When U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon issued an order for the appointment of a special master, she instantly became the latest jurist targeted by a furious mob of media and pundits. Rather than simply disagree with her order, these critics attacked Cannon personally and ethically, including lawyers and law professors. It is a familiar pattern but the fury shown in the last two days is chilling for our federal judges who have seen increasing attacks, including an alleged attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Nevertheless, legal and media figures seemed to rush to outdo each other in the most extreme statements about a judge with a distinguished background.
MSNBC host Joy Reid hosted a frenzy of condemnations of this “corrupt” judge. Reid said that Cannon is little more than an extension of Trump like other possessions stolen by the former president.
As always, MSNBC regular (and columnist for Above the Law and The Nation) Elie Mystal struggled to outdo a panel assembled to attack this jurist:
“She’s biased and corrupt. Like, I don’t know what to tell everybody anymore. Like, I’ve been saying this since he took office. When you allow Republicans to control the courts you get nothing. Trump judges do not believe in the rule of law, they do not believe in precedent, they do not believe in facts, they do not believe in logic—they just believe in whatever’s going to help Donald Trump, and they’ve proven it again and again and again.”
Mystal recently criticized Biden’s controversial MAGA speech because it did not go far enough: in his view all Republicans are white supremacists, not just MAGA Republicans. Now he is claiming that all Trump appointees (even those who have ruled against Trump) “do not believe in the rule of law…do not believe in facts…do not believe in logic.”
MSNBC clearly wants Mystal’s brand of commentary. It recently declined to even express discomfort with launching a racist attack on Georgia’s senatorial candidate Herschel Walker. Mystal previously caused uproars for claims from accusing a senator of wanting to murder Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to his continued attacks on a high school student even after he was cleared of a false race-based story. He has called the Constitution “trash” and previously stated that white, non-college-educated voters supported Republicans because they care about “using their guns on Black people and getting away with it.” He has also lashed out at “white society” and explained how he strived to maintain a “whiteness free” life in the pandemic.
Mystal, however, has competition on this occasion from AEI’s Neil Ornstein who suggested that Judge Cannon is now engaged in obstruction by simply ordering a third-party review. The over-wrought response to this order is par for the course over the last six years.
Lawyers like former top Obama official Neal Katyal, said that Judge Cannon’s decision appeared designed to “protect their guy” or at the very least, “delay justice.” In other words, Cannon was acting as a political operatives rather than a judge.
Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe declared that an order to appoint a special master to review the documents is analogous to the Dred Scott decision as an abuse of judicial power. Tribe recently said that Trump could clearly be charged with the attempted murder of former Vice President Michael Pence. However, this is both legally and historically unintelligible. Tribe wrote:
“Cannon’s order will go down as part of the judicial anticannon — the body of decisions, like Dred Scott or Korematsu, that lawyers use for generations to teach students how NOT to wield the judicial power.”
Unpack that for a moment. Tribe is analogizing the appointment of a special master to assist the court to a decision declaring former slaves as outside the protection of the Constitution and the definition of a “citizen.” Likewise, he believes it is similar to a decision, Korematsu, where Japanese Americans were put into concentration camps in World War II. One can reasonably disagree with Judge Cannon’s order, but it is designed as a check on government power and abuse. Yet, Tribe believes it is akin to a decision allowing the government carte blanche to imprison Americans based on race or nationality.
Judge Cannon was faced with a breathtakingly broad search that appears to have seized attorney-client material and personal material, including passports and personal medical information. She is allowed to conduct in camera inspections of such documents but elected to appoint a special master to conduct such reviews. While the Justice Department claimed that such an appointment would endanger national security, Judge Cannon correctly rejected that unsupportable claim. The documents will remain under secure controls of the government and the national security investigation will continue unabated.
As I have discussed, there are good-faith objections to the order and it may be curtailed or even overturned on appeal. However, while rare at this stage, special masters are routinely appointed to assist judges in creating a record for further orders. Moreover, the investigation can go forward without the use of the documents in establishing what was known about the contents of the boxes and whether there were acts of concealment.
The attacks on Judge Cannon follow a familiar pattern. It is not enough to disagree with a judge. You must attack the jurists as unethical or corrupt — and standout in your rhetoric. Notably, some of these same experts denounced Trump for attacking jurists as “Obama judges” or ideologues when they ruled against him. Now it appears perfectly acceptable in dealing with Trump appointees. At the time I criticized Trump repeatedly for such attacks. However, Democrats quickly adopted the same rhetoric that they once denounced. Now Judge Cannon is fair game for legal experts to impugn her integrity and ethics.
Just for the record, Judge Cannon has an inspiring and impressive background. She was born in Cali, Columbia and her mother fled the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Yet, she would graduate from Duke University in 2003 and the University of Michigan in 2007 with a Juris Doctor magna cum laude (and Order of the Coif). She worked at the Justice Department as a prosecutor as well as a leading law firm as well as serving as an appellate judicial clerk.
WOW and AMEN!!
This comment is directed at Svelaz, Natacha and the one particular moronic “Anonymous”, or as I like to call him, with apolgies to the band America, A Horsesa** With No Name. Those of you listed and others that agree with these three “contrarians” I hope that you are happy being on the same side as Elie Mystal and Joy Reid. Please read all of Mystal and Reed’s comments and bask in the glow of belonging to such a team of “fine, upstanding, thoughtful and really bright people”.
Mystal and Reid are all the proof we need to dismantle the affirmative action programs at our schools. Think about all of the Asian, white and Hispanic kids that didn’t get into the Ivies because Mystal and Reid had taken their seats. How many Asian kids with about 200-300 more points on their exams didn’t get into Harvard because Mystal or Reid got in? How much harm is being done to our nation by taking opportunity away from the best and brightest and giving it to Reid and Mystal.
If anyone has a problem with my framing of this issue please read the great words of Elie Mystal and then get back to me with your defense of this guy.
PS. How good would you feel if you were going in for heart surgery and you picked a graduate of Harvard Medical School and Elie Mystal walks in screaming that you don’t deserve surgery because of the color of your skin? Want Mystal operating on your child? Spouse? Parent? If they are graduating morons like Mystal and Reid from the Law Schools, what do you think is coming out of the Medical Schools?
Hullbobby,
Elie Mystal and Joy Reid’s opinions and criticisms are their own. They sure are passionate about the issues they opine about and I can understand their crazy statements and proclamations. You’re basing these two individuals views as the views of every liberal, leftist, Marxist, socialist, or whatever moniker is trending in the week as an all encompassing agenda.
That’s not true. It’s much more complex than the simplistic view you hold.
I agree with their points sometimes. I disagree when they do go too far. The rhetorical extremes are sometimes just rhetorical extremes. It’s what sets them apart from their more contemporary colleagues.
Hello hullbobby: You know, I’ve been thinking about your and others’ comments, and especially others’ comments about Laurence Tribe. Way back in the 1990s, a young “me” thought his musings and arguments were more like that of a CNN journalist. I have not changed my mind. But, to the point and in retrospect, maybe law school Con Law classes should have guest professors present their differing arguments in front of the class, thus allowing students to directly question/discuss/debate, etc. Instead, the general public must rely on MEDIA’s selective presentations…
Hi Lin, as someone who has taken con law classes I have to say that I never had a professor opine in any sense like the ravings of a Tribe or a Chemerinski, but then again I did go to Law School many years ago.
Please note that Svelaz states that he SOMETIMES disagrees with Elie Mystal???? Well good for you, you only agree with a lunatic some of the time! If a person on the right was as far gone as Mystal they would be banished from polite society, let alone have a cable slot all the time.
Also, I forgot to mention in my earlier comment that Joy Reid had wickedly homophobic tweets in her history but of course she never had to pay for them. The privilege of being a liberal is the true privilege that exists today.
Gov Northam in VA survived his racism because it was discovered that if he was banished he would be succeeded by a Republican. Reid survived.
Keith Ellison, the MN AG was very credibly accused of assaulting a woman in a Boston hotel…he survived.
PM Trudeau survived wearing black face multiple times.
Bill Clinton survived.
Has anyone called to rename the Kennedy Center for the Study of the Senate? He did kill a girl, flee the scene, sober up and then called the police.
Cuomo and Franken didn’t survive because they were hurting the party and they had DEMOCRATS ready to take their place. If MN had a Republican governor to replace him Franken would have survived. Cuomo would have survived if he didn’t have a far left lunatic waiting to take his place. But Joy Reid, still in. Whoopie, still around. Al Sharpton, still has a show even with all of the things he has done in the past. He is a rabid Jew-hater, but whatevs.
In law school Con Law classes, you are analyzing and discussing the majority and dissenting opinions in several major areas so with that base you get a balanced and in depth perspective even if your law professor is conservative or liberal. You are not going to get that experience and knowlege with brief news/commentary segements even if they have a panel with differing views.
CC: As you know, discussion in class of the “majority and dissenting opinions” is not what is being referenced here. You are lucky (as am I) if you went to a law school that offered open debate and Socratic structure in its classrooms, and not what I and many others believe is happening in law schools today.
Lin, My description was based on my dated experience — not sure how con law is taught now but if you find something discussing it please share (I would be interested). Thanks.
“No one is above the law,” they say, “but some are below the law?” It sounds like a quote from Napoleon, (The Berkshire Boar from Animal Farm not the French dictator.)
@Rilaly
Wasn’t the quote… “All are equal under the law… but some are more equal than others.” ?
-G
Having fled Castro is a strong point against her in the world of progressives. For leftist like Tribe, a Castro like regime is a dream come true! They are vicious fascists. Maybe someone like Laurence Tribe should contemplate how the attack on the judiciary in Nazi Germany was just one element in the implementation of the Holocaust.
“Having fled Castro is a strong point against her in the world of progressives.”
It isn’t.
Wrong again. Progressives have adulated Castro for decades. My favorite progressives vacation down there and then boast about how the Cubans live a simpler life without the materialistic obsessions of America. How quaint those 1957 taxis are. Progressives like Laurence Tribe despise modern America and would be happy in an authoritarian or totalitarian state so long as people like him are part of the ruling class. His comments are despicable and representative of his anti-democratic views.
I’m a progressive. I do not adulate Castro or any dictator. That she fled Castro is not a strike against Cannon.
