Raid on Trump’s Lawyer Sought Records of Payments to Women


The early-morning searches enraged Mr. Trump, associates said, setting off an angry public tirade Monday evening that continued in private at the White House as the president fumed about whether he should fire Mr. Rosenstein. The episode has deeply unsettled White House aides, Justice Department officials and lawmakers from both parties, who believe the president may use it as a pretext to purge the team leading the investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election.

Searching a lawyer’s files is among the most sensitive moves federal prosecutors can make as they pursue a criminal investigation. Mr. Rosenstein’s personal involvement in the decision signals that the evidence seen by law enforcement officials was significant enough to persuade the Justice Department’s second-in-command that such an aggressive move was necessary.

Mr. Trump’s advisers have spent the last 24 hours trying to convince the president not to make an impulsive decision that could put the president in more legal jeopardy and ignite a controversy that could consume his presidency, several people close to Mr. Trump said. The president began Tuesday morning with a pair of angry tweets, calling the raids “A TOTAL WITCH HUNT!” and venting that “attorney–client privilege is dead!”

Mr. Trump has long been mistrustful of Mr. Rosenstein, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, who appointed the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and now oversees his investigation into Mr. Trump’s campaign and possible obstruction of justice by the president. In his remarks Monday night, the president lashed out at Mr. Rosenstein for having “signed a FISA warrant,” apparently a reference to the role Mr. Rosenstein played in authorizing the wiretap of a Trump associate in the Russia inquiry.

Mr. Trump considered firing Mr. Rosenstein last summer. Instead, he ordered Mr. Mueller to be fired, then backed down after the White House counsel refused to carry out the order, The New York Times reported in January. Mr. Trump is now again telling associates that he is frustrated with Mr. Rosenstein, according to one official familiar with the conversations.

While Mr. Rosenstein must sign off on all moves that Mr. Mueller makes, that is not necessarily the case for searches — like this one — that are carried out by other federal law enforcement offices. Justice Department regulations require prosecutors to consult with senior criminal prosecutors in Washington — but not necessarily the deputy attorney general — before conducting a search of a lawyer’s files.

The involvement of Mr. Rosenstein and top prosecutors in New York in the raid of Mr. Cohen’s office makes it harder for Mr. Trump to argue that his legal problems are the result of a witch hunt led by Mr. Mueller. In addition to Mr. Rosenstein, all of the top law enforcement officials involved in the raid are Republicans: Mr. Mueller, Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. Director, and Geoffrey Berman, the interim United States attorney in New York.

Photo

Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, appointed the special counsel and now oversees the investigation.

Credit
Win Mcnamee/Getty Images

While Mr. Trump is focused for the moment on Mr. Rosenstein, many of the president’s advisers and allies are fearful that the president also intends to fire Mr. Mueller in an attempt to end the Russia investigation. Asked by reporters on Monday night whether he intends to do so, Mr. Trump said, “We’ll see what happens.”

“But I think it’s really a sad situation when you look at what happened,” the president added. “And many people have said you should fire him. Again, they found nothing and in finding nothing, that’s a big statement.”

The prospect that Mr. Trump might fire Mr. Mueller was met with fierce responses from Democrats and some Republicans, who warned that such a move would be disastrous for the White House.

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday on Fox Business Network that “it would be suicide for the president to want to talk about firing Mueller.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the top Democrat in the House, on Monday called Mr. Trump’s attacks on Mr. Mueller and his team a “grave reminder of his utter contempt for the rule of law.”

The president has for months been harshly critical of Attorney General Jeff Sessions for having recused himself in the Russia investigation. Mr. Trump renewed that criticism Monday night, saying that “he made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country, but you’ll figure that out.”

As the president’s attacks became more severe over the past months, top Justice Department officials quietly worried about what to do should Mr. Trump fire the special counsel or one of his top officials. They chose to band together in a public show of solidarity in late February, when Mr. Sessions dined with Mr. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who is overseeing Mr. Mueller, and Noel J. Francisco, the solicitor general who would oversee the Russia investigation should Mr. Rosenstein be fired.

Continue reading the main story

Raid on Trump’s Lawyer Sought Records of Payments to Women


The early-morning searches enraged Mr. Trump, associates said, setting off an angry public tirade Monday evening that continued in private at the White House as the president fumed about whether he should fire Mr. Rosenstein. The episode has deeply unsettled White House aides, Justice Department officials and lawmakers from both parties, who believe the president may use it as a pretext to purge the team leading the investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election.

