One of the most glaring contradictions in the Mar-a-Lago controversy has been the Justice Department demanding absolute and unwavering secrecy over the FBI raid while officials have been leaking details on the raid. The latest example is a report in the New York Times that the Justice Department recovered more than 300 documents with classified markings, citing multiple sources connected to the investigation. Most judges would be a tad annoyed by the contradiction as the government continues to frame the public debate with its own selective leaks while using secrecy to bar other disclosures. That includes sections of the affidavit that detail the communications with the Trump team, information that is already known to the target.
Someone is clearly lying. The Trump Team said that it was cooperating and would have given access to the government if it raised further objections. The Justice Department has clearly indicated that time was of the essence to justify this unprecedented raid on the home of a former president. Yet, Attorney General Merrick Garland reportedly waited for weeks to sign off on the application for a warrant and the FBI then waited a weekend to execute that warrant. It is difficult to understand why such communications could not be released in a redacted affidavit while protecting more sensitive sections.
Previous leaks discussed various undisclosed facts that are presumably part of the affidavit, including the government was seeking vital nuclear weapons materials and then how video camera evidence outside of the Mar-a-Lago storage area led the FBI to act without delay.
The latest leak to to the New York Times offers details on what was gathered from Mar-a-Lago. Officials state that they collected more than 150 documents marked as classified in January with another 150 being gathered in June and then in the August raid.
Washington has long floated on a sea of leaks but this is notable in that the government is opposing even modest disclosures from the court while it has steadily leaked details to its own advantage. It undermines the credibility of the government and raises questions of the motivations behind the absolute secrecy claims.
The level of detail is extraordinary including the very account of past dealings that some of us have argued could be released in the affidavit as well as the contents of the boxes. The leaks describe the June meeting in Mar-a-Lago and reveals that Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterespionage section of the national security division of the Justice Department, met with two of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran and Christina Bobb. He then went through the boxes himself to identify classified material. (The Trump motion this week also described this meeting with Bratt, which again raises why the same information in the affidavit cannot be disclosed).
This information is likely contained in the affidavit, which the Justice Department claimed could not be released without harming its investigation and endangering national security.
The New York Times story then affirms the position of the Justice Department as proven by the leaks.
“[T}he extent to which such a large number of highly sensitive documents remained at Mar-a-Lago for months, even as the department sought the return of all material that should have been left in government custody when Mr. Trump left office, suggested to officials that the former president or his aides had been cavalier in handling it, not fully forthcoming with investigators, or both.”
It is litigation by leak where the government prevents others (including the target) from seeing key representations made to the court while releasing selective facts to its own advantage. It shows utter contempt for the court and the public. The question is whether the court will take note of this series of leaks. Most judges do not like to be played so openly and publicly by government officials. Moreover, the leaks should push Garland to reverse course as suggested in a recent column and order substantive disclosures in the affidavit in light of the government’s prior leaks.
First and foremost, Turley, in your breathless criticism of the “government” being the source of the leak, truth is, you really don’t know the source. I saw an interview with Barbara McQuade this morning. She was a former career prosecutor. She said that in her many years of prosecution experience, when information has leaked, such leaks almost always come from witnessess familiar with the case, rather than the government. She asked the rhetorical question of why the government would deliberately compromise its case. For all you know, Turley, these leaks could well have come from Trump insiders–at least one of them tipped the FBI that Trump was lying about returning the documents. Not everyone in Trumpworld is OK with his stealing and lying, especially of papers dealing with our national security. And, as video surveillance recordings prove, there are multiple people who have gone through the boxes.
The bigger point, however, is the outrageousness of you complaining about the “leak”, assuming it was the government without any proof of the source, but ignoring the 400 lb gorilla, which is the chain of crimes Trump has committed that threate our very safety and possibly that of our allies: 1. Trump stole TS/SCI documents; 2. Trump, himself, personally, went through the boxes back in December, 2021, so he knew exactly what was was there, and therefore, can’t blame an underling; 3. Trump’s lawyer LIED about TS/SCI documents having been all returned; 4. there is video footage of: a. all sorts of people going through the boxes; b. intentionally moving around documens and switching them to different boxes; 5. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? WHY DID THEY DO THESE THINGS? IS IT ALREADY TOO LATE TO PROTECT OUR SOURCES AND METHODS? Some of these documents were generated by the CIA.
