that this is not a case of the Department of Justice, you know, conducting a ‘witch hunt,'” Barr told CBS News Tuesday, ahead of what many believe is an impending indictment on what experts say could include charges of obstruction of justice and charges under the Espionage Act.

“In fact,” Barr continued, praising his former agency, “they approached this very delicately, with deference to the President, and this would have gotten nowhere had the President just returned the documents.”

Instead, Barr said, Trump “jerked them around for a year and a half. And the question is, did he deceive them? And if there’s evidence of that, I think people will start to see that this says more about Trump than it does the Department of Justice.”

The ex-president who is once again running to retake the Oval Office, Barr says, is “so egotistical that he has this penchant for conducting risky, reckless acts to show that he can sort of get away with it.”

“It’s part of asserting his ego, and he’s done this repeatedly at the expense of all the people who depend on him to conduct the public’s business in an honorable way. And, you know, we saw that with both impeachments, and there’s no excuse for what he did here.”

Referring to what many believe is an impending indictment over the classified documents he removed from the White House and refused to return, Barr added, “I’ve said for a while that I think this is the most dangerous legal risk facing the former president. And if I had to bet I would bet that it’s near.”

He said DOJ would not try to indict “if there’s not enough evidence, but from what I’ve seen, there’s substantial evidence there.”

But true to form, Barr also defended his former boss.

Whether what Trump’s done is “a crime or not remains to be seen,” he said, while refusing to weigh in on whether or not he thinks Trump “deceived” DOJ.

Later in the interview, Barr went full-force on supporting Trump’s claims that the Russia investigation was a hoax.

“I went into the administration halfway through, and I did it at a time where I felt he was being treated unfairly on the Russia gate thing. I thought that was, you know, turned out to be I think a big lie,” Barr said.

“And I felt that he was the duly elected president and he deserved a chance to conduct his administration. And I went in because I thought I could help stabilize things and also have the administration conducted in an appropriate way. And as I felt the idea that the election was stolen was a big lie.”

And despite it all, despite everything that has come out about Trump’s actions and alleged actions, despite the looming indictment – on top of a current indictment – Barr says if Trump is the Republican party’s nominee for president he will still support him.

“I don’t see myself not supporting the Republican candidate,” Barr said.

Taking a swing at President Joe Biden, Barr said neither the current nor the former president are “fit for the office.”

“But if I’m confronted with that choice, I have to go with policy, who’s closest to me on policy,” regardless of who might be convicted of breaking the law, including on our national secrets.



https://www.rawstory.com/bill-barr-2661027217/

 

waiting ................. still waiting .................. Still waiting .....................

 

Hey @shootersa on other threads you claim FBI directer Chris Wray is defying a treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republican subpoena and belongs in jail. So by YOUR OWN STANDARDS doesn't Trump belong in jail?


'How do you explain defying a subpoena?' CNN hosts put former Trump lawyer on the spot for classified docs

Brad Reed
June 7, 2023, 8:34 AM ET



Photo: Screen capture


Former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore on Wednesday was put on the spot for his one-time boss's efforts to potentially obstruct government investigators from retrieving top-secret government documents.

During an appearance on CNN, host Poppy Harlow grilled Parlatore over his insistence that former President Donald Trump did nothing illegal when there appears to be a plethora of evidence suggesting otherwise.

"How do you explain defying a subpoena and keeping classified documents?" she asked him.

Parlatore, however, insisted that no one had defied a subpoena despite the fact that Trump attorney Evan Corcoran had certified that he had turned over all documents requested by the government, when the reality was that boxes filled with top-secret documents were still being stored at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.

READ MORE: 'Very ominous' statement from Mark Meadows' lawyer should unnerve Trump: CNN's Evan Perez

Parlatore then implied that the United States Department of Justice had been overzealous by not granting Trump's lawyers sufficient time to search for all the documents at Mar-a-Lago, despite the fact that evidence suggests Trump ordered some of those documents to be moved to his personal office.

"[The DOJ created] this situation where you can then say they ignored a subpoena, but that's not the reality when you get down to the brass tacks of the actual facts here," the attorney claimed.

Watch the video below or at this link.



https://www.rawstory.com/tim-parlatore-2661082701/

 

One of the things that almost everyone agrees on is Trump has been phenomenal at keeping people from flipping on him. He managed to thwart the entire Mueller investigation by keeping witnesses loyal and even lying for him. Even when they got caught at it and were supposed to go to jail they knew Trump would just pardon them.

