A low-level Trump Organization official received a target letter from special counsel Jack Smith in connection with the investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s handling of classified documents, suggesting the employee could face charges and confirming that the broader investigation is continuing, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The employee, who the person declined to name, received the letter in recent weeks after appearing in May before a federal grand jury in Washington. Prosecutors were trying to establish whether any of Mr. Trump’s aides or employees interfered with the government’s attempts to obtain security cameras from Mar-a-Lago, the former president’s private club and residence in Florida.

Footage from the cameras at Mar-a-Lago was at the center of the case against Mr. Trump and was an instrumental part of the evidence used to obtain a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago last August. During that search, the FBI took away a trove of more than 100 classified documents that Mr. Trump had taken with him from the White House and kept even after receiving a subpoena demanding their return.

The surveillance footage was also key to the indictment Mr. Smith’s office brought last month against Mr. Trump and his personal aide, Walt Nauta, in the Southern District of Florida. The indictment accuses both men of conspiring to thwart the government’s efforts to retrieve dozens of highly classified documents and Mr Trump alone of illegally keeping the documents after he left office.

Prosecutors use letters of intent to inform subjects of criminal investigations that they could be charged with crimes. While it remains unclear what charges the Trump Organization employee could face, the special counsel’s office was examining whether the employee’s grand jury testimony was true, the person familiar with the matter said.

The target letter sent to the employee was reported earlier by ABC News.

A lawyer for the employee, Stanley Woodward Jr., declined to comment on the letter.

As part of their ongoing investigation, prosecutors have questioned additional witnesses and sought more surveillance camera footage, according to a person familiar with the matter. Prosecutors also asked about boxes of documents moved not only at Mar-a-Lago but also at other properties owned by Trump in Florida, including the Trump National Doral Golf Club near Miami and the Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, another person. familiar with the matter said.

The New York Times recently reported that despite the indictments brought against Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta, the grand jury in Miami that returned the indictments continued to issue new subpoenas for documents, indicating that the investigation was active. In a court filing on Thursday, Mr. Smith’s office confirmed that prosecutors had interviewed witnesses as late as June 23 — several weeks after Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta were indicted.

Prosecutors charged that Mr. Trump played what amounted to a shell game with dozens of boxes of presidential records and classified material that were kept in a basement storage room after initially being placed in various locations around Mar-a-Lago, including a ballroom. . and a bathroom.

The indictment alleges that after a grand jury subpoena was issued in May 2022 seeking the return of all classified materials in Mr. Trump’s possession, Mr. Nauta moved boxes in and out of storage multiple times at Mr. Trump’s request, and that the number of boxes moved out was far greater than the number returned.

The case against Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta is moving forward in court even as the investigation continues. The judge overseeing it, Aileen M. Cannon, will soon decide on when to schedule the trial — a question that could have serious legal and political consequences.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked Judge Cannon this week to delay the trial indefinitely, a move that could serve to push it until after the 2024 election. If that happens and Mr. Trump wins the race, he could try to pardon himself after taking office or that his attorney general dismiss the case.

Prosecutors working for Mr. Smith responded on Thursday to the request for a delay, telling Judge Cannon that there was “no law or fact to proceed in such an indefinite and open-ended fashion.”

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *