Politics
Submarine Spy Couple Tried to Sell Nuclear Secrets to Brazil
WASHINGTON — In 2020, a United States naval engineer and his spouse made the fateful determination to attempt to promote a few of America’s most carefully guarded army secrets and techniques, the expertise behind the nuclear reactors that energy the U.S. submarine fleet.
Then the couple confronted one other vital alternative: To which overseas authorities ought to they attempt to peddle the stolen secrets and techniques?
The engineer appeared to imagine that soliciting American adversaries like Russia or China was, morally, a bridge too far, in accordance with textual content messages launched in courtroom. As a substitute, Jonathan and Diana Toebbe considered a rustic that was wealthy sufficient to purchase the secrets and techniques, not hostile to america and, most significantly, more and more keen to accumulate the very expertise they had been promoting: Brazil.
The identification of the nation approached by the Toebbes has till now remained shielded by federal prosecutors and different authorities officers. However, in accordance with a senior Brazilian official and different folks briefed on the investigation, Mr. Toebbe approached Brazil almost two years in the past with a suggestion of 1000’s of pages of categorized paperwork about nuclear reactors that he had stolen from the U.S. Navy Yard in Washington over the course of a number of years.
The plan backfired nearly as quickly because it started. After Mr. Toebbe despatched a letter providing the secrets and techniques to Brazil’s army intelligence company in April 2020, Brazilian officers handed the letter over to the F.B.I. authorized attaché within the nation.
Then, starting in December 2020, an F.B.I. spy posed as a Brazilian official to win Mr. Toebbe’s belief and persuade him to deposit paperwork in a location chosen by investigators. Mr. Toebbe ultimately agreed to supply paperwork and provided technical help to Brazil’s nuclear-submarine program, utilizing categorized data he had realized from years working for the U.S. Navy.
Mr. and Ms. Toebbe, who lived in Annapolis, Md., had been arrested in October and pleaded responsible to espionage prices final month. He faces as much as 17 and a half years in jail; she faces as much as three.
Brazil has continued to wrestle with its submarine nuclear reactor program, and has approached Russia to hunt a partnership on the nuclear-reactor design, mentioned a Russian army official who, like all of the folks interviewed for this text, spoke on the situation of anonymity due to the categorized materials and delicate diplomacy concerned.
Final month, only a week earlier than Russia invaded Ukraine, President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil even introduced up the expertise throughout a visit to Moscow.
Mr. Bolsonaro has tried to take care of a optimistic relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, even amid his aggressions towards Ukraine. Analysts in Brazil imagine that Mr. Bolsonaro, a former military captain, is partly hoping to maintain the door open for a partnership on the nuclear reactor expertise.
The Brazilian president’s journey to Russia drew criticism from the Biden administration. Requested about Brazil’s efforts to accumulate Russian nuclear reactor expertise, a senior administration official mentioned Tuesday that in search of to accumulate Russian army expertise “is a nasty wager for any nation.”
In some respects, Brazil was an odd alternative for the Toebbes. Whereas Brazil and america have a restricted army relationship, Mr. Toebbe’s outreach got here throughout a interval of a number of the closest Brazil-U.S. relations in a long time, as Mr. Bolsonaro and former President Donald J. Trump strengthened the nations’ alliance.
Whereas the U.S. authorities initially wished to launch the title of the nation the Toebbes had tried to promote the secrets and techniques to, Brazilian officers insisted their cooperation not be publicly disclosed, in accordance with an individual accustomed to the investigation.
The White Home, Justice Division and F.B.I. declined to remark. American officers have repeatedly mentioned the couple had not tried to promote the secrets and techniques to america’ chief adversaries, nor to its closest NATO allies, like France.
In encrypted messages from 2019 recovered by the F.B.I., Mr. Toebbe and Ms. Toebbe mentioned what seem like totally different plans to promote the secrets and techniques. One plan, Mr. Toebbe wrote, was flawed to even take into account. One other plan, presumably to promote to a friendlier nation, was additionally questionable for Mr. Toebbe, however Ms. Toebbe pushed for it.
“It’s not morally defensible both,” Mr. Toebbe wrote, in accordance with a transcript of the courtroom proceedings. “We satisfied ourselves it was advantageous, but it surely actually isn’t both, is it?”
Ms. Toebbe responded: “I’ve no issues in any respect with it. I really feel no loyalty to abstractions.”
