Tag Archives: request

Trump lawyers oppose Justice Department request on classified documents

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) – Former President Donald Trump’s attorneys on Monday opposed a U.S. Justice Department request to immediately resume examining the contents of classified documents seized by the FBI from his Florida estate last month in an ongoing criminal investigation.

His lawyers in a filing also asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to make those roughly 100 documents – among the more than 11,000 records found in the court-approved Aug. 8 search – part of a review that an independent arbiter, called a special master, will conduct to vet all the materials.

The special master, requested by Trump and approved by the judge last week, could deem documents privileged and wall them off from investigators.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Trump is under investigation by the Justice Department for retaining government records – some of which were marked as highly classified, including “top secret” – at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach after leaving office in January 2021. The department is also examining possible obstruction of the probe.

Trump’s lawyers on Monday also told Cannon they opposed two retired judges – Barbara Jones and Thomas Griffith – proposed by the government to serve as special master. Trump’s team has proposed federal judge Raymond Dearie and Paul Huck, Florida’s former deputy attorney general.

In its own filing, the department said it could support the appointment of Dearie, but not Huck. It said Huck did not appear to have the type of “substantial” experience presiding over federal criminal and civil cases, including cases involving national security, as did Dearie and the two other candidates.

In another development, the Justice Department has charged a Texas woman who prosecutors accused of making phone threats against Cannon, including saying the judge was “marked for assassination.” The incident marks the latest example of threats reported against various federal authorities in recent months. read more

Cannon previously blocked the department from immediately using the seized records in the investigation, a move that will slow down the work of prosecutors and make it harder for them to determine whether additional classified materials could be missing. read more

Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, U.S., September 3, 2022. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo

“In what at its core is a document storage dispute that has spiraled out of control, the government wrongfully seeks to criminalize the possession by the 45th President of his own presidential and personal records,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

“The government should therefore not be permitted to skip the process and proceed straight to a preordained conclusion,” they added.

Trump’s lawyers in Monday’s filing disputed the department’s claim that the roughly 100 documents at issue are in fact classified, and they reminded Cannon that a president generally has broad powers to declassify records. They stopped short of suggesting that Trump had declassified the documents, a claim he has made on social media but not in court filings.

“There still remains a disagreement as to the classification status of the documents,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “The government’s position therefore assumes a fact not yet established.”

The Justice Department has asked the judge to let investigators immediately resume going through the documents marked as classified. If the judge rules that the department cannot continue relying on the classified materials for its criminal probe or insists on letting the special master review them, prosecutors have vowed to appeal to a higher court.

The documents probe is one of several federal and state investigations Trump is facing from his time in office and in private business as he considers another run for the presidency in 2024.

Following the search, Trump’s attorneys sought the appointment of the special master to review the seized records for materials that could be covered by attorney-client privilege or executive privilege – a legal doctrine that can shield some presidential records from disclosure.

In ruling in favor of Trump’s request last week, Cannon rejected Justice Department arguments that the records belong to the government and that because Trump is no longer president he cannot claim executive privilege. Cannon was appointed to the bench by Trump in 2020. read more

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Doina Chiacu; Editing by Will Dunham and Rosalba O’Brien

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

MLB Recognizes MLBPA’s Request To Represent Minor Leaguers

Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred announced today that the league is prepared to voluntarily recognize the MLBPA as the new collective bargaining representatives for minor league players. The announcement comes less than two weeks after the MLBPA sent authorization cards to minor leaguers seeking to represent them, and just days after the union received “significant” majority support and formally requested that the commissioner’s office voluntarily recognize the seismic shift in player representation. According to Evan Drellich of the Athletic (Twitter link), the recognition is pending agreement between the league and union on a card-check resolution — essentially an independent verification of the authorization cards sent last month.

MLBPA executive director Tony Clark released a statement in response to MLB’s announcement (relayed by James Wagner of the New York Times):

We are pleased (MLB) is moving forward with this process in a productive manner. While there are significant steps remaining, we are confident discussions will reach a positive outcome.

Had the league not agreed, the MLBPA would have engaged with the federal National Labor Relations Board to prompt an election among minor leaguers. Assuming a majority of those who voted approved of MLBPA representation, the NLRB could then have forced MLB’s hand in recognizing the unionization. Those extra steps won’t be necessary, following today’s announcement by Manfred.

An MLBPA official told MLBTR last week the proposed unionization efforts would give minor leaguers their own separate bargaining unit under the MLBPA umbrella, adding that any minor league CBA would be negotiated independently of the Major League CBA that was completed earlier this year. The MLBPA recently announced it had hired all members of the group Advocates For Minor Leaguers, a move which bolstered the union’s leadership ranks in preparation for the shift, which will see MLBPA membership grow from 1200 to more than 5000.

MLB’s announcement figures to accelerate the process for eventually getting minor league players under the MLBPA umbrella. League recognition would serve as an implicit acknowledgement that the majority of minor leaguers would likely have voted in favor of unionization had the PA petitioned the NLRB for an election.

It now seems all but certain minor leaguers will soon become members of the MLB Players Association. It’s completely uncharted territory for minor leaguers, who have never previously been part of a union. In a full post earlier this week, Drellich spoke to a handful of minor league players about the process. Drellich noted that players in the rookie level Dominican Summer League will not automatically be included because it’s based outside the United States, but the MLBPA is now likely to represent players from domestic complex ball up through Triple-A and plans to bargain over DSL working conditions despite those players not officially joining the Association.

Drellich wrote this evening that both the league and MLBPA believe it possible to hammer out a CBA for minor league players in time for the start of the 2023 season. Negotiations figure to start not long after MLB grants its formal recognition (assuming it transpires), and Drellich notes it’s possible the card-check agreement could be reached in the near future, barring setbacks.

As he points out, the expected recognition comes just a couple months after Congresspeople from both parties expressed an interest in reconsidering MLB’s antitrust exemption. Low rates of pay for minor leaguers has been one of many legislators’ critiques, but recognition of a union and signing a collective bargaining agreement with minor leaguers would take that issue outside the realm of antitrust law and into labor law territory.

It’s set to be a monumental change for the MLBPA, which also joined the AFL-CIO this week. The union’s efforts at both expanding its membership and increasing its communication with labor leaders in other industries comes on the heels of a few years of labor strife. Clark pointed to the contentious return-to-play negotiations after the 2020 COVID shutdown and last winter’s lockout as reasons for affiliating with the AFL-CIO.



Read original article here

Biden administration denies Cheniere’s request to sidestep LNG pollution rule

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

WASHINGTON, Sept 6 (Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said on Tuesday it has denied a request from leading liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter Cheniere Energy Inc (LNG.A) to exempt turbines at its two U.S. Gulf Coast terminals from a hazardous pollution rule.

The rejection raises questions about whether the Texas-based company will have to reduce exports of the supercooled fuel to install new pollution control equipment at its facilities at a time that Europe is depending on increased shipments of LNG from the United States to offset cuts from Russia.

Europe is facing its worst-ever gas supply crisis, with energy prices soaring and German importers discussing possible rationing in the European Union’s biggest economy after Russia reduced gas flows westward. Moscow has cited a pipeline fault for the halt, but Europe sees it as apparent retribution for Western sanctions imposed on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

“Though EPA is denying Cheniere’s request for a special subcategory to comply with the turbines rule, the Agency will continue to work with them and with other companies as needed to assure they meet Clean Air Act obligations,” EPA spokesperson Tim Carroll said in an email.

Owners and operators of gas turbines had a Sept. 5 deadline to comply with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which the administration of President Joe Biden put into effect after an 18-year stay.

The rule imposes curbs on emissions of known carcinogens like formaldehyde and benzene from stationary combustion turbines, like those used by LNG facilities.

Cheniere had asked the Biden administration to exempt a specific kind of turbine that it installed at its LNG terminals from the NESHAP limits, arguing they would reduce shipments from the top U.S. exporter for an extended period and endanger the country’s efforts to ramp up supplies to Europe. read more

Cheniere was the only company to request such an exemption, according to the EPA. The company claimed the model of turbine it uses at its Texas and Louisiana facilities is the best technology for withstanding the types of storms that often strike the Gulf Coast, but that the equipment is also exceptionally hard to retrofit, and that engineering and installation of pollution controls could take years.

Cheniere spokesperson Eben Burnham-Snyder said that while the company “strongly disagrees” with the EPA’s decision, “we will work with our state and federal regulators to develop solutions that ensure compliance.”

He said the decision may result in “unwarranted expenditures” but added that coming into full compliance will not result in a material financial or operational impact and will not affect its ability to supply LNG to customers and countries around the world.

Gas-powered turbines emit formaldehyde and other dangerous pollutants through a chemical transformation that occurs when methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, is superheated.

Around 250 U.S. gas turbines are subject to the new rule, according to an EPA list, nearly a quarter of them Cheniere’s.

The Houston-based company accounts for around 50% of U.S. shipments of LNG abroad.

Ilan Levin, associate director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said the decision by EPA to deny Cheniere’s request was not a surprise because it had warned the company that it needed to meet the standard for years.

Reuters reported last month that the EPA had questioned Cheniere’s selection of gas turbines without adding pollution controls in 2011 and again in 2013. read more

“We applaud the EPA for enforcing the law and making sure the people living near these plants in the coastal bend and southeast Texas/southwest Louisiana get the same clean air protections as everybody else,” he said.

Cheniere shares closed 2.3% lower at $158.58 on Tuesday.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Reporting by Valerie Volcovici in Washington and Nichola Groom in Los Angeles; Editing by Jonathan Oatis, Matthew Lewis and Himani Sarkar

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Takeaways from the ruling granting Trump’s request for a special master in Mar-a-Lago probe

She did not agree, however, with Trump’s arguments that there had been a “callous disregard” for his constitutional rights with the search.

A significant win for Trump

The primary takeaway is simple: The ruling is a major legal win for Trump.

Trump filed a lawsuit seeking a special master to review the materials the FBI seized last month, and now one will be appointed with the potential to decide that certain materials are out of bounds to the FBI’s investigation.

Cannon bought into the skepticism Trump’s lawyers raised about the unprecedented search of the Florida resort, as they questioned whether investigators could be trusted to properly filter through the thousands of documents that were seized. The judge rejected the Justice Department’s assurances that its internal filter team had already sorted out materials that could be subject to attorney-client privileges.

Ultimately, the special master appointment may merely lead to a delay in the federal investigation into documents taken to Mar-a-Lago, but it now introduces a new layer of uncertainty and unpredictability into the investigation.

The former President did not get absolutely everything he asked for — the judge did not rule that any materials seized from his home should be returned to him, for instance.

Immediate next steps focus on rules for special master

Cannon left undecided many key questions about how the special master will operate. She sketched out a plan for how things will move forward for at least the rest of this week and focused on settling those logistical matters.

She ordered Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors to “confer” on several big-ticket items: Who are the proposed candidates to serve as special master? What will their specific “duties and limitations” be? What should be their schedule and pacing? And how much will they be paid for their work?

Both sides were told to file a “joint filing” by Friday, spelling out their answers to these questions. Based on how the case has progressed so far, it seems unlikely that the two sides will agree on much. They’ll both be able to put in writing their ideas for how they want this to move forward.

Cannon said she will “expeditiously” issue a court order setting out “the exact details and mechanics of this (special master) review process” after the joint filing comes in.

She noted the need to settle disputes between the parties about “whether certain seized documents constitute personal or presidential records” and “whether certain seized personal effects have evidentiary value.”

Plans to review for “executive privilege”

Trump had said that a special master review needed to go beyond documents covered by attorney-client privilege, and that materials covered by executive privilege should be filtered out as well.

Executive privilege refers to private communications presidents have with their advisers and other types of internal communications within the executive branch that are withheld from public release. While disputes over the privilege have come up in congressional investigations, the reaches of executive privilege — particularly when a former president is arguing it should apply when a current president is declining to assert it — is an unsettled area of law.

Cannon’s order requires the special master to examine the documents based on “executive privilege” concerns, making the job more expansive than the attorney-client privilege review that happens typically when a special master is appointed. (Documents potentially covered by attorney-client privilege will be part of this special master’s review as well, according to Cannon’s order.)

She did not elaborate on the parameters the special master should be considering.

In her ruling, Cannon said that the Supreme Court had not ruled out “the possibility of a former President overcoming an incumbent President on executive privilege matters.” She quoted from a 1977 Supreme Court case concerning documents from President Richard Nixon’s White House, as well as from a Supreme Court order earlier this year that allowed the release of Trump White House documents to House January 6 investigators.

Cannon quoted the Supreme Court saying in the recent case that the questions are “unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns” when it comes to scenarios where a former president is claiming to assert executive privilege over materials for which that privilege has been waived by the incumbent.

She also drew from a separate statement from Justice Brett Kavanaugh in that case in which Kavanaugh said it would “eviscerate the executive privilege for Presidential communications” if courts were to conclude that a former president could not “invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim.”

Cannon conceded that, when all is said and done, Trump’s assertions of executive privilege might fail, but she said that “does not negate a former President’s ability to raise the privilege as an initial matter.”

Intelligence review will continue

The judge is not stopping the US intelligence community’s from continuing to examine the documents as part of its damage assessment into the potential risk to national security.

Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told Congress last month that the intelligence community would be conducting an assessment “of the potential risk to national security that would result from the disclosure of the relevant documents.” The intelligence community has also been working with the FBI since mid-May to examine some of the documents taken from Mar-a-Lago, CNN previously reported.

While the FBI investigation is related to at least three potential crimes — violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice and criminal handling of government records — the intelligence review is primarily concerned with determining whether the disclosure of the material that was housed at Trump’s resort and residence could place sensitive intelligence sources at risk.

Trump got special consideration as ex-president

The judge repeatedly pointed to the “extraordinary circumstances” present in the special master dispute, given that it involved the “unprecedented” search of a former president’s home. She also said there was a risk of “stigma” that would come with a prosecution that was brought wrongfully and said that the threat was greater in this scenario because Trump is a former president.

“As a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own,” she wrote. “A future indictment, based to any degree on property that ought to be returned, would result in reputational harm of a decidedly different order of magnitude.”

There were other examples in the order of Cannon putting Trump, as a former president, in a special class of defendants. She said that Trump’s reliance on “cooperation between former and incumbent administrations regarding” the exchange of documents also cut in favor of her intervening. (The Justice Department has pointed to several examples in the litigation of Trump’s team slow-walking that negotiation).

In a footnote rebutting the DOJ’s arguments that special masters are usually appointed to review searches of an attorneys’ offices, Cannon wrote that she did “not see why these concerns would not apply, at least to a considerable degree, to the office and home of a former president.”

What can the Justice Department do now?

The ruling does not shut down the Justice Department’s criminal investigation. Trump still has potential legal jeopardy. But the ruling will limit what investigators can do, and may slow things down a bit, while the special master review is underway.

A Justice Department spokesman said Monday that officials are “examining the opinion” and considering “appropriate next steps.” The one-sentence statement did not explicitly reference an appeal, though that is the obvious next possible option for prosecutors.

If prosecutors appeal, those proceedings would be handled by the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Atlanta. The court has four full-time judges appointed by Democratic presidents, and seven by Republican presidents, including six by Trump.

A three-judge panel would be randomly selected to hear the appeal. Whichever side loses that round would get an opportunity to ask the entire 11-member court to rehear the appeal “en banc.” The losing side also could appeal to the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority.

DOJ officials might choose to only appeal a portion of Cannon’s multi-pronged ruling.

Andrew Weissmann — a venerated ex-DOJ official, former Robert Mueller team prosecutor and prominent Trump critic — tweeted that the Justice Department should “appeal immediately” the part of the ruling that blocks investigators from doing anything with the seized materials, which he called “precedent that is too wrong to not appeal.”

Judge Cannon is a Trump nominee — does that matter?

Federal judges routinely handle matters that involve the president who put them on the bench. The fact that Cannon was appointed by Trump, and that Trump filed this lawsuit, is not grounds for Cannon to recuse herself from the case, though she could if she thinks it creates a perception of unfairness.

For his part, Trump has a history of politicizing the judicial branch, by attacking “Obama judges” and openly saying that he expects his appointees to do his legal bidding. But this twisted view toward judicial loyalty seems to be pretty one-sided, with Trump expecting political fealty while most judges try to ignore his out-of-court rhetoric and focus on the facts.

How does DOJ’s so-called “60-day rule” for investigations come into play?

A question lingering over this and other investigations that touch on the former president is how the Justice Department will view the so-called “60-day rule” as applying to investigations connected to Trump.

The “rule” is an internal DOJ policy that discourages public investigative steps that could influence an election 60 days before Election Day. Trump’s allies have argued the department’s Trump documents investigation stands to run afoul of this principle, even though Trump himself is not a candidate.

It’s not clear if DOJ was calibrating its approach to the documents probe with that rule in mind, and if prosecutors are doing so, it’s also not clear whether the appointment of a special master affects those plans.

The investigation appears to be in its very early stages. Prosecutors have described it as such in public court proceedings. And the types of attorneys publicly involved in the probe — mainly coming from the DOJ’s National Security Division — also suggest the probe is at an early phase, former agency officials have said.



Read original article here

Trump documents: Judge grants request for a ‘special master’ to review materials seized from Mar-a-Lago

“As a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own,” Cannon wrote. “A future indictment, based to any degree on property that ought to be returned, would result in reputational harm of a decidedly different order of magnitude.”

The classification review and intelligence assessments being conducted by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, however, will be allowed to continue.

Both sides have until Friday to nominate special master candidates and their specific duties.

Trump’s lawyers argued that a special master was needed because they don’t trust the Justice Department to fairly identify privileged materials that would need to be excluded from the ongoing criminal probe.

Trump blasted the Justice Department and the seizure at his rally in Pennsylvania this weekend.

“This egregious abuse of the law is going to produce a backlash the likes of which nobody has ever seen before,” he said. “… these same exact people at Justice and the FBI, these same exact people, along with outside scum, are at it again with the horrific raid of my home. They just go on and on and they have to be stopped.”

However, Cannon wrote that Trump had not proven that his constitutional rights were disregarded.

“(T)he Court agrees with the Government that, at least based on the record to date, there has not been a compelling showing of callous disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional rights,” she wrote.