But Trump was president then and he's not now. So it will be interesting to see if his string of luck holds and no one is willing to flip and testify against him risking prison themselves when Trump can no longer pardon them.

And no one is moire interesting to watch than Mark Meadows. He has all the keys to the kingdom. Meadows was involved in the attempted coup. He was the witness in the room during the J6 insurrection. And he was the point man between Trump and the National Archives when Trump stoke all the documents including classified ones. So if Smith can flip Meadows he owns the kingdom.



'Very ominous' statement from Mark Meadows' lawyer should unnerve Trump: CNN's Evan Perez

Brad Reed
June 7, 2023, 6:36 AM ET



Mark Meadows at Trump rally (Photo by Saul Loeb for AFP)


CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez believes former President Donald Trump should start worrying about his one-time chief of staff cooperating with federal prosecutors.

In breaking down news that former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows has testified before a grand jury convened by special counsel Jack Smith, Perez pointed to a statement given by Meadows' attorney as particularly worrisome for the former president.

"We have a statement from his lawyer which will make the hairs on the neck of Donald Trump's team stand, frankly, because it's very ominous," he said. "He doesn't confirm that Mark Meadows has testified in front of the grand jury, but he says this: 'Mark Meadows has maintained a commitment to tell the truth where he has a legal obligation to do so.' Again, if you're the trump team... it doesn't sound very good to them."

Perez also reminded viewers just how central Meadows was in Trump's efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election to President Joe Biden.

RELATED: Trump indictment for Jan. 6 may be 'just as imminent' as classified docs case: ex-prosecutor

"Mark Meadows is arguably the biggest witness," he said. "He was there when the former president was formulating his effort to try to stay in office despite losing the election. He was involved in trying to tell members of Congress that there was this plan -- you saw some of the text messages from the January 6 Committee investigation. He outlined the plan... try to get states to send alternate electors and try to make sure that the former president could remain in office."

Watch the video below or at this link.

https://www.rawstory.com/mark-meadows-grand-jury/

 

@stumbler

What Shooter has said, just to clarify the record, is that Wray is so far defying a Congressional subpoena and will have to either comply or accept the consequences, which can include jail.

Trump defied a congressional subpoena but Nancy's star chamber didn't call for him to be held in contempt, you know, like they did Bannon.

So no, Trump doesn't belong in jail because Nancy was too big a coward to try. Probably because she thought she could get him with her other committee circus nonsense. In any case, the current law says that when people defy a subpoena Congress can decide if they want to hold them in contempt or not. It's an option, not mandatory.

Now, the other side of the question is, will Comer have the courage to do Wray for contempt, and Shooter is thinking yes, in this post "Bannon contempt" world, Comer will have little choice. You know, politically. Course, shooter is thinking Comer would love to put Wray in jail. Bit of revenge showing there, eh?

 

Details in Mueller Report Draw Interest of Special Counsel in Trump Classified Documents Case

373
Brian Bennett
Wed, June 7, 2023 at 7:44 PM MDT




As Jack Smith, a special counsel for the Justice Department, closes in on the end of an investigation into former President Donald Trump’s possession of hundreds of classified documents, his team has made use of the work of another special counsel who previously investigated Trump’s ties to Russia, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

A lengthy section of the Mueller Report, which examined ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, has been instructive to the current inquiry’s prosecutors, who are viewing Trump’s actions around federal requests to return the classified documents as part of a broader pattern, the person said.


Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI, released his highly anticipated report in April 2019, shortly after then-Attorney General William Barr released a short summary of the report that was viewed by many in hindsight as downplaying the report’s findings.

Prosecutors have looked closely at Section II of the Mueller report, titled “Factual Results of the Obstruction Investigation.” That 142-page section goes into vivid detail, with extensive footnotes and copies of emails and text messages, about Trump taking steps to thwart the work of federal prosecutors investigating Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 election.

That part of the report details how Trump tried to get the FBI to drop its investigation of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security advisor, for lying to FBI agents about meetings he had with Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S. weeks before Trump took office. Flynn eventually pled guilty to lying to the bureau and was later pardoned by Trump.

The section also showed Trump deciding to fire his first FBI director, James Comey, who was overseeing the investigation into the campaign’s ties to Russia, because Comey would not say publicly that Trump himself wasn’t under investigation. But Trump instructed his press office to falsely tell reporters that it was senior leaders at the Department of Justice who had first recommended Comey be fired.

The report also detailed Trump’s efforts to fire Mueller as special counsel after press reports showed that Mueller was investigating whether Trump obstructed the investigation.