Mr. Toebbe’s public defender has mentioned authorities guidelines stop him from answering questions. A lawyer for Ms. Toebbe declined to debate the case forward of her sentencing, presently set for August. She has repeatedly mentioned in courtroom that the federal government has offered chosen messages out of context.
There have been just a few nations that weren’t overtly hostile to america and will make use of the expertise and designs Mr. Toebbe needed to promote. Solely a rustic capable of construct a nuclear reactor and able to make investments billions in a nuclear submarine fleet can be prepared to funnel him the a whole bunch of 1000’s of {dollars} in cryptocurrency that he was in search of.
Brazil started work on creating nuclear submarines in 1978, initially motivated by its rivalry with Argentina. In 2008, underneath the administration of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil reinvested in an effort to create a nuclear submarine, to raised patrol and defend its unique financial zone within the Atlantic Ocean, a supply of fossil fuels and different assets.
The nation goals to launch its first nuclear-powered submarine in 2029, a part of a $7.2 billion submarine program. Brazil is constructing 4 extra conventional submarines with the assistance of France, but it surely has been making an attempt to develop a fifth submarine powered by a nuclear reactor by itself — a mission it has struggled with.
Consequently, Mr. Toebbe’s experience, on the best way to make nuclear reactors even quieter and tougher to detect, in addition to different design parts of Virginia-class submarines, would have been of monumental worth to Brazil.
Whereas the Brazilian embassy declined to remark, a senior Brazilian official mentioned the nation had cooperated with American investigators due to the 2 nations’ partnership and pleasant relations between Brazil’s intelligence service and the C.I.A.
Had Brazil gotten caught in search of to buy American secrets and techniques, the relations between the 2 nations, together with intelligence sharing, may have been thrown in jeopardy.
As a substitute, Brazilian officers labored with the F.B.I. after Mr. Toebbe was initially hesitant to deposit the categorized data at a prearranged secret location, referred to as a useless drop.
“I’m involved that utilizing a useless drop location your good friend prepares makes me very weak,” Mr. Toebbe wrote, in accordance with courtroom data. “For now, I need to take into account the chance that you’re not the particular person I hope you might be.”
To trick Mr. Toebbe into believing he was talking with a Brazilian official, the spy instructed him to search for a sign positioned in a window in a Brazilian authorities constructing in Washington over Memorial Day weekend final yr. Such an operation may solely have been carried out with the cooperation of Brazilian officers in Washington.
After seeing the signal, Mr. Toebbe agreed to drop a pattern of the nuclear secrets and techniques he stole from the Navy hidden in a peanut butter sandwich in West Virginia, setting off a series of occasions culminating within the October arrest of the couple.
Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman reported from Washington, André Spigariol reported from Brasília, Brazil, and Jack Nicas reported from Rio de Janeiro. Ernesto Londoño in Rio de Janeiro contributed reporting.
Politics
How a Phone Call Drew Alito Into a Trump Loyalty Squabble
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. received a call on his cellphone Tuesday. It was President-elect Donald J. Trump, calling from Florida.
Hours later, Mr. Trump’s legal team would ask Justice Alito and his eight colleagues on the Supreme Court to block his sentencing in New York for falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a pornographic film actress before the 2016 election. And the next day, the existence of the call would leak to ABC News — prompting an uproar about Mr. Trump’s talking to a justice before whom he would have business with substantial political and legal consequences.
Justice Alito said in a statement on Wednesday that the pending filing never came up in his conversation with Mr. Trump and that he was not aware, at the time of the call, that the Trump team planned to file it. People familiar with the call confirmed his account.
But the fact of the call and its timing flouted any regard for even the appearance of a conflict of interest at a time when the Supreme Court has come under intense scrutiny over the justices’ refusal to adopt a more rigorous and enforceable ethics code.
The circumstances were extraordinary for another reason: Justice Alito was being drawn into a highly personalized effort by some Trump aides to blackball Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump from entering the administration, according to six people with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
The phone call centered on William Levi, a former law clerk of Justice Alito’s who seemingly has impeccable conservative legal credentials. But in the eyes of the Trump team, Mr. Levi has a black mark against his name. In the first Trump administration, he served as the chief of staff to Attorney General William P. Barr, who is now viewed as a “traitor” by Mr. Trump for refusing to go along with his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Mr. Levi has been under consideration for several jobs in the new administration, including Pentagon general counsel. He has also been working for the Trump transition on issues related to the Justice Department. But his bid for a permanent position has been stymied by Mr. Trump’s advisers who are vetting personnel for loyalty, according to three of the people with knowledge of the situation.