But Cannon cited several reasons for bringing in the special master, among them “the interest in ensuring the integrity of an orderly process amidst swirling allegations of bias and media leaks.” She also cited the historic nature of the case.

The judge said the special master will be tasked with reviewing “seized property for personal items and documents and potentially privileged material subject to claims of attorney-client and/or executive privilege.”

She added: “The Court is mindful that restraints on criminal prosecutions are disfavored but finds that these unprecedented circumstances call for a brief pause to allow for neutral, third-party review to ensure a just process with adequate safeguards.”

FBI obtained Trump medical and tax information in search, judge says

The Justice Department has said that its own “filter team” already finished its review of the Mar-a-Lago documents — and found a small set of attorney-client privileged records.

In court documents, DOJ said a “limited” number of records potentially covering attorney-client privilege were filtered out, and that the department was following the procedures it laid out to a magistrate judge when it sought the warrant, but Cannon had questions about its results.

The Justice Department also obtained “correspondent related to taxes,” and medical documents during the search, according to the privilege team report that remains sealed but Cannon described Monday.

Cannon noted that Justice Department lawyers had acknowledged it seized some “[p]ersonal effects without evidentiary value,” as well as 500 pages of material potentially subject to attorney-client privilege.

“To appoint a special master to make privilege determinations while simultaneously allowing the Government, in the interim, to continue using potentially privileged material for investigative purposes would be to ignore the pressing concerns and hope for the best,” the judge said.

She wrote that Trump’s “individual interest in and need for the seized property” was one reason to rule in favor of Trump’s requests for a special master.

Cannon also said that the privilege review team’s report outlined “at least two instances in which members of the Investigative Team were exposed to material that was then delivered to the Privilege Review Team.”

“Those instances alone, even if entirely inadvertent, yield questions about the adequacy of the filter,” she wrote.

“The United States is examining the opinion and will consider appropriate next steps in the ongoing litigation,” said Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley.

Friday deadline for Trump, DOJ to propose special master candidate

Cannon set a Friday deadline for Trump’s lawyers and Justice Department prosecutors to negotiate the special master’s “duties and limitations” and to submit a list of potential candidates to serve in the role.

She also wants both sides to propose a schedule for the special master’s review and to spell out how the person will be compensated for their work.

“The exact details and mechanics of this review process will be decided expeditiously following receipt of the parties’ proposals,” Cannon wrote.

Because the lawsuit demanding the special master was filed by Trump two weeks after the search, it has raised questions among legal observers what role a special master could even play, given that by that time the Justice Department was likely well on its way to finishing its review of the evidence.

The scope of a special mater will be key.

The DOJ had asked for the review, if it was granted, to focus on materials potentially covered by attorney-client privilege. Trump has been asking for the special master on the basis of there being executive privilege concerns with the seizure of the records.

At the hearing, according to reports, the judge said that Trump’s ability to assert executive privilege as a former president was unsettled law. But she also had pointed questions for the Trump team about what the review they were seeking would look like.

If the two sides don’t agree on the parameters for the soon-to-be appointed special master, they should explain their differences in a court filing, Cannon ruled Monday.

Cites Kavanaugh’s recent Supreme Court ruling

Explaining why she was ordering a special master review for material potentially covered by executive privilege, Cannon said that the Justice Department had not convinced the court that those concerns should be “disregarded,” as she went on quote from how the Supreme Court described its move in a dispute this year over Trump January 6 documents, including a statement from Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The DOJ had “arguably overstate[d] the law,” Cannon wrote, when asserting that executive privilege had no “role to play here because Plaintiff — a former head of the Executive Branch — is entirely foreclosed from successfully asserting executive privilege against the current Executive Branch.”

“The Supreme Court did not rule out the possibility of a former President overcoming an incumbent President on executive privilege matters,” Cannon wrote.

She quoted from both the 1977 decision Nixon v. Administrator of General Services and from the order released this year by the Supreme Court when it refused to block the Archives’ release to House January 6 investigators Trump White House documents.

“Further, just this year, the Supreme Court noted that, at least in connection with a congressional investigation, ‘[t]he questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns,'” Cannon wrote, quoting from the Supreme Court order.

Cannon added a line from a statement Kavanaugh wrote with that Supreme Court order: “A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim. Concluding otherwise would eviscerate the executive privilege for Presidential communications.”

Jumping off of those quotes from the Supreme Court, Cannon wrote Monday that “even if any assertion of executive privilege by Plaintiff ultimately fails in this context, that possibility, even if likely, does not negate a former President’s ability to raise the privilege as an initial matter.”

Judge was confirmed after presidential election

Cannon of the Southern District of Florida, was nominated by Trump to the bench in May 2020 and confirmed by the Senate in a 56-21 just days after the presidential election in November 2020.

She previously served as an assistant US attorney in Florida in the Major Crimes Division and as an appellate attorney, according to written answers she gave to the Senate during her confirmation process.

A University of Michigan Law School graduate, Cannon clerked for a federal judge and later practiced law at a firm in Washington, DC, where she handled a range of cases, including some related to “government investigations,” she told the Senate.

At her 2020 nomination hearing, Cannon thanked members of her family and shared the impact of their experience on her own life.

“To my loving mother … who, at the age of 7, had to flee the repressive Castro regime in search of freedom and security, thank you for teaching me about the blessing that is this country and the importance of securing the rule of law for generations to come,” she said.

This story has been updated with additional details.

CNN’s Joe Ruiz, Jamie Crawford and Devan Cole contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Justice Dept. alleges “obstructive conduct” occurred at Mar-a-Lago after request for classified documents

Washington — The Justice Department filed a 36-page response late Tuesday night to former President Donald Trump’s request for a federal judge to appoint a third party to sift through the records seized at his Florida residence. The government alleges that “obstructive conduct” occurred at Mar-a-Lago after Trump’s legal team allegedly tried to conceal or remove certain records from investigators in the months leading up to the Aug. 8 search.

In the filing, federal prosecutors argued that Trump’s request for a special master to review the records seized in the search “fails for multiple, independent reasons,” and they accused the former president of leveling “wide-ranging meritless accusations” against the U.S. government in the motion he filed last week.  

The appointment of a special master, they said, “is unnecessary and would significantly harm important governmental interests, including national security interests.”

