The Justice Department has not resigned to stop its investigation into the Donald Trump documents obtained In the register of his mansion When an independent expert reviews them. He told the court on Thursday that he had made the decision to block the FBI’s work and that he would appeal that decision, in confidential documents. The judge who gave Order to stop investigation Named on his day when Donald Trump was president. Appointees of former presidents are the majority of those who have to deal with appeals.
The notice of appeal does not detail the arguments the attorney’s office will present in its appeal. The judge’s decision to appoint a special expert and freeze the investigation was somewhat controversial for blocking the progress of a federal investigation for several potential crimes, including obstruction of justice. Irrespective of whether the case is late, the appointed expert has great power to remove from the case or not The documents were seized during a raid on August 8 At Mar-a-Lago, 100 are classified as Secret or Confidential. Each expert’s decision leads to appeals that must be resolved in court. The investigation can be very complicated.
Judge Aileen Cannon, presiding over a federal court in South Florida, made the decision Monday 24 page order, “A special expert should be appointed to review the seized assets and manage the privilege charges [ejecutivo o abogado-cliente] and make recommendations in this regard and evaluate requests for return of goods”. The judge said, “Pending the completion of the expert’s review or the issuance of a new court order, the government is temporarily barred from using the seized materials for inspection and investigative purposes.” The government may continue to review and use documents for purposes of intelligence classification and national security assessments, but not for such an investigation.
Department of Justice Another petition has been filed in the court Pointing out that the split is pointless, he pleads that at least the inquiry into classified documents can continue, otherwise, he assures, it will cause “irreparable damage” to it. He accused the FBI of being part of the intelligence community, where the assessment of potential damage to national security and the criminal investigation were intertwined.
“To assess the full extent of the potential national security harm caused by the improper retention of classified records, the government must assess the possibility that others may have accessed and compromised improperly stored classified information. But that investigation is a central aspect of the FBI’s criminal investigation.” The letter indicates.
Expert candidates
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without limits.
The judges asked the parties to propose a list of possible candidates for the post of expert by this Friday. Not only is consensus difficult, but it is difficult for each party to find someone who has the necessary access to classified documents and is willing to undertake a task that is subject to great public scrutiny and involves reviewing thousands of documents.
Trump’s attorneys requested reconsideration if the documents contained evidence that could compromise the attorney-client privilege, i.e., professional secrecy related to the relationship between said parties. The Justice Department countered that it had created a separate filtering team from the Intelligence Committee to identify those potential documents and had already separated the 520 pages of documents that could be affected by the privilege, so no further review was necessary.
Even Trump It is called executive power By this the government generally refuses to provide information about internal deliberations to another authority such as the legislature or the judiciary. In this case, however, Trump is no longer part of the executive branch, nor was the request for the documents from another power, but from the National Archives, which is part of the administration itself.
The investigation enters a complex procedural channel that can delay decisions and collection of evidence. Additionally, in the last case, if the issue reaches the Supreme Court, it could see a majority of six conservative justices (three of whom were appointed by Trump) against three progressives.
Follow all international news on Facebook and Twitter or in our weekly newsletter.