‘Ultra Democrats’ [as in fanatical] and their ‘Brigade of Woke’, squander wealth, limits resources, deny freedom of expression, and are tyrannical towards those opposing their utopian view. ‘Ultra Democrats’ and their ‘Brigade of Woke’ must be served up to the altar of defeat.
just a matter of time to the DOJ and FBI arrest her for something…show up at 3am with battering ram!
it is the way Democrat FASCISTS work
NEWSFLASH – CNN
Donald and Melania Rosenberg caught selling nuclear secrets to Russia, Russia, Russia!
William “Mr. Deep Deep State” Barr says, “Give ’em a ticket to ‘Old Sparky!'”
Jonathan, your opening sentence in this post is missing an important and defining adjective (supplied here in CAPS): “When U.S. District Judge Judge Aileen M. Cannon issued an order for the appointment of a special master, she instantly became the latest jurist targeted by a furious LEFTWING mob of media and pundits…”
Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!!
In a way, Prof. Tribe is right. This is like Korematsu in one sense. The government was able to harm the lives of thousands of citizens because the judiciary blindly trusted the representations of the federal government as to threats to national security. Now, fortunately, we have a judge who is not willing to blindly accept the representations of the FBI and DOJ, and who notices that these agencies have a track record of bias against Trump and his supporters.
And a track record of total incompetence and/or corruption in a hundred other things totally unrelated to Trump: Waco, Whitey Bulger, Martin Luther King, Larry Nassar, Big Dan in the Detroit office and even Hillary Clinton. The list is long, going back years, and the list is deep including at least three of the former directors and covering everyone from assistant directors to confidential human sources or whatever they call Mifsud and Halper.
Former FBI boss Kevin Brock says that a prosecutor may throw out the Trump search warrant entirely.
“I think the government would be concerned as well, because there’s concern that the the search warrant itself was overly broad from the get-go,” Kevin Brock said on “Just the News, Not Noise” Tuesday evening. “Because the scope that they were looking for was every single document generated during the Trump administration — that just seems too inexcusably overbroad. Now there’s indications that they (the FBI) collected much more than they were authorized to collect.” …
“You go into a home, you set up a system where those things that you seize are assiduously documented,” said Brock, explaining how FBI searches typically work. “They’re given a specific tracking number, a barcode and each piece is gone through meticulously before you leave the premises to make sure that it’s within the scope of the document.”
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/former-fbi-boss-warns-prosecutor-might-see-trump-search-warrant-tossed?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
“ Former FBI boss Kevin Brock says that a prosecutor may throw out the Trump search warrant entirely.”
Prosecutors can’t do that. Especially AFTER it’s been executed.
Svelaz, but a court sure can bar all evidence taken due to a flawed warrant.
A court can, but the issue isn’t the warrant. The affidavit accompanying the warrant would be hard to dispute since there was enough evidence for probable cause.
One reason why the wards was so broad is Trump’s fault. He is the one who had all those documents mixed in with his own personal effects and other crap. It was his own careless attitude of not keeping these classified documents segregated and properly secured. Trump brought this onto himself after being given ample opportunity for nearly two years to address this problem. It’s his fault the FBI ended up having to seize anything that was mixed with the stolen documents.
The court is not a prosecutor.
.”Prosecutors can’t do that.”
Svelaz, why do you say that?
Do you think prosecutors like to go to court Naked?
Where do you get your information? So much of it is wrong.
S. Meyer,
“ Where do you get your information? So much of it is wrong.
From you. You said, “ Former FBI boss Kevin Brock says that a prosecutor may throw out the Trump search warrant entirely.”
Prosecutors can’t throw out a warrant. Only a judge can do that. This is basic law.
“ Do you think prosecutors like to go to court Naked?”
That made no sense whatsoever. What does nakedness have do do with the erroneous claim that a prosecutor can throw out a search warrant?
.”Prosecutors can’t throw out a warrant. Only a judge can do that. This is basic law.”
Svelaz, did you ever hear of a prosecutor dropping a case for lack of evidence? Apparently not. Tell me the law that agrees with you.
The prosecutor may choose not to use what was found on a search warrant (because of legal problems with the search warrant). Therefore, his case would be naked (undressed). That might make the prosecutor drop the case for lack of evidence.
S. Meyer,
“ Svelaz, did you ever hear of a prosecutor dropping a case for lack of evidence?”
A prosecutor cannot drop a case. It can drop CHARGES. A JUDGE can dismiss a case. A case is NOT a warrant. A prosecutor cannot throw out a warrant.
“ The prosecutor may choose not to use what was found on a search warrant (because of legal problems with the search warrant). Therefore, his case would be naked (undressed). That might make the prosecutor drop the case for lack of evidence.”
LOL!! That’s a hilarious segue into the “naked” nonsense you first mentioned. Nobody calls a case “naked” or “(undressed)” it’s not a thing. Nice try though.
The only thing you got right is that a prosecutor can choose not to use some evidence.
“A prosecutor cannot drop a case. It can drop CHARGES. A JUDGE can dismiss a case. A case is NOT a warrant. A prosecutor cannot throw out a warrant.”
It is a common-use language phrase. When talking out of the courtroom, prosecutors frequently say they are ‘dropping a case.’ I understand you have difficulty understanding concepts, but one expects that from someone with your problems.
“Nice try though.”
You have an odd way of communicating on the blog, with loads of errors and fallacies, followed by strict adherence to the legal meanings of words rather than their common-use. Nothing I said doesn’t make sense to an intelligent individual.
“ It is a common-use language phrase. When talking out of the courtroom, prosecutors frequently say they are ‘dropping a case.’ I understand you have difficulty understanding concepts, but one expects that from someone with your problems.”
You stated prosecutors dropping warrants. A case and a warrant are two different things. You’re intentionally moving the goalposts on a statement that initially made. There’s no difficulty. Just breaking down your BS.
BS is your stock and trade, Svelaz, You don’t know that prosecutors refer to ‘dropping a case’ because you are ignorant.
“A case and a warrant are two different things. You’re intentionally moving the goalposts on a statement that initially made.”
They are two different things, but you can’t read any more than you can use your intellect. More than once I told you the statement, “throw out the Trump search warrant entirely” was not mine, so the confusion and BS are yours.
While we are talking about BS, you couldn’t answer the questions raised in the following responses. That is because you either were ignorant, lying or making things up.
Here are two links to the questions you never answered, You made a fool of yourself.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/09/07/cannon-fodder-liberal-media-and-pundits-unleash-torrent-of-attacks-on-judge-who-approved-special-master/comment-page-2/#comment-2221187
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/09/07/cannon-fodder-liberal-media-and-pundits-unleash-torrent-of-attacks-on-judge-who-approved-special-master/comment-page-2/#comment-2221215
Svelaz, here are two more links. You are waste of time.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/09/07/cannon-fodder-liberal-media-and-pundits-unleash-torrent-of-attacks-on-judge-who-approved-special-master/comment-page-2/#comment-2221187
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/09/07/cannon-fodder-liberal-media-and-pundits-unleash-torrent-of-attacks-on-judge-who-approved-special-master/comment-page-2/#comment-2221215
Before trying to open new dialogue to prove things, look to see where you screwed up.
Svelaz: In laymen’s terms, I believe S. Meyer is correct. Prosecutors file a “motion to quash” a search warrant and all potential evidence associated thereunder. I know of no case where a judge would deny such a motion. After such a ruling granting quash, the prosecutor dismisses the case. Is this not correct?
(-as pertains to S. Meyer’s point. I realize that in other cases, quashing a warrant may be only a single part and the “case” can continue against other parties or involving other issues….)
Generally a motion to quash a search warrant is filed by defense counsel. Prosecutors don’t need to quash the warrant to dismiss the case.
Glad you qualified your comment by stating “Generally…,” as indeed, prosecutors often file motions to quash warrants as well, for various and sundry reasons. Please remember that my comment related to S. Meyer and Svelaz’s response thereto. Why are you answering for Svelaz again?
I wasn’t posting an answer to your question, much less on someone else’s behalf.
Do you believe that it’s somehow wrong for person X to respond to a comment directed to person Y? If so, why do you sometimes do that yourself? If not, why do you respond in such a bizarre way when I do it?
Svelaz,
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The issue is that the prosecutor may intentionally ignore information gathered from a warrant while building a case because the warrant was so flawed that if Trump were to be charged, they would most likely demand to exclude the evidence gathered due to its 4A violations.
So if a prosecutor goes to indict based on information gathered from the warrant, and uses the information to gain more information… all of that goes away. (Fruit of the poisonous tree) That would scuttle any case the prosecutor would bring.
This is what Brock is talking about.
Its for this reason I suspect it was a fishing expedition to see what Trump had… not an attempt to indict him.
-G
Gumby,
“ The issue is that the prosecutor may intentionally ignore information gathered from a warrant while building a case because the warrant was so flawed that if Trump were to be charged, they would most likely demand to exclude the evidence gathered due to its 4A violations.”
But that’s not what S. Meyer said.
He specifically stated that a prosecutor may throw out a search warrant. That’s significantly different than ignoring information. They are two distinctly different actions.
“ So if a prosecutor goes to indict based on information gathered from the warrant, and uses the information to gain more information… all of that goes away. ”
That is if an indictment is filed first. Since this isn’t about an indictment the argument is moot.
You’re arguing using multiple assumptions instead of facts.
“But that’s not what S. Meyer said.
He specifically stated that a prosecutor may throw out a search warrant. That’s significantly different than ignoring information.”
Svelaz, get a dictionary.
Throw out: to dismiss from acceptance or consideration : REJECT _Merriam Webster.
If you cannot help being obtuse, everyone should reject everything you say. The statement, “Former FBI boss Kevin Brock says that a prosecutor may throw out the Trump search warrant entirely”, was quoted directly from the article. It is not mine, but anyone can understand the meaning, especially after reading the text that followed, the cited article, or my further explanations. Svelaz, you sound as if you don’t have that ability. Maybe you need to find something easier to understand than this blog.
Now you can return to the issues under discussion from which you are running away.
S. Meyer,
“Svelaz, get a dictionary.
Throw out: to dismiss from acceptance or consideration : REJECT _Merriam Webster.
