In
political exile at his mansion in Florida, under investigation for
possessing highly classified documents, Donald Trump summoned his lawyer
in 2022 for a fateful conversation. A folder had been compiled with 38
documents that should have been returned to the federal government. But
Trump had other ideas.
Making a plucking motion, Trump suggested
his attorney, Evan Corcoran, remove the most incriminating material.
"Why don't you take them with you to your hotel room, and if there's
anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out," Corcoran
memorialized in a series of notes that surfaced during criminal proceedings.
Trump's
purported willingness to conceal evidence from law enforcement as a
private citizen is now fueling concern on Capitol Hill that his efforts
to thwart the release of Justice Department files in the Jeffrey Epstein
investigation could lead to similar obstructive efforts — this time
wielding the powers of the presidency.
Since resuming office in January, Trump has opposed releasing files
from the federal probe into the conduct of his former friend, a
convicted sex offender and alleged sex trafficker who is believed to
have abused more than 200 women and girls. But bipartisan fervor has only grown
over the case, with House lawmakers across party lines expected to
unite behind a bill on Tuesday that would compel the release of the
documents.
Last week, facing intensifying public pressure, the House Oversight Committee released over 20,000 files from Epstein's estate that referenced Trump more than 1,000 times.
Those files, which included emails from Epstein himself, showed the notorious financier believed that Trump had intimate knowledge of his criminal conduct. "He knew about the girls," Epstein wrote, referring to Trump as the "dog that hasn't barked."
Rep.
Dave Min (D-Irvine), a member of the oversight committee, noted Trump
could order the release of the Justice Department files without any
action from Congress.
"The
fact that he has not done so, coupled with his long and well documented
history of lying and obstructing justice, raises serious concerns that
he is still trying to stop this investigation," Min said in an
interview, "either by trying to persuade Senate Republicans to vote
against the release or through other mechanisms."
A
spokesperson for Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that altering or
destroying portions of the Epstein files “would violate a wide range of
federal laws.”
“The senator is certainly concerned that Donald
Trump, who was investigated and indicted for obstruction, will persist
in trying to stonewall and otherwise prevent the full release of all the
documents and information in the U.S. government’s possession,” the
spokesperson said, “even if the law is passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support.”
After the House votes on the bill, titled the Epstein Files Transparency Act, bipartisan support in the Senate would be required to pass the measure. Trump would then have to sign it into law.
Trump
encouraged Republican House members to support it over the weekend
after enough GOP lawmakers broke ranks last week to compel a vote,
overriding opposition from the speaker of the House. Still, it is
unclear whether the president will support the measure as it proceeds to
his desk.
On Monday, Trump said he would sign the bill if it ultimately passes. "Let the Senate look at it," he told reporters.
The
bill prohibits the attorney general, Pam Bondi, from withholding,
delaying or redacting the publication of "any record, document,
communication, or investigative material on the basis of embarrassment,
reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government
official, public figure, or foreign dignitary."
But caveats in the bill could provide Trump and Bondi with loopholes to keep records related to the president concealed.
"Because
DOJ possesses and controls these files, it is far from certain that a
vote to disclose 'the Epstein files' will include documents pertaining
to Donald Trump," said Barbara McQuade, who served as the United States
attorney for the eastern district of Michigan from 2010 until 2017, when
Trump requested a slew of resignations from U.S. attorneys.
Already,
this past spring, FBI Director Kash Patel directed a Freedom of
Information Act team to work with hundreds of agents to comb through the
entire trove of files from the investigation, and directed them to
redact references to Trump, citing his status as a private citizen with
privacy protections when the probe first launched in 2006, Bloomberg reported at the time.
"It
would be improper for Trump to order the documents destroyed, but Bondi
could redact or remove some in the name of grand jury secrecy or
privacy laws," McQuade added. "As long as there’s a pending criminal
investigation, I think she can either block disclosure of the entire
file or block disclosure of individuals who are not being charged,
including Trump."
Destroying the
documents would be a taller task, and "would need a loyal secretary or
equivalent," said Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, a professor emeritus and FBI
historian at the University of Edinburgh.
Jeffreys-Jones recalled
J. Edgar Hoover's assistant, Helen Gandy, spending weeks at his home
destroying the famed FBI director's personal file on the dirty secrets
of America's rich and powerful.
It would also be illegal, scholars
say, pointing to the Federal Records Act that prohibits anyone
— including presidents — from destroying government documents.
After President Nixon attempted to assert executive authority over a collection of incriminating tapes that would ultimately end his presidency,
Congress passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation
Act, asserting that government documents and presidential records are
federal property. Courts have repeatedly upheld the law.
While
presidents are immune from prosecution over their official conduct,
ordering the destruction of documents from a criminal investigation
would not fall under presidential duties, legal scholars said, exposing
Trump to charges of obstructing justice if he were to do so.
"Multiple
federal laws bar anyone, including the president or those around him,
from destroying or altering material contained in the Epstein files,
including various federal record-keeping laws and criminal statutes. But
that doesn't mean that Trump or his cronies won't consider trying,"
said Norm Eisen, who served as chief ethics lawyer for President Obama
and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first
impeachment trial.
The Democracy Defenders Fund, a nonprofit
organization co-founded by Eisen, has sued the Trump administration for
all records in the Epstein investigation related to Trump, warning that
"court supervision is needed" to ensure Trump doesn't attempt to subvert
a lawful directive to release them.
"Perhaps the greatest danger
is not altering documents but wrongly withholding them or producing and
redacting them," Eisen added. "Those are both issues that we can get at
in our litigation, and where court supervision can be valuable."
Jeffreys-Jones
also said that Trump may attempt to order redactions based on claims of
national security. But "this might be unconvincing for two reasons," he
said.
"Trump was not yet president at the time," he said, and "it
would raise ancillary questions if redactions did not operate in the
case of President Clinton."
Last week, Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate Epstein's ties to Democratic figures,
including Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and Reid
Hoffman, LinkedIn's co-founder and a major Democratic donor.
He made no request for the department to similarly investigate Republicans.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.