Sen. Roy Blunt said it was improper for Donald Trump to keep sensitive information at Mar-a-Lago, but he questioned why the Senate Intel Committee was not alerted in the event of a “national security risk.”
Blunt first resisted when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos questioned if Trump was appropriate to grab the records.
He remarked, “I believe we need to learn more about the papers.”
Why hadn’t the Intelligence Committee… why hadn’t we heard anything about this, in fact, that the administration was worried that there was a national security problem? was one of my concerns when I learned about this alleged raid or taking these papers.
When questioned further about whether taking the papers was improper, he said, “You should be extremely cautious with secret materials. I’ve had access to those kinds of papers for a very long time. I’m quite cautious.
Blunt said that “He should have given the materials over.”
I know he gave over a lot of paperwork. He ought to have given them all over. The Missouri Republican said, “I assume he understands that very well today as well.
Next, the senator raised concerns about the raid’s timing—less than three months before the November elections.
I wonder why, fewer than 100 days before the election, we’re suddenly talking about this rather than the economy, inflation, or even the student loan programme that you and I were going to discuss today. This has been going on for over two years.
He also questioned if Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state, had received the same punishment when she violated official policy by storing emails on a private server.
Everyone has to be more cautious about how these data are handled, Blunt said. “They had them on the internet, which is considerably more hazardous than keeping them in a box someplace.”
In a letter to lawmakers, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines stated that the intelligence community would assess the harm caused by the former president’s possession of top-secret documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence while ‘not unduly interfering with DOJ’s ongoing criminal investigation.
Since the FBI searched Donald Trump’s house on August 8, the Biden administration and Congress have not spoken in writing.
Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), who serve as the committee’s chairs and vice chairs, requested access to particular papers that were taken from Mar-a-Lago from the DNI.
Blunt mentioned Haines’ statement that she will update Congress “soon,” but said that “we haven’t been advised there was a problem.”
A federal district judge indicated on Saturday that she had “preliminary intent” to accept Trump’s request to have a special master review the papers that investigators had taken at Mar-a-Lago.
One day earlier, the DOJ had made public a redacted copy of the affidavit that had been used to secure a search warrant for Trump’s residence.
Eileen Cannon, a U.S. District Judge chosen by Trump, scheduled a hearing on September 1 but clarified that her decision was not a “final ruling.”
The defendant in this instance, DOJ, was also instructed by her to provide a “more complete report” of “all goods confiscated” in accordance with the search order.
Agents recovered not just highly secret files but also handwritten papers, according to the redacted affidavit. A few of the documents were kept in storage alongside other things.
Trump has railed at the agents who stole his papers, which are shielded by presidential privilege, and criticised them for removing three passports, which the government later returned.
It follows the disclosure that 15 boxes of records returned from Mar-a-Lago included 184 classified documents, 67 sensitive documents, and 25 top secret materials in the highly redacted document published on Friday.
The cache included papers that would jeopardise “clandestine human sources”—material that might pose a serious danger to those who provide intelligence to the US government in confidence.
According to the search warrant, the FBI was looking into Espionage Act clauses pertaining to the removal and destruction of official materials.
The affidavit records show that the government had access to sources of information outside those that dealt with whether or not the government was classified.