If you cannot help being obtuse, everyone should reject everything you say. The statement, “Former FBI boss Kevin Brock says that a prosecutor may throw out the Trump search warrant entirely”, was quoted directly from the article. It is not mine, but anyone can understand the meaning, especially after reading the text that followed, the cited article, or my further explanations.”
LOL!! S. Meyer, whatever definition you want to use it’s still not possible for a prosecutor to do that. The fact that it was made by a “former FBI boss” shows that Solomon clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is just making stuff up to try to “help” Trump. This is the same guy who incompetently released a letter making things worse for Trump and now he’s trying to “help” some more by alluding to something a “former FBI boss” said. It’s not credible.
Svelaz, you are being ignorant as well as purposely ignorant. You don’t want to accept common phrases because you have no answers to prove your claims. I have explained where the phrases come from and what they mean. Now it is time for you to stop discussing them and compose responses to your statements that otherwise are ignorant, lies, or spin without any understanding of what is happening.
In any event, thank you for proving two of my beliefs, 1. you are ignorant, and 2. you lie a lot.
“the prosecutor may intentionally ignore information gathered from a warrant”
True, but ignoring some information is not “throw[ing] out the Trump search warrant.” Only a judge can toss a warrant out.
And here, there’s no suggestion that the DOJ believes the warrant to be “so flawed that if Trump were to be charged, they would most likely demand to exclude the evidence gathered due to its 4A violations.” On the contrary, they’ve argued that it’s a valid warrant.
Just further evidence that the left have lost their minds, and are unable to comment on issues in a calm cool objective manner. all they can do is demonize those who disagree with them. They call those they oppose racists, bigots, fascists, nazis and more. Those are the tactics of dictators
Judge’s order exposes FBI sloppiness, excessive evidence collection at Trump home
Court also acknowledges Joe Biden helped initiate criminal probe of his chief Republican rival, alarming many.
A criminal probe “requested by the incumbent president.” The seizure of clothing, medical records, tax records and 500 pages of attorney-client privileged documents not covered by a warrant. The sharing of privileged documents with investigators…
it violated the “least intrusive” mandate in the FBI …
The FBI and its overseers at the Biden Justice Department bumbled on what was certain to be one of the most scrutinized search warrant executions in modern American history
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/judges-order-reveals-fbi-sloppiness-excessive-evidence-collection?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
There is a lot more information on the site and Professor Turley’s name came up. It iis written by John Solomon, so it has been carefully researched. Solomon includes https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-09/FBI%20Domestic%20Investigations%20and%20Operations%20Guide%20-DIOG-%202013%20Version%20Part%2001%20of%2001.pdf and other things helpful in interpreting the decision.
John Solomon? The same idiot who revealed the damning letter from NARA that put Trump in a worse position? That guy? Mmm.. he’s not credible. He’s the same incompetent Trump apologist who made things worse for his master.
The FBI was not being sloppy. That was Trump being sloppy. Remember he was the one who mixed classified documents and government property with his personal belongings. It’s his fault they ended up being seized by the FBI.
Because Trump is also an idiot for keeping bringing those documents into his home and office and the nature of how those documents were mixed the warrant precisely stipulated that anything mixed with those government documents could be legally seized.
Again, I’ll emphasize. It’s Trump’s fault. He’s the one who kept those stolen government documents intermingled with his other documents. Because of HIS sloppiness the FBI ended up taking those items. They didn’t have time to sort thru all that junk and personal effects to separate 11,000 documents while at MAL.
That’s why the FBI had a review team. To sort thru Trump’s careless mixing of personal crap with classified documents and stolen government property.
” The same idiot who revealed the damning letter from NARA that put Trump in a worse position?”
Svelaz, if you feel that way, you should applaud Solomon for his honesty. Thank you for proving that Solomon is one of the honest investigative reporters.
“The FBI was not being sloppy. That was Trump being sloppy. Remember he was the one who mixed classified documents and government property with his personal belongings.”
When one has a secure storage room, why can’t they put their things in there? Was Melania’s underwear drawer in the storage room? Was Baron Trump’s living quarters in the storage room? You are not making sense. Perhaps you would like to try again.
“They didn’t have time to sort thru all that junk and personal effects to separate 11,000 documents while at MAL.”
Why didn’t they have time? If all they did was to move those cartons out, it would have taken minutes, not hours. Why did it take so many agents that long to finish? Do you have any answers to the questions opened by your foolish claims?
“That’s why the FBI had a review team.”
A ‘review team’? Can you tell us what that is? If you are talking about a taint team, how could they let personal items get to the investigative team when their job is to prevent that from happening? If they let stuff through that was not supposed to be taken, that is evidence that someone else needs to do the job.
Why did it take so many agents that long to finish?
Why did it take so many agents in the first place? Was the June visit at MAL to scout the layout and security camera coverage? Was it determined that with 30 agents onsite, knowledge of the location and coverage of the security cameras and no Trump people in the residence, the FBI would be able to effectively operate without witnesses?
“ Svelaz, if you feel that way, you should applaud Solomon for his honesty.”
LOL!!! That wasn’t honesty. He was an idiot who thought he was helping trump by releasing that letter. He didn’t understand that it did the opposite. That just proved what an incompetent idiot he is. Thanks for the laugh.
.Are you reading minds, again, Svelaz? Did Solomon report the truth? You can’t answer that. Instead, your words prove Solomon to be an honest reporter. Not everyone is as obtuse as you.
No, S. Meyer, he was an idiot who “thought” he was helping trump when in reality he was causing more harm. He was being an honest idiot.
Solomon is a reporter and is honest. However there is more to the story that you obviously don’t understand. I will leave you in your ignorance.
SM
S. Meyer,
“ When one has a secure storage room, why can’t they put their things in there? Was Melania’s underwear drawer in the storage room? Was Baron Trump’s living quarters in the storage room? You are not making sense. Perhaps you would like to try again.”
Because Trump LIED to the FBI when he claimed he turned in everything. When they found classified materials NOT in a secure storage room as he claimed the FBI was required to search diligently for classified documents anywhere they may have been stashed by Trump since he already LIED to them. To trust Trump after he LIED is not a mistake they will make again. Trump was already caught hiding documents. So the FBI had plenty of reason to search thoroughly. That was a consequence of Trump LYING to the FBI.
Because Trump was sloppy in securing those documents and mixing them with personal effects the FBI ended up with some of his personal effects and other crap. That’s why it was Trump’s fault that they took other things besides just stolen government documents.
“Because Trump LIED to the FBI when he claimed he turned in everything. “
What is ‘everything? You don’t know. What were Trump’s words? You don’t know. What was the lie if you can’t define ‘everything’? You have a problem. You don’t know what you are saying.
” When they found classified materials NOT in a secure storage room as he claimed”
How can you say that? What classified materials were outside the storage room? Trump declassified everything in his home. You are making things up again. Which room did they find the classified material in? You don’t know. Is that a figment of your imagination?
“FBI was required to search diligently for classified documents “
Why? According to the PRA Trump could read those classified documents. What was the purpose? What were they looking for? Why was the warrant so broad? Are they embarrassed by what they might actually have been looking for?
“Trump since he already LIED to them. “
What was the lie? See the first paragraph and answer the questions.
” Trump was already caught hiding documents.”
What is the proof that what you say is true? Are we to believe anything you say after listening to things you have no proof of? …After listening to so many things you made up?
“the FBI had plenty of reason to search thoroughly.”
If it is so many things, you won’t have a problem listing a few of them not already discussed above. But you can’t. I know that, members of the blog know that, and you know that.
All you have done is place words and sentences together that are meaningless, without evidence, and for the most part, made up.”Because Trump LIED to the FBI when he claimed he turned in everything. “
What is ‘everything? You don’t know. What were Trump’s words? You don’t know. What was the lie if you can’t define everything? You have a problem. You don’t know what you are talking about.
” When they found classified materials NOT in a secure storage room as he claimed”
How can you say that? What classified materials were not in the storage room? Trump declassified everything in his home. You are making things up again. Which room did they find the classified material? You don’t know. Is that a figment of your imagination?
“FBI was required to search diligently for classified documents “
Why? According to the PRA Trump could read those classified documents.What was the purpose? What were they looking for? Why was the warrant so broad? Are they embarrassed by what they might actually have been looking for?
“Trump since he already LIED to them. “
What was the lie? See the first paragraph and answer the questions.
” Trump was already caught hiding documents.”
What is the proof that what you say is true? Are we to believe anything you say after listening to things you have no proof of? …After listening to so many things you made up?
“the FBI had plenty of reason to search thoroughly.”
If it is so many things you won’t have a problem listing a few of them not already discussed above. But, you can’t. I know that, other members of the blog know that and you know that.
All you have done is put words and sentences together that are meaningless, without evidence and for the most part made up.
S. Meyer, all the answers to the questions you ask have been posted on this blog multiple times. Repeating them to you again would be a waste of time since it is certain that you willfully ignore evidence and obfuscate your way out. Use that intellect you always say you have and figure it out on your own.
“S. Meyer, all the answers to the questions you ask have been posted on this blog multiple times.”
That is a lie, because I asked them based on your statements and the questions referred to them in my response. Many were questions specific to your specific post.
Here are your statements and the questions. I expect you will run away because that is your known modus operandi.
—
“Because Trump LIED to the FBI when he claimed he turned in everything. “
What is ‘everything? You don’t know. What were Trump’s words? You don’t know. What was the lie if you can’t define ‘everything’? You have a problem. You don’t know what you are saying.
” When they found classified materials NOT in a secure storage room as he claimed”
How can you say that? What classified materials were outside the storage room? Trump declassified everything in his home. You are making things up again. Which room did they find the classified material in? You don’t know. Is that a figment of your imagination?
“FBI was required to search diligently for classified documents “
Why? According to the PRA Trump could read those classified documents. What was the purpose? What were they looking for? Why was the warrant so broad? Are they embarrassed by what they might actually have been looking for?
“Trump since he already LIED to them. “
What was the lie? See the first paragraph and answer the questions.
” Trump was already caught hiding documents.”
What is the proof that what you say is true? Are we to believe anything you say after listening to things you have no proof of? …After listening to so many things you made up?
“the FBI had plenty of reason to search thoroughly.”
If it is so many things, you won’t have a problem listing a few of them not already discussed above. But you can’t. I know that, members of the blog know that, and you know that.