Searching a lawyer’s files is among the most sensitive moves federal prosecutors can make as they pursue a criminal investigation. Mr. Rosenstein’s personal involvement in the decision signals that the evidence seen by law enforcement officials was significant enough to persuade the Justice Department’s second-in-command that such an aggressive move was necessary.

Mr. Trump’s advisers have spent the last 24 hours trying to convince the president not to make an impulsive decision that could put the president in more legal jeopardy and ignite a controversy that could consume his presidency, several people close to Mr. Trump said. The president began Tuesday morning with a pair of angry tweets, calling the raids “A TOTAL WITCH HUNT!” and venting that “attorney–client privilege is dead!”

Mr. Trump has long been mistrustful of Mr. Rosenstein, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, who appointed the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and now oversees his investigation into Mr. Trump’s campaign and possible obstruction of justice by the president. In his remarks Monday night, the president lashed out at Mr. Rosenstein for having “signed a FISA warrant,” apparently a reference to the role Mr. Rosenstein played in authorizing the wiretap of a Trump associate in the Russia inquiry.

Mr. Trump considered firing Mr. Rosenstein last summer. Instead, he ordered Mr. Mueller to be fired, then backed down after the White House counsel refused to carry out the order, The New York Times reported in January. Mr. Trump is now again telling associates that he is frustrated with Mr. Rosenstein, according to one official familiar with the conversations.

While Mr. Rosenstein must sign off on all moves that Mr. Mueller makes, that is not necessarily the case for searches — like this one — that are carried out by other federal law enforcement offices. Justice Department regulations require prosecutors to consult with senior criminal prosecutors in Washington — but not necessarily the deputy attorney general — before conducting a search of a lawyer’s files.

The involvement of Mr. Rosenstein and top prosecutors in New York in the raid of Mr. Cohen’s office makes it harder for Mr. Trump to argue that his legal problems are the result of a witch hunt led by Mr. Mueller. In addition to Mr. Rosenstein, all of the top law enforcement officials involved in the raid are Republicans: Mr. Mueller, Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. Director, and Geoffrey Berman, the interim United States attorney in New York.

Photo

Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, appointed the special counsel and now oversees the investigation.

Credit
Win Mcnamee/Getty Images

While Mr. Trump is focused for the moment on Mr. Rosenstein, many of the president’s advisers and allies are fearful that the president also intends to fire Mr. Mueller in an attempt to end the Russia investigation. Asked by reporters on Monday night whether he intends to do so, Mr. Trump said, “We’ll see what happens.”

“But I think it’s really a sad situation when you look at what happened,” the president added. “And many people have said you should fire him. Again, they found nothing and in finding nothing, that’s a big statement.”

The prospect that Mr. Trump might fire Mr. Mueller was met with fierce responses from Democrats and some Republicans, who warned that such a move would be disastrous for the White House.

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday on Fox Business Network that “it would be suicide for the president to want to talk about firing Mueller.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the top Democrat in the House, on Monday called Mr. Trump’s attacks on Mr. Mueller and his team a “grave reminder of his utter contempt for the rule of law.”

The president has for months been harshly critical of Attorney General Jeff Sessions for having recused himself in the Russia investigation. Mr. Trump renewed that criticism Monday night, saying that “he made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country, but you’ll figure that out.”

As the president’s attacks became more severe over the past months, top Justice Department officials quietly worried about what to do should Mr. Trump fire the special counsel or one of his top officials. They chose to band together in a public show of solidarity in late February, when Mr. Sessions dined with Mr. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who is overseeing Mr. Mueller, and Noel J. Francisco, the solicitor general who would oversee the Russia investigation should Mr. Rosenstein be fired.

Continue reading the main story

Raid on Trump’s Lawyer Sought Records of Payments to Women


The early-morning searches enraged Mr. Trump, associates said, setting off an angry public tirade Monday evening that continued in private at the White House as the president fumed about whether he should fire Mr. Rosenstein. The episode has deeply unsettled White House aides, Justice Department officials and lawmakers from both parties, who believe the president may use it as a pretext to purge the team leading the investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election.

Searching a lawyer’s files is among the most sensitive moves federal prosecutors can make as they pursue a criminal investigation. Mr. Rosenstein’s personal involvement in the decision signals that the evidence seen by law enforcement officials was significant enough to persuade the Justice Department’s second-in-command that such an aggressive move was necessary.

