A court filing from the Justice Department late last night offers
the clearest picture yet of the steps that lead to the FBI search
of former President Donald Trump's Florida home earlier this month.
In his 36 page filing, the DOJ rice at the classified documents were,
at one point quote likely concealed and removed and that efforts
were likely taken to obstruct the government's investigation.
The FBI searched for the culmination of a month long effort that
began in May of last year with the National Archives first requested
missing records from the Trump team. The first batch of 15 boxes
was sent to Washington in January and included 184 classified documents.
Four months later, a grand jury subpoena was given to the Trump team
requesting all other classified materials.
In June. The FBI went tomorrow Lago and was given 38 additional classified
documents. Trump's lawyer said there were no other documents stored
on site but would not allow FBI investigators to verify that when
the FBI executed a search warrant earlier this month, they found
76 classified documents in the storage room that they were not allowed
into in June, and an additional three documents in Trump's desk drawer.
To help explain the new court filing. I'm joined by Chuck Rosenberg
is a former federal prosecutor and an FBI official. Chuck Rosenberg,
Welcome back to the news hour two. So what is the release of this
FBI filing and what they're saying here? Tell us about what the former
president did with these documents? Well, it tells us more about
the documents than what the former president necessarily did with
them. Search warrants are executed to recover evidence, and it was
done lawfully with the authorization of a federal judge.
But it doesn't necessarily tell you who did what? Who packed the
documents who understood that there were classified materials within
those boxes and who may have obstructed justice. It could have been
the former president. It could have been people who worked for him.
They could have been doing that at his direction. If you recall Judy,
a large portion of the FBI's affidavit was redacted.
And lots of the good answers to those good questions are probably
in those redactions and and on the content question or what was in
here. Will we ever know what what's here?
Again. Maybe. And I know that's a frustrating answer. But if charges
are brought against the former president or someone else, then very
likely you'll see the details made public in a court filing or reduced
as evidence at a trial. But if the investigation closes without charges
being brought, then probably not when we see and we have a picture
that the FBI released of the documents
Spread out on the floor. I mean, we're looking at, you know, come
top secret. I mean, clearly this is sensitive material here highly
sensitive material, and there was cover sheets, which were on your
screen just a moment ago are
Easily detected right. There's no mistake, Judy when you have a classified
document in your hand because you have a classified document, cover
sheet marks secret or top secret as the case may be, And as you turn
each page, there are markings at the top and bottom of each page.
And there are even paragraph markings so there wouldn't be a mistake
about the nature of the document, the DOJ and again this is what
we were quoting a moment ago. Among other things, they're saying
efforts were likely taken and you just refer to this to obstruct
The government's investigation. If that's proven, is that breaking
a law
If it was done intentionally, So let me explain.
For instance, we know that Mr Trump's lawyers had represented to
the Department of Justice that they had done a thorough search, and
there were no more classified documents behind that turned out not
to be true.
Was it intentionally false? In other words, where they just bad lawyers.
Did they fail in their duty village inside, Being a bad lawyer is
not a crime, or were they misled by someone else? Where they told
perhaps by their client that the search was thorough when they passed
on that information, Or did they know that there were documents there
but misrepresented it to the Department of Justice? So the first
two scenarios bad lawyering a failure of due diligence. Let me add
as well being misled by your client.
Alright, It's not a crime.
But the last one joining in a conspiracy to hide documents and making
a misrepresentation to the Department of Justice that would be deciding
whether to try to get answers to those questions that you just described
who makes that decision. Deciding to try and get answers would be
the prosecutors and the agents, and that's why they do lots of interviews.
For instance, they wanted to see surveillance footage from Mar a
Lago. Why it would tell you who's coming and going and who's coming
and going with what in their head.
Friends.
And those are people you want to talk to, and by talking to people
and getting their best recollection and hopeful there. Hopefully
they're truthful. Best recollection. You can begin to understand
whether these things were done intentionally or negligently intention
is what's required to prove a crime. Early reporting seems to be
Chuck Rosenberg that DOJ is not expected.
To file charges.
How should we read that? I mean, we are. I know you're not inside
the Justice Department right now. But what What do you think we should
could expect here well to your point. There may not be charges before
the midterm elections. But there's an ongoing investigation. The
attorney general of the United States has told us that and he said
that they're going to follow the facts wherever they lead.
There is a longstanding Department of Justice policy not to bring
charges or to take over investigative steps near the time of an election.
It's not 60 or 90 days. There's no number in the policy for the purpose
of and this is really important language for the purpose of interfering
in an election so they may go quiet for a time. But that doesn't
mean the investigation has stopped. You can still do things covertly
quietly secretly to further your investigation while you're in this
Pre election quiet period. You think we can expect that? For now?
The FBI has found whatever there is to be found.
Among the former president's possessions, the things that he took
with him when he left office. That sounds logical and likely. They
executed a search warrant and they had authority to look in places
where documents might be spent hours spent hours by the way. That's
one reason why they go in with a lot of people. If they only went
in with one person, it would take a lot longer.
So you bring a lot of agents that you do a thorough search. It's
pursuant to a lawfully authorized warrant signed by a federal judge.
And that becomes part of the investigation. But that doesn't mean
the investigation is over. It doesn't mean that they could not or
would not execute another search warrant somewhere else. You follow
the facts and you follow the leads and you go where they go. And
what do you look for? At this point next here? Well, I'm biased.
Judy. I come from the Department of Justice. I have great faith in
their work and their ability to do that work.
I don't know when we'll hear again from Merrick Garland. But typically
the Department of Justice speaks in court or through pleadings like
the one that was released last night through motions through written
documents and I'm looking for those chakra Rosenberg, We are grateful