WASHINGTON – U.S. archivists on Wednesday revealed one of the last great secrets of the Watergate investigation – the backbone of a long sealed report used by prosecutor Leon Jaworski to send Congress the evidence that led to the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.

The release of the 1974 impeachment referral came after a former member of Nixon’s defense team and three prominent legal analysts filed separate lawsuits seeking its release from grand jury secrecy rules. The legal analysts argued the report could offer a precedent and guide for special counsel Robert Mueller as his office addresses its present-day challenge on whether, and if so, how to make public findings from its investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election, including any that directly involve President Donald Trump.

The legal specialists said they and Watergate veterans sought the release of the Jaworski report after more than four decades of secrecy because of the historic parallels they see to the current probe and the report’s potential to serve as a counterexample to the independent counsel Ken Starr’s report seeking president Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

The 453-page Starr report, written in 1998, deepened partisan divisions when its graphic detail and legal conclusions about Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky were immediately made public by House Republicans, who suffered an electoral backlash.

By contrast, the reputation of Jaworski’s report has fared far better, even as its bare-bones form remained a mystery. The Jaworski report is known colloquially known as the “Sirica road map,” for then-Chief U.S. District Judge John J. Sirica, who approved its creation and transmission to lawmakers

“There were no comments, no interpretations and not a word or phrase of accusatory nature. The ‘Road Map’ was simply that – a series of guideposts if the House Judiciary Committee wished to follow them,” the late Jaworski wrote in his 1976 memoir, “The Right and the Power: The Prosecution of Watergate.”

Sirica’s modern-day successor, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District, on Oct. 11 ordered the disclosure of his report – with limited redactions – in response to petitions by California author and former Nixon deputy Watergate defense counsel Geoffrey Shepard and by Brookings Institution senior fellow Benjamin Wittes; Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under president George W. Bush; and Stephen Bates, a Las Vegas professor who co-wrote the Starr report with now-Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and other members of Starr’s team.

In a statement Deana El-Mallawany, counsel for Protect Democracy, which represented the Wittes group, said, “The Road Map is a critical historical precedent for ensuring that the facts uncovered in Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation become public and serve as the basis for whatever accountability is necessary. Our democracy depends on it.”

The road map consists of a two-page summary, followed by 53 numbered statements, supported by 97 documents including interviews and tapes, according to information that the National Archives and Records Administration turned over to Howell.

While much of the report’s substance – including evidence of the Nixon campaign’s funding of the break-in of Democratic National Committee headquarters and the president’s role in the subsequent coverup – has long been public, its structure and potential to serve as a template for others remained under seal.

Bates said as a Starr prosecutor in 1997, he learned that despite the potential for the “road map” to present a legal model for future investigations, such as Mueller’s it was not publicly available when he asked the National Archives for a copy to study.

“It is one of the only precedents of a report that has had to go through that kind of process [under grand jury secrecy rules] to get to the House for consideration as grounds for impeachment,” Bates said in an interview. “If Mueller could say, ‘We have structured this report the way Leon Jaworski did in 1974, and Judge Sirica approved it,’ that might be persuasive in this case.”

Jaworski needed Sirica’s approval to send materials to Congress because they were covered under federal grand jury secrecy rules under a process overseen by the judge.

Jaworski faced a problem similar to one that may confront Mueller today: he had relevant evidence but not, he concluded, the constitutional authority to indict a sitting president. Congress had the authority to impeach Nixon, but not the evidence. In the end, the House committee sought access to evidence gathered by prosecutors, the grand jury adopted the road map, and Sirica and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia authorized its transmittal under seal. </s> WASHINGTON — U.S. archivists on Wednesday revealed one of the last great secrets of the Watergate investigation — the backbone of a long sealed report used by prosecutor Leon Jaworski to send Congress the evidence in the legal case against President Richard Nixon.

The release of the referral — delivered in 1974 as impeachment proceedings were being weighed — came after a former member of Nixon’s defence team and three prominent legal analysts filed separate lawsuits seeking its unsealing after more than four decades under grand jury secrecy rules. The legal analysts argued the report could offer a precedent and guide for special counsel Robert Mueller as his office addresses its present-day challenge on whether, and if so, how to make public findings from its investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election, including any that directly involve President Donald Trump.

The legal specialists said they and Watergate veterans sought to have the Jaworski report made public because of the historic parallels they see to the current probe and the report’s potential to serve as a counterexample to the independent counsel Ken Starr’s report before President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

The 453-page Starr report, written in 1998, deepened partisan divisions when its graphic detail and legal conclusions about Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky were immediately made public by House Republicans, who suffered an electoral backlash.