Among the filings submitted to the court is a redacted FBI photo — taken during the Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago, the Justice Department said — of records recovered from a container in Trump’s office that include cover sheets for classified information with the markings “SECRET//SCI” and “TOP SECRET//SCI.” The documents are positioned next to a container with a framed Time magazine cover, among other items.

Visible on the cover sheets is the message “Contains sensitive compartmented information up to HCS-P/SI/TK.”

Photo submitted in Aug. 30 Justice Department filing that appears to have been taken during the Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago, showing records scattered on a floor that include cover sheets for classified information with the markings “SECRET//SCI” and “TOP SECRET//SCI.”

U.S. government photo


Federal prosecutors told the court that in some instances, “even the FBI counterintelligence personnel and DOJ attorneys conducting the review” of the records seized in this month’s search required additional clearances before they could review certain documents, suggesting that they found the records to be extremely sensitive. 

In a post to his social media platform Truth Social, Trump claimed he declassified the records visible in the photo from the FBI. However, the Justice Department said Trump’s representatives never “asserted that the former president had declassified the documents or asserted any claim of executive privilege.”

“Terrible the way the FBI, during the Raid of Mar-a-Lago, threw documents haphazardly all over the floor (perhaps pretending it was me that did it!), and then started taking pictures of them for the public to see,” Trump wrote Wednesday. “Thought they wanted them kept Secret? Lucky I Declassified!”

His legal team also has until 8 p.m. Wednesday to submit its own response with the court.

Investigators are probing Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, specifically records that he took from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence when he left office in January 2021, as well as possible obstruction of the investigation. 

The Justice Department revealed Friday that earlier this year, investigators found 184 unique documents bearing classification markings — including 67 documents marked confidential, 92 documents marked secret and 25 documents marked top secret — in material the National Archives and Records Administration initially collected from Trump in mid-January. The Archives later referred the matter to the Justice Department for further examination. 

In their latest filing, federal prosecutors said that during the course of its investigation, the FBI “developed evidence” indicating that in addition to the 15 boxes retrieved by the Archives in mid-January, “dozens of additional boxes” likely containing classified information remained at Mar-a-Lago.

To retrieve those additional classified records, the Justice Department obtained a grand jury subpoena and on June 3, three FBI agents and a Justice Department attorney visited Mar-a-Lago to get the materials, according to Tuesday’s filing. The officials received from Trump’s representatives a “single Redweld envelope double-wrapped in tape,” prosecutors said. Trump had previously claimed that he “voluntarily” accepted the subpoena and later invited investigators to Florida for the June 3 meeting. 

According to the Justice Department’s response, an unidentified individual characterized as the “custodian of records” for Trump’s post-presidential office provided federal law enforcement with a signed certification letter on June 3 that stated a “diligent search” was conducted of boxes brought from the White House to Mar-a-Lago and that “any and all” documents responsive to the grand jury subpoena were turned over.

Records taken from the White House to Mar-a-Lago were stored in a single location, a lawyer for Trump present on June 3 told federal officials: a storage room on the property, the Justice Department said in its response. A preliminary review of the documents conducted by the FBI revealed the envelope contained “38 unique documents bearing classification markings, including 5 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 16 documents marked as SECRET, and 17 documents marked as TOP SECRET.”

“Counsel for the former president offered no explanation as to why boxes of government records, including 38 documents with classification markings, remained at the premises nearly five months after the production of the Fifteen Boxes and nearly one-and-a-half years after the end of the administration,” Justice Department lawyers told the court. 

But after the June 3 meeting at Mar-a-Lago, the FBI, according to the response, claims it uncovered “multiple sources of evidence” that indicated more classified documents remained at the property and that a search of the storage room “would not have uncovered all the classified documents at the premises.” Prosecutors added, “the government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the storage room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.”

It was against that backdrop that the Justice Department sought the search warrant from a federal magistrate judge earlier this month, prosecutors said. During the Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago, federal agents seized 33 boxes, containers or “items of evidence” that contained more than 100 classified records, including information classified at the “highest levels,” according to the filing. Three classified documents were allegedly found in desks in Trump’s “45 Office” and also taken by the FBI.

Of the items seized by federal agents, 13 boxes or containers had documents with classification markings, some of which contained colored cover sheets indicating their classification status — the photo of which was submitted to the court in a supplemental filing.

“That the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many documents with classification markings as the ‘diligent search’ that the former president’s counsel and other representatives had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter,” the filing asserts.

Following the execution of a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort earlier this month, the former president filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to appoint a special master to examine the materials and filter out any privileged or unrelated documents that were not within the scope of the court-authorized warrant.

Last week, Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida asked the Justice Department to explain its view of Trump’s request, setting a deadline of Tuesday for the government’s response. She also ordered the department to submit a more detailed list specifying all property seized during its execution of the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, though that document, also due Tuesday, was to be filed under seal.

In an order issued Saturday, before the Justice Department responded to Trump’s motion, Cannon gave notice of her “preliminary intent” to appoint a special master, though her decision was not final. A hearing on Trump’s request is set for Thursday afternoon.

On Monday, prosecutors said in a separate court filing that investigators had already completed their search for potentially privileged information and found a “limited” set of documents that might be considered protected under attorney-client privilege.

For his part, the former president has denied wrongdoing and claimed without evidence that the investigation is a politically motivated attack as he prepares for a possible presidential run in 2024.

Read original article here

Judge may grant Trump’s request for special master to review papers FBI took

Comment

A federal judge indicated on Saturday that she is inclined to grant former president Donald Trump’s request for an independent “special master” to review boxes of classified documents and other materials taken by federal authorities from his Florida resort nearly three weeks ago.

In a brief, two-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon gave the government until Tuesday to present its arguments in the matter while scheduling a court hearing for Thursday in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Trump’s legal team had filed the request on Monday, asking the court to name an outside expert in the matter, calling the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago home politically motivated, overbroad and “shockingly aggressive.” The former president’s lawyers claimed that federal authorities seized records to which they had no legal right.

Although the judge, who was nominated to her position by Trump in 2020, seemed inclined to appoint a special master, she said her order “should not be construed as a final determination on Plaintiff’s Motion.”