All you have done is place words and sentences together that are meaningless, without evidence, and for the most part, made up.”Because Trump LIED to the FBI when he claimed he turned in everything. “
What is ‘everything? You don’t know. What were Trump’s words? You don’t know. What was the lie if you can’t define everything? You have a problem. You don’t know what you are talking about.
” When they found classified materials NOT in a secure storage room as he claimed”
How can you say that? What classified materials were not in the storage room? Trump declassified everything in his home. You are making things up again. Which room did they find the classified material? You don’t know. Is that a figment of your imagination?
“FBI was required to search diligently for classified documents “
Why? According to the PRA Trump could read those classified documents.What was the purpose? What were they looking for? Why was the warrant so broad? Are they embarrassed by what they might actually have been looking for?
“Trump since he already LIED to them. “
What was the lie? See the first paragraph and answer the questions.
” Trump was already caught hiding documents.”
What is the proof that what you say is true? Are we to believe anything you say after listening to things you have no proof of? …After listening to so many things you made up?
“the FBI had plenty of reason to search thoroughly.”
If it is so many things you won’t have a problem listing a few of them not already discussed above. But, you can’t. I know that, other members of the blog know that and you know that.
All you have done is put words and sentences together that are meaningless, without evidence and for the most part made up.
Svelaz, for some reason I don’t see my earlier response to you. You’re mistaken that “Trump LIED to the FBI when he claimed he turned in everything.” Trump is not the one who said that to the FBI/DOJ. Christina Bobb, Trump’s Custodian of Records, certified that based on what she was told by unnamed person(s). Perhaps she lied (in which case she may be a target), or perhaps that’s what she was told by Evan Corcoran, by Trump, etc., in which case she’ll be a witness about their false claims. Corcoran in particular is in danger because of what he separately told Bratt. See the discussion here: https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/09/04/evan-corcoran-keeps-arguing-that-evan-corcoran-didnt-do-a-diligent-search/
Critical thinking really is not your forte.
On issue after issue you presume that what the government calls “evidence” is actually fact.
The NARA letter PROVES only two things – that NARA had an oppinion, and that the WH was involved a the beginging.
NARA assertions in a letter are THEIR arguments, they are not facts, or proven correct arguments.
You do this with myriads of other things.
The FBI/DOJ are not trusted by alot of this country – for good reason.
The instance of lying and malfeasance in the collusion delusion are multitude
and to a very large extent we are dealing with the SAME corrupt agents.
There is no reason to beleive something is true because these people assert it.
“The NARA letter PROVES only two things – that NARA had an oppinion, and that the WH was involved a the beginging.
NARA assertions in a letter are THEIR arguments, they are not facts, or proven correct arguments.”
NARA’s assertions were backed by the law which is why they were correct in making their assertions. Nara the rule of law in their favor. Trump was violating the law by refusing to cooperate and obstructing the legitimate requests from NARA. Trump had an erroneous opinion that those documents belonged to him.
“NARA’s assertions were backed by the law which is why they were correct in making their assertions.”
Nope.
“Nara the rule of law in their favor.”
Typo ?
“Trump was violating the law by refusing to cooperate and obstructing the legitimate requests from NARA.”
False and irrelevant.
If NARA beleives it is correct on the law – the place to address that is in court.
That is not what they did.
“Trump had an erroneous opinion that those documents belonged to him.”
False and irrelevant.
Again such disputes are resolved by courts.
The Biden admin and DOJ an FBI have massive and growing problems.
The failure to follow the least intrusive process at every step of this,
the religious avoidance of the courts until Trump finally forced this into court – where he is currently doing well,
The early involvement of the WH
The competing claims regarding classifiation with DOJ trying to criminalize a despute about the law.
The Timing – which DOJ/FBI control
All are leading heavily towards this is political not about law.
One of the things recently pointed out was that Trump has official Offices at MAL – paid for by the US government – as do all ex-presidents. That adds even further arguments that DOJ/FBI/NARA are out of line.
If the US Government set Hillary up with Government offices in her residence, with a SCIF and the documents she had were within those offices and NOT on an internet connected computer, it would be much harder to pursue a crime.
In 2023, DOJ and FBI are going to have to answer some difficult questions about their interactions with the Whitehouse and their timing.
I would suggest rereading the NARA memo you keep relying on.
The WH has assiduously stated – once exposed as being involved that they defered to NARA, Esentially the WH is saying they delegated presidential authority to NARA and allowed them to execerise it based on their best judgement.
But the NARA memo says they acted at the direction of the president.
The NARA memo could be a very poorly worded attempt to restate what the whitehouse has been claiming – though that is unlikely. But lets presume it is. All that does is prove what I claimed earlier – that the NARA letter is a collection of claims – not a collection of facts.
You really have no clue about critical thinking.
Solomon nearly always reports from and provides primary sources.
Slandering Solomon does not change what Court orders say.
Frankly Slandering Solomon is just stupid.
And sort of an inverse proof of the fallacy of appeals to authority.
By Defaming Solomon you are attempting to discredit him as an authority.
But Solomon does not pretend to be an authority.
Going after Solomon is useless and stupid.
It does not matter if he is a Nazi. His reporting provides primary source documents.,.
Your beef is with them not Solomon.
Solomon is a well-known Trump ally. It was pretty clear he was trying to help make an argument supporting Trump, but as it is already well known he bizarrely thought the letter would be a good way to do so. It ended up harming Trump instead of helping him. It was a pretty boneheaded move.
“Solomon is a well-known Trump ally. It was pretty clear he was trying to help make an argument supporting Trump, but as it is already well known he bizarrely thought the letter would be a good way to do so. It ended up harming Trump instead of helping him. It was a pretty boneheaded move.”
All irrelevant. he provided primary sources. They stand on their own.
Attacks on Solomon are both stupid and wrong.
It is like trying to discredit vegetarianism because Hitler was vegetarian.
Oddly you like the NARA letter – when you get to assume that select portions of it are facts.
But are unwilling to give the any credence to other portions
Nearly always when Solomon is involved – the answer is the documents speak for themselves.
The judge has pretty clearly stated that the FBI was being sloppy.
That is a dead issue. If DOJ does not like her order – they can appeal.
I am not sure what they will do. Appealing is extremely dangerous here.
The Judge has put executive privildege back on the table,
and a DOJ loss on that not only ends this – but ends the Navarro, and other EP cases favorably for Trump and associates.
In fact anything short of an appellate slapdown on EP which is highly unlikely is a huge message from the courts that the J6 committee and the WH and the DOJ do not get to decide EP claims on their own.
Trump can lose on EP and at the same time Win on EP and destroy numerous DOJ cases right now against Trump and associates.
All that the courts have to decide is that claims of EP must be decided by courts and DOJ is F’d.
Even if an appellate court decides that Trump does not have EP regarding these documents, so long as they reserve the decions regarding EP to the courts – Trump still wins.
ALL of this is massive examples of more than sloppiness – LAWLESSNESS.
You seem to be under the delusion that it is Trump’s duty to do everything perfectly.
BZZT, Wrong. It is the governments duty to get absolutely everything right.
Trump is not even obligated to cooperate at all. It is usually better if he does.
But it is not an obligation.
It is not even a legal obligation if he is wrong about his claims.
Regardless, the FACTS the judge cites – from information provided by the FBI are reasons the warrant never should have been issued in the first place, and that DOJ/FBI jumped the gun, and should have either asked the courts to enforce their subpeona or NARA should have sued Trump for the return of the documents.
Put simply it is increasingly evident that NAR/DOJ/FBI/WH jumped rapidly to a criminal investigation without a sound basis,
when they had lots of other options, and in doing so they violated Trump’s constitutional rights,
and have admitted it.
Worse DOJ is actually arguing that they do not intend to return things that they already admit they obtained illegally.
” Appealing is extremely dangerous here.
The Judge has put executive privildege back on the table,
and a DOJ loss on that not only ends this – but ends the Navarro, and other EP cases favorably for Trump and associates.”
Trump has no executive privilege claim in this. He’s no longer the president. He can’t claim executive privilege over documents that are no longer his. There is only one president who can claim executive privilege and that is Biden. He already waived the executive privilege claims on those documents for the purpose of the investigation.
“In fact anything short of an appellate slapdown on EP which is highly unlikely is a huge message from the courts that the J6 committee and the WH and the DOJ do not get to decide EP claims on their own.”
The PRA is pretty clear on why Trump can’t claim EP or even the courts. The supreme court already established the precedent for the courts. They don’t need to re-litigate it.
“You seem to be under the delusion that it is Trump’s duty to do everything perfectly.
BZZT, Wrong. It is the governments duty to get absolutely everything right.
Trump is not even obligated to cooperate at all. It is usually better if he does.
But it is not an obligation.
It is not even a legal obligation if he is wrong about his claims.”
Wrong, Trump had a duty to return all those documents and secure them according to the protocols set for classified documents which he did NOT do. He WAS obligated by law to cooperate because not doing so would be treated as a criminal violation under the espionage act and the PRA. Keeping those classified documents mixed with various personal belongings and other documents in a haphazard manner that they were found IS why the FBI ended up taking everything that was with the stolen documents and anything near it. That’s why it was necessary for the warrant to be so broad. It was Trump’s fault for keeping those documents in such disarray.
“Regardless, the FACTS the judge cites – from information provided by the FBI are reasons the warrant never should have been issued in the first place, and that DOJ/FBI jumped the gun, and should have either asked the courts to enforce their subpoena or NARA should have sued Trump for the return of the documents.”
No, because that ignores the involvement of the highly sensitive classified defense material. And once it was confirmed that he did have that in his possession waiting for a subpoena or a lawsuit to be enforced was not an option. The DOJ was required to take immediate action and that involved the search warrant. The DOJ didn’t have the luxury of waiting for Trump while he further delayed and dragged his feet. They had been trying to do what you stated for nearly two years. Trump should have complied far sooner and he did not.
“Put simply it is increasingly evident that NAR/DOJ/FBI/WH jumped rapidly to a criminal investigation without a sound basis,
when they had lots of other options, and in doing so they violated Trump’s constitutional rights,
and have admitted it.”