As Mr. Trump puts together his second administration, Mr. Barr is among a handful of prominent Republicans who are viewed with such suspicion that others associated with them are presumptively not to be given jobs in the administration, according to people familiar with the dynamic. Republicans in that category include Mr. Trump’s former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and his former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley. To be called a “Pompeo guy” or a “Haley person” is considered a kiss of death in Mr. Trump’s inner circle. Resistance to such people can usually be overcome only if Mr. Trump himself signs off on their hiring.
Tuesday’s phone call took place against that backdrop. Several people close to the Trump transition team on Thursday said their understanding was that Justice Alito had requested the call. But a statement from Justice Alito framed the matter as the justice passively agreeing to take a call at the behest of his former clerk.
The disconnect appeared to stem from Mr. Levi’s role in laying the groundwork for the call in both directions. It was not clear whether someone on the transition team had suggested he propose the call.
Mr. Levi did not respond to a request for comment. The Supreme Court press office said it had nothing to add to the statement it put out from Justice Alito on Wednesday. In that statement, Justice Alito said that Mr. Levi “asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position. I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”
He added: “We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed. We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”
During the call, according to multiple people briefed on it, Mr. Trump initially seemed confused about why he was talking to Justice Alito, seemingly thinking that he was returning Justice Alito’s call. The justice, two of the people said, told the president-elect that he understood that Mr. Trump wanted to talk about Mr. Levi, and Mr. Trump then got on track and the two discussed him.
A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an email seeking comment.
While it is unusual for an incoming president to speak with a Supreme Court justice about a job reference, it is routine for justices to serve as references for their former clerks. Justices traditionally treat their clerks as a network of protégés whose continued success they seek to foster as part of their own legacies.
Seemly or not, there is a long history of interactions between presidents and other senior executive branch officials and Supreme Court justices who sometimes will have a say over the fate of administration policies.
In 2004, a controversy arose when there was a lawsuit seeking disclosure of records about Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force meetings. One of the litigants, the Sierra Club, asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from participation in the case because he had recently gone duck hunting with Mr. Cheney. Justice Scalia declined, issuing a 21-page memorandum that explained why he believed stepping aside was unjustified.
Part of Justice Scalia’s argument was that Mr. Cheney was being sued over an official action. That makes Mr. Trump’s pending attempt to block his sentencing for crimes that he was convicted of committing in his private capacity somewhat different, although the basis of Mr. Trump’s argument is that being sentenced and then fighting an appeal would interfere with his ability to carry out his official duties.
In trying to justify his decision not to recuse, Justice Scalia noted that justices have had personal friendships with presidents going back years, including some who played poker with Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman but did not recuse themselves from cases challenging their administrations’ policies and actions.
Mr. Trump has long sought to pressure the Supreme Court, in some cases by publicly hectoring the justices on social media for decisions he disagrees with. Mr. Trump has often privately complained that the three justices he appointed in his first term — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — had “done nothing” for him, according to a person who has discussed the matter with Mr. Trump.
One week after the 2018 midterm elections, Mr. Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump, had lunch with Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia Thomas. Ms. Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, made suggestions about personnel shake-ups to Mr. Trump and later supported his efforts to try to overturn the 2020 election results.
In December 2020, Mr. Trump attacked the Supreme Court as “incompetent and weak” for refusing to address his legal team’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election. Two years later, he attacked the court again for giving Congress access to his tax returns.
The Supreme Court redeemed itself in Mr. Trump’s eyes last summer when the six Republican-appointed justices ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from being prosecuted over actions they took in their official capacity. That ruling threw into doubt how much of the indictment brought against Mr. Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election could actually survive to go to trial — even after prosecutors filed a revised version trying to account for the court’s decision.
The Supreme Court’s intervention also seriously delayed the case’s progress, effectively making it impossible to get the charges to a jury before the election. And once Trump won the 2024 race, he could no longer face prosecution under Justice Department policy.
Kirsten Noyes contributed research from New York.