By contrast, the reputation of Jaworski’s report has fared far better, even as its bare-bones form remained a mystery. The Jaworski report is known colloquially known as the “Sirica road map,” for then-Chief U.S. District Judge John Sirica, who approved its creation and transmission to lawmakers.

“There were no comments, no interpretations and not a word or phrase of accusatory nature. The ‘Road Map’ was simply that — a series of guideposts if the House Judiciary Committee wished to follow them,” the late Jaworski wrote in his 1976 memoir, “The Right and the Power: The Prosecution of Watergate.”

The House Judiciary Committee recommended Nixon be impeached in July of 1974. He resigned before that recommendation moved ahead.

Sirica’s modern-day successor, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia, on Oct. 11 ordered the disclosure of Jaworski’s report by the National Archives and Records Administration — with limited redactions — in response to petitions by California author and former Nixon deputy Watergate defense counsel Geoffrey Shepard and by Brookings Institution senior fellow Benjamin Wittes; Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under president George W. Bush; and Stephen Bates, a Las Vegas professor who co-wrote the Starr report with now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and other members of Starr’s team.

In a statement Deana El-Mallawany, counsel for Protect Democracy, which represented the Wittes group, said, “The Road Map is a critical historical precedent for ensuring that the facts uncovered in Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation become public and serve as the basis for whatever accountability is necessary. Our democracy depends on it.”

The road map consists of a two-page summary, followed by 53 numbered statements, supported by 97 documents including interviews and tapes, according to information that the National Archives turned over to Howell.

While much of the report’s substance — including evidence of the Nixon campaign’s funding of the break-in of Democratic National Committee headquarters and the president’s role in the subsequent coverup — has long been public, its structure and potential to serve as a template for others remained under seal.

Bates said as a Starr prosecutor in 1997, he learned that despite the potential for the “road map” to present a legal model for future investigations, such as Mueller’s it was not publicly available when he asked the National Archives for a copy to study.

“It is one of the only precedents of a report that has had to go through that kind of process [under grand jury secrecy rules] to get to the House for consideration as grounds for impeachment,” Bates said in an interview. “If Mueller could say, ‘We have structured this report the way Leon Jaworski did in 1974, and Judge Sirica approved it,’ that might be persuasive in this case.”

Jaworski faced a problem similar to one that may confront Mueller: He had relevant evidence but not, Jaworski concluded, the constitutional authority to indict a sitting president. Congress had the authority to impeach Nixon, but not the evidence. In the end, the House committee sought access to evidence gathered by prosecutors, the grand jury adopted the road map, and Sirica and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia authorized its transmittal under seal.

Howell, the judge who ordered the road map’s release, is also overseeing the Mueller grand jury, and as chief judge, would decide any similar release request were one made for that grand jury material.

In her order, she directed archivists to disclose 81 of 97 supporting documents that have been made public elsewhere, and to review the rest for release.
• The original Watergate lock that burglars picked open is going to auction
• A careful reading of court documents suggests Robert Mueller has already subpoenaed Donald Trump
• Robert Mueller asks FBI to investigate claims women were offered money to make false allegations against him

Other veterans of past White House investigations differed on the Road Map’s lessons.

Paul Rosenzweig, who served on Starr’s team, said the document is important for historians, but that Justice Department regulations issued since then provide for Mueller to report to his supervisor, currently Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Nick Akerman, who served as an assistant prosecutor on Jaworski’s team, said however it could provide a model for Mueller, particularly should his team decide the president engaged in wrongdoing but that department regulations do not allow them to seek an indictment or make a case for impeachment.

“It’s absolutely an approach he could take — simply giving them the facts, without coming to a conclusion,” Akerman said. </s> Washington (CNN) The National Archives released a central set of documents from the Watergate scandal on Wednesday, including a would-be indictment against President Richard Nixon, following a lawsuit pointing to its relevance in the current era.

The documents, known as the Watergate Road Map, as released Wednesday contained redactions and never-before-seen remnants of the investigation into Nixon but largely contained information previously made public, according to the Archives.

The group that petitioned for Wednesday's release had said in a September post that should special counsel Robert Mueller decide to issue a report to Congress, the Road Map would be one example to follow.

"If Mueller decides to send a report to Congress, perhaps through (Deputy Attorney General Rod) Rosenstein, the Road Map would be a vital touchstone for the public and Congress to assess his actions," the group wrote.