They HAD to because it was clear Trump was already refusing to turn over documents that did NOT belong to him. That is legally defined as theft. They burned through all their options for nearly two years. Trump, as William Barr subtly stated, was jerking them around for almost two years. The last straw was when the FBI learned he had highly classified documents that he was not only not supposed to have, but that also posed a serious national security risk that had to immediately be secured. Trump put his own constitutional rights at risk by refusing to cooperate and deliberately obstructing the DOJ while he had these documents in his possession.
“Worse DOJ is actually arguing that they do not intend to return things that they already admit they obtained illegally.”
They didn’t obtain anything illegally. They don’t intend to return things to Trump that do not belong to him. The FBI is going to be returning to him documents that are not relevant to the investigation according to the law. The rest is not for Trump to keep.
“Trump has no executive privilege claim in this. ”
This judge has said fairly strongly that is not decided law.
I beleive she is correct.
Further the issue is actually in front of SCOTUS as a result of the J6 hearings.
Your claim that executive privilege ends with the presidents term is incorrect as a matter of law.
There have been many decisions against former presidents – but not on the basis you are claiming.
“The PRA is pretty clear on why Trump can’t claim EP or even the courts.”
This is a ludicrously stupid argument. The PRA has nothing to do with EP. Nor BTW does “ownership”.
In fact if the documents in question were “owned” by Trump there would be no EP.
” The supreme court already established the precedent for the courts. They don’t need to re-litigate it.”
Either they are doing just exactly that right now, or you are wrong.
If you have doubt – the latter is correct.
“Trump had a duty to return all those documents”
Nope.
“He WAS obligated by law to cooperate”
Nope.
This is not even wrong as applies to classified documents or the PRA or EP,
it is just a plain error regarding the constitutional relationship between government and individuals.
“because that ignores the involvement of the highly sensitive classified defense material. And once it was confirmed that he did have that in his possession waiting for a subpoena or a lawsuit to be enforced was not an option. ”
Both false and not confirmed.
First there is absoltuely nothing wrong with ex-presidents posessing classified materials.
The US government pays to maintain government offices and a SCIF at the homes of ex-presidents for exactly this reason.
“The DOJ was required to take immediate action and that involved the search warrant. The DOJ didn’t have the luxury of waiting for Trump while he further delayed and dragged his feet. They had been trying to do what you stated for nearly two years. Trump should have complied far sooner and he did not.”
Again – entirely wrong as a matter of current law.
I have personally argued repeatedly that law enforcement MUST enforce all the laws we have.
But that is NOT the state of the law today.
And infact DOJ and FBI guidelines say the exact opposite.
That the DOJ/FBI are to use the least intrusive methods, the narrowest possible warrants, in proceding.
“They HAD to because it was clear Trump was already refusing to turn over documents that did NOT belong to him. ”
You keep making both false and irrelevant claims.
You keep presuming that every FBI allegation is also a FACT.
Ownership is not established – but it could have been – NARA could have gone to court.
Classification has not been established – but it could have been – again in court.
Trump has brought this and the issues into court – no DOJ/FBI.
And that puts them on their back foot.
They look as if they think they do not need the courts.
“Trump, as William Barr subtly stated, was jerking them around for almost two years.”
I am not sure Barr is correct there. The actual evidence we have is that Trump was cooperating.
But even if Barr was correct – jerking NARA,DOJ,FBI arround is probably unwise, it is not illegal.
“The last straw was when the FBI learned he had highly classified documents that he was not only not supposed to have, but that also posed a serious national security risk that had to immediately be secured.”
Nope – no one raided Clinton. She had plenty of time to Bleachbit her server – an actual act of obstruction.
The FACT is despite your claims – FBI was not obligated to act – even if everything you claim was true.
There is no immediate security risk. There is no evidence Trump was selling nuclear secrets tot he Saudi’s,
Or that Spetnaz were preparing to crack the government operated SCIF at MAL defended by a small army of secret service agents.
“Trump put his own constitutional rights at risk”
There is no such thing. Rights are nearly immutable, and very few are conditional on conduct acceptable to the government,
particularly without an actual conviction.
“They didn’t obtain anything illegally.”
Of course they did – a general warrant is illegal.
Several former Clinton and Bush US ADA’s and FBI lawyers have said – these guys screwed up, they have substantially increased the odds that EVERYTHING gets supreessed.
“They don’t intend to return things to Trump that do not belong to him. The FBI is going to be returning to him documents that are not relevant to the investigation according to the law. The rest is not for Trump to keep.”
That is quite litterally NOT what the FBI is saying. They argued to the court that they intend to keep nearly everything – Trump’s or not, priviledged or not, relevant or not.
“the issue is actually in front of SCOTUS as a result of the J6 hearings.”
It isn’t.
The dispute with J6 Committee involves two different branches of government. These FL cases are entirely internal to the Executive Branch.
The question of whether the current president can waive priviledge for a former president is in front of Scotus.
And that is exactly what we are dealing with in J6 and here.
NARA did not go to court to get a determination that Trump did not have privildge.
J6 committee did not go to court to override claims of priviledge and enforce their subpeona.
In both cases the correct process – going to court was circumvented.
The J6 cases where there are claims of priviledge were prosecuted by DOJ – the J6 committee can not prosecute anything.
Trump is allowed to be sloppy – though he was not.
You have a very perverse view of the relationship between government and individuals.
Government is obligated to respect our rights,
whether it thinks we are good people or bad
Whether it thinks it is right or wrong.
Govenrment is obligated to dot its i’s and cross its t’s.
The rest of us are not.
In fact we are not obligated to do things perfectly – even if we committed a crime.
And govenrment is obligated to do things perfectly – under all circumstances.
Each step as we move forward exposes more and more of the FBI/DOJ’s conduct,
and we are leaning more and it is not good for DOJ/FBI.
Contra your claims it is increasingly clear that FBI/DOJ did not follow its own guidlines regarding the drafting of the warrant and the collection of evidence.
And it is increasingly obvious that the judge is justifiably unfreindly to a bumbling FBI that shows all signs of being engaged in a political witch hunt.
The attention the Judge paid to Trump’s claims of executive priviledge is a HUGE problem for DOJ/FBI.
He does not need to win a privildge claim. All he needs to win is a claim that the FBI/DOJ was obligated to adjudicate privildge in court. A decision to that effect guts much of What DOJ has done int he past several months regarding J6 testimony.
“Trump is allowed to be sloppy – though he was not.”
False, he was sloppy and careless. He was REQUIRED to secure these documents from those not authorized to view them or handle them. He did NOT do that. Putting a padlock on the room was not enough and the fact that documents were indeed found in multiple unsecured states was a direct violation of the espionage act.
The fact that many documents were found mixed with personal belongings and other effects showed he did not exercise any due diligence in keeping these documents which were stolen by the way in accordance with the law.
“Govenrment is obligated to dot its i’s and cross its t’s.
The rest of us are not. ”
Oh yes, we are required to as well when we go to court. The government DID do everything by the book. That’s why Trump is in this mess.
“Government is obligated to respect our rights,
whether it thinks we are good people or bad
Whether it thinks it is right or wrong.”
True, but people are also obligated to obey the law and comply with the law whether we think it’s wrong or not. As you say if you don’t like the law, change it. right?
“In fact we are not obligated to do things perfectly – even if we committed a crime.
And the govenrment is obligated to do things perfectly – under all circumstances.”
True, but we are also obligated to follow the law and if the law shows that you didn’t do something perfectly you are out of luck if you can’t argue your way out of it in court. If the law says the speed limit is 15mph and you are pulled over for doing 16mph in court the judge is obligated to levy a fine because you didn’t perfectly adhere to the speed limit. Right? The limit is 15, not 16. That would be the government doing things perfectly under all circumstances. Trump broke the law by keeping documents that it clearly says are not his. The government has to punish Trump for the violation because he kept documents that were not his according to the law. Trump was obligated but chose not to be and he got caught.
“Contra your claims it is increasingly clear that FBI/DOJ did not follow its own guidlines regarding the drafting of the warrant and the collection of evidence.”
They did follow their guidelines. Your claim is not supported by the facts.
“And it is increasingly obvious that the judge is justifiably unfreindly to a bumbling FBI that shows all signs of being engaged in a political witch hunt.”
No, what is obvious is the judge overstepped her authority in making her ruling. There is a reason why the majority of legal experts including Turley’s dear friend William Barr are critical of the judge’s justifications. Trump is the one who is bumbling around after being caught illegally possessing government documents. The law is pretty clear on that. The judge made a grave error trying to help Trump.
“The attention the Judge paid to Trump’s claims of executive priviledge is a HUGE problem for DOJ/FBI.”
No, because, again, Trump has no claim to executive privilege. He’s not the president.
Like you did with me, you are trying to do the same with John Say. You make silly statements saying they are backed up with facts, but you never seldom if ever provide those facts even when asked in response. Instead you dance, run away or make your usual excuses.
An example: “They did follow their guidelines. Your claim is not supported by the facts.”
That is the beginning and end of a statement. Since you pretend to know the facts, why didn’t you say what they are?
You don’t know the facts because you are ignorant, lying or making things up.
It is very well established that DOJ/FBI did not follow their guidelines.
“False, he was sloppy and careless.”
irellevant.
“He was REQUIRED to secure these documents from those not authorized to view them or handle them. He did NOT do that. Putting a padlock on the room was not enough and the fact that documents were indeed found in multiple unsecured states was a direct violation of the espionage act.”
Says you ?
You have not established that there were actual classified documents.
You have not established that they were not secure. In fact you have the FBI telling him to put another lock on – that is an admission on the part of the FBI that is enough.
Next you have a small army of SS agents at MAL.
What do you think these documents were stashed arround the pool ?
Finally, No Trump does not have a sudden new Duty regarding these documents because one day he is president and the next he is ex-president. If it was legal for them to be where they were on Jan 20, 2021. It was legal on Jan 21, 2021. Crimes can not be committed passively just because time passes.
“The fact that many documents were found mixed with personal belongings and other effects showed he did not exercise any due diligence in keeping these documents which were stolen by the way in accordance with the law.”
Nope, it shows nothing.
You really do not understand how little the FBI is trusted.
Next, You presume that because you have a list of what was recovered that it was only recovered from one place.
Do you think Melanias intimates were mixed in with classified papers ?