The Justice Department didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

Federal authorities took about two dozen boxes of materials from Mar-a-Lago during the search, including 11 sets of classified documents, several of them categorized as top secret. Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, told congressional lawmakers Friday that U.S. intelligence analysts will conduct a national security assessment and classification review of the materials.

After Trump filed his initial request, Cannon had asked him and his lawyers to clarify what they were asking of the court in their 27-page filing and to address jurisdictional questions.

In her ruling Saturday, Cannon instructed the Justice Department to submit under seal a more detailed list of the materials that the FBI had taken. She also asked for an update on the federal government’s review.

Trump’s lawyers want a special master to return any information taken from Trump’s property that went beyond the scope of the search warrant, and to set aside any material that should be shielded from government review because of executive privilege.

In the past, special masters have generally been appointed in cases of attorney-client privilege, not executive privilege. In addition, the FBI has been in possession of the files since Aug. 8 and has been reviewing them. Many of the documents require the highest levels of security clearances to view, so any special master may need such clearances to examine them.

What’s in the partially redacted Mar-a-Lago affidavit

According to a partially redacted affidavit unsealed on Friday, the agents who conducted the search were seeking all “physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of three potential crimes,” including a part of the Espionage Act outlawing gathering, transmitting or losing national defense information. The warrant also cites the destruction of records and concealment or mutilation of government material.

The search is part of a criminal probe into whether Trump and his aides took secret government papers and did not return all of them, despite demands from senior officials.

Devlin Barrett contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Trump re-ups request for ‘special master’ but glosses over some questions from the judge

Trump was ordered to submit the filing after US District Judge Aileen Cannon, the Florida judge assigned to his case seeking a special master, identified several shortcomings in his initial Monday request for more oversight for the FBI’s review of the evidence seized.

In the new Friday night filing, Trump pointed to some additional legal discussion of case law that he said supported his request. One of those cases had to do with his former attorney Rudy Giuliani. Nowhere in the filing did Trump suggest that material dealing with attorney-client privilege was seized in the FBI’s search of his resort.

The new response appeared to fall short of the elaboration Cannon was seeking. Trump did not elaborate on what exactly he hoped a special master — a third-party attorney — would filter out, besides general allusions to “privileged and potentially privileged materials.”

He also did not include with the filing a motion for immediate action from the judge — like a request for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction — despite the judge’s request that he put before her “the precise relief sought, including any request for injunctive relief pending resolution of the Motion.”

Trump claimed that the newly released redacted affidavit the FBI submitted in court to obtain the warrant for the search raised “more questions than answers.”

“The Redacted Affidavit underscores why this Motion should be granted, as it provides almost no information that would allow Movant to understand why the raid took place, or what was taken from his home,” Trump’s wrote on the filing.

Filing follows release of redacted affidavit

Trump’s Friday submission came hours after the Justice Department unsealed a redacted version of the affidavit it used to obtain the warrant, which laid out new details about the FBI’s investigation and the highly sensitive nature of classified material that had been previously retrieved from the Palm Beach, Florida, resort.

In her order in Trump’s challenge to the search, Cannon told the former President’s lawyers to elaborate on their arguments for why the court has the ability to step in at this time, explain what exactly Trump is asking for and to clarify whether the Justice Department has been served with Trump’s special master motion.

Cannon, a Trump appointee, was not alone in finding that the original Monday motion lacked certain legal elements one would expect with a request like the one the Trump was making.

Several legal experts questioned the seriousness of Trump’s effort in court after Monday’s initial filing.

For one, Trump waited two weeks after the August 8 Mar-a-Lago search was executed to formally ask a court to step in. And his Monday filing lacked the kind of motion — such as a preliminary injunction motion or a temporary restraining order request — that would prompt quick action from the court.

The discussion of Trump’s legal arguments for why the judge had the authority to grant his request was thin. Much of the Monday filing instead was filled with politically charged rhetoric. Among other things, the Monday complaint boasted about Trump’s 2024 polling numbers, rehashed his gripes with the FBI’s 2020 Trump-Russia probe, and repeated the full text of a “message” Trump supposedly sought to deliver through his lawyers to Attorney General Merrick Garland about “angry” mood the country was in after the raid.

What the department has said about how it is reviewing the Mar-a-Lago evidence

Trump’s new attempt to refine his bid for a special master came after the freshly released affidavit made public new details about how the Justice Department approached the search. The FBI told the court when seeking the warrant that it planned to send to Mar-a-Lago a “privilege review team” of agents along with the agents working on the investigation. The privilege review team would be charge of searching the room referred to as the “45 Office,” and would “conduct a review of the seized materials” from there “to identify and segregate documents or data containing potentially attorney-client privileged information.”

The affidavit laid out the procedures the privilege review team would use to filter out materials containing privileged information. If the privilege review team believed a document obtained could be privilege, they would either ask for a court to review whether it was privileged; work with the potential privilege holder on establishing whether it privileged, including, if necessary, by seeking a court review; or defer the court process while the materials were withheld from the investigators working on the case.

“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,” the FBI said in its filing to US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who authorized the search.

In the affidavit, the FBI said that it had found 184 classified documents in its review of 15 boxes retrieved from Mar-a-Lago in January.

“Further, there is 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 the PREMISES,” the affidavit said. “There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at the PREMISES.”

This story has been updated with additional details.

Read original article here

Kevin Durant will stay in Brooklyn after trade request

Comment

The saga surrounding Nets star Kevin Durant’s next destination reached an anticlimactic conclusion Tuesday, when the team announced it will keep the 12-time all-star in Brooklyn.

General Manager Sean Marks announced the news in a statement saying Durant and the Nets “have agreed to move forward with our partnership. We are focusing on basketball, with one collective goal in mind: build a lasting franchise to bring a championship to Brooklyn.” The announcement includes the Nets’ logo alongside that of Boardroom, the media company Durant created with manager Rich Kleiman.

Durant was reportedly being pursued by the Boston Celtics, the Miami Heat, the Toronto Raptors and, most recently, the Memphis Grizzlies. His decision to stay with Brooklyn comes two weeks after Durant reiterated his request to be traded and told Nets owner Joe Tsai to choose him or Marks and Coach Steve Nash, according to the Athletic.

Tsai responded with a tweet showing his support for the front office and the coaching staff.

