Trump denied reports of being indicted and labeled the investigations as election interference.
Former White House adviser Steve Bannon has been subpoenaed by special counsel Jack Smith as part of a grand jury investigating the January 6 insurrection.
Bannon, who was previously convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with the congressional committee investigating the January 6 events, has been asked to provide both documents and testimony. This separate grand jury in Washington DC is focused on the events of January 6 and is independent of the investigation into Donald Trump's handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence after leaving the White House.
The investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents
has been ongoing since early 2022 when National Archives and Records
Administration officials discovered over 100 documents with classification
markings in a set of 15 boxes of Trump administration records retrieved from
Mar-a-Lago. Special agents conducting the search found 103 documents with
classification markings, including some marked as "top secret," "secret,"
and "confidential."
These documents were found in Mr. Trump's
personal office. Federal prosecutors have formally informed Trump's lawyers
that he is a target of the criminal investigation examining his retention of
national security materials at Mar-a-Lago and potential obstruction of
justice.
The recent subpoena of Bannon and the notification to Trump's
lawyers raise the stakes in the investigation as it appears to be nearing
its conclusion. The investigation has taken evidence before grand juries in
both Washington and Florida, with the latter being impaneled last month.
Prosecutors have developed evidence of criminal conduct at Mar-a-Lago and
have decided that any indictments should be charged in the southern district
of Florida, where the resort is located, rather than in Washington.
The
impaneling of grand juries in different jurisdictions is related to the
perceived location of the crimes. In this case, prosecutors have evidence of
criminal activity at Mar-a-Lago, which is why the Florida grand jury was
impaneled. The investigation focuses on Trump's retention of national
security material and whether he was still president when the documents were
moved to Mar-a-Lago, potentially making his "unlawful possession" begin in
Florida.
If prosecutors have evidence that Trump knew he had
retained national security documents after he left office at Mar-a-Lago, it
could present hurdles to charging Espionage Act violations in Washington.
The
venue for an obstruction of justice charge is more difficult to determine.
Section 1519 of the US criminal code, which prosecutors listed on the
affidavit for the Mar-a-Lago search warrant, provides little guidance on how
it should be applied. Generally, the venue for obstruction charges depends
on where the impeded proceeding was taking place. In this case, the subpoena
demanding the return of classified documents was issued in Washington.
However, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has ruled in previous
cases that the correct venue is where acts of obstruction occurred.
If prosecutors are considering obstruction charges for Trump's
attempts to conceal classified documents after the subpoena, Florida could
be the venue.
The ongoing investigations into Trump's handling of
classified documents and potential involvement in the January 6 insurrection
have significant implications for him and his associates. The testimonies,
subpoenas, and decisions regarding venue will ultimately determine the legal
consequences.
As the investigation progresses and moves closer
to its conclusion, the charges that may arise from the grand juries in
Washington and Florida remain unclear.