The issue here is NOT whether the government leaked the information, because you really don’t know that Turley. The case against Trump just keeps getting worse and worse which you well know, but instead of rationally discussing the crimes that are implicated and the risk to national security by Trump and his arrogant recklessness, you keep finding ways to heap criticism on the government, all without any proof that the source of the leaks is the government. Shame on you, Turley.
The burden of proof falls solely on the prosecution. The prosecution is bound by oath of office and must act with the utmost integrity and discretion lest the entire prosecution be deemed a sham. Conversely, the defendant is bound by neither oath or affirmation.
What does that even mean? That the defendant can commit perjury (lying under oath)?
BTW, the burden of proof does not always fall on the prosecution. Affirmative defenses are a thing, man.
Also, even when the burden of proof is with the other side, you still have to provide evidence to support your theory of the case. Imagine a defendant to a murder case claimed, without evidence, that the flying spaghetti monster killed the victim and not him. Do you think that would be a valid defense (removing for these purposes the potential affirmative defense of insanity, which would, you know, shift the burden of proof to the defense)?
Also, even when the burden of proof is with the other side, you still have to provide evidence to support your theory of the case.
That’s a lie. Directed vedicts happen all the time. The defense just declares the prosecution failed to meet the minimal requirements of the law. The Judge can issue a directed verdict.
Directed Verdicts (or JMOL Motions) are entered into about 1% of the time. 5 minutes of Googling yielded this, but I am sure more recent stats are available somewhere. https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/media/document/cjcavilc.pdf
I’m not sure that qualifies as “all the time.”
Regardless, my response was to the statement above that the defendant is “neither bound by oath or affirmation.” That is simply not true. RULE 603 is totes real.
What they are saying is “Joe citizen can’t see it but the NYT can selectively leak it to build a one sided case for public consumption!”
Lady Justice is spinning in her grave!
Though I am grateful for honest coverage of this, I do not know why any of this is a surprise to conscious liberals since around Obama’s second term, if not long before. The better question is: what can we possibly hope to about it? Vote your little hearts out in November. that is probably sanity’s last chance. I don’t give a toss if radical people would like to live in their own way. Go right ahead. Quite literally the only thing I am focused on is the tyranny forcing the rest of us to comply on penalty of cancellation, imprisonment, harassment, or death.
If the NYT article is factual, shouldn’t the “leaker” be charged with conveying classified information to an unauthorized party, no different than Snowden? Garland surely must have already determined the current NYT article is utter fiction (as are all the others before it) or there would be an ongoing investigation into the source of the leak. We recently saw an extensive investigation undertaken with the “leak” of the draft decision of the SCOTUS Roe v. Wade. Wouldn’t any such leaks pertaining to the Mar-a-Lago raid be thoroughly investigated and the leaker brought to justice?
What classified info is in the NYT article?
Any intimate details of an ongoing investigation are by necessity, classified. Unauthorized leaking of any details of an investigation by Federal employees is by default, an unauthorized disclosure of pertinent information. As such, even what might be considered “trivial” to some can be viewed as an attempt to subvert the investigation. Unless Garland himself has “declassified” any factual elements of the investigation, the leaker is guilty of leaking classified information to an unauthorized party. So are you assuming Garland himself has deemed the leaking of that information legitimate?
No, I don’t make any assumptions either way, including: I do not assume that the info came from someone in the government rather than someone on Trump’s side.
No matter the outcome of this issue, The Constitution of the United States of America is bleeding from the continued slashes of the Democratic Party assaults on its principles.
Marcy Wheeler who is much more detailed about this whole Trump mess has a better handle on what’s really going on than Turley’s haphazard attempt at analysis.
“ As you no doubt know, Trump filed a document that purports to be a request for a Special Master last night, over a week after discussing privilege issues with DOJ and three days after promising a significant Fourth Amendment filing.