And it illustrated how Trump responded in June 2017 when he learned about an email from his 2016 campaign setting up a meeting for Trump’s son Don Jr. with Russians. Those Russian nationals were claiming to offer negative details about Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email to Don Jr. As he flew aboard Air Force One back to Washington from a summit in Germany, Trump dictated a statement to his aide Hope Hicks to be attributed to Don Jr. saying that the meeting was about Russia’s policy toward Americans adopting Russian children.

It is unclear if the special counsel’s office has decided to use any material from Mueller’s investigation in building their case. There are limits to how prosecutors can use evidence from prior investigations. Called 404(b) evidence, information from a previous criminal investigation can be used to show a target’s motive, intent or that an action wasn’t a mistake or accident. But, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, prosecutors cannot submit evidence from previous bad actions in order to show that a person acted consistent with certain character traits.

The Mueller investigation would be helpful for prosecutors in learning how to deal with Trump, said a former federal prosecutor who worked on a similar case, and requested anonymity to speak more freely. But using evidence from the Mueller investigation or pointing out sections of the Mueller Report to grand jurors could be an unnecessary tangent, given how heated the political debate around Mueller’s investigation became. “Any association with Mueller is not going to be helpful for Jack Smith,” the former prosecutor said.

Even before the Mueller report was released, Trump’s allies pointed to Barr’s summary of it to insist that Trump had done nothing wrong. But Mueller did not rule out that Trump committed a crime in obstructing his investigation. His report established that even a person who wasn’t guilty of a crime being investigated could still have committed a criminal act by interfering with the investigation.

Mueller’s report concluded that then-President Trump “launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation.” Mueller also said his investigation “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”

A lawsuit seeking the unredacted version of the Mueller report led a federal judge in 2020 to criticize Barr’s actions around the report’s release. Judge Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the differences between the report and Mr. Barr’s public description of it raised questions as to “whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller report to the contrary.”

Trump currently faces four separate criminal investigations. In addition to the classified documents case, Special Counsel Smith is also running a separate investigation into Trump’s role in trying to overturn his 2020 election loss and the violent siege of the Capitol Building on Jan. 6.

Trump was indicted in April by the Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg and pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts related to hush-money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. That trial is scheduled to begin in March 2024. Trump is also being investigated by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Atlanta over his alleged effort to pressure Georgia state officials to reverse his loss in that state.

On top of that, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit in September against Trump alleging he lied to insurers and bank lenders by overvaluing his properties.

Trump has called these inquiries “scams and witch hunts” and, without evidence, said they are part of a broad campaign of “election interference” to hurt his effort to win back the White House in 2024.

Trump’s criticisms of the classified documents investigation and others echo those he made during the Mueller investigation. In recent public court filings, he has attacked the classified documents investigation as politically motivated, contradicted his earlier statements, and seemingly admitted that he withheld government documents when asked repeatedly by the federal government to return them.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/details-mueller-report-draw-interest-014444593.html

 

If the report is so damning of Trump, why wasn't Trump indicted?
Because what is so damning is the propaganda and spin served up by butt hurt despicables still bent on their perp walk.

 

Bombshell transcript: Trump boasted of holding 'secret information' that he didn't declassify

Matthew Chapman
June 9, 2023, 8:08 AM ET



Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


Former President Donald Trump admitted on previously unreleased audiotape that he did not declassify "secret information" in his possession, CNN reported on Friday.

"'As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,' Trump says, according to the transcript," reported Paula Reid and Jeremy Herb. "CNN obtained the transcript of a portion of the meeting where Trump is discussing a classified Pentagon document about attacking Iran. In the audio recording, which CNN previously reported was obtained by prosecutors, Trump says that he did not declassify the document he’s referencing, according to the transcript."

"Trump was indicted Thursday on seven counts in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the mishandling of classified documents," said the report. "Details from the indictment have not been made public, so it unknown whether any of the seven counts refer to the recorded 2021 meeting. Still, the tape is significant because it shows that Trump had an understanding the records he had with him at Mar-a-Lago after he left the White House remained classified."

READ MORE: 'If it was me, I'd be a basket case': Veteran prosecutor stunned by seriousness of new Trump charges

The admission on tape is in stark contrast to Trump's public claims that he had the ability to declassify anything, and that he had a right to take whatever documents he wanted back to his private residence.

“Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this,” Trump said in the transcript. “This was done by the military and given to me.”

Trump is scheduled to appear for criminal proceedings in Miami next week to face seven felony charges.



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-leaked-recording/