Mr. Trump’s advisers have spent the last 24 hours trying to convince the president not to make an impulsive decision that could put the president in more legal jeopardy and ignite a controversy that could consume his presidency, several people close to Mr. Trump said. The president began Tuesday morning with a pair of angry tweets, calling the raids “A TOTAL WITCH HUNT!” and venting that “attorney–client privilege is dead!”

Mr. Trump has long been mistrustful of Mr. Rosenstein, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, who appointed the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and now oversees his investigation into Mr. Trump’s campaign and possible obstruction of justice by the president. In his remarks Monday night, the president lashed out at Mr. Rosenstein for having “signed a FISA warrant,” apparently a reference to the role Mr. Rosenstein played in authorizing the wiretap of a Trump associate in the Russia inquiry.

Mr. Trump considered firing Mr. Rosenstein last summer. Instead, he ordered Mr. Mueller to be fired, then backed down after the White House counsel refused to carry out the order, The New York Times reported in January. Mr. Trump is now again telling associates that he is frustrated with Mr. Rosenstein, according to one official familiar with the conversations.

While Mr. Rosenstein must sign off on all moves that Mr. Mueller makes, that is not necessarily the case for searches — like this one — that are carried out by other federal law enforcement offices. Justice Department regulations require prosecutors to consult with senior criminal prosecutors in Washington — but not necessarily the deputy attorney general — before conducting a search of a lawyer’s files.

The involvement of Mr. Rosenstein and top prosecutors in New York in the raid of Mr. Cohen’s office makes it harder for Mr. Trump to argue that his legal problems are the result of a witch hunt led by Mr. Mueller. In addition to Mr. Rosenstein, all of the top law enforcement officials involved in the raid are Republicans: Mr. Mueller, Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. Director, and Geoffrey Berman, the interim United States attorney in New York.

Photo

Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, appointed the special counsel and now oversees the investigation.

Credit
Win Mcnamee/Getty Images

While Mr. Trump is focused for the moment on Mr. Rosenstein, many of the president’s advisers and allies are fearful that the president also intends to fire Mr. Mueller in an attempt to end the Russia investigation. Asked by reporters on Monday night whether he intends to do so, Mr. Trump said, “We’ll see what happens.”

“But I think it’s really a sad situation when you look at what happened,” the president added. “And many people have said you should fire him. Again, they found nothing and in finding nothing, that’s a big statement.”

The prospect that Mr. Trump might fire Mr. Mueller was met with fierce responses from Democrats and some Republicans, who warned that such a move would be disastrous for the White House.

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday on Fox Business Network that “it would be suicide for the president to want to talk about firing Mueller.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the top Democrat in the House, on Monday called Mr. Trump’s attacks on Mr. Mueller and his team a “grave reminder of his utter contempt for the rule of law.”

The president has for months been harshly critical of Attorney General Jeff Sessions for having recused himself in the Russia investigation. Mr. Trump renewed that criticism Monday night, saying that “he made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country, but you’ll figure that out.”

As the president’s attacks became more severe over the past months, top Justice Department officials quietly worried about what to do should Mr. Trump fire the special counsel or one of his top officials. They chose to band together in a public show of solidarity in late February, when Mr. Sessions dined with Mr. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who is overseeing Mr. Mueller, and Noel J. Francisco, the solicitor general who would oversee the Russia investigation should Mr. Rosenstein be fired.

Continue reading the main story

Justice Dept. Revives Push to Mandate a Way to Unlock Phones


The issue repeatedly flared without resolution under the Obama administration, peaking in 2016, when the government tried to force Apple to help it break into the iPhone of one of the attackers in the terrorist assault in San Bernardino, Calif.

The debate receded when the Trump administration took office, but in recent months top officials like Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, and Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, have begun talking publicly about the “going dark” problem.

The National Security Council and the Justice Department declined to comment about the internal deliberations. The people familiar with the talks spoke on the condition of anonymity, cautioning that they were at a preliminary stage and that no request for legislation was imminent.

But the renewed push is certain to be met with resistance.

“Building an exceptional access system is a complicated engineering problem with many parts that all have to work perfectly in order for it to be secure, and no one has a solution to it,” said Susan Landau, a Tufts University computer security professor. “Any of the options people are talking about now would heighten the danger that your phone or your laptop could be hacked and data taken off of it.”

Craig Federighi, the senior vice president of software engineering at Apple, stressed the importance of strengthening — not weakening — security protections for products like the iPhone, saying threats to data security were increasing every day and arguing that it was a question of “security versus security” rather than security versus privacy.