This document is a lot of things:
A confession to a violation of the Espionage Act
A confession to making a threat against the Attorney General
A legal shit show
Serial proof that a Trump search was conducted like other searches
Filed in the wrong place at the wrong time
Probably written in significant part by Kash Patel
Not backed by sworn declarations to substantiate its “factual claims”
An invocation not of special master reviews by Trump’s own personal attorneys but instead an invocation of a terrorist lawyer convicted of conspiring with that terrorist.
One thing it is not is a significant Fourth Amendment filing. Trump couldn’t even manage that competently.”
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/08/23/trumps-reneges-on-promised-significant-fourth-amendment-filing/
Partisan claptrap.
“Marcy Wheeler who is much more detailed about”
Svelaz the Clueless, Anonymous the Stupid dropped Marcy Wheeler from his rants because he couldn’t defend too many of her positions. You pick up what’s discarded and foolishly think you have a gold mine.
Aren’t you anonymous the stupid?
You are always so confused.
Yes, Meyer the Obsessed Troll Liar is also Anonymous the Stupid.
He has claimed that at some unspecified comment in the past, he showed Wheeler to be wrong about something, but he’s never able to link to any comment where he did that. He simply dislikes her political views.
Anonymous the Stupid, You were pushing Wheeler a while back and I commented on the errant assumptions she made along with an errant opinion. You couldn’t defend her. Since you are paranoid you distanced yourself and found something else to link.
Lets all take a second to review Turley being upset about all the leaks from the FBI on Hillary. A second is all you need to review Turley’s outrage.
There might have been some outrage if anything had ACTUALLY been done to proceed with a case against her. How about putting her under oath for starters, or taking her to task for destroying evidence that was under subpoena. You did not hear outrage from Turley directed at the FBI because she was not maltreated by them.
Everyone who can read knows why the warrant was served. Trump either lied to his attorney, or his attorney colluded with Trump in lying about everything being returned in June. I suspect the former. Even Trump’s lawyers inevitably need to lawyer up. Turley conspicuously leaves the misrepresentations in the June letter out of his analysis. I’d love to see a list of cases where an affidavit for a warrant was released prior to charges being brought. Good luck finding an example.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-lawyer-june-said-classified-material-had-been-returned-ny-times-2022-08-13/
@Seamus,
Do you know something that wasn’t made public?
Why the warrant was served?
That’s what is at the core of the meeting on Thursday.
The affidavit that was part of the warrant hasn’t been released. Its the core reason why there was a need for the warrant.
If the DoJ over redacts the affidavit, the judge will edit and will release. (He could actually release it unredacted too.)
So before you let your TDS get the best of you… lets wait to see what happens.
Before you imagine that Reinhart would unseal an unredacted copy, you should read his opinion yesterday detailing the pros and cons of unsealing it even in part.
Affidavits for warrants are virtually never released prior to charging or completing an investigation. I’ve only been practicing criminal law for 25 years, maybe you’re aware of some jurisdiction in the US where this goes on. TDS? I’m not sure that means what you think. You’re boy’s getting special treatment that favors him, be happy. Trump world really just wants to know who the snitch is. I guess you’re also in favor of unsealing affidavits for warrants in organized crime and terrorism cases before charges are brought as well. There should always be special laws just for Trump, correct? It’s not as though he’ll try to gin up his crazies to go after anyone with violence. God forbid someone goes after a witness named in the affidavit and not just the FBI building in Cincinnati. TDS? You know who explained it best? “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Donald J. Trump. At least Turley gets paid by Fox for his nonsense. Lose the tinfoil hat pal.
“I’ve only been practicing criminal law for 25 years, “…
To quote one of the original internet memes, “On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.” Unless you want to out yourself, I’ll discount your “appeal to (your own) authority”.
This is not an ordinary criminal case, it involves a once – and possibly, future, president, so normal procedures are not controlling. Incidentally, unless you’re spending hundreds of hours searching all the appellate decisions in the U.S., you have no basis for that statement. Demanding proof of a negative is a classic deceptive argument. Given the outright lying by the FBI during the “Russian collusion” affair, “show me the money” is a rational response.