One document released Wednesday showed a series of charges drawn up against Nixon, who was never formally charged for crimes in the Watergate scandal and was pardoned by President Gerald Ford after he resigned.

The document is a draft, as noted in handwriting in the upper right-hand corner of the first page, dated February 1, 1974, a month before Nixon's co-conspirators were indicted.

The draft indictment showed that a grand jury planned to charge Nixon with bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and obstruction of a criminal investigation. A month later, seven of Nixon's aides were charged with conspiracy and six were charged with obstruction of justice, but none were charged with bribery.

In September of this year, Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes -- a pair of writers for the prominent legal blog Lawfare -- and Stephen Bates, who worked for independent counsel Ken Starr, announced they were petitioning for the documents that Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski sent to Congress as Nixon faced impeachment.

The group noted at Lawfare that while the Starr report during President Bill Clinton's tenure was made public, the analogous document during the Nixon administration had remained confidential for decades.

Protect Democracy, the legal group that brought the suit on the trio's behalf, said in a statement Wednesday that the Road Map "is a critical historical precedent for ensuring that the facts uncovered in special counsel Mueller's investigation become public and serve as the basis for whatever accountability is necessary."

Mueller is tasked with investigating potential coordination between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign along with other relevant information that arises from the investigation. The former FBI director has rarely telegraphed his intentions, and it is unclear what form his final conclusions might take. Moreover, if there are any potentially criminal findings on Trump himself, Mueller may believe he is unable to indict the sitting President and would instead defer to Congress, which could initiate impeachment proceedings.

Wednesday's release highlighted the issue the legal system faced in the case of Nixon, where ultimately investigators were able to submit their grand jury's report through a judge to Congress.

and Bates Wittes, Goldsmithand Bates noted in October , when a judge called on the Archives to release the document, that "Geoffrey Shepard, a California lawyer who worked for Nixon, sought the Road Map's release some time back" as well.

As the Archives noted in a statement Wednesday morning, much of the information in the release was already in the public domain. But some of the documents themselves had not been in the public eye.

During the trial of Nixon's aides, the hush money and offer of pardons were treated as instances of obstruction of justice, according to Ken Hughes, a historian at the University of Virginia Miller Center who studies the White House tapes and Watergate.

Hughes said that while it was public knowledge that the grand jury wanted to indict Nixon, the charges themselves were never made public.

"The grand jury was able to discern that Nixon himself was a criminal, and the only reason that they did not indict him is because there was a question of whether or not a sitting President could be indicted," Hughes said. </s> Highly secretive documents finally released Wednesday, including a draft of a would-be criminal indictment against former President Richard Nixon, could provide guidance for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into President Trump, according to the group of legal analysts that sued to unearth the materials.

Stephen Bates, who worked for independent counsel Ken Starr, and legal bloggers Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes won their battle to force the National Archives to unseal the so-called “Watergate Roadmap” last month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as they argued that the materials had significant political implications today that overrode any government interest in keeping them secret.

“As Mueller reportedly contemplates writing a ‘report’ on possible presidential obstruction of justice, there are two models available to him to the extent that he is contemplating an impeachment referral of some kind,” the three analysts wrote on their blog Lawfare in September. “One of those, the Starr Report [that led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton], is well-understood and regarded by many commentators in a negative light. The other, the Road Map, remains secret more than 40 years after its transmission to Congress. Few people have even heard of it.”

The salacious Starr report, released in September 1998, became a political football and wrecking ball upon its release, with critics charging that it was an overtly political document. The beginning of the report contained something of a disclaimer, noting that “many of the details” contained inside “reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit. This is unfortunate, but it is essential.”

The Watergate documents, the analysts argued, also could offer insight into the ongoing legal debate as to whether a president constitutionally could be charged with obstruction of justice at all, as well as whether it would be appropriate within the special counsel statutes for Mueller to issue a public or confidential report on his findings — should he issue a report at all.

It remains unclear which course Mueller may take once he concludes his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and related issues. The Watergate Road Map, now released in its entirety, could counsel his team to reveal its findings confidentially to Congress.

“The document is… keenly relevant to current discussions of how Mueller should proceed,” Bates, Goldsmith, and Wittes added. “It is possible that it is even relevant to discussions taking place within the Mueller investigation itself.”

The records in the Watergate Road Map initially were provided to Congress under seal 45 years ago, on the order of federal appellate Judge John Sirica, after special prosecutor Leon Jaworski argued he theoretically had enough evidence for criminal charges again Nixon, even though the Constitution seemingly did not permit a sitting president to face a criminal indictment.

FBI NOTIFIED OF ALLEGED SCHEME TO PAY WOMEN TO MAKE FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MUELLER

Sirica authorized the documents’ confidential release to Congress, which already had initiated impeachment proceedings and proceeded to use the files to bolster its investigations. Nixon ultimately resigned on Aug. 8, 1974, facing almost-certain impeachment and removal.

The draft indictment against Nixon contained charges of bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and obstruction of a criminal probe — and seven Nixon aides who were charged later were similarly hit with obstruction counts.

The indictment, which included in the top-right corner a handwritten notation that it was a “draft,” read: “[F]rom on or about March 21, 1973…Richard M. Nixon unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together and with co-conspirators… to commit bribery… obstruct justice… and obstruct a criminal investigation.”

However, prominent legal analysts, including Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, as well as the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, have long argued that a sitting president cannot be indicted — even if he commits a crime.

“The grand jury was able to discern that Nixon himself was a criminal, and the only reason that they did not indict him is because there was a question of whether or not a sitting president could be indicted,” University of Virginia Miller Center historian Ken Hughes said in an interview.

Speaking to Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” exclusively on Monday, President Trump voiced his continued frustration with Mueller’s probe, which he has long called a partisan “witch hunt” led by Democratic lawyers upset that he had won the 2016 presidential election. However, he also indicated that he might offer some cooperation as the investigation appears to wind down.

“It’s ridiculous that I have to do anything, because I didn’t do anything, but yes, we will probably do something, yes we will respond to questions,” Trump told host Laura Ingraham. </s> Highly secretive documents finally released Wednesday, including a draft of a would-be criminal indictment against former President Richard Nixon, could provide guidance for Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into President Trump, according to a group of legal analysts that sued to unearth the materials.

Specifically, the materials from Nixon special prosecutor Leon Jaworski are strikingly sparse and predominately factual, which could counsel Mueller against issuing long-winded legal conclusions or opinions. And the documents have largely been kept out of the public eye for decades, avoiding the political spectacle of the report released by independent counsel Ken Starr decades later, after his investigation of former President Bill Clinton.

Stephen Bates, who worked for Starr, and legal bloggers Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes won their battle to force the National Archives to unseal the so-called "Watergate Road Map" and its related documents last month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as they argued that the materials had significant political implications today that overrode any government interest in keeping them secret.

"As Mueller reportedly contemplates writing a 'report' on possible presidential obstruction of justice, there are two models available to him to the extent that he is contemplating an impeachment referral of some kind," the three analysts wrote on their blog in September. "One of those, the Starr Report, is well-understood and regarded by many commentators in a negative light. The other, the Road Map, remains secret more than 40 years after its transmission to Congress. Few people have even heard of it."

The salacious Starr report, released in September 1998, became both a political football and wrecking ball upon its release, with critics charging that it was an overtly political document. The beginning of the report contained something of a disclaimer, noting that "many of the details" contained inside "reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit. This is unfortunate, but it is essential."

But unlike the Starr report, the low-key Watergate Road Map is "almost entirely non-argumentative," the writers posted on Lawfare late Wednesday. "In this regard it is a world away from the Starr Report, which laid out a lengthy narrative and then included a set of legal interpretations arguing that the facts reported might be grounds for impeachment. The Road Map entirely lacks a thesis."

The legal analysts argued that the Watergate Road Map could offer insight into the ongoing legal debate as to whether a president constitutionally could be charged with obstruction of justice at all, as well as whether it would be appropriate under the special counsel statutes for Mueller to issue a public or confidential report on his findings -- should he issue a report at all.

"The document is ... keenly relevant to current discussions of how Mueller should proceed," Bates, Goldsmith, and Wittes added. "It is possible that it is even relevant to discussions taking place within the Mueller investigation itself."

The key takeaways for Mueller, the three legal analysts wrote after reviewing the Watergate Road Map: "First, less really is more. The document is powerful because it is so spare; because it is trying to inform, not to persuade; because it utterly lacks rhetorical excess."

Next: The "Road Map is extremely careful not to do — or seem to do — Congress’s job for it," they added. "[T]he Road Map simply gave Congress information to use as members saw fit and assiduously avoided instruction or didactic messaging as to how to put that information to use."

And finally: "The Road Map teaches an important lesson about restraint. ... Leon Jaworski wrote a meticulous 55-page document that contains not a word of excess. He transmitted it to Congress, where it did not leak. It is powerful partly because it is so by-the-book. Kind of like Bob Mueller." (Unlike the Starr report, which was written from the prosecutor's perspective, the Watergate Road Map released Wednesday is not written in Jaworski's voice. Instead, it is a court document, like the indictment.)

The records in the Watergate Road Map initially were provided to Congress under seal 45 years ago, on the order of federal appellate Judge John Sirica, after special prosecutor Jaworski argued he theoretically had enough evidence for criminal charges again Nixon, even though the Constitution seemingly did not permit a sitting president to face a criminal indictment.

FBI NOTIFIED OF ALLEGED SCHEME TO PAY WOMEN TO MAKE FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MUELLER

Sirica authorized the documents' confidential release to Congress in March 1974, after Congress already had initiated impeachment proceedings. Nixon ultimately resigned on Aug. 8, 1974, facing almost-certain impeachment and removal.

The draft indictment against Nixon contained charges of bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and obstruction of a criminal probe -- and seven Nixon aides who were charged later were similarly hit with obstruction counts.

The indictment, which included in the top-right corner a handwritten notation that it was a "draft," read: “[F]rom on or about March 21, 1973…Richard M. Nixon unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together and with co-conspirators... to commit bribery... obstruct justice... and obstruct a criminal investigation.”

However, prominent legal analysts, including Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, as well as the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, have long argued that a sitting president cannot be indicted -- even if he commits a crime.

"The grand jury was able to discern that Nixon himself was a criminal, and the only reason that they did not indict him is because there was a question of whether or not a sitting president could be indicted," University of Virginia Miller Center historian Ken Hughes said in an interview.

Speaking to Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle" exclusively on Monday, President Trump voiced his continued frustration with Mueller's probe, which he has long called a partisan "witch hunt" led by Democratic lawyers upset that he had won the 2016 presidential election. However, he also indicated that he might offer some cooperation as the investigation appears to wind down.

"It’s ridiculous that I have to do anything, because I didn’t do anything, but yes, we will probably do something, yes we will respond to questions," Trump told host Laura Ingraham. </s> The Democratic National Committee filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit Friday against the Russian government, the Trump campaign and the WikiLeaks organization alleging a far-reaching conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 campaign and tilt the election to Donald Trump.

The complaint, filed in federal district court in Manhattan, alleges that top Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency to hurt Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and help Trump by hacking the computer networks of the Democratic Party and disseminating stolen material found there.

“During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign,” DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement.

“This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency,” he said.

The suit asserts that the Russian hacking campaign — combined with Trump associates’ contacts with Russia and the campaign’s public cheerleading of the hacks — amounted to an illegal conspiracy to interfere in the election and caused serious damage to the Democratic Party.

[Read the DNC lawsuit against Russia and the Trump campaign]

Senate investigators and prosecutors for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III are still looking into whether Trump associates coordinated with any Russian efforts. Last month, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee said they had found no evidence that President Trump and his affiliates colluded with Russian officials to sway the election or that the Kremlin sought to help Trump — a conclusion rejected by the panel’s Democrats.

In a statement, Trump Campaign Manager Brad Parscale said the Democrats’ lawsuit was without merit and likely to be dismissed.

“This is a sham lawsuit about a bogus Russian collusion claim filed by a desperate, dysfunctional, and nearly insolvent Democratic Party,” he said. “With the Democrats’ conspiracy theories against the President’s campaign evaporating as quickly as the failing DNC’s fundraising, they’ve sunk to a new low to raise money, especially among small donors who have abandoned them.”

The lawsuit echoes a similar legal tactic that the Democratic Party used during the Watergate scandal. In 1972, the DNC sued President Richard Nixon’s reelection committee seeking $1 million in damages for the break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate building.

The suit was denounced at the time by Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell, who called it a case of “sheer demagoguery” by the DNC. But the civil action brought by the DNC’s chairman, Lawrence F. O’Brien, was successful, yielding a $750,000 settlement from the Nixon campaign that was reached on the day in 1974 that he left office.

Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor who specializes in computer-fraud cases, said he thought the Democrats’ suit had merit and, despite predictions from Trump-allied lawyers, was unlikely to go away anytime soon.

“There is no way it’s going to be dismissed,” said Akerman, a partner in the New York office of the Dorsey & Whitney law firm. “At least not on the computer-fraud part of the case, which is really the heart of it. The Democrats have every right to bring this suit as they are aggrieved. My question is: What took them so long?”

If allowed to proceed, the lawsuit would give the Democrats a chance to seek internal documents and testimony from the Trump campaign to help them learn more about interactions with Russia during the race.

Parscale noted that the Trump campaign, too, would be allowed to conduct discovery. He promised that the campaign would use the process to probe management decisions at the DNC, as well as the party’s involvement with commissioning the Trump dossier, a research document produced by a former British spy that alleged the Trump campaign conspired with Russia. Late Friday, Trump made a similar point, tweeting that the suit provided “good news in that we will now counter” for information from the Democrats including information from the party’s servers about a range of topics including Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Suing a foreign country may present legal challenges for the Democrats, in part because other nations have immunity from most U.S. lawsuits.

The lawsuit argues that Russia is not entitled to sovereign immunity in this case because “the DNC claims arise out of Russia’s trespass on to the DNC’s private servers . . . in order to steal trade secrets and commit economic espionage.”

The suit seeks millions of dollars in compensation to offset damage it claims the party suffered from the hacks. The DNC argues that the cyberattack undermined its ability to communicate with voters, collect donations and operate effectively as its employees faced personal harassment and, in some cases, death threats.

The suit also seeks an acknowledgment from the defendants that they conspired to infiltrate the Democrats’ computers, steal information and disseminate it to influence the election.

To support its case, the lawsuit offers a detailed narrative of the DNC hacks, as well as episodes in which key Trump aides are alleged to have been told Russia held damaging information about Clinton.

[Inside Trump’s financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin]

Russia engaged in a “brazen attack on U.S. soil” the party alleges, a campaign that began with the hack of its computer networks in 2015 and 2016. Trump campaign officials received repeated outreach from Russia, the suit says.

“Rather than report these repeated messages and communications that Russia intended to interfere in the U.S. election, the Trump campaign and its agents gleefully welcomed Russia’s help,” the party argues.

Ultimately, Trump’s associates entered into an agreement with Russian agents “to promote Donald Trump’s candidacy through illegal means,” the suit concludes.

It does not name Trump as a defendant. Instead, it targets aides who, during the campaign, met with people believed to be affiliated with Russia. The aides targeted include the president’s son Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, onetime campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Manafort’s deputy during the campaign, Rick Gates.

Manafort and Gates were charged with money laundering, fraud and tax evasion in a case brought by special prosecutors last year. In February, Gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy and lying to the FBI and is cooperating with investigators. Manafort has pleaded not guilty.

The DNC lawsuit also names as a defendant the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, which has been accused by the U.S. government of orchestrating the hacks, as well as WikiLeaks, which published emails stolen from the DNC, and the group’s founder, Julian Assange.

Representatives for a number of the defendants named in the lawsuit, including the Russian Embassy, WikiLeaks and Assange, did not respond to requests for comment Friday. A Manafort spokesman declined to comment.

The lawsuit was also filed against Roger Stone, a longtime Trump confidant who claimed during the campaign that he was in contact with Assange.

[Roger Stone claimed contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2016, according to two associates]

The Trump advisers and associates have denied assisting Russia in a hacking campaign. Stone has denied any communication with Assange or advance knowledge of the document dumps by WikiLeaks, saying his comments about Assange were jokes or exaggerations.

In an email, Stone rejected the suit as “a left-wing conspiracy theory dressed up as a law-suit.”

A few prominent Democrats also criticized the legal action.

David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, tweeted late Friday that the filing was “spectacularly ill-timed” and could abet the White House strategy of portraying Mueller’s criminal probe as partisan. “Everyone should chill out and let Mueller do his job,” Axelrod wrote.

The DNC argues that the Russian government and the GRU’s secret intrusion into the Democrats’ computer systems violated laws that include those protecting trade secrets, prohibiting wire tapping and preventing trespassing.

The party said the Trump defendants committed conspiracy through their interaction with Russian agents and their public encouragement of the hacking, with the campaign acting as a racketeering enterprise promoting illegal activity.

The complaint was filed on behalf of the party by the law firm of Cohen Milstein.

The suit contains previously undisclosed details, including the specific date when it is believed the Russians breached the DNC computer system: July 27, 2015, according to forensic evidence cited in the filing.

The analysis shows the system was breached again on April 18, 2016. The first signs that hackers were siphoning documents and information from DNC systems were spotted on April 22. The suit notes that four days later, on April 26, Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos was informed by Josef Mifsud, a London-based professor, that the Russians were in possession of thousands of emails that could be damaging to Clinton.

[Top campaign officials knew of Trump adviser’s outreach to Russia]

The defendants in the suit include Papadopoulos and Mifsud, as well as Aras and Emin Agalarov, the wealthy Russian father and son who hosted the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow in 2013. Trump, who owned the pageant, attended the event.

The Agalarovs played a role in arranging a meeting for a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York in 2016, at which Donald Trump Jr. had expected to be given damaging information about Clinton.

Scott Balber, an attorney for the Agalarovs, said the allegations about his clients were “frivolous” and “a publicity stunt.”

“They had absolutely nothing to do with any alleged hacking of any Democratic computer system or any interference in the U.S. election,” he said.

Lawyers for Papadopoulos declined to comment, citing their client’s ongoing cooperation with the special counsel.

“It is our hope that when all the facts are known, the plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss Mr. Papadopoulos from the complaint,” said the lawyers, Thomas Breen and Robert Stanley, in a written statement.

The lawsuit also describes how the Soviet Union paid for Trump to travel to Moscow in the 1980s and alleges that his personal and professional ties to Russia helped foster the conspiracy.

The DNC’s lawyers wrote that “long standing personal professional and financial ties to Russia and numerous individuals linked to the Russian government provided fertile ground for a conspiracy between the defendants to interfere in the 2016 elections.”

The lawsuit also details the history of Manafort and Gates, who worked for Russia-friendly factions in Ukraine before joining the Trump campaign. Prosecutors have said Manafort and Gates were in contact in 2016 with Konstantin Kilimnik, a former linguist in the Russian army whom the FBI has alleged had ties to Russian intelligence.

Alice Crites contributed to this report. </s> WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats began issuing dozens of subpoenas Monday for financial records and other documents from President Donald Trump's private entities as part of an ongoing lawsuit alleging that his businesses violate the Constitution's ban on gifts or payments from foreign governments.

The demands for detailed information about the president's closely held finances came on the same day the Trump administration asked an appeals court in Washington to halt the lawsuit and block the subpoenas, saying the case is based on "novel and flawed constitutional premises."

Brought by more than 200 Democrats in Congress, the emoluments lawsuit is one of several legal battles over access to the inner workings of Trump's businesses and, more broadly, the balance of power between lawmakers and the president.

"We are seeking a targeted set of documents to obtain the information that we need to ensure that the President can no longer shirk his constitutional responsibility," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in a statement.

The 37 subpoenas target information from a wide array of Trump's businesses, including Trump Tower, his hotels in New York and Washington, and his Mar-a-Lago Club in south Florida, according to the Constitutional Accountability Center, the legal group representing the Democrats in the case.

The plaintiffs also are seeking information about trademarks granted to Trump's companies by foreign governments since he entered office and any pending applications for foreign trademarks. Additional subpoenas seek information on tax returns from the president's companies and the trust where he keeps his businesses while in office.

The Trump Organization did not respond to requests for comment regarding the subpoenas.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in late June rejected Trump's request to stop the lawsuit and ordered the two parties to begin the process of requesting records and other information as part of a three-month discovery period ending Sept. 27.

In its court filing Monday, the Trump administration officially asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue an order to dismiss the case or at least to put the lawsuit and subpoenas on hold pending review. Justice Department lawyers said Sullivan had treated the case "as a run-of-the-mill commercial dispute" and "ignored the unique separation-of-powers concerns posed by discovery in a case against the President in his official capacity."

In a separate "emoluments" case brought by the attorneys general of D.C. and Maryland, Justice Department lawyers have succeeded in temporarily blocking subpoenas for financial records and other documents related to Trump's D.C. hotel.

The congressional emoluments case, led by Blumenthal and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., extends beyond the hotel and provides a potential new avenue for investigators to gain access to a broader array of Trump's finances.

Unlike past presidents, Trump has retained ownership of his private businesses and refused to release his tax returns.

The emoluments provision - barring payments or gifts from foreign governments without prior approval from Congress - was designed to prevent undue influence over the nation's leaders. Attorneys for the lawmakers say Trump is violating the ban when his businesses accept payments and other benefits from foreign governments.

Democrats are seeking information related to not only the president's hotels but to office buildings, trademarks and the trust in which Trump is storing his business interests while he is in office.

Three properties - the two hotels and Mar-a-Lago - have hosted foreign governments or large foreign delegations since Trump entered office. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has booked blocks of rooms at both hotels, and the D.C. hotel has hosted the governments of Kuwait, Bahrain and Malaysia, among others.

Trump Organization officials say that to avoid benefiting from any impropriety, they do not market the hotels to foreign governments and that when embassies or delegations book space, the company donates the profits to the U.S. treasury.

For example, after an Iraqi sheikh urging the U.S. to overthrow Iran's government stayed 26 nights at the D.C. hotel, the company says it donated the profits from his stay. In total, the company donated $191,538 at the end of last year and $151,470 for the previous year, though it did not break down those amounts.

