Court order allows Trump prosecutors to obtain private comms between Trump and his lawyers

The law-fare against Trump rages on. They are not giving up without a fight.

And now a court order has allowed Trump’s prosecutors to obtain super sensitive comms between him and his lawyers.

Arizona Prosecutors Obtain Critical Data in Case Against Trump Allies

Arizona prosecutors investigating the efforts of President-elect Donald Trump’s top allies to subvert the results of the 2020 election have made significant strides in gathering evidence. Recently obtained court filings reveal that the team of Attorney General Kris Mayes has secured a large trove of emails, texts, and phone records from some of Trump’s closest associates. While these records have been obtained, prosecutors are not yet permitted to review them fully due to legal protections afforded to the defendants. This investigation continues on as many Americans believe it is time to turn the page on the law-fare against the incoming President of the United States.

The data, spanning from November 1, 2020, to February 1, 2021, was obtained through search warrants issued months ago to major tech companies, including Google and Apple. The targets of these warrants include key figures in Trump’s effort to remain in power after the election, such as former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, legal advisor John Eastman, and campaign aide Boris Epshteyn.

Despite obtaining the data, Arizona prosecutors are prohibited from sifting through the material until each defendant has an opportunity to review it and remove any irrelevant information. This legal stipulation has created an interesting dynamic, with Meadows attempting to have the evidence dismissed entirely. He argues that the search warrant was overly invasive and lacked sufficient evidence to link him to the alleged conspiracy.

This ongoing legal battle highlights one of the last remaining major criminal cases related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The case is progressing steadily, even as Trump prepares to assume office and has succeeded in sidelining the various criminal charges leveled against him. A grand jury convened by Mayes indicted 18 of Trump’s allies in April, charging them with their roles in the election plot. Although Trump himself was identified as a co-conspirator in the case, prosecutors ultimately chose not to charge him, citing a lack of sufficient evidence for such a charge.

Tensions Rise as Meadows Challenges Data Collection

One of the most contentious aspects of the case has been the fight over the data obtained through the search warrants. In April and May, prosecutors issued 10 search warrants to major tech companies, including Google, Apple, and X (formerly Twitter), for data related to the 18 individuals charged in the case. The warrants sought a wide range of digital evidence, including emails, text messages, call records, contact lists, and geolocation data from the period immediately following the election.

By September, the tech companies had provided prosecutors with a substantial amount of data, which was subsequently organized and shared with the defendants. However, Meadows, one of the central figures in the case, filed a motion last month asking Judge Sam Myers to suppress the evidence. His argument centered on claims that the search warrant lacked evidence of any crimes he had committed, was overly broad in scope, and resulted in the production of vast amounts of personal data, including photos, passwords, and FaceTime logs.

In response, prosecutors argued that the warrant was appropriately narrow, targeting only the three-month period during which the alleged crimes occurred. They stressed that any irrelevant or personal information could be screened out by the defendants before investigators conducted their review. This back-and-forth over the search warrant has not only delayed the case but also revealed additional details about the investigation itself.

New Insights into the Investigation

Amid the ongoing legal wrangling, new details about the investigation have emerged. Prosecutors revealed that they had learned from a witness that Mark Meadows had confided in a staff member in early November 2020 that Trump had, in fact, lost the election. However, according to the witness, Meadows expressed a determination to help Trump continue contesting the results. This revelation, prosecutors argue, is critical to their case and provides context for Meadows’s actions in the days following the election.

Meadows, however, has challenged the reliability of this evidence, claiming that the witness’s statement lacked specifics regarding the identity of the staff member and how the information was obtained. He also argued that the state had not made sufficient efforts to verify the witness’s account or the accuracy of their report.

Prosecutors countered these claims, explaining that the witness was known to investigators and not an anonymous informant. They further emphasized that the witness had provided credible testimony about Meadows’s intentions to “help Trump” despite knowing that the election had been lost. These exchanges have highlighted the contentious nature of the case, as both sides continue to dispute the validity and relevance of the evidence gathered.

The case against Trump’s allies in Arizona represents one of the few remaining significant legal actions stemming from the aftermath of the 2020 election. It is unfolding against the backdrop of Trump’s legal challenges, many of which are stalled or sidelined as he prepares for another presidential term. Despite these delays, the Arizona case is expected to continue moving forward, potentially extending well into 2026.

The involvement of prominent figures like Meadows, Giuliani, Eastman, and Epshteyn is indicative of the high stakes of this case. Among those charged are 11 Arizona Republicans who falsely claimed to be legitimate electors for Trump in an effort to subvert the will of the voters. Prosecutors are focused on gathering all available evidence to show how these individuals participated in the supposed conspiracy to overturn the election results, a move that could have had profound consequences on the democratic process.

As the legal battle progresses, it remains to be seen how the dispute over the search warrants will play out and what impact it will have on the larger case. The legal teams for the defendants, particularly Meadows, will continue to challenge the evidence, potentially prolonging the investigation and delaying the resolution of this crucial case. However, the revelations that have already surfaced suggest that key details of the 2020 election subversion effort may still be uncovered as the case moves forward.

Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.