@Seamus you wrote:
“Affidavits for warrants are virtually never released prior to charging or completing an investigation. I’ve only been practicing criminal law for 25 years, maybe you’re aware of some jurisdiction in the US where this goes on. TDS? I’m not sure that means what you think.”
First, you do suffer from TDS and you clearly have trouble following simple logic.
The judge who signed the warrant has read the affidavit.
Now assume what you claim about the rarity of affidavits being released is true… the Judge ruled that he will do so.
He has given the DoJ till Thursday to bring in a proposed copy of a redacted affidavit. He said that he will review and if he’s not satisfied, he’ll edit their redactions. I posted that he could in fact release an unredacted version, but that was meant as an extreme.
I’ve ignored the rest of your off topic rant.
You need to focus on the issue at hand.
The warrant which you can read yourself was overly vague. Someone posted Trump’s legal response to the warrant, the raid and call for a special master.
You really need to get some help for your TDS.
Turley dislikes Trump, yet his dislike for Trump doesn’t blind him and make him forget the law.
Same for Dershowitz.
-G
“the Judge ruled that he will do so.”
He didn’t. He said that he may unseal it in part or in full, but he won’t decide until he’s seen the DOJ’s proposed redactions, and he said in his order yesterday that it’s also possible that he’ll decide not to unseal it even with redactions (“I cannot say at this point that partial redactions will be so extensive that they will result in a meaningless disclosure, but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the Government”). Did you read the order he released yesterday? If not, here you go: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64872441/80/united-states-v-sealed-search-warrant/
+100
“Everyone who can [think] knows why the warrant was served.”
It was concocted and executed by those who believe “might makes right,” to destroy their political opposition. It’s part of a pre-insurrection.
Or, as Judge Reinhart noted, “the Court issued a search warrant for the Premises after finding probable cause that evidence of multiple federal crimes would be found at the Premises (“the Warrant”). … Having carefully reviewed the Affidavit before signing the Warrant, I was — and am — satisfied that the facts sworn by the affiant are reliable.”
He certainly knows better than you do, as he has read the affidavit, and you have not. We’ll have to wait and see whether the affidavit is unsealed, in part or in whole. (I doubt that it will be unsealed in whole, for reasons that the judge discussed in his Monday order that I’m quoting from above.)
“Judge Reinhart noted . . .”
“Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis’s feet.”
That “judge?”
Apologist fits you well.
You’re implying that Judge Reinhart said that, but you haven’t presented any evidence of it. I see that Robert Reich — who definitely isn’t Judge Bruce Reinhart — said “Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis’s feet” (https://twitter.com/rbreich/status/820328580731183104).
Why are you suggesting that Judge Reinhart said it? Or was that not your intent?
Regardless, the fact remains that Reinhart stated, “the Court issued a search warrant for the Premises after finding probable cause that evidence of multiple federal crimes would be found at the Premises (“the Warrant”). … Having carefully reviewed the Affidavit before signing the Warrant, I was — and am — satisfied that the facts sworn by the affiant are reliable,” and you’ve presented no evidence demonstrating that his statement is false.
Instead, you resorted to ad hom.
Ironically, in a response to another anonymous commenter (who used to post under the names Peter Hill and Seth Warner), just today you said “‘[E]very day’, anon uses deflection and ad hominem. Anon needs new tools of deceit.” If you consider ad hom deceitful, then you should refrain from using it.
“[Y]ou haven’t presented any evidence of it.”
The evidence is everywhere (including on Left-wing sources). But, apparently, everywhere is insufficient for you.
Citing a judge’s animus toward a party in a case over which he is presiding, is not ad hominem. It’s a reason for recusal, and *the* reason to question his impartiality, objectivity, and motivation.
But, then again, apologists have a remarkable capacity for evasion.
The person who makes the claim is the one with the burden of proof for it. That you wish to shift that burden onto me doesn’t change that. Either you’ll back up your claim or you won’t, and it will remain evidenceless.
