Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department on Friday made public the redacted affidavit that supported the search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

After reviewing the DOJ’s proposed redactions Thursday, a magistrate judge had ordered the redacted affidavit filed in the public docket by noon Friday.

A coalition of news organizations, including ABC News, had argued that the release was in the public interest.

The FBI special agent tasked with writing the affidavit supporting the search of Mar-a-Lago writes that as a result of their ongoing criminal investigation they had “probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified [National Defense Information] or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at [Mar a Lago].”

“There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at [Mar a Lago],” the affidavit continues.

The redacted affidavit is a total of 32 pages with an attachment, including a May 25 letter signed by former President Trump’s lawyer Evan Corcoran outlining what is described as Trump’s authorities regarding presidential records.

The unredacted portions of the affidavit put on display the timeline of the Justice Department’s investigation leading up to their unprecedented move to search the residence of a former president.

It was kicked off, according to the affidavit, after a special agent for the National Archives’ inspector general sent a criminal referral to DOJ revealing that the 15 boxes handed over by Trump’s team in January revealed “highly classified records” intermingled with otherwise innocuous documents.

The affidavit goes on to outline further interactions between NARA and Trump’s team to secure the return of records that were improperly taken from the White House.

Between May 16-18, the affidavit says, an FBI review revealed that in those 15 boxes handed over in January 2021 there were 184 total documents bearing the following classifications:

67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL92 documents marked as SECRET25 documents marked as TOP SECRET

“Further,” the affidavit continues, “the FBI agents observed markings reflecting the following compartments/dissemination controls: HCS, FISA, ORCON, NOFORN, and SI. Based on my training and experience, I know that documents classified at these levels typically contain [National Defense Information]. Several of the documents also contained what appears to be FPOTUS ‘s handwritten notes.”

The affidavit then details communications between DOJ and one of Trump’s top lawyers, Evan Corcoran, in May 2021, in which Corcoran claimed Trump had the “absolute authority to declassify documents” and that the letter be provided to any grand jury investigating the matter.

The filing then further references a public Breitbart article from May 5 featuring an interview with former top Trump aide Kash Patel, who sought to rebut claims Trump took classified materials to Mar-a-Lago because he claimed Trump had declassified the docs en masse. There’s no evidence this happened, however, and Trump’s team has produced no such documentation proving as much.

Later in the affidavit, DOJ details a letter from one off its lawyers to Corcoran that “reiterated” Mar-a-Lago was not authorized to store classified information and requested the room docs were stored in to be further secured and the docs “be preserved in that room in their current condition until further notice.” There is no mention in this section of DOJ instructing the president’s team to simply add a lock to the room, though that is what Trump’s legal team has claimed repeatedly — this is a direct request from DOJ that the documents not be moved from the room.

An unredacted header later reads, “There is Probable Cause to Believe That Documents Containing Classified NDI and Presidential Records Remain at the Premises.”

And following several pages of redacted lines, the affidavit agent concludes that, “Based upon this investigation, I believe that the STORAGE ROOM, FPOTUS’s residential suite, Pine Hall, the “45 Office,” and other spaces within the PREMISES are not currently authorized locations for the storage of classified information or NDI. Similarly, based upon this investigation, I do not believe that any spaces within the PREMISES have been authorized for the storage of classified information at least since the end of FPOTUS ‘s Presidential Administration on January 20, 2021.”

“As described above, evidence of the SUBJECT OFFENSES has been stored in multiple locations at the PREMISES,” the affidavit says.

In their original request for sealing the affidavit, the agent states that keeping it sealed was necessary because the FBI had still “not yet identified all potential criminal confederates nor located all evidence related to its investigation.”

“Premature disclosure of the contents of this affidavit and related documents may have a significant and negative impact on the continuing investigation and may severely jeopardize its effectiveness by allowing criminal parties an opportunity to flee, destroy evidence (stored electronically and otherwise), change patterns of behavior, and notify criminal confederates,” the affidavit states.

The affidavit also outlines the procedures agents would use in executing the search, that a Privilege Review Team separate from the ‘Case Team’ would search Trump’s personal office and “be available to assist in the event that a procedure involving potentially attorney-client privileged information is required.”

“If the Privilege Review Team determines the documents or data are not potentially attorney-client privileged, they will be provided to the law-enforcement personnel assigned to the investigation,” the affidavit says. “If at any point the law-enforcement personnel assigned to the investigation subsequently identify any data or documents that they consider may be potentially attorney-client privileged, they will cease the review of such identified data or documents and refer the materials to the Privilege Review Team for further review by the Privilege Review Team.”

