NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Former President Trump’s legal team and the Justice Department are expected to submit to a federal judge on Friday afternoon lists of potential candidates to serve as an independent special master to review records seized by the FBI during its raid without previous on Mar-a-Lago last month.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida Aileen M. Cannon ordered that a special master be appointed to “examine seized property, manage and make recommendations on lien claims, and assess claims for the return of property”.
Cannon ordered that Trump’s team and the government submit their own list of names to Cannon on Friday by 5 p.m. ET.
Fox News has learned that if Trump’s team and the Justice Department suggested a common name for the position, Cannon could agree to appoint that person.
FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER TO REVIEW SEIZED TRUMP FILES
If Trump’s team and the Justice Department don’t suggest any of the same people for the role, the judge should ask the parties to coordinate and try to agree on a name.
If the two parties cannot agree, the judge can appoint a person of his choice.
On Monday, the judge ordered a special master to review records that have been deemed classified, records covered by attorney-client privilege or Trump’s personal records seized in the raid.
DOJ TO APPEAL FROM JUDGE’S ORDER TO APPOINT SPECIAL MASTER TO REVIEW FILES SEIZED BY FBI FROM TRUMP’S MAR-A-LAGO
The Justice Department told the court on Thursday it would appeal the federal judge’s order for the appointment of a special master to review the seized records if the court does not grant the government a stay in the case. .
Fox News first reported this week that the FBI seized Trump’s medical records, documents containing his accounting information and correspondence related to his taxes. Additionally, Trump’s legal team is likely to request that items covered by executive privilege be sorted out by the special master.
Attorney-client privilege refers to a legal privilege that maintains the confidentiality of communications between an attorney and a client. It’s unclear at this point whether the records include communications between the former president and his private attorneys, the White House attorney during the Trump administration, or a combination.
FBI agents seized boxes containing records covered by attorney-client privilege and potentially professional secrecy during the raid, Fox News first reported last month.
The FBI also seized personal records, including what one source described as nearly 40 years of Trump’s medical records. The FBI had also seized Trump’s passports during the raid and later returned them to the former president.
Last week, the Department of Justice – after Cannon’s order – filed a more detailed list of documents taken during its Mar-a-Lago raid, including dozens of classified documents and files with marks. classified.
TRUMP FBI RAID: DOJ RELEASES MORE DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS TAKEN FROM MAR-A-LAGO
A wide assortment of other items were also included, including over 1,000 documents that had no classified marks, several “Apparel/Gift Item” entries, and hundreds of printed news articles.
Meanwhile, Cannon’s order to appoint the special master on Monday halted the Justice Department’s “stain” or “filter” team’s review of seized records.
The government carried out the initial search of Trump’s home in response to what it believes to be a violation of federal laws: 18 USC 793 — Collection, Transmission or Loss of Defense Information; 18 USC 2071—Concealment, Abduction, or Mutilation; and 18 USC 1519—Destruction, Alteration, or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations. Attorney General Merrick Garland said he personally approved the search of Trump’s home.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Last month, Trump’s legal team asked Cannon to appoint a special master following the unprecedented search of his property, arguing that the DOJ’s “privilege review team” should not be the final arbiter of whether his actions were appropriate in such a profile. cases and that the scope of the review team was too narrow.