You claim that Reinhart showed animus, but you quote a statement made by someone else (Reich). You haven’t demonstrated (yet) that Reinhart showed animus, or when, or in what context, much less that it was sufficient reason for recusal.
So far, yes, it’s ad hom, because you’re using a statement made by Reich as a “reason to question [Reinhart’s] impartiality, objectivity, and motivation.”
You seem to be talking about yourself in that last sentence.
Apparently the above anonymous poster pretends he has all the facts, but is sorely ignorant.
Reinhardt made negative statements by Trump that were presented on this blog. You can start doing the legwork because many of us have seen enough of your actions to know you are not to be trusted.
The article title asserts that “Government Officials Leak New Details on the Mar-a-Lago Raid….” The New York Times suggests possible federal sources for only one rather obvious point: “Federal officials have indicated that their initial goal has been to secure any classified documents Mr. Trump was holding at Mar-a-Lago….” The piece is otherwise silent on the subject of sources.
Former federal prosecutor Prof. Barbara McQuade has stated that in her experience, such leaks generally come from lawyers for witnesses. Sad to see Prof. Turley’s turd polishing fall to the level of sensationalizing fabricated facts and referring to a lawful search as a “raid.”
Prof. Barbara McQuade has stated that in her experience, such leaks generally come from lawyers for witnesses.</i
Just like those 50 intelligence officers that claimed Hunters lap top carried all the signs of being Russian
Or Bidens dozen nobel economists that claimed inflation was transitory
Or the virologists that claimed, no doubt Covid was of animal origin.
We know the NYT is used by main justice to leak info. WAPO is used by the IC. State Dept spreads the wealth.
Same MO as RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA. Impeachment 1 with Schiffs double secret hearings that leaked out juicy bits daily. Same with the Jan 6 committee leaks of the good stuff, with the added topping of using second hand testimony instead of calling the witnesses they had already taken testimony from.
Same circus, same monkeys+
Same organ grinder.
It is not a leak if it comes from the person who had the warrant served on him. He has no obligation whatsoever to abide by any rules regarding the sharing of such details. Leaks apply to governmental agencies and officials who have an obligation to keep such information confidential. If you are wondering about that, ask yourself why you hear the likes of Garland and others constantly refusing to answer questions, even when asked by the subcommittees set up to bring oversight to them. As I posted earlier, agencies that leak such information should forfeit their case at a minimum. For a some time I was baffled by the Left’s apparent departure from long-held values, such as a freedom of speech, and a healthy skepticism of government. I now realize they either never understood such values or never truly held them. Their only issue was that they were not in power at the time. When they are, the ends justifies the means.
I’m sure Turley and FOX would love a leak when it comes to who the agents are with their addresses. It’s also very disturbing that Turley keeps feeding the Cult45 crowd in defending the indefensible. The DOJ puts down lies from Trump almost on a daily basis, and Turley and the right-wing rage-o-sphere just make something else up. It’s like wack-a-mole. Of course it has been his MO for a while now, sad to say.
There is no evidence that Turley is a Trump supporter or even particularly right wing.
You write:
“It undermines the credibility of the government and raises questions of the motivations behind the absolute secrecy claims.”
Nothing the government does undermines its credibility. Its credibility has been undermined since Eisenhower claimed we weren’t flying U-2s over the Soviet Union
E) Today seems to be a ‘missing 18 minute’ type of day.
B) Please discuss.
E) Today seems to be a ‘missing 18 minute’ type of day.
B) Please discuss.
It’s becoming obvious that this whole thing was orchestrated by Joe Biden personally, probably to control information that could be damaging to him as well as Obama and the DOJ, the FBI in particular – https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/biden-white-house-facilitated-dojs-criminal-probe-against-trump?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
What does “this whole thing” refer to? That link certainly doesn’t show Biden being involved, for example, in the decision to search MaL.
@Anon,
Yes actually it does.
I suggest you reread the article.
Biden refuted that a prior POTUS could still claim executive privilege.
That was the start.
Garland had his marching orders and didn’t require Biden to micromanage him.
Garland fell on the sword so to speak. Above him there would be two more people who could fall on their swords too.