ABC News’ Will Steakin and Luke Barr contributed to this report.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Several Republicans who were nominated as firebrands in purple states are now eyeing post-primary messaging pivots in a policy acrobatics routine that could determine the outcome of marquee races.

Politicians modulating their campaign strategy after winning their party’s nomination is a tale as old as primaries themselves, and Democrats and Republicans alike are expected to adjust their approaches as the November midterms near. But strategists and experts say that for some GOP hopefuls, evolving the hardline stances they took while campaigning to their base — on issues like abortion access or baseless fears of widespread election fraud — could prove a more difficult feat than in the past.

Republicans seeking gubernatorial and Senate seats in swing states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and elsewhere are already indicating they’ll change their tone on hot-button issues — a swivel some operatives say is borne out of necessity in their narrowly divided states.

“If the campaigns are about the last election or Trump or abortion, then they fail because voters get to decide what the most important issues in the race are and they have. It’s clear: It’s the economy, it’s inflation, it’s [the] cost of goods and services,” said one senior GOP strategist working on several midterm races, who requested anonymity to speak more candidly about the cycle.

“If they’re going to be successful,” this strategist said of nominees like Blake Masters, Doug Mastriano and others, “they’re going to have to connect with voters’ top concerns.”

Already, some of these candidates who ran to the right flank of the GOP to clinch their nominations have since signaled what amounts to a vibe shift, focusing more on so-called kitchen table issues and in some instances altering their stances on culture war third rails.

For example, Mastriano, a Pennsylvania state senator who is the GOP’s gubernatorial nominee there, initially ran on a platform that included a near-total ban on abortions with no exceptions. He’s also been accused by federal prosecutors of trying to send fake electors to support former President Donald Trump’s efforts to reverse the 2020 race; and he was outside the Capitol during last year’s riot, though he insists he didn’t enter the building and has condemned the violence.

Since winning his primary — and in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the resulting backlash to a Kansas anti-abortion amendment — Mastriano has virtually stopped talking about the issue and switched from talking about the 2020 election to discussing inflation and his plans to slash energy and COVID-19 regulations.

He also said on Fox News last month that “there’s nothing extreme about me” after reports of ties to the founder of Gab, a social media platform notorious for some of its users’ extremist right-wing content.

Tim Michels, the GOP gubernatorial nominee in Wisconsin, ran his primary campaign as an election hardliner, flirting with the impossible idea that the state’s 2020 election results could still be overturned two years after the fact to differentiate himself from former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, his main primary competitor.

Yet after defeating Kleefisch, Michels released a general election ad focusing on his record as a businessman and high gas prices and briefly removed language from his campaign website highlighting Trump’s endorsement. And after saying at a Trump rally before the primary that his “No. 1 priority is election integrity,” he declared in his primary victory speech that “jobs and the economy are going to be my No. 1 priority.”

In Arizona, Masters, the GOP Senate nominee, ran as an “anti-progressive,” saying that “Trump won in 2020” and advocating for a federal “personhood law” that would completely ban abortions, a procedure he dubbed “demonic.” He also leaned on ads packed with metaphorical red meat, including a Second Amendment-themed clip stating that short-barreled rifles are “designed to kill people” and another calling San Francisco “disgusting” while walking through a homeless encampment.

More recently, though, Masters told a local newspaper the federal government “should prohibit late-term abortion, third-trimester abortion and partial-birth abortion” but that otherwise the decisions should be left to the states and that Arizona’s current law banning abortion after 15 weeks is “reasonable.” His first general election ad also featured his wife explaining that he wants “Americans to be thriving” over inspiring music.

Still, Democrats are pressing what they see as an advantage — the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s first ad buy of the race between Masters and incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly highlighted Masters’ past statements on abortion and Social Security.

Operatives tell ABC News that such pivots are wise in states where, even in an expected GOP wave year like 2022, relying solely on the party base could be a campaign’s death knell.

“If they want to be successful, they have to broaden their message,” said Mike DuHaime, who helped former Republican Gov. Chris Christie twice get elected in New Jersey. “Yeah, you need the Republican base to be fired up — but you need to win over independents, and you need to win over some conservative, moderate Democrats. And you’re not going to do that by carrying Trump’s water about an election that happened two years ago. They need to move forward.”

There is plenty of room to adapt, DuHaime said.

“I think, many, many undecided voters won’t be tuning into this race until October,” he said. “So, there’s certainly time. But you need to make that decision.”

