[ad_1]
Justice Department officials in Washington said a search warrant would be an extraordinary step to take against a lawyer – who is also a key adviser to a president – in an investigation into a possible violation of foreign laws on the lobbying.
The question remains open and any decision rests with the Biden administration.
The matter has caught the attention of officials as high as Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who, along with other officials from the Justice Headquarters and the US Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, has decided not to make a final decision. , say these people, in part because there would soon be a change of administration.
But the matter was sensitive enough that Rosen issued a December 30 memorandum adding further hurdles for prosecutors to consult with the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in Washington and the Deputy Attorney General before seeking a warrant to search the premises. offices of a lawyer.
Biden’s message has been to restore unity, which some observers interpret as not continuing past investigations into politicized issues, such as Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine, which were at the center of Trump’s 2020 impeachment trial. At the same time, the Biden administration faces pressure to apply justice uniformly and restore the independence of the Department of Justice.
The notoriously independent Manhattan attorney’s office is leading the Giuliani investigation which began more than two years ago, and the ruling on a subpoena or search warrant could determine whether there is a case at hand. charge.
Discussions over the past year have focused on a range of possible options, including a voluntary request and a search warrant, to attempt to obtain evidence that investigators believe they need in the investigation, according to an informed person. On the question.
People familiar with the talks would not officially tell CNN about an ongoing investigation.
Representatives from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and the Department of Justice declined to comment for this story. Rosen did not respond to a request for comment.
Concerns about the evidence
Late last year, after questioning witnesses and subpoenaing documents, prosecutors approached officials in Washington in an attempt to expand that access, including the possibility of obtaining a search warrant for communications and Giuliani’s electronic devices.
A search warrant for an attorney for the then president would require the approval of senior justice officials in Washington due to the invasive nature of the search and attorney-client protections.
Officials in Washington pushed back during last year’s conversation and cited issues ranging from the proximity of the election and ongoing election disputes to the strength of the case, people said. Officials have discussed the possibility of using other methods of obtaining evidence, as a search warrant would be broad and inherently raise questions about communications involving Trump, according to a person briefed on the matter.
A source said there was also some skepticism on the part of lawyers in the National Security Division.
Some officials at the Justice Headquarters have raised concerns that the New York investigation was based on what they believed to be a new interpretation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which requires individuals disclose lobbying activities on behalf of foreign governments or officials to the Department of Justice.
Prosecutors are exploring theory that Giuliani may have been engaged in undisclosed foreign lobbying for Ukrainian officials when he called for the removal of the US ambassador and an investigation into the Bidens for his own personal benefit while he continued these efforts as Trump’s lawyer. , people said.
Giuliani’s dual roles add complexity to the case.
It would be an unusual theory for a foreign agent registration law case, people said, especially since Giuliani was publicly touting his efforts, including on television, and it is not clear whether he was paid by foreign officials. Some prosecutors debated whether the evidence clearly established a violation of foreign lobbying, since Giuliani could argue he was acting on behalf of the former president, people briefed on the discussions said.
During the discussion, officials in Washington said it would be unusual to issue a search warrant against a lawyer as part of an investigation into the Foreign Agent Registration Act, let alone a advisor to the then president, according to people familiar with the conversation. They also said the theory of the case had not been tested, people said.
The law has been on the books for decades, but has recently been used more by the Justice Department and resulted in two high-profile losses.
In 2019, Greg Craig, who was a White House lawyer in the Obama administration, was acquitted in a trial for violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and a federal judge dismissed the conviction of ‘a former associate of Michael Flynn, deeming the evidence to be “insufficient.” The Justice Department has appealed the judge’s ruling regarding Flynn’s business partner.
Giuliani’s lobbying efforts
Giuliani, who has not been charged with any wrongdoing, has continued to operate in Ukraine in his role as private attorney for Trump.
Robert Costello, an attorney for Giuliani, told CNN that there had been no outreach from federal prosecutors. He said he didn’t think there was an active investigation into Giuliani because his client hadn’t done anything wrong.
Two of Giuliani’s associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, have been charged with campaign finance charges, stemming from an alleged straw donation scheme. The men met Giuliani and helped introduce him to the Ukrainian authorities. They have pleaded not guilty.
In Trump’s first impeachment trial, administration officials testified about a parallel campaign led by Giuliani to pressure the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into the Bidens while falsely accusing the US ambassador of the time, Marie Yovanovitch, to be an anti-Trump supporter.
New York prosecutors also subpoenaed several witnesses for documents and testimony relating to any business relationship they had with Giuliani. Last fall, investigators spoke with several businessmen about Giuliani’s lobbying efforts, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Initially, prosecutors alleged that Parnas’ efforts to impeach the US ambassador were carried out, in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian officials. In a court file, prosecutors wrote that the alternate indictment “streamlines some factual allegations.” Prosecutors never identified the official.
Lawyers for Fruman and Parnas said no Ukrainian official existed and called it a “false story” circulated by the Justice Ministry, according to a court file. They asked a judge to order prosecutors to explain whether information originally presented to the grand jury about the US ambassador had been withdrawn. The judge did not rule on the request.
[ad_2]
Source link