This isn’t new. Just look at Iran / Contra.
“Biden refuted that a prior POTUS could still claim executive privilege.”
The Supreme Court was quite clear in Nixon v Administrator of General Services that a former president cannot assert executive privilege against the Executive Branch.
Have you ever read it?
I suggest you do a bit more research. The law on this topic was updated post Nixon.
I’m aware that the SCOTUS ruling was about the law that preceded the PRA, but unless there was a subsequent SCOTUS ruling overturning it, it remains precedent.
Witch in Satan’s one world government/religion coven claims that the FBI allegedly seized documents that contain evidence that former presidents participated in ritual child sacrifices and cannibalism. Her eye witness testimonies have already been filed in court: https://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2022/08/new-dark-outpost-seized-documents-contain-evidence-former-presidents-tortured-and-ate-children-2533209.html
If you mean that seriously rather than as a joke, you’re a nut.
ROFLMAO!!!!!
Trump’s motion of last night sets out his view of the chronology, which has the last communications in June. Bratt was the government’s representative. From Trump’s perspective, he was cooperating and the warrant and raid came out of the blue.
The motion also calls into question the legitimacy of the warrant under the 4th Amendment.
At this point, DOJ should explain itself, either by releasing a largely unredacted affidavit or through an official public statement. Selective leaking is not the way to build confidence.
Daniel,
Trump is selectively leaking things too (e.g., the NARA letter from May). Either object to both sides doing it, or neither.
Trump doesn’t make a good 4th Amendment case. Consider, for example, the response from Orin Kerr (a relatively conservative law prof at Berkeley): “Some are arguing, as does @AndrewCMcCarthy below, that the warrant used to search Mar-A-Lago was a general warrant that violates the 4th Amendment. I think this is incorrect. Here’s a thread that explains my view, looking at the relevant caselaw. …”
https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1558714519244795904
That motion has been shredded by lots of lawyers. Ken White, for example, sarcastically noted “when I file a motion, I use a weird trick: I identify the rule or statute I’m invoking that gives the court power to act and the rules governing the process. In criminal cases I cite criminal rules. And cases,” and added nonsarcastically, “One thing about Trump’s document is that it’s filed as a separate action without complying with most of the rules for a separate complaint, but styled as a motion, without following most of the rules for motions.” Did you notice that it wasn’t filed with Reinhart’s court docket? It implicates two of his lawyers as having conflicts of interest.
The fact is: Trump mostly argues executive privilege, when he cannot assert that against the Executive Branch, and when it only underscores that the documents belong with NARA.
I agree that the precise legal basis for the motion is unclear. Criminal Procedure Rule 41(g) is cited but does not appear to be particularly relevant, and the remedies being sought are not based on it.
I think the ultimate legal basis is the 4th Amendment — they are claiming that the search was unreasonable and conducted through a general warrant. Prior to an indictment, after which evidence arising from an illegal search can be suppressed, it is not clear what action can be taken against an illegal search and seizure, which I suspect is why they referred to 41(g). This motion appears to be an effort to come up with a remedy.
My point was mainly about the chronology. Trump has now put out his view. The last communication was on June 22 when he responded affirmatively to a request to provide video surveillance tapes. Prior to that he claims he was also cooperating.
If DOJ believes he was not, it should say so and explain why, by releasing the largely unredacted affidavit or an official statement.
Regarding the views of other lawyers, many have been consistently wrong about Trump. Rivkin and Casey have an op ed in today’s WSJ saying that the warrant was unlawful, because it disregarded the rights afforded presidents under the Presidential Records Act.
Daniel,
Have you read Judge Reinhart’s discussion of the points against and in favor of unsealing, which he released yesterday morning?
Some lawyers have been wrong about Trump and others haven’t. Unless you have evidence of White and Kerr being wrong, it’s irrelevant that some others have been wrong. The WSJ article is paywalled, and I’m not going to subscribe in order to read it, so I can’t address it. If you have a particular excerpt that you’d like me to address, just quote it.
@Daniel,
Yeah, but its now been ordered by the judge that the DoJ prepare a redacted copy of the affidavit for release.