To be sure, Democrats are also expected to face pressures of their own to turn back from their base. Republicans pointed to progressive nominees for Senate in battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — Lt. Govs. John Fetterman and Mandela Barnes, respectively — as places where Democrats may have to modulate their own messaging to a more narrowly divided November electorate.

However, some Republicans in crucial races will find themselves walking a particularly tough tightrope after espousing conspiracy theories over the 2020 race — sometimes for an audience of one.

“If you’re an election denier, you’ve gotten former President Trump’s support because of that. You can’t pivot from that,” said GOP strategist Bob Heckman. “Trump has made it clear that if people try stray away from him, he’ll criticize them and then you jeopardize your base. So I just think you have to stay with where you are.”

Some candidates, like Arizona’s GOP gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake, have expressed no interest in making the traditional post-primary changes to their campaign.

Lake made falsehoods about the 2020 race a cornerstone of her GOP nominating bid. And, according to her team, voters can expect similar rhetoric from her primary heading into November, which aides pitched as effective state advocacy.

“We have no plans to change our Arizona First message and our detailed policy positions speak for themselves,” Lake spokesperson Ross Trumble said.

Still, Republican operatives and officials by and large say they think their candidates are taking some of the right steps back toward the center.

“When you talk about messaging, I believe you’re gonna see Sen. Mastriano talk about … things that are so much more important to the average Pennsylvanian than the 2020 election or his personal position in regards to abortion,” said Sam DeMarco, the chair of the Allegheny County GOP in Pennsylvania.

Comments like that from DeMarco, who played an active role in trying to cut Mastriano off from winning his May primary, underscore another notable development.

Cooperation between state and local Republican Parties could be crucial to winning races in key battlegrounds. And despite strong criticism from hardliners against those groups, and reluctance by some GOP officials to embrace the eventual nominees, it appears bridges weren’t permanently burned.

In Arizona, Gov. Doug Ducey, the chair of the Republican Governors Association who endorsed Lake’s main primary rival, has since urged Republicans to coalesce behind the entire GOP slate this November.

And in Pennsylvania, officials have put past concerns about Mastriano — and the concerted efforts opposing him — in the rearview mirror.

“Soon after the primary was over, there was a call with all the county chairs and the state party and Sen. Mastriano, and I was very impressed with the things he said,” DeMarco, the Allegheny GOP chair, told ABC News. “He talked about how many of the folks he knew on the call hadn’t been initial supporters of this. And he understood that and that that was OK. But now he was the nominee, and we all need to come together.”

The base spoke; the party adjusted. Whether other voters will rally around the nominees is a different question entirely.

A Fox News poll from July, for instance, showed independent voters widely favoring Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s attorney general and Mastriano’s Democratic opponent, 47-19.

“It’s not just about issues — it’s not about taxes, the economy, crime, what have you. It’s about certain things fundamental to our democracy and to honesty that are going to give a lot of voters pause,” said veteran GOP strategist Doug Heye. “And maybe inflation is still at a bad enough number in three months that they’re like, ‘Well, you know, I don’t like this person, but …’ Or maybe they can’t get that out of their minds.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom told ABC News that his state’s historic vote Thursday to ban the sale of new gas engine vehicles by 2035 is a game changer in the country’s goals to curb its dependency on fossil fuels.

The California Air Resources Board approved the new regulations Thursday afternoon following a long public comment process. California became the first state in the nation to issue such a direct phase-out of gas-powered vehicles, and Newsom told ABC News he is confident other states around the country will follow suit.

“There’s nothing else that will move the needle on greenhouse gases more than tailpipe emissions,” he told ABC News.

Under the new rules, automakers cannot sell any car, pickup truck, minivan, SUV or other passenger vehicles that emit greenhouse gasses.

Motorists can continue driving gas-fueled vehicles that were bought prior to the 2035 deadline, according to regulation. They will also be allowed to purchase used gas-powered vehicles after the rules take effect.

The state will allow for one-fifth of new car sales after 2035 to be plug-in hybrids that run on batteries and gas.

The plan sets targets for the number of new non-gas powered cars sold of 35% by 2026 and 68% four years later.

Newsom said he pushed for this strict deadline, not only because of the increasing effects of climate change in the state, such as droughts and increased wildfires, but also because the market for EVs and other zero-emissions vehicles is on the rise.

Roughly 16% of cars sold in the state are electric, hybrid or hydrogen-fueled, he said.

“It’s the world we invented that in so many ways is accelerating this trend,” Newsom said. “And so we thought, [the] policy is the accelerator, can we accelerate this even further.”

