ANDERSON MILES
On Tuesday, May 8th, 2024, the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government hosted Jack: A Special Counsel Podcast to discuss the legal cases facing former President Donald Trump. The panel included Anna Bower, Lawfare’s legal fellow and Court Correspondent, as moderator; Allison Gill, Executive Producer and host of the podcast; Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the Trump Administration; and Brian Greer, a former CIA Associate General Counsel.
The event opened with remarks from General Hayden read by the Hayden Center’s Executive Director Larry Pfeiffer, “I have gone on the record with my deep concern for the mishandling of classified material by the former president… the behavior is inexcusable and the delay in resolving the matter is very corrosive to our system of secrets.” Following the opening remarks, the panel discussed the timeline of Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents at his Florida estate in Mar-a-Lago, as well as the proceedings of his trial.
In June 2022, the FBI raided Trump’s Florida estate of Mar-A-Lago after he refused to return the classified documents to the National Archives and Records Administration after his presidency. According to Gill, the FBI recovered 38 classified documents from the premises. McCabe mentioned that Trump stored documents in his bedroom, ballroom, bathroom, and storage room. Following the raid in July of 2022, the Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith issued the first indictment of Trump to stand trial in the Southern District of Florida for violating the Espionage Act.
Greer explained that the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) was designed to prevent the problem of graymail, where the defense counsel could threaten to disclose classified information at trial anytime there was a national security prosecution. It provides a funneling process’ for resolving disputes involving classified information at the pretrial stage. Although Trump has been charged, the trial has yet to commence due to the delays associated with CIPA rulings and a suspension ordered by presiding Judge Eileen Cannon.
The panel disagreed with Judge Cannon’s decision that granted the defense’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the scope of the prosecution. As part of the discovery, the defense is entitled to request information from the government that they believe will help them prepare for their defense. McCabe noted that Judge Cannon will review over 150 redaction pages and litigate to determine if these redactions are necessary. He referred to these hearings as “needless litigation” that would delay the trial for weeks or months.
The panelists commented on Trump’s concerns regarding the intrusive precedent this trial could set, allowing rogue prosecutors to hound future presidents. Gill highlighted that there are “layers upon layers of protection for the president” that would prevent rogue prosecutors from going after the president. She argued that the court is focusing on the future impacts of the case rather than the current charges themselves. McCabe added that some members of the Supreme Court are more concerned with expanding and preserving executive power than actual cases. He believes that it is essential that an American jury can decide on this trial and determine if Trump is guilty or acquitted.
The conversation wrapped up with a lightning round of questions from the in-person and virtual audience. One George Mason audience member asked, “What legal and policy changes may occur should Trump win the 2024 election – such as possible changes to CIPA or executive laws,” McCabe noted that the “Project 2025” document published by the Republic Party is quite detailed in the changes they will make should Trump take office. Another George Mason audience member asked about what, if any, impact these trials will have on the upcoming election, to which Gill shared her take “I wish the media did not set up the belief that a conviction should have a decision for an individual to decide whether to vote,” with McCabe and Bower noting that for voters it may depend on the substance of the cases; however it is still unclear for those undecided voters in the middle.
The full recording can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iH24imNGNc