If they redact too much… the judge will edit. But it will be released.
Because of the leak… you can bet that the judge would be more inclined to allow less redactions.
And here’s another problem…
DoJ/FBI claim certain documents to be classified.
But what if those same documents were declassified by Trump?
Before leaving office, Trump ordered many docs concerning CH to be declassified. The DoJ/FBI have yet to release a declassified version 2+ years later.
So if Trump has a copy… is that copy classified or declassified? And yes, there are numerous reports of Trump doing this.
-G
If Trump declassifiied any of the documents that were turned over or taken this year, it’s strange that he never claimed that until after the search, given the multiple written exchanges and even in-person meetings between Trump (or his lawyers) and the government prior to the search.
There is a letter in the seized pages that is from Turley to Donny telling him that he is with him all the way.
Are you a 5 year old? Grow up.
Turley opened himself to ridicule by disturbing constant enabling for trump.
I believe any DOJ or other prosecutorial/official investigative agency which leaks as this one is doing, should have to forfeit their case.. PERIOD. Remember Comey leaking, then having the audacity to brag about it? This is clearly part of their culture and practice and will continue to be so until they are taken to task for it.
Turley is definitely fighting a LOSING BATTLE trying to defend Trump and find fault with the DOJ criminal investigation and prosecution of Trump.
Let me show you just how disingenious Turley is being about this: NOT ONCE, NOT EVEN ONCE has Prof. Turley stated the legal fact that U.S. government documents DO NOT BELONG TO DONALD TRUMP! Not once has Turley addressed that fact, nor has Turley addressed Donald Trump stating, “IT’S NOT THEIRS, ITS MINE!”
Trump’s statement that U.S. government documents in his possession belonged to him instead of the U.S. gov’t will be used against Trump as evidence of Trump’s criminal intent to illegally withhold U.S. gov’t documents from the DOJ.
I challenge Turley to tell the truth to his readers: the boxes and boxes of U.S. gov’t documents the FBI recovered from Mar-a-Lago DO NOT BELONG TO DONALD TRUMP AND THAT IT IS A FEDERAL CRIME for Trump to be in possession of those U.S. government documents, whether classified or not.
Turley is on the wrong side of the law when it comes to Donald Trump’s state and federal crimes he will be indicted for.
Then why did the GSA ship them to him?
The GSA doesn’t “ship” anything. Trump STOLE them, and has lied about that ever since.
and the evidential basis for that opinion is?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
WAKE UP, ‘anonymous,’ and realize that ‘Turley’ is not fighting anyone’s battles, nor taking or being on any side – period… ..rather, ‘Turley’ is simply offering expert legal opinion from his vantage point – period.. Pathetic that because you disagree you start your belittling and Framing this grand story about ‘Turley…’ ..while promoting your spin about Donald Trump… If you want to follow MSNBC-type Framing re: the hearsay floating around, OK.. but others are entitling to our respect for their opinions, esp. ‘Turley’ in his own forum.
ROFL.
Like the sick puppy he is Anonymous the Stupid is rolling on the floor just like most dogs.
… so says the dog Meyer.
“ Turley’ is simply offering expert legal opinion from his vantage point – period.. ”
What vantage point? Turley is is being embarrassingly stupid. Trump’s incompetence is being mocked by legal experts and Turley doesn’t seem to grasp just how bad Trump’s reasoning is. Even a Trump judge is baffled by his latest attempt at an excuse.
“ A Trump-appointed judge doesn’t know what to make of the former president’s lawsuit over the Mar-a-Lago search”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-trump-appointed-judge-doesn-t-know-what-to-make-of-the-former-president-s-lawsuit-over-the-mar-a-lago-search/ar-AA110Pbg?cvid=f86dedda1eef45e497202333e81324f4
If this is the best he can do Trump is in real trouble. Even Turley wouldn’t dare try to justify this stupidity.
“Trump’s incompetence is being mocked by legal experts ”
Svelaz, the problem is that Turley is pretty much the expert and the ones you are looking at don’t come close to his knowledge and prestige. You wouldn’t know that because you don’t know how to think. All you can do is put words in sentences even when all your facts are wrong.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Svelaz, the problem is that Turley is pretty much the expert and the ones you are looking at don’t come close to his knowledge and prestige.”
What knowledge? Prestige?
Turley literally is saying that the FBI should release the details of the affidavit BEFORE charges are filed. Any first year law students KNOW that’s never done. Clearly Turley is being stupid in trying to defend Trump. He has squandered his “prestige”. Real lawyers are mocking Turley’s bad attempts at defending Trump.
“ All you can do is put words in sentences even when all your facts are wrong.”
At least I can put coherent sentences together unlike you.
Trump’s supporters have no idea what they are trying to argue and that includes Trump’s own incompetent legal team.
“What knowledge? Prestige?”
There is no way to argue with stupidity, Svelaz the clueless. Turley gave his reasons for the affidavit being released. Maybe you are a slower reader than suspected so you haven’t got there yet. Read what Turley said and then try to dispute it.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
Turley gave idiotic reasoning that even first year law students wouldn’t use as an argument.
He’s literally saying the government should release the details of its legal case BEFORE charges are filed in court. That’s not how it works and every REAL lawyer is saying Turley is being uncharacteristically stupid in making this argument.
Turley is trying hard to justify Trump’s excuses which are constantly changing. What Turley is engaging is in a classic case of sycophantic agreement with Trump’s narrative instead of actual analysis of what the law says.
“Turley gave idiotic reasoning “
That is because you are too dumb to be able to accurately read his words and too dumb to understand them if you could.
One has to be a pretty stupid fellow to attack Turley’s knowledge of basic law. You fit the bill.
Svelaz, on rare occasions, judges do release affidavits without someone having been charged. The issue is whether there’s good reason to do so here. And the key problem with Turley’s column is that he doesn’t present a good discussion of that. Among other things, he entirely ignores Judge Reinhart’s Monday morning order discussing the pros and cons of unsealing the affidavit in part or in full: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64872441/80/united-states-v-sealed-search-warrant/
Another problem with the column is that he claims that some material was leaked when it was presented in Trump’s own filing.
Turley simply isn’t on top of the relevant evidence here.
BTW, I was mistaken the other day when I said that Trump could read the affidavit in the judge’s chambers if he wanted. You were correct that Trump can only do that if he’s indicted.
Eighteen hole. Anonymous the Stupid is a sick puppy. He’s always been so.
+100
“Turley is definitely fighting a LOSING BATTLE trying to defend Trump and find fault with the DOJ criminal investigation and prosecution of Trump.”
Stupid people don’t understand that Turley is explaining the law.
Unfortunately for those of you attempting to do damage control for trump, Andrew Weissman pointed out yesterday why yesterday was such a bad news day, Turley…
Turns out trump personally reviewed the stolen classified material, deciding what he’d be ‘willing’ to give back. Like it was for him to decide. Let’s break it down into ‘cookie jar’ terms. Trump was caught stealing the cookies and refusing to give them back when confronted about it. It doesn’t so much matter what type of cookies they were because they weren’t his to steal in the first place.
Best preemptive PR was not to steal the cookies in the first place. It’s not that I’m not sensitive to the scope of the back channel PR you’ve been tasked with. It’s just you’ve had multiple opportunities to exit the journey and you’ve refused them all. Are you capable of hopping off of an entity spinning wildly out of control? What’s your end game? Are you holding out hope of it translating into a SCOTUS nod in a second trump term? (Because he’s not going to be able run with all the legal weight hanging over him now and he would lose again anyway)..
Even worse…, your efforts to soften the conditions for trump’s crash won’t convert into being able to slide into Desantis’ inner circle. Best time to cut ties was yesterday. Next best is today.
“. . . Andrew Weissman (sic) . . .” —
An attack dog for the Russia hoax.
Is there a reprobate that the Left does not embrace?
+100
@Jordan,
Weissman should be disbarred for his actions in the Mueller probe.
Gumby:
Solid fox news opinion that is crushed by reality. Weissman did solid work in the Mueller probe.