Mar-a-Lago Search Part of Espionage Act Investigation

Ed O’Callaghan, partner at WilmerHale and former principal associate deputy attorney general, joins David and ...

By and
66

Ed O’Callaghan, partner at WilmerHale and former principal associate deputy attorney general, joins David and Sarah to discuss the news that the FBI’s search of former President Donald Trump’s home is part of an investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act. What does that mean? How does this all work?

Show Notes:

–French Press: Apply the Hillary Clinton Rule to Donald Trump

By and
Comments (66)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Susan

    Ooof. This one was hard to get through from a podcast production standpoint. All week I was looking forward to David and Sarah's detailed analysis of the legal issues around the Mar-a-Lago search and it was so disappointing to hear, not from them, but from a guest who was not a skilled communicator in this format. I'm sure that Ed O'Callaghan is an expert at what he does. But he's not an expert at talking about it. I sadly had to bail after about 15 minutes. The Dispatch seems to be suffering a bit from the drive to push out so much content that the quality is sometimes uneven. I think it would be better to take longer breaks between podcasts and be more selective about content and guests rather than just feed our constant appetite for more. They got us through the Supreme Court season. Maybe it's time to take a vacation?

    Collapse
  2. Brocka121

    This was too annoying to listen to. The audio issues and the uh, umm, uh, umm, uh from the speaker...I skipped through to the remaining discussion between you two. Can these people be vetted over the phone?

    Collapse
  3. Icarus213

    I'm sorry, I know your guest isn't a podcaster, but the "uhhs" were so thick and heavy that I had to stop listening before minute 10.

    Collapse
  4. Joe1776

    Why didn't any of those leaks that came from the FBI and Mueller's team regarding Russia gate lead to any espionage charges?

    Would the prosecutor need to indicate in an affidavit a particular person/entity/foreign power who they thought Trump or the accused shared these documents with? Or would they just be able to say "maybe he shared it with someone."

    I find it interesting that he thinks a lawyer can not take his clients word for something. I can't imagine telling my own clients that I need to do more than just take their word for it when I ask them for documents in litigation. Like what should they have done? Searched their clients house themselves?

    Did he say he thinks the prosecutor should believe beyond reasonable doubt a crime was committed before they get a warrant? Namely probable cause for a warrant is the same as probable cause to arrest or indict.

    The notion that no one knew about Hillary's illegal server is really hard to believe.

    Comey confirmed that she deleted or refused to turn over classified emails:

    "Clinton said her team "went through a thorough process" to identify work-related emails, and she said he had "absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department."

    The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

    This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

    With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
    https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system





    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Stephanie

    Re: "Beardy McBeardface:" I couldn't resist googling and my first thought was: put a Civil War Union general's outfit on him and he's a dead ringer for Ulysses S. Grant.

    Collapse
  6. Joe1776

    I just wanted to say generally how much I appreciate David and Sarah's podcasts. I am a lawyer but have not studied many of these process or constitutional issues since Law School, and so the refreshers they offer lay and semi-lay folks like me is very helpful.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    You know you’ve done something right when progressive and Trumpy commenters both accuse you of doing the wrong thing - and in a perfect example of the two ends meeting in a circle, end up agreeing with each other!

    I thought your piece was very helpful, David, and this podcast and the last one were evenhanded and informative. Clinton is the obvious analogy.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Rjosephpaquette

    I would have preferred an 'August Nerd' podcast.
    Honestly could care less about Trump's self injuries and his battles with the DOJ.
    Never voted for him.
    I don't think, he will be president again.
    Time to move on.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Further to Ms. Isgur's introduction: Wilmer Hale is the successor by merger to Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and Hale & Dorr, longtime BigLaw powerhouses based respectively in D.C. and Boston. The Cutler was Lloyd Cutler, counsel to the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton White Houses; when I interviewed there in 1979, it was, temporarily, just Wilmer & Pickering. On the front page of the National Movers & Shakers handbook, Washington edition, this firm has a prominent position.

    Collapse
  10. Centrist

    Very informative podcast!

    One comment for Sarah, though: You mention that there are "only 3 things" that could have changed between June and now to create the need for a search warrant. I think there is a very viable 4th alternative, namely that new facts came to light that clearly indicated either the presence or disclosure, or imminent potential disclosure, of classified information: either one of the inner Trump circle saw indications of some imminent disclosure or act on Trump's part (possibly potentially related to an announcement of a presidential run), and it crossed the line for them, or alternatively a Trump lackey with access to the documents disclosed to a 3rd party, or bragged to a 3rd party, and either the Trump confidante in the first case, or the 3rd party in the second, then alerted the FBI, providing current proof that there were indeed documents still in Trump's possession, and resulting in the issuance of the search warrant.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      Sarah did mention the Trump-lackey-having-access part of your suggestion and named Kash Patel as an example.

      The Times' Maggie Haberman (apparently everyone in DC has her phone number & leaks to her) said one of her sources reported that the surveillance footage the FBI got did show people entering and leaving the room where the top secret information was stored.

      So random people were able to go in and out, which I think would probably be enough to justify removing all the stuff ASAP, and no more "negotiation."


      Collapse
Load More