“Proposals that involve giving the keys to customers’ device data to anyone but the customer inject new and dangerous weaknesses into product security,” he said in a statement. “Weakening security makes no sense when you consider that customers rely on our products to keep their personal information safe, run their businesses or even manage vital infrastructure like power grids and transportation systems.”

But some computer security researchers believe the problem might be solvable with an acceptable level of new risks.

A National Academy of Sciences committee completed an 18-month study of the encryption debate, publishing a report last month. While it largely described challenges to solving the problem, one section cited presentations by several technologists who are developing potential approaches.

They included Ray Ozzie, a former chief software architect at Microsoft; Stefan Savage, a computer science professor at the University of California, San Diego; and Ernie Brickell, a former chief security officer at Intel.

Photo

Craig Federighi, the senior vice president of software engineering at Apple, stressed the importance of strengthening — not weakening — security protections for products like the iPhone.

Credit
Ralph Orlowski/Reuters

According to several people familiar with the new round of deliberations, those three men have been participating in a series of workshops convened at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by Daniel Weitzner, a computer science professor. They have discussed their research with government officials, including Valerie Cofield, a senior F.B.I. science and technology official working on “going dark” issues.

The researchers, Mr. Ozzie said, recognized that “this issue is not going away,” and were trying to foster “constructive dialogue” rather than declaring that no solution is possible.

Mr. Savage said the talks had focused on trying to create a safe enough way to unlock data on encrypted devices, as opposed to the separate matter of decoding intercepted messages sent via encrypted communications services, like Signal and WhatsApp.

“The stuff I’ve been thinking about is entirely the device problem,” he said. “I think that is where the action is. Data in motion and the cloud are much harder to deal with.”

The deliberations shed new light on public remarks by Trump administration officials in recent months. In October, Mr. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, argued in a speech that permitting technology companies to create “warrant-proof encryption” was endangering society.

“Technology companies almost certainly will not develop responsible encryption if left to their own devices,” he said. “Competition will fuel a mind-set that leads them to produce products that are more and more impregnable. That will give criminals and terrorists more opportunities to cause harm with impunity.”

And Mr. Wray, the F.B.I. director, has twice given speeches this year in which he pointed to Symphony, an encrypted messaging system for banks. Pushed by a state regulator, several banks agreed to give copies of their Symphony keys to law firms. Because Symphony keeps a copy of encrypted data on its servers, that arrangement created a backup means for investigators to gain access to the messages if necessary.

“At the end, the data in Symphony was still secure, still encrypted, but also accessible to the regulators so they could do their jobs,” Mr. Wray told a cybersecurity conference in Boston this month. “I’m confident that by working together and finding similar areas to agree and compromise, we can come up with solutions to the ‘going dark’ problem.”

The Symphony approach, however, would not work for millions of ordinary smartphone users. But one alternative being worked on by Mr. Ozzie and others is receiving particular attention inside the government.

The idea is that when devices encrypt themselves, they would generate a special access key that could unlock their data without the owner’s passcode. This electronic key would be stored on the device itself, inside part of its hard drive that would be separately encrypted — so that only the manufacturer, in response to a court order, could open it.

Law enforcement officials see that idea as attractive in part because companies like Apple are already trusted to securely hold special keys permitting them to push operating system updates to devices like iPhones.

Still, Ms. Landau argued that creating such a system would create significant additional security risks. She noted, among other things, that updates are relatively rare but police would want seized phones opened every day — so many more tech company employees would need access to the powerful new keys, increasing the risk of theft or abuse.

The Obama administration never agreed on asking for legislation mandating access mechanisms. Military and cybersecurity agencies worried that weakening security would create new problems, and commerce officials worried about quashing innovation and making American tech products less competitive.

Still, in 2016, the Obama administration’s deliberations also came to focus on the idea of access keys on devices, a participant said, but stalled because of difficult technical questions about the details. They included how to prevent criminals from deleting the access keys on their devices or from using phones that do not have the mechanism because they run on outdated software or were built for foreign markets.

But one Justice Department official familiar with the deliberations contended that it might not be necessary to come up with a foolproof system, arguing that a solution that would work for ordinary, less-savvy criminals was still worth pursuing.

Mr. Brickell, the former Intel official, echoed that view. Enforcing compliance with a rule that devices must have access mechanisms to function “is a difficult problem,” he said. “Let’s keep working on it. But let’s not let the desire for a perfect solution get in the way of one that would help.”

Continue reading the main story