Newsom acknowledged that there are still some hurdles to achieving the benchmarks, including the high cost of EVs and the nation’s charging infrastructure. Still, he noted that those costs have been coming down and his state is making investments to assist those drivers.

He also noted more automakers are committing to selling more zero-emissions vehicles.

At least one automaker has given its approval to the state’s new plan. Ford called the new rule “a landmark standard that will define clean transportation,” in a statement to ABC News.

During Thursday’s hearing, a representative from Kia said they supported a transition to electric vehicles but called California’s timeline “extremely challenging.”

Newsom said he was confident that more automakers would get on board with the California plan and so will other locations. He noted that 17 other states have already adopted California’s tailpipe emission standards, which are stricter than the federal government, and they are poised to emulate the ban on gas-powered cars as well.

“California automobile manufacturers that are forced to comply, all of a sudden, [and] have to create or decide to create one car or multiple cars for multiple markets. They’d rather invest in one car one technology and if you get these other 17 states, you’re getting close to over a third of all vehicle sales in the country. Now all of a sudden you’re at a tipping point. And that changes going forward,” he said.

Republican governors have previously criticized Newsom over his policies on emissions, but Newsom predicted that they will soon see the benefits of a faster transition to zero-emission vehicles. He noted that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has welcomed Tesla and provided the company with tax breaks for their manufacturing facilities in the state.

“This is an opportunity that presents itself for all these other governors,” he said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Some of the Americans who qualify for the Biden administration’s federal student loan forgiveness plan may not see relief before payments are due again in January, officials acknowledged on Thursday.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told ABC News at a briefing that the forgiveness policy is something that the administration wants to make sure “happens right away” — but she stopped short of a specific timeline commitment to borrowers, deferring to the Department of Education (DOE).

“I don’t have a timeline for you. That is something that the Department of Education is going to work on,” Jean-Pierre said. “That is something, again, that the Department of Education is going to focus on. It is important. We want this to happen for these individuals.”

Politico in July obtained a DOE memo that senior officials prepared for Education Secretary Miguel Cardona which stated that the forgiveness plan potentially allowed “immediate eligibility determination for millions of borrowers, the first cancellations within 45 days of announcement and millions of cancellations within 90 days.”

Jean-Pierre on Thursday stressed that the administration wants to be certain that debt forgiveness is enacted in tandem with the restart of student loan payments, something the DOE will “be focused on.”

A key provision of the White House plan is that about 8 million borrowers may be eligible for automatic loan forgiveness because their income data is readily available to the DOE.

But for the rest of those with federal loans, debt balances may not shrink before repayments begin on Dec. 31 — which is the deadline for the latest extension of the pandemic-era student loan pause enacted by Biden on Wednesday.

His announcement that Pell grant recipients will receive up to $20,000 in federal loan forgiveness and non-Pell borrowers will owe up to $10,000 less on their loans — if they make under $125,000 per year — came just a week before the restart of payments for America’s $1.7 trillion in federal student loans after a two-year COVID-19 freeze.

The White House has also confirmed that the application forms some of the borrowers will need to use for the debt cancellation are not yet ready, with no timeline for their disbursement. (Officials are referring borrowers to studentaid.gov for more information.)

At Thursday’s White House briefing, Jean-Pierre struggled to answer rounds of questioning about exactly how the federal government will foot the bill if this trillion-dollar promise.

“Let’s see who actually takes advantage of this, then we’ll have a better sense of what this is actually going to cost,” she said, noting that Biden’s work to lower the deficit during his time in office and that lifting the student loan payment pause would help bring $50 billion into the Treasury.

Even without a price tag, she added, “We do believe this will be fully paid for because of the work this president has done with the economy.”

A recent study by the University of Pennsylvania’s business school found that erasing $10,000 in student loan debt will cost about $300 billion. If the program continues for 10 years, the cost becomes $330 billion, or $344 billion if there is no income limit, per the report.

Because the federal government backs many student loans, U.S. taxpayers will likely foot the bill — something Biden addressed directly on Wednesday, comparing the debt cancellation to the Paycheck Protection Program, a loan forgiveness program during the pandemic.

“No one complained that those loans caused inflation. A lot of these folks in small businesses are working in middle-class families. They needed help,” he said. “It was the right thing to do,” Biden said.

ABC News’ Gabe Ferris and Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(ROCKVILLE, Md.) — President Joe Biden will hit the campaign trail on Thursday to highlight a series of policy wins as Democrats look to keep their narrow majorities in Congress during this fall’s elections.

Biden will “lay out the choice before Americans” when he speaks at a Democratic National Committee rally in Rockville, Maryland, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters.

Biden’s appearance, happening exactly 75 days out from Election Day, comes after a string of summer legislative victories: the first major piece of gun reform in decades, Democrats’ landmark health care and climate change law and a bipartisan effort to boost semiconductor production in the U.S.

“He’ll highlight how he and congressional Democrats have delivered results for working families,” Jean-Pierre said as she teased his speech tonight. “Creating nearly 10 million jobs and record low unemployment, lowering health care costs and energy costs, passing a new gun safety law, which we hadn’t seen in decades.”

“And he’ll say that they have taken on special interest and won, that’s what Democrats have done,” Jean-Pierre added.

Earlier this week, the administration announced a plan to cancel thousands of dollars of student loan debt for millions of borrowers — fulfilling one pledge Biden made as a 2020 presidential candidate.

The policy has been lambasted by Republicans as unfair, and while many Democrats have celebrated the plan, some lawmakers in tough reelection races have distanced themselves from it.

Rep. Tim Ryan, a Democratic Senate nominee in Ohio, was critical of the move as sending “the wrong message to millions of Ohioans without a degree working just as hard to make ends meet.”

“Are you guys worried that you might have put more vulnerable Democrats in a tough spot? That you could have risked some of these races in November,” ABC News White House Correspondent MaryAlice Parks asked Jean-Pierre.

“I’m not going to get into politics and to what the next several weeks are going to look like,” Jean-Pierre responded. “But I can speak to the popularity of what we did, the importance of what we did, how this is going to help struggling families, and that has always been the plan of this president, especially as we look at the economy and making sure that we do not leave anybody behind.”

Biden will also warn about what his Republican in Congress would do if they are able to regain majority control — drawing on statements prominent GOP leaders have made about abortion access and gun rights.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — the landmark decision legalizing abortion access nationwide — at least 15 states (many led by Republicans) have ceased nearly all abortion services. Some Republicans in Congress, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, have floated the idea of a national ban on abortion.

“He’ll say what they are still fighting for is protecting a woman’s right to choose, not a national ban on abortion, which we have seen from the other side,” Jean-Pierre said. “The safety of kids in school, not protecting the NRA, as we’ve seen from the Republicans and the right to vote and have the — that vote counted, which is so incredibly important as we talk about our democracy.”

ABC News’ Justin Gomez contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The judge considering the release of the affidavit used to support the search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on Thursday ordered a redacted version made public by noon on Friday.

It was unclear whether the Justice Department would appeal.

Earlier Thursday, the Justice Department submitted its proposed redactions to the affidavit.

In his order, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart said that after reviewing DOJ’s memorandum and proposed redactions he believes the government has met its burden of showing a compelling reason and good cause to seal the requested portions of the affidavit because “disclosure would reveal the identities of witnesses, law enforcement agents, and uncharged parties, the investigation’s strategy, direction, scope, sources, and methods, and grand jury information…”

He says that the government has also met its burden in showing that its proposed redactions “are narrowly tailored to serve the Government’s legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation and are the least onerous alternative to sealing the entire Affidavit.”

He gave DOJ until noon Friday to file in the public docket a version of the affidavit containing the redactions sent Thursday.

Reinhart had given department officials a noon deadline Thursday to submit proposed redactions under seal as well as a legal memorandum explaining their justifications for the information that they believe should be kept hidden from public view. Reinhart had said he was not inclined to keep the full affidavit sealed, saying he believes there are portions of it that could presumably be unsealed.

The government argued in court last week that the redactions they believe would be necessary to protect the integrity of their ongoing criminal investigation would essentially render the document “meaningless.”

A coalition of media organizations, including ABC News, has urged for release of the affidavit even with redactions — citing the need to further inform the public in light of the historic nature of the search of a former president’s residence.

Jay Bratt, the head of DOJ’s counterintelligence division, said “there would be nothing of substance” adding that the government is “very concerned about the safety of the witnesses” and the impact releasing the affidavit could have on other witnesses.

“It doesn’t serve the media’s interest to give them something that is meaningless,” Bratt said.

Bratt argued there is information in the document that could easily identify witnesses based on the descriptions of events that only certain people would have knowledge about.

Reinhart said in a Monday filing that he might ultimately side with the government.

“I cannot say at this point that partial redactions will be so extensive that they will result in a meaningless disclosure, but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the Government,” he said.