Politics
Appeals court will not block partial release of special counsel Jack Smith's Trump report
A federal appeals court rejected a bid to block the release of a portion of special counsel Jack Smith’s final report detailing his investigation and prosecution of President-elect Trump’s alleged 2020 election interference and alleged improper retention of classified records.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied a request from Walt Nauta, an aide to Trump, and Carlos de Oliveira, the former property manager at Mar-a-Lago, who were charged with obstructing a separate federal investigation into Trump’s handling of sensitive government records.
The court left a three-day hold on DOJ’s release of the report.
JUDGE GRANTS JACK SMITH REQUEST TO DISMISS JAN. 6 CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP, APPEAL DROPPED IN FLORIDA DOCS CASE
The Justice Department said it would proceed with plans to release the first of two volumes centered on the election interference case but would make the classified documents section of the report available only to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for their private review as long as the case against Trump’s co-defendants is ongoing.
It was not immediately clear when the election interference report might be released.
The election interference case was narrowed by a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
Following Trump’s presidential victory, Smith’s team abandoned both cases in November, citing Justice Department policy that prohibits federal prosecutions of sitting presidents.
TRUMP SAYS HE RESPECTS SUPREME COURT’S DECISION TO DENY HIS RESQUEST TO STOP SENTENCING, VOWS TO APPEAL
Justice Department regulations call for special counsels appointed by the attorney general to submit a confidential report at the conclusion of their investigations. It is then up to the attorney general to decide what to make public.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has made public in their entirety the reports produced by special counsels who operated under his watch, including Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified information and John Durham’s report on the FBI’s Russian election interference investigation.
In a statement, Trump Communications Director Steven Cheung said that it was time to “put a final stop to the political weaponiziation of our Justice system.”
“Deranged Jack Smith was sent packing after losing both of his Witch Hunts against President Trump. Deranged was unconstitutionally appointed and paid for, so he cannot be allowed to do anything more in perpetuation of his election-interfering hoaxes, let alone prepare an unconstitutional, one-sided, falsehood-ridden screed,” he said.
“Today’s decision by the 11th Circuit keeps Judge Cannon’s injunction in place and prevents any report from being issued. It is time for Joe Biden and Merrick Garland to do the right thing and put a final stop to the political weaponization of our Justice system,” Cheung said. “The American People elected President Trump with a historic and overwhelming mandate, and we look forward to uniting our country in the new Administration as President Trump makes America great again.”
Fox News’ Brooke Signman and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Politics
Supreme Court turns down Trump plea to block New York sentencing for hush money conviction
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down President-elect Donald Trump’s plea to block a New York judge from sentencing him Friday on his felony conviction in a hush-money case.
The vote was 5-4, with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh saying they would have granted Trump’s request.
The decision means Trump will be the first president to have a felony on his record when he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20.
The majority in an unsigned opinion said Trump is still free to appeal his conviction later and said the sentencing hearing will not pose much of a burden, since he need not attend.
Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal on Wednesday that rested on a thin claim of immunity.
Last year, the justices ruled that a president or ex-president was immune from criminal charges for his “official acts” while in office.
This week, Trump’s lawyers argued the justices should extend the immunity rule to shield the president-elect from being held accountable now for a private criminal scheme that began before his election as president.
A New York jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records, a crime under New York law. He wrote checks to Michael Cohen, his former personal lawyer, to repay him for a $130,000 payment to an adult film star to buy her silence prior to the 2016 election. The payments were listed as legal expenses.
Jurors convicted him on 34 counts.
Trump’s trial lawyers urged Judge Juan Merchan to delay his sentencing until after the November election.
Once Trump won the election, they argued the incoming president had an immunity from all the pending criminal cases, including his felony conviction.
New York prosecutors had urged the court on Thursday to deny Trump’s “extraordinary immunity claim.”
“While he was a private citizen, defendant [Trump] was charged, tried, and convicted for conduct that he concedes is wholly unofficial,” they said. In his appeal, he “makes the unprecedented claim that the temporary presidential immunity he will possess in the future fully immunizes him now,” before he is sworn in as president again, they said.
On Tuesday, the day before his attorneys filed their emergency appeal in the high court, Trump arranged to speak with Alito about one of his former clerks. Alito confirmed the call to ABC News.
“William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding [Levi’s] qualifications to serve in a government position,” Alito said. “I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”
He said they did not discuss the “emergency application” regarding Trump’s New York sentencing, which had not been filed yet at the court.
“I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” Alito said. “We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”
Alito cast a vote in favor of Trump.
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics5 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health4 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades