Attorneys for former President Donald Trump on Monday evening pushed back against special counsel Jack Smith’s request Friday that a federal judge in Florida modify Trump’s conditions of release in the probe into Trump’s handling of classified documents.
Federal prosecutors have asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the documents case, to modify the condition of Trump’s release in order to bar him from making public statements that “pose a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents” who are participating in the prosecution.
“Trump’s repeated mischaracterization of these facts in widely distributed messages as an attempt to kill him, his family, and Secret Service agents has endangered law enforcement officers involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case and threatened the integrity of these proceedings,” prosecutors told Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump.
“A restriction prohibiting future similar statements does not restrict legitimate speech,” they said.
Trump was referring to a disclosure in a court document that the FBI, during that search, followed a standard use-of-force policy that prohibits the use of deadly force except when the officer conducting the search has a reasonable belief that the “subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”
The policy is routine and intended to limit the use of force during searches. Prosecutors noted that the search was intentionally conducted while Trump and his family were away and was coordinated with the Secret Service. No force was used.
Prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team contended in a court filing late Friday that Trump’s statements falsely suggesting that federal agents “were complicit in a plot to assassinate him” would expose law enforcement officers “to the risk of threats, violence, and harassment.” Some of them are expected to be called as witnesses at Trump’s trial.
But Trump’s attorneys on Monday called Smith’s request “extraordinary, unprecedented, and unconstitutional censorship,” and they said in their filing, “[t]he Motion unjustly targets President Trump’s campaign speech while he is the leading candidate for the presidency.”
They argue that Smith is going further than any previous requests by any other prosecutor in the cases against the former president because the prosecution’s motion ties Trump’s freedom to his campaign speech.
The former president also argues that prosecutors violated local rules in failing to properly “confer” with them before filing the motion. Trump’s lawyers said that Smith’s team, in filing the motion late on a holiday Friday, ahead of closing arguments this week in the separate New York “hush money” criminal case against Trump, did not offer a reasonable conferral period, which they claim is required by local rules in the Southern District of Florida. Trump’s lawyers provided email correspondence between the parties from Friday night as exhibits.
Trump also asked Cannon to sanction the Justice Department’s legal team for allegedly violating the local rules.
Attorney General Merrick Garland earlier this week slammed Trump’s claim as “extremely dangerous.” Garland noted that the document Trump was referring to is a standard policy limiting the use of force that was even used in the consensual search of President Joe Biden’s home as part of an investigation into the Democrat’s handling of classified documents.
Trump faces dozens of felony counts accusing him of illegally hoarding at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, classified documents that he took with him after he left the White House in 2021, and then obstructing the FBI’s efforts to get them back. He has pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing.
It’s one of four criminal cases Trump is facing as he seeks to reclaim the White House, but outside of the ongoing New York hush money prosecution, it’s not clear that any of the other three will reach trial before the election.
Examine the forefront of digital research in our Latest News & Blog. Study expert analyses, technological advancements, and key industry insights that keep you informed and prepared in the ever-evolving world of digital forensics.
What qualifies as a subject cybersecurity incident? Will we estimate our seemingly losses and the outcomes of commercial disruption? What had been our recovery costs? What longer-term remediation costs perform now we must consist of in our 8-K incident portray? How did our actions following the breach replicate the response readiness functionality previously detailed in our most up-to-date Blueprint 10-K disclosure?
The SEC’s cyber disclosure rules: classes realized so a ways in year one
getty
These and other questions illustrate why complying with the U.S. Securities and Change Commission’s (SEC/Commission) amended Cybersecurity Disclosure Rule—which became once formally adopted 365 days ago and efficient for this previous year’s annual stories and for cyber incidents going down after December 18, 2023—requires deep and nuanced recordsdata of cybersecurity, incident response, recordsdata governance, monetary reporting, investor relations, regulatory compliance and risk management. This mixture of expertise makes it crucial for CFOs and chief recordsdata security officers (CISOs) to collaborate carefully, in phase through two-ability education. CFOs can savor to quiet school CISOs on materiality evaluations and reporting to the board, while CISOs can relieve finance chiefs better perceive recovery costs, remediation efforts, single versus mixture breaches, and the nature of compromised recordsdata.
Partnering carefully with their CISO is surely one of a variety of actions CFOs can savor to quiet take into accout to toughen their cybersecurity disclosures, preparedness and incident evaluate process.
Oeisdigitalinvestigator.com: What We’ve Learned So A ways
Adopted closing July and efficient in mid-December, the SEC’s up so a ways cybersecurity disclosure rule requires Blueprint 10-K filings to characterize 1) processes for identifying, assessing and managing subject matter cybersecurity dangers and threats, and a pair of) the board of directors’ oversight role in assessing and managing cybersecurity dangers. The rule of thumb moreover requires SEC registrants to subject an 8-K cybersecurity incident portray when a breach (either a single assault or a chain of incidents) is deemed to savor a subject affect to the commercial. An incident portray can savor to quiet be filed inner four commercial days of the corporate’s materiality resolution.
The nature of these requirements commands the CFO’s state involvement and oversight, besides to the CISO’s expertise and engagement. Every executives needs to make certain about the threshold at which a cyberattack rises to the stage of a subject incident—and making this resolution might well require extra frequent dialogue and collaboration. This form they wish to agree on the materiality resolution process. What perform the rules require, how perform we practice them, what recordsdata perform we need, who needs to be alive to, who decides, and the procedure perform we guarantee the resolution is reached inner an inexpensive time length are questions finest answered in the chilly of the day slightly than in the heat of the moment.
It moreover formulation that these two executives must perceive their deepest accountability for contributing to moral disclosures. That is also one thing unusual for the CISO and an procedure in which the CFO can present steering. In the aftermath of the SEC’s SolarWinds allegations, CISOs and other executives must presume that the Commission is preserving them as responsible for the accuracy of public filings because it does CFOs and CEOs.
So, what precisely is the SEC making an are attempting to search out in these filings? We’ve taken a end watch at fresh cybersecurity disclosures. Our prognosis of these disclosures, and the SEC responses thereto, implies that:
Firms are usually taking a conservative ability.
In reporting cybersecurity incidents, we’re noting an obvious willingness of some registrants to sigh incidents even when materiality has no longer yet been fully established—apparently erring on the side of warning slightly than risk no longer disclosing when, later in hindsight, they’ll savor to quiet savor. With admire to these voluntary disclosures, the SEC workers lately inspired registrants to sigh such incidents underneath a definite item of Blueprint 8-K, akin to Item 8.01 (Diversified Occasions), to defend a ways from diluting the price of Item 1.05 disclosures (Arena matter Cybersecurity Incidents) and potentially rising investor confusion. Unnecessary to utter, a 2nd Blueprint 8-K would be required if the registrant subsequently distinct that the incident is subject matter, in which case the disclosure would drop underneath Item 1.05. In such instances, the registrant might well take a look at with the sooner Blueprint 10-K filed underneath Item 8.01.
The stage of element in 8-K incident stories varies.
Some companies present intensive recordsdata about the nature of attacks and their containment recommendations. Others decide for a excessive-stage ability, reporting recordsdata that will maybe well practice to almost any cybersecurity incident. Some companies usually described taking instructed actions—akin to keeping apart affected programs and conducting forensic investigations—once an incident became once detected. Most companies reported that that they had notified relevant legislation enforcement companies and had been working carefully with them as required. Many disclosures referenced particular conversation protocols for inner reporting and external conversation with stakeholders.
The Commission doesn’t savor ambiguity.
The SEC took one filer to activity for vague language regarding materiality in an 8-K incident portray that ran afoul of its disclosure requirements. We’ve moreover viewed filers distinguish between monetary materiality and operational materiality of their 8-Ks, whatever the truth that the rule specializes in a single theory of materiality of which the SEC’s definition remains consistent. Reviews many times cited activation of commercial continuity plans to lower carrier disruptions; however, crucial points regarding the effectiveness of these plans or the time frames for paunchy recovery had been frequently disregarded.
Most SEC registrants agree that identifying a functional chief for cybersecurity matters and providing periodic cybersecurity-connected reporting to the board are most simple practices. Of camouflage, even although most companies cite their readiness to respond to cyber incidents, about one-quarter of the ten-K filings we reviewed perform no longer explicitly characterize preparedness recommendations. Whereas virtually all companies referenced efforts to mitigate cybersecurity dangers through established processes, procedures and programs, a smaller yet significant majority disclosed alignment with external frameworks—which implies there’s room for enchancment in adopting known finest practices. Interestingly, a well-known half of organizations reported the exhaust of external just cybersecurity advisers, indicating that such third-birthday celebration expertise is functional or most simple.
Oeisdigitalinvestigator.com: Sharpen Disclosures
CFOs can fabricate better cybersecurity disclosures and relieve guarantee their filings fulfill SEC requirements by taking the following actions:
These two executives needs to be joined on the hip to navigate the cyber disclosure rules minefield efficiently. When ending an 8-K incident portray, many CFOs will need CISOs to relieve them perceive the nature of the assault, the variety of recordsdata (for my allotment identifiable recordsdata, precious mental property, and masses others.) that became once compromised, and the scope and effort of the recovery effort. CISOs will moreover need finance leaders to educate them about incident identification, response protocols and other aspects of cyber risk mitigation that SEC registrants must element of their 10-K filings. To boot to teaching CISOs on materiality determinations and the procedure cybersecurity incidents affect investor relations, CFOs can savor to quiet take into accout arranging for CISOs to participate in conferences of the board committee that oversees cybersecurity disclosures (usually a disclosure, audit or expertise committee).
Compose a materiality framework for cybersecurity incidents.
Thus a ways, many organizations savor relied on unusual approaches and solutions for determining materiality—many times with refined, cyber-connected adjustments—to evaluate whether or no longer a cyber incident deserves disclosure. Whereas this means has handed muster so a ways, extra immense adjustments seemingly are wished. An efficient cyber incident materiality framework can savor to quiet tackle a combination of monetary, operational and technical concerns. It might well in reality probably perchance quiet moreover comprise moral estimates of recovery and remediation costs (both immediate and prolonged-term) besides to context: A $20 million ransomware tournament has diversified impacts on a $100 million company versus a $10 billion enterprise. Whether an assault is a single incident or a chain of connected, or aggregated, breaches over time moreover warrants consideration.
Benchmark public filings.
The SEC did no longer present a template for the unusual cybersecurity disclosure requirements, and we’ve viewed some cyber disclosure approaches already drop out of favor (e.g., differentiating between monetary materiality and operational materiality). As companies proceed to conform, their 10-K and 8-K disclosures will naturally evolve to better replicate the intent of the rule. As such, finance and recordsdata security leaders can savor to quiet observe how other companies craft their disclosures. To boot to learning annual stories, CFOs and CISOs can video show 8-K stories on incident trackers. Final analysis, here’s a learning process, and it behooves the CFO and CISO to realise what’s working and what’s no longer.
Bolster cybersecurity risk management.
As the regulatory spotlight on cybersecurity capabilities intensifies, CFOs can savor to quiet take into accout ways they’ll lead and make contributions to efforts to present a enhance to cybersecurity risk management and governance practices and incident identification, response and reporting processes. This effort moreover can savor to quiet focal point on extra particular determinations of incident materiality, among other aspects of the SEC’s cybersecurity disclosure rule.
Oeisdigitalinvestigator.com: Closing solutions
Some boards are adding directors with cybersecurity expertise (fancy the “monetary reporting expert” on the audit committee), however the post-SEC cyber disclosure-rule trend has yet to be distinct. A Heidrick & Struggles portray effectively-known that finest 14% of most up-to-date board appointments in 2022 had cybersecurity expertise, a decline from 17% the outdated year. With out a recordsdata offered for 2023, the appointments throughout 2024 shall be of hobby when printed subsequent year.
As with previous requirements from the Commission for ticket spanking unusual disclosures, we demand the SEC workers to was less tolerant of vague language, generic boilerplate discussions and other disclosure practices that inch counter to the letter and spirit of its rules. This makes it crucial for the CFO to fabricate a solid partnership with the CISO and put certain pointers and processes for defining, identifying, responding to and reporting subject matter cyber incidents in 8-K and 10-K filings.
Casey Wasserman slammed The Each day Mail on Tuesday for publishing a chronicle detailing claims about his private life — allegations that lined everything from infidelity to drowsing with a staffer at his firm — in what marked his first public comments since article hit on Aug. 1.
“Successfully, I snort take be aware of the source,” the tycoon advised CNBC Articulate Field anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin within the midst of a dialog centered on the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics within the midst of the CNBC x Boardroom Game Thought Summit inner Santa Monica’s Fairmont Miramar Resort and Bungalows. “If The Each day Mail qualifies as reporting, then I snort we’re all in anguish. But we live in a day and age the set apart other folks can tell whatever they desire without info, without cooperation, without sources, and it’s the enviornment we live in.”
The moment delivered a graceful amount of stress within the midst of what used to be otherwise a active dialogue centered on the preparation, logistics, atmosphere, occasion and athleticism to design when Los Angeles phases the Olympics in four years. Wasserman, who serves as LA28 president and chairperson, used to be seated alongside Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, actress and entrepreneur Jessica Alba, who sits on the LA28 board of directors, and Crew USA managing director Grant Hill within the midst of definitely one of the vital summit’s closing panel discussions of the afternoon.
In broaching the enviornment, Sorkin called it “a tricky ask” and stated he used to be acknowledging “the elephant within the room.” He even famed that within the midst of the fallout of the chronicle, it used to be reported that top-profile Wasserman Tune consumer Billie Eilish exited the agency. Despite the truth that Wasserman did now not address Eilish or every other affect it had on his business, he did tell, “The wind hits the colossal trees.” The Each day Mail’s chronicle cited 11 sources, all anonymous, who claimed that Wasserman used to be a “serial cheater” who continually like-bombed girls within the midst of their relationships.
Then requested level easy whether or no longer he plans to forestall in his role as the guru of the games, Wasserman printed that his set apart of residing stays unchanged. “I’m going to complete my job and cease it to the cease because that’s a commitment I made,” he stated. “I in finding I’m the one who’s acquired essentially the most invested and [who is] most in a position to handing over the end result we would prefer for the metropolis. As the mayor can direct you, as Jess can direct you, and Grant can direct you, whenever you don’t are making an are attempting to be pleased photographs taken, you shouldn’t cease what any of us are doing.”
Sorkin answered to the answer by saying, “I like you taking on the ask.”
Casey Wasserman, Jessica Alba, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Grant Hill at CNBC x Boardroom’s Game Thought Summit at Fairmont Miramar Resort and Bungalows in Santa Monica.
On Monday, 13 May, the Israeli historian and professor Ilan Pappé landed in Detroit, Michigan. Upon his arrival, agents from the US Department of Homeland Security detained and interrogated him for two hours. According to Pappé, DHS asked him whether he was a Hamas supporter, whether he believed Israel was committing genocide and what his “solution” to the Middle East conflict was. Agents also reportedly asked him to identify “his Arab and Muslim friends in America”.
During his interrogation, DHS agents held a long phone conversation, which Pappé speculated may have been with Israeli officials. Pappé was eventually admitted to the US, but only after DHS copied the entire contents of his cellphone. (Initially, Pappé reported he had been interrogated by the FBI; he has since clarified that it was agents of the DHS.)