Judge Reinhart said that he believes the government has met “its burden of showing good cause/a compelling interest that overrides any public interest in unsealing the full contents of the Affidavit.”

It was thought the Justice Department would likely seek to immediately appeal any decision that would release portions of the affidavit they are not comfortable releasing.

While former President Trump and his allies have publicly called for the release of the full affidavit, his legal team has made no such efforts in court since the Aug. 8 search, including as part of their motion filed Monday before a separate federal judge calling for the appointment of a special master to review materials seized by the FBI.

Instead, Trump’s lawyers requested federal Judge Aileen Cannon to issue an order directing investigators to halt their review of the materials taken from Mar-a-Lago pending appointment of a special master, return any personal materials swept up in the search, and provide a more detailed receipt of items that were seized.

The filing, which was riddled with falsehoods, misrepresentations and blatant references to a possible announcement of Trump’s plans to again run for the presidency in 2024, appeared to be met with confusion by Judge Cannon.

On Tuesday, Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, issued an order requesting Trump’s team enter a supplemental filing by Friday with a line-item list of basic information not included in their original motion.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Two Florida residents have pleaded guilty to stealing the diary of Ashley Biden, President Joe Biden’s youngest daughter, and then selling it to right-wing activist group Project Veritas, the Justice Department announced Thursday.

Aimee Harris, 40, and Robert Kurlander, 58, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property involving the theft of personal belongings of an immediate family member of a then-former government official for taking several items belonging to Ashley Biden in September 2020. The charge carries a maximum of five years in prison.

Kurlander has also agreed to cooperate with the government.

Though Ashley Biden, 41, is not named in the court documents, a source familiar with the case confirmed they were her belongings.

“Harris and Kurlander stole personal property from an immediate family member of a candidate for national political office,” U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement. “They sold the property to an organization in New York for $40,000 and even returned to take more of the victim’s property when asked to do so.”

Biden had stored a handwritten journal containing highly personal entries, tax records, a digital storage card containing private family photographs and a cellphone, among other things, in a private residence in Delray Beach, Florida, where Harris was also staying.

After she stole Biden’s items, she contacted Kurlander and they got in touch with a representative from Project Veritas. They met with the Veritas employee in New York City shortly after they made contract with them, the DOJ said.

“During that meeting, Harris described the circumstances of how she had obtained the property, and provided the property to the Organization,” court documents say. “After the meeting, and at the Organization’s request, HARRIS and KURLANDER returned to Florida to obtain more of the Victim’s property in order to provide it to the Organization.”

They were paid $20,000 each by Project Veritas after providing more of Biden’s personal belongings, according to the DOJ.

In a statement Thursday, Project Veritas said, “Project Veritas’ news gathering was ethical and legal. A journalist’s lawful receipt of material later alleged to be stolen is routine, commonplace, and protected by the First Amendment.”

After the pair went to the house in Florida to steal more of the information, Kurklander sent a text to Harris, saying they expected as much as $100,000 from Project Veritas for the additional possessions.

“They are in a sketchy business and here they are taking what’s literally a stolen diary and info … and trying to make a story that will ruin [the Victim’s] life and try and effect the election. [The Victim] can easily be thinking all her stuff is there and not concerned about it. … we have to tread even more carefully and that stuff needs to be gone through by us and if anything worthwhile it needs to be turned over and MUST be out of that house,” the text message said according to court documents.

Harris acquired Ashley Biden’s property after she was invited to live there shortly after Ashley moved out. Biden stored her stuff at the property, according to the DOJ.

The duo also allegedly tried to sell the stolen property at a fundraiser benefiting “Candidate-2,” which is believed to be former President Donald Trump. Harris and Kurklander “attended the fundraiser with the intent of showing the Victim’s stolen property to a campaign representative of Candidate-2, hoping that the political campaign would purchase it.”

The campaign representative declined to purchase the information.

“A representative of Candidate-2’s political campaign conveyed to AIMEE HARRIS and ROBERT KURLANDER, the defendants, that the campaign was not interested in purchasing the property and advised HARRIS and KURLANDER to provide the items to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” the court documents said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge granted the Biden administration a preliminary injunction Wednesday in its lawsuit against a near-total ban on abortions in Idaho — temporarily barring some enforcement of the new law.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued the state over the ban, which goes into effect on Thursday, arguing that it violates a federal law guaranteeing access to emergency medical care.

The Idaho abortion law would make it a felony to perform an abortion in all but extremely narrow circumstances. There are exceptions for cases of rape or incest that have been reported. To avoid criminal liability, a doctor must prove that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, though there is no defense for an abortion to protect the woman’s health, according to the DOJ.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in Boise granted a preliminary injunction, effective immediately, barring the state from enforcing the law “as applied to medical care required by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act” amid the court proceedings, his order stated.

The case at hand is “not about the bygone constitutional right to an abortion,” he wrote. “This Court is not grappling with that larger, more profound question. Rather, the Court is called upon to address a far more modest issue — whether Idaho’s criminal abortion statute conflicts with a small but important corner of federal legislation. It does.”

Given that the U.S. has shown it will “likely succeed on the merits,” he continued, “the Court has determined it should preserve the status quo while the parties litigate this matter.”

The state is prohibited from enforcing the law to the extent that it conflicts with Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act-mandated care, Winmill ordered.

The decision “ensures that women in the State of Idaho can obtain the emergency medical treatment to which they are entitled under federal law. This includes abortion when that is the necessary treatment,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. “The Department of Justice will continue to use every tool at its disposal to defend the reproductive rights protected by federal law.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement that the ruling “will prevent serious harm to women in Idaho.”

In its complaint, filed on Aug. 2, the Justice Department claimed that the Idaho law violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which states that hospitals that receive Medicare funds are required to provide necessary treatment to women who arrive at their emergency departments while experiencing a medical emergency. That medical care could include providing an abortion, according to the DOJ.

The Justice Department is seeking a declaratory judgment that the Idaho law is preempted by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act in emergency situations, as well as an order permanently barring the law to the extent that it conflicts with the federal act.

The lawsuit marked the Biden administration’s first legal challenge to a state abortion ban after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June, ending the constitutional right to an abortion.

Prosecutors argued that the Idaho law would prevent doctors from performing medically necessary abortions, as required by federal law.

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden called the lawsuit “politically motivated” and charged that the DOJ did not attempt to “engage Idaho in a meaningful dialogue on the issue” prior to filing its complaint.

A case involving the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act as it pertains to abortion care is also ongoing in Texas.

Last month, the state of Texas sued the Biden administration on its guidance to hospitals that doctors should perform an abortion if doing so would protect a woman’s health. The complaint was filed days after Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra instructed hospitals to follow the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act when determining whether to provide an abortion in emergency cases “regardless of the restrictions in the state where you practice.”

On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the federal government from enforcing the guidance, saying the federal law is “silent as to abortion.”

Attorneys for the state of Idaho drew attention to that case in a court filing on Wednesday, saying Idaho “has not yet had a full opportunity to consider how the Texas court’s decision should be persuasive in aspects of this current lawsuit, or in the pending preliminary injunction motion.”

Garland said the DOJ is considering “appropriate next steps” following the Texas court’s decision.

Idaho’s so-called trigger law would be even more restrictive than an abortion ban that went into effect in the state earlier this month. That law, modeled after a similar “heartbeat law” in Texas, bans abortion at about six weeks and also allows civil lawsuits against medical providers who perform the procedure.

Amid legal challenges from abortion providers, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld both abortion laws in a ruling issued on Aug. 12, allowing them to go into effect.

Another trigger law that would make it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy went into effect on Aug. 19 in the state. That law, which has exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies, is also currently being challenged by abortion providers.

ABC News’ Alexander Mallin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department on Thursday is expected to file a heavily redacted version of the affidavit used to support a search warrant of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate earlier this month, as a magistrate judge weighs whether to make portions of it public.

Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart gave department officials a noon deadline to submit proposed redactions under seal as well as a legal memorandum explaining their justifications for the information that they believe should be kept hidden from public view. Reinhart said he was not inclined to keep the full affidavit sealed, saying he believes there are portions of it that could presumably be unsealed.

The government argued in court last week that the redactions they believe would be necessary to protect the integrity of their ongoing criminal investigation would essentially render the document “meaningless.”

A coalition of media organizations, including ABC News, has urged for release of the affidavit even with redactions — citing the need to further inform the public in light of the historic nature of the search of a former president’s residence.

Jay Bratt, the head of DOJ’s counterintelligence division, said “there would be nothing of substance” adding that the government is “very concerned about the safety of the witnesses” and the impact releasing the affidavit could have on other witnesses.

“It doesn’t serve the media’s interest to give them something that is meaningless,” Bratt said.

Bratt argued there is information in the document that could easily identify witnesses based on the descriptions of events that only certain people would have knowledge about.

Reinhart said in a Monday filing that he may ultimately side with the government.