Regardless, there is not some legal requirement that classified documents should never touch a womans underwear.
Those of you on the left like to make up rules as you go.
“Govenrment is obligated to dot its i’s and cross its t’s.
The rest of us are not. ”
“Oh yes, we are required to as well when we go to court.”
Nope, and we are not in court yet, or atleast we were not until Trump brought the DOJ/FBI there.
” The government DID do everything by the book.”
It is self evident they did not.
“That’s why Trump is in this mess.”
Heard that before – thousands of times.
Wolf, Wolf!
“but people are also obligated to obey the law and comply with the law whether we think it’s wrong or not.”
Correct, and there STILL is nothing in the law that says what you keep claiming.
You can not passively violate the Espionage act.
“As you say if you don’t like the law, change it. right?”
I honestly do not care much about the laws here one way or the other.
But they are what they are – and your WISH that they were something else or broader does not change that.
The actual rule of law, odds on results in problems for DOJ/FBI not trump.
Now if you actually Have Trump brokering nuclear secrets to the Saudi’s by the pool at MAL – you got him dead to rights.
But the one thing we can be most certain of is that the leaks are false.
For two reasons:
History – for almost 6 years there has been a new leak every other day saying Trump goes down tomorow, yet tomorow never comes.
The FBI leaking about an investigation is a crime. But lying to the press is not leaking.
“but we are also obligated to follow the law”
Correct, but the law is about ACTS.
“if the law shows that you didn’t do something perfectly you are out of luck ”
Nope. The law is not about doing things perfectly, it is about doing things wrong.
“If the law says the speed limit is 15mph and you are pulled over for doing 16mph in court the judge is obligated to levy a fine because you didn’t perfectly adhere to the speed limit. Right?”
Correct, but if you are going 10, or 11, or 14, or parked at the side of the road you are fine.
The law is about acts, BAD acts. There are few if any instances in which the law imposes a positive duty to do something. We can get in trouble with our neighbor, with our church, with the entire country for failure to act.
But we can not get in trouble with the law.
“Trump broke the law by keeping documents that it clearly says are not his.”
False.
“Trump was obligated”
Again the law does not impose positive obligations.
Like the 10 commandments Crimes are acts you are forbidden to commit.
There is no crime of doing nothing.
“They did follow their guidelines. Your claim is not supported by the facts.”
We are well past that. Law enforcement way to often gets away with violating its own rules.
But that does not change the rules or that they were violated.
“”And it is increasingly obvious that the judge is justifiably unfriendly to a bumbling FBI that shows all signs of being engaged in a political witch hunt.”
No, what is obvious is the judge overstepped her authority in making her ruling.”
The fact that you are claiming that she overstepped is proof that she is unfriendly.
I would note that BEFORE her ruling, there are cases on point pending before SCOTUS.
Many judges are hostile to law enforcement interal priviledge review and beleive it violates the constitution.
That is before SCOTUS – that means atleast 4 justices think the claim has merit.
The argument by many judges, is that only courts can constitutionally determine if material is priviledged.
And that is probably correct.
Coversely I do not think there has ever been a case where Judges have ruled to setup a special master, that they have been overruled. There was a special master in the Cohen case.
“There is a reason why the majority of legal experts”
YOU majority of legal experts have been wrong for years.
Wolf, Wolf,
Why do you think suddenly they are going to be right this time.
“including Turley’s dear friend William Barr are critical of the judge’s justifications.”
naked assertion.
“Trump is the one who is bumbling around after being caught illegally possessing government documents.”
Neither established nor a crime.
“The law is pretty clear on that.”
It is – mere possession is not a crime.
“The judge made a grave error trying to help Trump.”
The judge is not trying to “help” trump. More left wing nonsense, just because you do not like a decision.
Special masters are appointed all the time. The mere fact that DOJ found attorney client material would typically result in a special master.
Project Veritas won a Special Master request over the Amy Biden Diary. There was a special master in the Cohen case.
What is unusual is the DOJ’s response to her preliminary order, and her criticism’s of the DOJ/FBI in her order.
Those criticisms appear to be fact and law based – that is a problem for DOJ/FBI
““The attention the Judge paid to Trump’s claims of executive priviledge is a HUGE problem for DOJ/FBI.”
No, because, again, Trump has no claim to executive privilege. He’s not the president.”
The judge differs. atleast 4 members of SCOTUS differ because a similar case is already docketed.
Even the prior cases – including those that rejected claims of priviledge did not say prior presidents had no claim to priviledge. They just denied priviledge in the specific fact set.
Executive privildge is a very nebulous area of law. There is no statutory law, nor anything in the constitution.
It is entirely caselaw, and the number of cases is small and not especially consistent.
It is my personal opinion that EP should be incredibly narrow. But that is not the caselaw.
You do not seem to grasp that the warrant itself is trouble.
And it is in trouble for specifically the reasons you are arguing.
If you can not figure out how the FBI/DOJ could preserve the argument that you think it should be entitled to make,
without taking material they are not entitled to, then you are not very smart.
The overbreadth of the warrant is proof that DOJ/FBI needed to resolve this in an adversarial setting where their claims would have been subject to scrutiny.
“If you can not figure out how the FBI/DOJ could preserve the argument that you think it should be entitled to make,
without taking material they are not entitled to, then you are not very smart.”
They took material that did not belong to Trump. They were entitled to it as it is evidence of a crime. The warrant was legally issued and the evidence that justified its issuance was proved with the seizure of the stolen documents in question.
They took material that did not belong to Trump. They were entitled to it as it is evidence of a crime
You constantly argue from a concusion that is not fact.
You have no evidence anything President Trump had was not his. Unless you can quote the statute that give the power to the DoJ to overrule the Presidents decision on what is personal, and what is govt.
Iowan, mostly Svelaz has zero content and makes things up.
I have dealt with him for a good part of the day and the only way to deal is to ask him questions, Then he runs away or focus’s on word games. He is not serious, smart or sensible.
Iowan2,
“You have no evidence anything President Trump had was not his. Unless you can quote the statute that give the power to the DoJ to overrule the Presidents decision on what is personal, and what is govt.”
The FBI does have evidence and they clearly showed thru photos that Trump indeed has material that was not legally his to keep. The DOJ took documents that were personal ONLY because Trump kept classified material that was illegally held by Trump as per the warrant. When it involves a criminal investigation the DOJ does have the authority to temporarily keep personal documents IF they were with the illegally kept documents. This is not unprecedented or out of the ordinary. It happens all the time.
.
“The FBI does have evidence and they clearly showed thru photos that Trump indeed has material that was not legally his to keep.”
Are you saying the FBI showed pictures of the documents containing nuclear secrets? Of course not. They wouldn’t show such documents. What documents did they show?
They took LOTS of material that unarguably DID belong to Trump, and they are nearly universally refusing to return it.
Regardless, that is irrelevant. The DOJ/FBI rules require the DOJ/FBI to follow the least intrusive means PERIOD.
They obviously did not.
You keep talking about stolen – there is an actual federal crime of theft.
But not listed in the warrant.
The PRA is not a criminal statute.
You keep trying to make a false argument.
Nothing was stolen.
Even in the unlikely case that documents are determined to be the governments not Trump’s – there was not theft.
Trump did not go back to the Whitehouse and Jan 21, 2021 and scale the fence, sneak into the oval and run off with documents. Theft is an act.
All these documents were removed from the WH while Trump was president.
All or nearly all were moved by GSA or others in the government.
If I own a car, and it is in my garage, and I sell it to you, I can not stop you from coming to pick it up – though I am not required to do so at your convenience. But I have not stolen it, just because you have not come to get it.
Again I will emphasize – none of your claims are based on uncontested evidence.
You choose to beleive FBI – but history tells us that is not wise.
Worse still, this is not merely the same FBI, but the same FBI office that has F’d up the collusion delusion investigation.
This is the same FBI office that is under attack by an army of whistleblowers for political bias.
This is the same FBI office that is being accused – credibly of burying the hunter Biden case.
The FBI was at MAL all day.
They are the ones who issued the overly broad warrant that caused them all this grief.
“The FBI was at MAL all day.
They are the ones who issued the overly broad warrant that caused them all this grief.”
Wrong, the fact that Trump kept these documents mixed with other personal things is HIS fault. The FBI had to search more thoroughly after learning that they were lied to by Trump’s lawyers. The nature of the classified documents and their sensitivity REQUIRED they take anything that suspected of having such documents. Trump posed a serious national security risk by being careless and his refusal to cooperate made it more urgent.
No content. You are making things up again.
S. Meyer, there IS content. You are just not capable of recognizing it. Willful denial will do that to you.
No content. You were making things up. If you believe differently you can show the content and the proof.
I am still waiting for my questions to be answered. You made content up, and then left the scene.
“the fact that Trump kept these documents mixed with other personal things is HIS fault.”
That may be true – we do not actuall know that.
But there is no “fault” to it.
Can you point out where in 18 US 793 is the crime of mixing classified material with magazines ?
“The FBI had to search more thoroughly after learning that they were lied to by Trump’s lawyers.”
Still not established as a fact, and highly unlikely
Trump’s lawyers have far better credibility that the DC FBI office that has been caught lying repeatedly.
“The nature of the classified documents and their sensitivity REQUIRED they take anything that suspected of having such documents.”
Not true in so many ways.
It is still not established that anything was classified. Only that they were marked.
Regardless, being classified does not require the FBI to rush in.
“Trump posed a serious national security risk by being careless and his refusal to cooperate made it more urgent.”
So you are trying to argue that a bunch of maybe classified documents locked in a SCIF at MAL within Trump’s Government paid for Office space, guarded by an army of Secret Service agents was not safe ?
The SCIF at my employer in 2005 was a room with a traditional door lock on it.
It was in a typical office building. Had I waned to I could have gotten in at night by popping out ceiling tiles in the hall and coming in from the ceiling.
And we had TS.SCI material in the SCIF.
As is typical of left wing nuts – you beleive whatever you want without the slightest skepticism.
The judges decision with near certainty means that not only the FBI’s review team but every FBI agent that has received documents from the Review team will be barred from this investigation.
The court has essentially said the review team failed.
“The court has essentially said the review team failed”
No it didn’t. The judge failed to recognize that the review team did exactly what the law required it to do.