Pappé is a respected academic known for his scholarship arguing that the expulsion of Palestinians during the Nakba was a deliberate act of ethnic cleansing central to Israel’s creation. Pappé is also known for his anti-Zionist politics. There is nothing to suggest any connection between Pappé and Hamas.
In the US, however, counter-terrorism authorities are often deployed to surveil political speech. Opponents of Palestinian rights both within and outside government frequently conflate political views they dislike with terrorism. This demonizes supporters of Palestinian rights in the public sphere and paves the way for the type of government harassment to which the DHS subjected Pappé. Such actions are part of both the McCarthyite atmosphere those with pro-Palestinian politics face and the broader history of political policing in the US.
During the first half of the 20th century, a political policing apparatus crystalized in the US. Local police developed anti-communist “red squads”, the FBI developed a sprawling domestic intelligence program targeting “subversives” and congressional committees investigated “un-American activities” and threats to “internal security”. Many of these bodies predated the cold war, but their brand of zealous anti-communism received a tremendous boost thanks to the cold war.
Red-hunters cast wide targets. J Edgar Hoover’s FBI claimed its mandate against subversives gave it the authority to track those who might be merely influenced by subversives. The FBI justified its vicious campaign against Martin Luther King on the basis that the agency needed to monitor potential communist influence on the civil rights movement.
By the mid-1970s, counter-subversives, however, found themselves on the defensive. Millions of Americans of many political stripes had participated in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements that counter-subversives had spied on in the name of domestic security. Richard Nixon, an alumnus of the House Un-American Activities Committee, was forced to resign the presidency due to a domestic spying scandal. And opposition to the Vietnam war produced skepticism of the security state writ large. Congress investigated the intelligence agencies, checks were placed on political spying, and Huac was abolished.
But as soon as these checks were put in place, counter-subversives discovered a new raison d’être: terrorism. Everything from the FBI’s surveillance of leftwing groups to reviving Huac were rebranded as counter-terrorism necessities. The McCarthyites-cum-counter-terrorism proponents initially focused much of their ire on the same groups they had previously fixated on as “subversives”. They also increasingly set their eyes on pro-Palestinian activists.
Opponents of civil liberties claimed that Palestinian rights supporters, or even those just engaged in humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, had turned the US into a hotbed of terrorism. Protections designed to prevent the abuses of the Hoover era were blamed. The FBI stepped up surveillance of pro-Palestinian activists. Just four years after the 1975 Church committee, the FBI was conducting a sprawling international terrorism investigation into the General Union of Palestinian Students.
The investigation found no evidence of terrorism, but the FBI continued for 10 years to monitor purely political speech. During the first Gulf war, the FBI visited Arab Americans to interview them and reportedly ask their views on Palestine. Throughout the 1990s, the FBI used its foreign counterintelligence powers to surveil American supporters of the Palestinian cause.
To this day, the US has continued to surveil speech in defense of Palestine using counter-terrorism as a pretext. While there has long been a “Palestine exception to free speech”, since the launch of Israel’s latest war in Gaza the situation has escalated dramatically. Pappé is far from the only critic of Zionism to be stopped at the US border to be asked about their views on Palestine or have their phone searched. Palestine Legal has reported an uptick in FBI questioning of pro-Palestinian activists.
Members of Congress in both parties have called for the surveillance of pro-Palestinian activists, demonized them as terrorists or the agents of foreign governments, and abused Congress’s oversight powers to conduct their own inquisitions of pro-Palestine activism.
Pappé’s account of his DHS questioning is chilling. Congress has long held that “unjustified investigations of political expression and dissent can have a debilitating effect upon our political system”. Pappé’s temporary detainment and interrogation is unfortunately nothing new: it’s part of a longer history of political policing and intimidation of pro-Palestinian speech.
Chip Gibbons is the policy director of Defending Rights & Dissent. A journalist and researcher focusing on the US national security state, Gibbons is currently working on The Imperial Bureau, forthcoming from Verso Books; based heavily on archival research and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, it tells the history of FBI political surveillance and explores the role of domestic surveillance in the making of the US national security state