There is less known about foreign governments' involvement in the four office properties that are subject of the plaintiffs' subpoenas.

Dating to before Trump's presidency, foreign diplomats have leased space in Trump World Tower, near the United Nations Nations headquarters in New York.

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a state-owned Chinese bank, has leased space on the 20th floor of Trump Tower in Manhattan since 2008. The bank's lease is worth close to $2 million annually, according to industry estimates and a bank filing.

Trump owns a minority stake in two other office buildings, in San Francisco and New York, that are not named for him and are managed by a non-Trump company.

The Chinese government has also granted approvals to Trump family trademarks, including preliminary approval for 38 new trademarks for hotels, golf courses and other businesses, according to The Associated Press. The plaintiffs' group issued a statement Monday saying that in addition to those approvals, "there are almost certainly many more that are not yet known about."

In court filings, the nonprofit Constitutional Accountability Center has stressed how difficult it is for Congress or the public to understand the president's business dealings without the court allowing its case to proceed.

"While it is well known that (the president's) business empire is vast and global, the exact nature of his holdings and the benefits he receives from them remain unclear," the nonprofit said in filings. Because the president has not released his tax returns, "the complicated interconnection between the hundreds of discrete business entities and shell companies in which he owns an interest makes it impossible to determine the full scope of the benefits he is currently accepting from foreign states." </s> The Justice Department has said in a court filing that there is no evidence to support President Donald Trump's assertion that the previous presidential administration wiretapped his headquarters in New York City's Trump Tower.

In a motion filed Friday, the Justice Department said "both FBI and NSD [the Justice Department's national security division] confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017, tweets" made by Trump, alleging former President Barack Obama's administration eavesdropped on him before the 2016 election.

Trump's tweet read: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

Trump added in another tweet, "How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate."

Trump was referring to the breaking-and-entering scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s, forcing him to resign in shame.

A spokesman for Obama, Kevin Lewis, responded to the tweets by saying Trump's allegation was "simply false."

Friday's motion was a response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by a group called American Oversight, which pushes for government transparency.

After Trump's allegations on March 4, then-FBI Director James Comey told Congress in a House intelligence committee hearing that there was no evidence to support Trump's claim.

American Oversight noted Comey's remarks in its response to Friday's motion, stating, "The FBI and Department of Justice have now sided with former Director Comey and confirmed in writing that President Trump lied when he tweeted the former President Obama 'wiretapped' him at Trump Tower."

The American Oversight query was "broader than the subject" of Trump's March 4 tweets, Justice Department official G. Bradley Weinsheimer wrote in the motion, so the Department of Justice could not respond to other portions of the request.

The motion filed on Friday says the Justice Department response does not "confirm or deny" existence of other records that might be relevant to American Oversight's request but must be withheld due to national security concerns, including disclosing "intelligence sources and methods." </s> This post was originally published on this site

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images(WASHINGTON) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday handed President Donald Trump a legal victory, dismissing a lawsuit accusing the president of illegally profiting from his Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., by accepting money from foreign governments.

The attorneys general from Maryland and the District of Columbia had brought the case, arguing that the president violated a constitutional clause that prohibits elected officials from doing business with foreign governments without permission from Congress.

But an appeals court panel ruled the attorneys general lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.

Reacting to the decision, President Trump tweeted, “Word just out that I won a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt.”

Earlier this year, a federal district court in Maryland had allowed the lawsuit to move forward.

But on Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals criticized the Maryland district court judge’s ruling as “so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts.”

The appeals court decision marks the first legal victory for President Trump as his legal team fights legal challenges on several fronts.

In a statement on Wednesday, Jay Sekulow, counsel to the president, hailed the appeals court ruling as “a complete victory.”

“The decision states that there was no legal standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place,” Sekulow continued. “This latest effort at Presidential harassment has been dismissed with prejudice.“

Earlier this week, in a separate emoluments case, congressional Democrats began issuing subpoenas as part of the discovery process in their case. Justice Department attorneys representing President Trump asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene and halt the “extraordinary case,” as they called it.
After three prominent legal analysts (Geoff Shepard, Benjamin Wittes, Jack Goldsmith, and Stephen Bates) filed separate lawsuits seeking its unsealing and Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on Oct. 11 ordered the disclosure, the National Archives releases a set of documents from the Watergate investigation as a possible "road map" for the Mueller probe, including a would-be indictment against former president Richard Nixon.