When it required a special master that is exactly what it said.
Besides – make up you mind.
Either you trust this judge, or you think she is trying to help Trump as you said.
Can’t be both.
There is no law on privilege review.
But it is common place for Courts to appoint special masters when there are questions of privildge.
I can think of 3 high profile cases in the past 4 years that had claims of priviledged material.
ALL had review teams.
ALL ended up with special masters.
The caselaw is against you.
BTW it is obviously in her authority.
I am not certain of this, But I beleive she is the actual real judge that the magistrate who approved the warrant is under. Regardless, she has jurisdiction and authority.
More distractions by incompetent individuals who shouldn’t be on any TV. Americans better not take their eyes off the ball with the coming election. The problem’s are inflation, fuel price, CRIME (not white supremacy or Americans who want a great nation), the border (or lack of), political corruption, 87k IRS, China influence on WH.
If they had a case they wouldn’t keep leaking what they had.
“Lawyers like former top Obama official Neal Katyal, said that Judge Cannon’s decision appeared designed to “protect their guy” or at the very least, “delay justice.” In other words, Cannon was acting as a political operatives rather than a judge.“
This statement is very inciteful. It is something that had to be said. The left has gone off the deep end, including many leftist attornies. All one has to do is look at Lawrence Tribe, who used to have an excellent reputation.
Before he became a talking head, his reputation was as a losing attorney in multiple appeals cases: Bush v Gore, Sun Myun Moon, the GE Superfund case, and others
Dennis B, I assume you are talking about Lawrence Tribe. That a lawyer is on the losing side doesn’t tell us much about his skills. I don’t know enough about Lawrence Tribe, but if there is long-standing evidence from his earlier years about him being less than good, I would like to know.
“ This statement is very inciteful.”
It was also very true.
Trump went judge shopping for a friendly judge. He found one he appointed. That judge ruled in his favor using very sketchy legal reasoning. The Judge’s ruling is so full of holes and poor legal justification that the appearance of favoritism is pretty strong.
This is why the criticism of the ruling is justified.
Svelaz: You state that the judge’s order/opinion contained “very sketchy legal reasoning. The Judge’s ruling is so full of holes and poor legal justification…”
Please enumerate examples, even one specific example….so that we can thrash it around a little, OK?
(I am just now reading the judge’s order/opinion. It is, what, 28 pages?)
lin,
I’m not Svelaz, but I’ll take up your question, and start with 1 example.
She claimed “Plaintiff initiated this action with a hybrid motion that seeks independent review of the property seized from his residence on August 8, 2022, a temporary injunction on any further review by the Government in the meantime, and ultimately the return of the seized property under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
Under rule 41(g), a key question is whether whoo owns the property in question. The PRA states that “The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. … The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.” So Trump does not own the vast majority of these records. In particular, he does not own the records to which executive privilege might apply, since those are by definition Presidential Records. She entirely ignores that it is the government, not Trump, that owns EP records, and therefore no Special Master is needed for those.
BTW, it’s 24 pages (doesn’t your copy show the page count at the top?).
Anonymous: NO NO NO I wanted Svelaz to respond, but you jumped in to his defense, are you one and the same?
Notwithstanding, I won’t reject for that reason, and respond with substance to you:
(1) The court first addressed jurisdictional grounds by noting that this was a “permissible suit in EQUITY (emphasis mine) rather than the Rules of Crim Pro, despite Plaintiffs “hybrid” series of claims. It went on to respectfully note that it was “mindful of its limited power in this domain…[and, accordingly] endeavors to fulfill its obligation under the law with due care.” pp. 7-8
(2) The court then tosses out your PRA ownership arguments in toto, first by noting that, pursuant to equitable considerations, “what matters now” was Trump’s request for a special master, ..”not his underlying legal entitlement to possess the records or his definable ‘possessory interest.'” pp. 12-13
The court greatly cites 11th circuit decisions to also conclude that, “Contrary to the Government’s [position], Plaintiff [Trump] need not prove ownership of the property but rather need only allege facts that constitute a “‘colorable’
showing of a right to possess at least some of the seized property,” (citing U.S. v. Melquiades, actual text of which states, “a colorable ownership, possession or security interest in at least a portion of the seized material.”
I respectfully now turn it over to you, trusting that you will not now add NEW arguments on a different point.
lin,
No, Svelaz and I are not the same person, as should be totally obvious from the content of our comments. Just as I don’t wonder if you’re a sock account of Meyer or John Say, even though you sometimes agree with them.
“The court then tosses out your PRA ownership arguments in toto”
She doesn’t. You were quoting text from a discussion about standing, not about ownership: “To have standing to bring a Rule 41(g) motion, a movant must allege ‘a colorable ownership, possessory or security interest in at least a portion of the [seized] property.'” Trump owns some of the items in question, and I don’t recall the government questioning that he has standing for the items he owns (if I’m wrong about that, please point out where they questioned it), but he does not own the EP items, which is what I was discussing.
Do you have anything to say about the **ownership** of the EP materials and Cannon’s (in my view) erroneous holding that the Special Master should review EP items, not just for attorney-client privilege?
Anonymous: Your original response to me (in lieu of Svelaz) stated,”I’ll take up your question, and start with 1 example.” Your singular example was: “She entirely ignores that it is the government, not Trump, that owns EP records and therefore no Special Master is needed for those.” This followed your recitation about PRA and Rule 41(g).
Dear Anonymous, now go back and reread what I said about “ownership” and the court’s response.
I again repeat what I stated above. Moreover, go back and read pp. bottom of 16,17-18 mostly 17, about EP, where the court expressly cites both SCOTUS and federal district decisions pertaining to EP being asserted by a “former president.” As already explained, this is a court order grounded in equity and is NOT premised on who ‘owns’ the records, as you argue. In this case, “the gov’t argues that Trump is foreclosed from asserting EP and cannot assert EP over the current executive branch.” The court then opines that “this position arguably overstates the law,” and cites both SCOTUS and federal district decisions pertaining to EP being asserted by a “former president.”
I offer no opinion as to the merits of the Order/Opinion, only that your “one example” falls short of viable challenge to it. Nothing about PRA or “ownership” has much, if any, bearing on the decision. Thanks
(for anyone following this exchange, please start reviewing p.16 near bottom, starting with “Though the foregoing analysis focuses on attorney-client privilege, the court is not convinced that similar concerns with respect to executive privilege….”
Again, MY argument is that the court addresses Trump’s attempt to claim EP over some material, pursuant to “the expectation of the confidentiality of executive communications” (citing the Nixon case)– not ownership, as you (Anonymous) argues.)
lin,
The sole thing that *you* said about ownership was the false claim “The court then tosses out your PRA ownership arguments in toto.” She did not.
The word “ownership” appears two other times in your comment, in a quote from the court about standing: “To have standing to bring a Rule 41(g) motion, a movant must allege ‘a colorable ownership, possessory or security interest in at least a portion of the [seized] property.’” Again: no one is disputing that he owns “at least a portion of the [seized] property.” The issue that I’ve been discussing is whether he owns the materials over which he could claim executive privilege. He does not. Focus on that subset.
“this is a court order grounded in equity and is NOT premised on who ‘owns’ the records, as you argue”
No, she says that he has standing because there was “a colorable showing of a right to possess at least some of the seized property.” I am not questioning his standing. He owns some of the property (such as the passports that were already returned). I am pointing out that he does NOT own other of the property that was seized. Focus on that subset.
She did not claim that the ownership is irrelevant to the issue as a whole. She said that “Although the Government argues that Plaintiff has no property interest in any of the presidential records seized from his residence, that position calls for an ultimate judgment on the merits as to those documents and their designations.” But she doesn’t have to analyze the individual documents to determine (1) that Trump doesn’t own those documents that are Presidential Records, and (2) that any documents over which he would assert executive privilege are necessarily Presidential Records. The plain words of the PRA identifies the government as the owner of Presidential Records, and the nature of asserting executive makes records subset to EP part of the Executive Branch’s records.
And I’m saying that it’s an error on her part not to acknowledge this and an error to prevent the FBI/DOJ from using EP docs that are clearly owned by the government.
“please start reviewing p.16 near bottom”
That section does not address the *ownership* of documents over which one might assert EP.
I am addressing ownership of this subset of docs. Please focus on that rather than other issues.
Nada. Why are you addressing ownership? The court appears not to, nor is the Plaintiff. Please show me where Trump is claiming “ownership” of the documents you refer to. It is my understanding that he merely wants them protected as confidential. Please show me otherwise, thanks.
lin,
You didn’t say what “Nada” applies to.
As for why I’m focused on ownership, it’s relevant to whether he has standing with respect to the EP documents and other Presidential Records, and also to her use of Richey v Smith. She chose not to break the records into subsets, and I’m saying that that was a mistake.
She argues “Once that preliminary showing is made [of ‘a colorable ownership, possessory or security interest in at least a portion of the [seized] property’], the standing requirement is satisfied, because “[the] owner or possessor of property that has been seized necessarily suffers an injury that can be redressed at least in part by the return of the seized property.” And I’m pointing out that he is neither the owner nor the possessor of the Presidential Records, he does not suffer any injury for their seizure, and she should have determined that he only had standing for the portion that he does have an ownership interest in.
“Please show me where Trump is claiming “ownership” of the documents you refer to.”
Please show me where I asserted that he did. If you cannot, then don’t ask me to support claims I haven’t made. He repeatedly asked that the seized property be returned and insisted that it was wrongfully seized. But he is not the owner of most of that property, the property is now in the possession of the actual owner, and he’d previously been subpoenaed for the government’s property but failed to return it to the government. It wasn’t wrongfully seized, and he lacks standing to demand that it be returned to him. Since the Presidential Records (including EP docs) aren’t his and shouldn’t be returned, there’s no need for a Special Master to analyze that subset.
As Bratt pointed out in the hearing:
“the second Richey factor is that Plaintiff must have an interest in and need for the property, and this plaintiff does not have an interest in the classified and other Presidential records. So under Richey, that, in and of itself, defeats or should point the Court to decline to exercise its equitable jurisdiction.”