A two-time champion and two-time Finals MVP, Durant will continue a tenure in Brooklyn that has been defined by drama.

Durant, who left Golden State to team up with Kyrie Irving in Brooklyn shortly after tearing his Achilles’ during the 2019 Finals, attempted to pull the plug on the venture just three years later. Hours before the NBA’s free agency period opened June 30 and just two weeks after the Warriors won their first title since his departure, Durant formally requested a trade following an exhausting 2021-22 season that ended with a humbling first-round sweep by the Celtics.

Durant’s Brooklyn tenure has unfolded in a blur, in part because it so closely aligned with the coronavirus pandemic. The four-time scoring champion sat out the 2019-20 season as he recovered from his Achilles’ injury, and he opted against rushing to return for the bubble staged in Orlando. During the condensed 2020-21 season, Durant was limited to 35 games because of injuries and coronavirus protocol absences before turning in a sensational postseason run that ended with a second-round loss to the eventual champion Milwaukee Bucks.

Last season, Durant again missed time with an injury that limited him to 55 games, and then he turned in one of the most forgettable postseason showings of his career against the Celtics.

The Raptors are a sleeping giant in the East despite a quiet offseason

Along the way, the Nets swung a blockbuster trade with the Houston Rockets for James Harden in January 2021, then reversed course by trading the all-star guard to the Philadelphia 76ers this past February.

A key driver of Brooklyn’s instability was Irving, who missed significant time over the past three seasons with injuries, personal absences and eligibility issues related to his refusal to get vaccinated against the coronavirus. While Durant was careful to always defend Irving in public, it was clear the Nets needed major changes following their disappointing showing against the Celtics. In one sign of how quickly Brooklyn unraveled, Durant’s trade request came less than a year after he signed a four-year, $198 million extension.

In the beginning, Durant appeared to view the Nets as an opportunity to be the face of his own franchise again, to expand his business and media portfolio in a major market and to construct a roster filled with his friends. Brooklyn pledged to cultivate a player-friendly culture, even deferring to its stars on matters such as playing time and injury management.

That philosophical approach backfired in the 2021-22 season, as Irving’s vaccination saga overshadowed the Nets’ season, contributed to Harden’s departure and placed a huge burden on Durant. Organizational inexperience was the root cause of many of Brooklyn’s shortcomings: Tsai only took full ownership of the franchise in 2019, Marks was a relatively new executive with no previous experience managing A-list superstars, and Steve Nash was a first-time coach when he was hired in 2020.

Time and again after landing Durant and Irving, the Nets looked like they had bitten off more than they could chew. While Brooklyn had the NBA’s second-highest payroll last season — trailing only Golden State — it was the only one of 16 playoff teams that didn’t win a single game in the postseason.

Even so, Durant has played at an MVP-caliber level when healthy throughout his Nets tenure, averaging 29.9 points, 7.4 rebounds and 6.4 assists per game last season. Yet with only one playoff series victory during his time in Brooklyn, the undisputed highlight of Durant’s post-Achilles’ period was his central role on USA Basketball’s gold medal winning team at the Tokyo Olympics. Otherwise, he was forced to watch as major rivals LeBron James, Giannis Antetokounmpo and Stephen Curry won championships while the Nets repeatedly fell short of expectations.

Sign up for our weekly NBA newsletter to get the best basketball coverage in your inbox



Read original article here

Nets end Kevin Durant trade talks: Brooklyn, superstar agree to ‘move forward’ together after trade request

Kevin Durant will be continuing his career as a member of the Brooklyn Nets. On Tuesday morning, the Nets announced that Durant and the organization have agreed to move forward together. Durant requested a trade away from Brooklyn on June 30, right before the start of NBA free agency, but the Nets didn’t have success finding a deal that they found suitable.

The Nets held an incredibly steep asking price for Durant over the summer, and although many teams – including the Boston Celtics, Miami Heat, Memphis Grizzlies, Philadelphia 76ers and Toronto Raptors — were interested in his services, most were hesitant to offer too big of a package to Brooklyn, as doing so would leave their remaining roster decimated.

Despite the lack of progress on a potential deal, Durant maintained his desire to be traded throughout the offseason. But, now he’s apparently comfortable remaining with the Nets, for the time-being at least. The star forward has four years remaining on his current contract.

Here’s the statement from Nets general manager Sean Marks:

“Steve Nash and I, together with Joe Tsai and Clara Wu Tsai, met with Kevin Durant and Rich Kleiman in Los Angeles yesterday. We have agreed to move forward with our partnership. We are focusing on basketball, with one collective goal in mind: build a lasting franchise to bring a championship to Brooklyn.”

With Durant staying put and joining Kyrie Irving and Ben Simmons on the roster, the Nets are immediately back in the contender conversation in the Eastern Conference. After all, any team that Durant is on has a chance to make some real noise, as he remains arguably the deadliest offensive weapon in the NBA. Caesars Sportsbook listed the Nets with the third-best NBA title odds (+800) shortly after the team’s Tuesday announcement.

That doesn’t mean that things will be completely smooth in Brooklyn moving forward, however. A reconciliation period will likely be necessary, especially after Durant asked for both Nash and Marks to be fired. Now, those guys will have to find a way to work together if the Nets are going to find success.

With Durant in tow, the Nets will be looking to improve upon their finish last season, which saw them get swept in the first round by the Boston Celtics. For a team with championship aspirations, that was obviously a very underwhelming conclusion. Perhaps now they’ll be able to put all of the drama behind them and focus on basketball. The Nets will open up their regular season against the New Orleans Pelicans on Oct. 19.

