THE TIGHTENING NOOSE:

3. The Government Clearly Has Witnesses

Even before its mid May review of the first 15 boxes Trump gave NARA, the FBI already had one or more witnesses who'd informed the bureau that Trump was still hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

After being delayed by Trump's futile attempts to stall and assert privilege, the FBI's review, which took three days, commenced on May 16. Yet, notice that the grand-jury subpoena demanding all classified documents stored at Mar-a-Lago was issued on May 11 -- five days earlier.

The Justice Department's submission explains that by the time the May 11 subpoena was issued, the FBI had "developed evidence" indicating that "dozens of additional boxes" of records were still being held at the Florida estate. The filing does not say what this evidence was, or how it was developed. The prosecutors omit this information because, they say, they're worried about intimidation of witnesses and other obstructive conduct. They also emphasize that Magistrate Judge Reinhart found probable cause to believe that criminal obstruction had occurred when he approved the search warrant on August 5; and, in thereafter explaining why he would not order disclosure of the unredacted affidavit, Reinhart concluded that revealing this type of information could "impede the ongoing investigation through obstruction of justice and witness intimidation or retaliation."

4. False Statements, Including Under Oath, to the FBI and the Grand Jury

At the June 3 Mar-a-Lago meeting, Trump's representatives provided the sworn statement demanded by the subpoena. It reads:

Based upon the information that has been provided to me, I am authorized to certify, on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump, the following: a. A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida; b. This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena; c. Any and all responsive documents accompany this certification; and d. No copy, written notation, or reproduction of any kind was retained as to any responsive document.

I swear or affirm that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

The government's court filing does not say who signed the sworn statement. Media reports indicate that the signatory was Trump lawyer Christina Bobb (though she has publicly said that Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran oversaw the supposedly "diligent search"). That the statement itself is patently false does not necessarily mean Bobb was lying when she signed it (if, indeed, she was the one who signed it) -- we don't yet know what information she was given and thus cannot assess whether she was willfully misleading investigators. We can safely assume, however, that (a) the lawyers who conducted the "diligent search" and provided the sworn statement for the grand jury (among other statements the lawyers made that day to the FBI) are subjects of the investigation -- and likely to become central witnesses; and (b) the government would argue that Trump made false statements to the FBI and to the grand jury, reasoning that his agents' statements are attributable to him, and he had to know, when he caused his agents to make these statements, that he was not providing all of the classified documents compelled by the subpoena.

We can also safely say that the government had reason to believe, even as the June 3 meeting was taking place, that the representations made on Trump's behalf by his lawyers were false.

Tweet   @brothersjudd