Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

President Donald Trump has taken to his favorite social media forum to denounce the so-called dossier as “fake." | Evan Vucci/AP Photo Judge considers whether Trump’s tweets should open up government’s dossier probe

A federal judge is considering whether President Donald Trump’s own tweets could force the federal government to reveal more information about its efforts to verify the claims in the controversial privately compiled dossier about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia.

Trump has taken to his favorite social media forum to denounce the so-called dossier as “fake” and “discredited,” while also calling repeatedly for investigators to make public details about who funded creation of the document containing accurate, inaccurate and unverified assertions about the president.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta heard arguments Friday in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit testing whether Trump’s public statements foreclose the government’s ability to refuse to even confirm that officials attempted to verify the claims in the so-called dossier. The lawsuit was filed by this reporter along with a pro-transparency group, the James Madison Project.

“When the president says Mr. Comey — former director Comey — brought the dossier to me, isn’t that an acknowledgement that the FBI possesses the dossier?” the judge asked, referring to comments Trump made in a New York Times interview.

Justice Department lawyer David Glass said the statement was still too vague to force the government to respond in greater detail to the FOIA requests and lawsuit.

Much of the 40-minute hearing at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., turned on whether Trump’s statements could or should be read to mean that government agencies had investigated the claims in the dossier and found them wanting.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

“There’s no inference that is possible,” Glass insisted. “It could be based on other things.”

An attorney for the requesters told Mehta that, while Trump’s statements might have been based on his personal knowledge or media reports, without further clarification from the White House, the court should assume the president was communicating in his official capacity based on official knowledge.

“He’s saying it is discredited. It has been discredited,” lawyer Brad Moss said. “If the White House or whatever defendant wants to clarify it, that’s their prerogative, but until that, there’s a factual discrepancy.”

Mehta responded by venturing into a subject rarely raised publicly in court: Trump’s calls for Hillary Clinton to be investigated and jailed.

“He’s also said his opponent did break the law,” the judge observed, asking whether that was Trump relaying an official Justice Department conclusion or just offering his personal opinion.

When Moss suggested that the court might need to order some sort of fact-finding exercise to figure out whether the president’s statements about the dossier were based on official or unofficial information, Mehta jumped in.

“How do you propose doing that? Do you want to depose the president?” the judge asked.

“As much as I would like that, that is not necessarily something I would think is necessary at this point,” Moss replied.

The so-called dossier was compiled by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, at the request of Washington-based private investigation firm Fusion GPS. One or more copies eventually ended up in the hands of the FBI last year. Intelligence officials have acknowledged giving President Barack Obama and then-President-elect Trump a two-page synopsis of the dossier’s allegations, which include salacious claims Trump has denied about his conduct during a visit to Russia.

Glass acknowledged that Trump could speak on behalf of federal agencies, but said the law requires agencies changes their approach on disclosure only when he discussed precisely what is sought in the FOIA request.

“The standard as we perceive it is there has to be an exact match,” the Justice Department lawyer said, noting that some of the requests refer to a two-page synopsis of the dossier and not the dossier itself. Glass also said there was “a lot of lack of clarity” on what the dossier consisted of.

Glass also argued that Trump’s calls for the Justice Department and FBI to reveal who paid for the dossier did not mean those agencies actually had such information. “He is not admitting the FBI or Justice Department necessarily know who’s paying for it,” the DOJ lawyer said.

The judge seemed to reject some of the finer distinctions the government was trying to draw.

Mehta repeatedly pointed out that in a 2013 case involving records about drone strikes, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that statements President Barack Obama and top advisers made on the topic essentially foreclosed the CIA’s efforts to refuse to confirm or deny whether it had any records on drones.

The judge said the statements from Obama and the other officials were not an “exact match” but led to a logical inference that agencies like the CIA had to have records on the subject.

Asked about that appeals court case, which is binding law for Mehta and other district court judges, Glass replied: “It’s seems to us that was a one-off.”

Moss noted that the D.C. Circuit case appeared to presume that Obama and the other officials were speaking based on official knowledge and not other kinds of information.

“None of them said where they got their information from,” the attorney said.

However, Mehta referenced Justice Department policies limiting contacts with the White House and said those might require him to presume that Trump’s statements did not come from official DOJ information.

But when the judge asked whetherf any similar policy would preclude intelligence agencies from briefing the president on allegations about him, Glass demurred.

“I have no idea,” he said.

Mehta offered no clear indication Friday of how he plans to resolve the issue. As he wrapped up the hearing, he simply said: “Lot of food for thought,” before promising to release a ruling soon.