require.config({"baseUrl":"https://sportsfly.cbsistatic.com/fly-0304/bundles/sportsmediajs/js-build","config":{"version":{"fly/components/accordion":"1.0","fly/components/alert":"1.0","fly/components/base":"1.0","fly/components/carousel":"1.0","fly/components/dropdown":"1.0","fly/components/fixate":"1.0","fly/components/form-validate":"1.0","fly/components/image-gallery":"1.0","fly/components/iframe-messenger":"1.0","fly/components/load-more":"1.0","fly/components/load-more-article":"1.0","fly/components/load-more-scroll":"1.0","fly/components/loading":"1.0","fly/components/modal":"1.0","fly/components/modal-iframe":"1.0","fly/components/network-bar":"1.0","fly/components/poll":"1.0","fly/components/search-player":"1.0","fly/components/social-button":"1.0","fly/components/social-counts":"1.0","fly/components/social-links":"1.0","fly/components/tabs":"1.0","fly/components/video":"1.0","fly/libs/easy-xdm":"2.4.17.1","fly/libs/jquery.cookie":"1.2","fly/libs/jquery.throttle-debounce":"1.1","fly/libs/jquery.widget":"1.9.2","fly/libs/omniture.s-code":"1.0","fly/utils/jquery-mobile-init":"1.0","fly/libs/jquery.mobile":"1.3.2","fly/libs/backbone":"1.0.0","fly/libs/underscore":"1.5.1","fly/libs/jquery.easing":"1.3","fly/managers/ad":"2.0","fly/managers/components":"1.0","fly/managers/cookie":"1.0","fly/managers/debug":"1.0","fly/managers/geo":"1.0","fly/managers/gpt":"4.3","fly/managers/history":"2.0","fly/managers/madison":"1.0","fly/managers/social-authentication":"1.0","fly/utils/data-prefix":"1.0","fly/utils/data-selector":"1.0","fly/utils/function-natives":"1.0","fly/utils/guid":"1.0","fly/utils/log":"1.0","fly/utils/object-helper":"1.0","fly/utils/string-helper":"1.0","fly/utils/string-vars":"1.0","fly/utils/url-helper":"1.0","libs/jshashtable":"2.1","libs/select2":"3.5.1","libs/jsonp":"2.4.0","libs/jquery/mobile":"1.4.5","libs/modernizr.custom":"2.6.2","libs/velocity":"1.2.2","libs/dataTables":"1.10.6","libs/dataTables.fixedColumns":"3.0.4","libs/dataTables.fixedHeader":"2.1.2","libs/dateformat":"1.0.3","libs/waypoints/infinite":"3.1.1","libs/waypoints/inview":"3.1.1","libs/waypoints/jquery.waypoints":"3.1.1","libs/waypoints/sticky":"3.1.1","libs/jquery/dotdotdot":"1.6.1","libs/jquery/flexslider":"2.1","libs/jquery/lazyload":"1.9.3","libs/jquery/maskedinput":"1.3.1","libs/jquery/marquee":"1.3.1","libs/jquery/numberformatter":"1.2.3","libs/jquery/placeholder":"0.2.4","libs/jquery/scrollbar":"0.1.6","libs/jquery/tablesorter":"2.0.5","libs/jquery/touchswipe":"1.6.18","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.core":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.draggable":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.mouse":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.position":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.slider":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.sortable":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.touch-punch":"0.2.3","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.autocomplete":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.accordion":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.tabs":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.menu":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.dialog":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.resizable":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.button":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.tooltip":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.effects":"1.11.4","libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.datepicker":"1.11.4"}},"shim":{"liveconnection/managers/connection":{"deps":["liveconnection/libs/sockjs-0.3.4"]},"liveconnection/libs/sockjs-0.3.4":{"exports":"SockJS"},"libs/setValueFromArray":{"exports":"set"},"libs/getValueFromArray":{"exports":"get"},"fly/libs/jquery.mobile-1.3.2":["version!fly/utils/jquery-mobile-init"],"libs/backbone.marionette":{"deps":["jquery","version!fly/libs/underscore","version!fly/libs/backbone"],"exports":"Marionette"},"fly/libs/underscore-1.5.1":{"exports":"_"},"fly/libs/backbone-1.0.0":{"deps":["version!fly/libs/underscore","jquery"],"exports":"Backbone"},"libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.tabs-1.11.4":["jquery","version!libs/jquery/ui/jquery.ui.core","version!fly/libs/jquery.widget"],"libs/jquery/flexslider-2.1":["jquery"],"libs/dataTables.fixedColumns-3.0.4":["jquery","version!libs/dataTables"],"libs/dataTables.fixedHeader-2.1.2":["jquery","version!libs/dataTables"],"https://sports.cbsimg.net/js/CBSi/app/VideoPlayer/AdobePass-min.js":["https://sports.cbsimg.net/js/CBSi/util/Utils-min.js"]},"map":{"*":{"adobe-pass":"https://sports.cbsimg.net/js/CBSi/app/VideoPlayer/AdobePass-min.js","facebook":"https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js","facebook-debug":"https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all/debug.js","google":"https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js","google-platform":"https://apis.google.com/js/client:platform.js","google-csa":"https://www.google.com/adsense/search/async-ads.js","google-javascript-api":"https://www.google.com/jsapi","google-client-api":"https://apis.google.com/js/api:client.js","gpt":"https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/tag/js/gpt.js","hlsjs":"https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/hls.js/1.0.7/hls.js","recaptcha":"https://www.google.com/recaptcha/api.js?onload=loadRecaptcha&render=explicit","recaptcha_ajax":"https://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/js/recaptcha_ajax.js","supreme-golf":"https://sgapps-staging.supremegolf.com/search/assets/js/bundle.js","taboola":"https://cdn.taboola.com/libtrc/cbsinteractive-cbssports/loader.js","twitter":"https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js","video-avia":"https://vidtech.cbsinteractive.com/avia-js/2.4.0/player/avia.min.js","video-avia-ui":"https://vidtech.cbsinteractive.com/avia-js/2.4.0/plugins/ui/avia.ui.min.js","video-avia-gam":"https://vidtech.cbsinteractive.com/avia-js/2.4.0/plugins/gam/avia.gam.min.js","video-avia-hls":"https://vidtech.cbsinteractive.com/avia-js/2.4.0/plugins/hls/avia.hls.min.js","video-avia-playlist":"https://vidtech.cbsinteractive.com/avia-js/2.4.0/plugins/playlist/avia.playlist.min.js","video-ima3":"https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/sdkloader/ima3.js","video-ima3-dai":"https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/sdkloader/ima3_dai.js","video-utils":"https://sports.cbsimg.net/js/CBSi/util/Utils-min.js","video-vast-tracking":"https://vidtech.cbsinteractive.com/sb55/vast-js/vtg-vast-client.js"}},"waitSeconds":300});



Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site