“I cannot say at this point that partial redactions will be so extensive that they will result in a meaningless disclosure, but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the Government,” he said.

Judge Reinhart says that he believes the government has met “its burden of showing good cause/a compelling interest that overrides any public interest in unsealing the full contents of the Affidavit.”

The Justice Department would likely seek to immediately appeal any decision that would release portions of the affidavit they are not comfortable releasing.

While former President Trump and his allies have publicly called for the release of the full affidavit, his legal team has made no such efforts in court since the Aug. 8 search, including as part of their motion filed Monday before a separate federal judge calling for the appointment of a special master to review materials seized by the FBI.

Instead, Trump’s lawyers requested federal Judge Aileen Cannon to issue an order directing investigators to halt their review of the materials taken from Mar-a-Lago pending appointment of a special master, return any personal materials swept up in the search, and provide a more detailed receipt of items that were seized.

The filing, which was riddled with falsehoods, misrepresentations and blatant references to a possible announcement of Trump’s plans to again run for the presidency in 2024, appeared to be met with confusion by Judge Cannon.

On Tuesday, Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, issued an order requesting Trump’s team enter a supplemental filing by Friday with a line-item list of basic information not included in their original motion.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Homeland Security took steps on Wednesday to codify the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program into regulatory policy — even as a court case threatens to upend the ability of migrants who were brought illegally into the U.S. as young children to remain in the country.

Since President Barack Obama launched the policy in 2012, the DHS estimates that more than 825,000 immigrants have been enrolled in DACA, which temporarily protects them from deportation and allows them to obtain work authorization.

The DHS’ final rule, issued Wednesday after being subject to public comment, is a technical move that seeks to absorb DACA under administrative law rather than through presidential discretion.

The rule largely preserves the eligibility criteria outlined in a 2012 memo by then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, including the requirement that applicants must have arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and must have continuously resided in the country for at least five years before June 15, 2012.

“We are taking another step to do everything in our power to preserve and fortify DACA, an extraordinary program that has transformed the lives of so many Dreamers,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Thanks to DACA, we have been enriched by young people who contribute so much to our communities and our country. Yet, we need Congress to pass legislation that provides an enduring solution for the young Dreamers who have known no country other than the United States as their own,” Mayorkas said, referring to the people in the program by a common nickname.

Since its inception, DACA has faced multiple legal challenges from those who say Obama overreached his authority. An ongoing case in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals seeks to have the court rule the program unlawful and end it. A decision there may come any day.

Despite Wednesday’s regulatory filing by DHS, DACA remains closed to new applicants as a result of a July 2021 decision from a federal court in Texas. Only those who already have DACA status can apply to renew it under the new framework, according to DHS.

The department’s final rule would not go into effect until Oct. 31 and it was unclear how Wednesday’s move would impact any current litigation.

“President [Joe] Biden campaigned on strengthening and fortifying DACA. This final DACA rule fails to strengthen the program by not expanding it to include the majority of undocumented immigrant youth who are graduating from high school this year and not eligible for the program because of arbitrary cut-off dates,” Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of federal advocacy for the group United We Dream, said in a statement, in part.

“This rule does not bring us any closer to seeing true protection for DACA recipients and immigrant youth,” Macedo do Nascimento said.

The DHS rule will preserve the original process for applying for a renewal of deferred action — shielding young migrants from deportation — and a work permit despite the department suggesting in an earlier proposal that it would have potential applicants apply for a permit and for deportation protection separately.

Immigration advocates had warned that decoupling the two benefits would leave people susceptible to losing work authorization while maintaining deferred deportation if a future administration wished to make DACA recipients ineligible to work.

DHS estimates that as of 2020, DACA recipients and their households pay around $5.6 billion in annual federal taxes and $3.1 billion in annual state and local taxes. Many people in the program have gone on to acquire professional certificates, advanced school degrees and about 56,000 have become homeowners, DHS said.

After the final rule was published, Biden issued a statement on Wednesday reaffirming his support for the “Dreamers,” whom he said were “part of the fabric of this nation.”

“They serve on the frontlines of the pandemic response. They are students, entrepreneurs, and small business owners. Many serve bravely in our military. They’ve only ever known America as their home,” Biden said.

Although the president made no mention of the ongoing legal challenges to DACA, he called on Republicans to support a pathway to citizenship — a politically fraught process that has divided the GOP and repeatedly failed, over the years, to result in federal legislation.

“It is not only the right thing to do,” Biden argued of congressional action, “it is also the smart thing to do for our economy and our communities.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.