Also, if you didn’t read the hearing transcript, another attorney for the US, Mr. Hawk, said “We would like to seek permission to provide copies — the proposal that we offered, Your Honor, provide copies to counsel of the 64 sets of the materials that are Bates stamped so they have the opportunity to start reviewing.” Cannon instead said “I’m going to reserve ruling on that request” and then used Trump’s property interest in those 64 sets as a basis for her Richey analysis. She could have just let the government give those sets to Trump’s counsel.
The flaw I find in your argument returns us to where we started– with your statement, “She entirely ignores that it is the government, not Trump, that owns EP records…” Yet, she clearly says in her Order the GROUNDS for her ruling: that a SM will be appointed “to review the seized property for personal items and documents and potentially privileged material subject to claims of attorney-client and/or executive privilege.” It’s like you conflated her two separate applications: one on personal and privileged material (for which Trump may have ownership interest) and one for which Trump has protective interest.
Since this, you continue to form and flesh out your argument as you go along, but you still have not let go of the “ownership” argument. I repeat what I said in the beginning, that ownership has nothing to do with it. Think of Eric Holder.
Here, Plaintiff is asking for executive privilege, tantamount to imposing duly-diligent custodial care over the documents pursuant to “the expectation of the confidentiality of executive communications.”
I respectfully disagree with you that ownership is a factor, and I remind you that this is the ONLY argument you started out with.
Let’s move in.
IMO, it seems that the court afforded the same deferential criteria to EP as is generally afforded to A/C privilege(s). I’m not sure about that one. Any opinion?
And I’m saying that she shouldn’t be lumping the “potentially privileged” items together, as the potentially A-C privileged items are legally very distinct from the potentially EP privileged items. It’s nothing like the Trump v Thompson case she cites SCOTUS on. That case involves two different branches of the government. This case is all internal to the Executive Branch.
What protective interest does Trump have in the government’s documents at this stage — a stage that consists of returning the government documents to their proper owner, assessing possible IC damage for the relevant subset, and seeing whether any are relevant to their ongoing investigation?
“Here, Plaintiff is asking for executive privilege”
And where does Cannon give ANY guidance to a Special Master about how that will be determined?
“I remind you that this is the ONLY argument you started out with.”
You asked Svelaz “Please enumerate examples, even one specific example,” so I — a different person — gave you one specific example. We clearly disagree about that example.
lin,
You may wish to read the government’s appeal, as it’s relevant to our discussion yesterday (e.g., ” Plaintiff does not and could not assert that he owns or has any possessory interest in classified records; that he has any right to have those government records returned to him; or that he can advance any plausible claims of attorney-client privilege as to such records that would bar the government from reviewing or using them”): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/69/trump-v-united-states/
They’re focusing on the documents with classified markings rather than EP docs; focusing on that subset makes a stronger case than the one I presented.
As e have seen both from the Election decions and from the TX SB8 decision there are massive problems with our legal doctrines on Standing.
Standing is court made law. It is not in the constitution, nor is it an act of the legislature.
It is primarily an expedient for the court to avoid having to adjudicate some cases.
But as we have seen just recently – standing as currently used has deep flaws.
If there is a controversy – SOMEONE must have standing. If the courts current doctrine of standing does not grant anyone standing – then the court is in error.
Next, one of the purposes of standing was to assure that the best situated party brought the case. But often today we see almost the opposite. That would be an error either by the court or in the doctrine of standing.
Jumping to Trump and EP claims. We have in the past presumed that the current president is the appropriate party to assert EP claims – and in most of the past that has proven correct. Past presidents – even Trump have defended EP claimsof their predecessors, even against political challengers that the current president favors.
Put simply in the past presidents defended the institution rather than their own transitory political interests.
That has never been a certainty, and it is obviously false today.
Personally, I am not a big fan of Executive priviledge – It is necescary but it also must be very limited.
But my view is not the historically prevailing view.
What this judge appears to be suggesting is that regardless of DOJ’s views of the strength of Trump’s EP claims, DOJ is not entitled to just ignore them. That Courts must make the final decisions on EP.
I think the judge is correct, that even if she is wrong, EP is not so clearly decided an issue of law that DOJ can ignore the courts.
Lin, here’s another example from an exchange in court.
“ THE COURT: Let me ask also, there has been some discussion in the filings related to leaks or disseminations of information to the media. Are you aware, Mr. Bratt, of any such dissemination to the media, relative to the contents of the seized records?
MR. BRATT: Not on the part of anybody that I’m working with. Obviously, you know, things — I see the same things in the press that other people do. It’s bad. People are talking. If people on the Government’s side are talking about it, I’m not aware of anybody that we work with that has had contact with the press and certainly don’t condone it in any way.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22274774-220901-transcript#document/p43/a2145843
This concerns the leaks that supposedly are being made by the government. The problem is the majority of these leaks are not accurate and they are coming from team Trump. Not the government. Here the judge is concerned about the effect these leaks have on Trump’s reputation and harm they may cause. She is justifying enjoining the review of documents because there might be the possibility of future leaks. The vast majority of them, in fact, can be matched to false claims Trump has made in his own filings.
Even the judge has leaked information that the government wouldn’t. Cannon also revealed details about the potentially privileged content seized from Trump. She’s done more leaking than the investigative team has. But her solution to this problem is is to give the seized documents, including documents marked TS/SCI with compartments including, among other things, Human Source Operations, back to Trump and the lawyers who are leaking constantly, not a single one of whom has a need to know about these Human Source Operations anymore.
Remember these are documents that are the government’s property, not Trump’s.
Svelaz: Again, I repeat your direct words, that the judge’s order/opinion contained “very sketchy legal reasoning. The Judge’s ruling is so full of holes and poor legal justification…” Please identify a specific part of her RULING, not extraneous/tangential queries at oral argument.
Now you bring in a new argument about leaks! (Where does the judge “leak information that the government wouldn’t.” please be specific
p.s., didn’t her opinion come at least one week after contents of seized material were already made public? Please cite a specific item within the seized contents that she leaked. thanks
Svelaz, tell us the holes in the judge’s ruling and tell us what was the poor legal justification.
That should be easy since you already made your decision.
Doesn’t work that way. You should really do some research on subjects you write about.
“Lawyers like former top Obama official Neal Katyal, said that Judge Cannon’s decision appeared designed to “protect their guy” or at the very least, “delay justice.””
Once again, Turley quotes a phrase but does not link to the source of the sentence it was taken from, so we cannot check the meaning of the quote in context, or even check whether the quote is accurate.
This is sloppy coming from an academic.
What Katyal said:
“Q: What do you make of Judge Cannon’s argument that simply because of the sheer volume of material here, that this special envoy [sic] of sorts is needed to review the documents?”
Katyal: “Yeah, it doesn’t make much sense because there’s actually not many documents that are subject to attorney-client or to executive privilege. The problem for her is she doesn’t tell us what might be subject to it. There is a — you know, the Supreme Court has said that it’s really up to the current president to decide whether or not anything is protected by executive privilege. She just says, ‘Well, maybe the Department overplays its hand on that argument,’ but she doesn’t give the special master any guidance. Why should it be that all of these documents now have to go through a privilege review when Donald Trump himself never said these documents have to go through a privilege review? And remember, his lawyers have been dealing with the archives for months and months about these documents. Did they ever say executive privilege? No. Did they ever say standing order to declassify these documents? No. So, this is kind of, you know, a grafted-on solution at the end that looks like, unfortunately, it is designed to try and protect their guy or at least delay justice from being reached.”
It’s a bad ruling. For example, she does not address the key issue of whether Trump can assert executive privilege against the Executive Branch. How is the Special Master supposed to address this when the judge has not?
My guess: the DOJ will accept a Special Master to review for attorney-client privilege but will appeal the use injunction and the review for EP, perhaps applying to move the case to the DC Circuit, since that’s where the grand jury is that had subpoenaed the documents, and evidence from this search would be presented to that same grand jury. Also per the PRA, “The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any action initiated by the former President asserting that a determination made by the Archivist violates the former President’s rights or privileges.”
I wish Turley would focus on the legal issues. Instead he follows some of the people he’s criticizing, making his column about them and not about the legal issues.
“ I wish Turley would focus on the legal issues. Instead he follows some of the people he’s criticizing, making his column about them and not about the legal issues.”
That’s exactly the point I’ve been making. Turley is being critical of other law professors and legal professionals because they are “attacking” the judge and her bad ruling. Ignoring the fact that they’ve spent time analyzing the ruling and are using legal reasoning to justify their criticisms. Turley is and has not, and he’s supposedly a highly respected legal scholar and law professor.
If Turley says “up”, you say down. When Turley’s criticize a Democrat or Democrat policy, you criticize Turley. Or excuse Democrat wrongdoing.
How often do you wear out your pom-poms in cheerleading for Democrats? Do you sleep in your jersey with the magical “D” emblazoned on it? That sucker must be getting rank.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
If no one from Trump’s side was permitted to be present during the search; and if there was no onsight detailed inventory of what each document was, then what removes reasonable doubt that some “evidence” did not come from the search? The honor and integrity of the FBI/DOJ?
Ruby Ridge, WACO, Bundy Ranch and Russia Gate they have no credibility.
Add Whitey Bulger, Larry Nassar, Bid Dan, what they did to MLK… the list of incredible FBI corruption is endless
Add to that list the real leader of RUSSIA!!! special counsel. Andrew Wiessman. The DoJ thug that took down Author Anderson, one of the Nations/ Worlds premier Accounting firms
Except SCOTUS slapped down his charges as a matter of law. 9 – 0 For being so wrong, he get promoted, because the law is not important as long as you get to punish the people you don’t like, and get another scalp to hang on your belt.
RE:”Add to that …………… special counsel. Andrew Wiessman” Well writ!!.
Add to the list the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping hoax.
Olly. that was Big Dan in my comment but it came out Bid Dan and there is no way to correct things on this comments engine
Olly, the search was observed by Trump thru his CCTV. His own lawyers stated that fact. Trump has footage of the search recorded with the security cameras he has in his compound.
Trump’s side WAS present during the search. They were not allowed to interfere with it. When it was over the FBI handed Trump’s lawyers a receipt detailing all the boxes they took according to the law. Trump knew exactly what they took, because he was watching it as it was happening.
he search was observed by Trump thru his CCTV. His own lawyers stated that fact. Trump has footage of the search recorded with the security cameras he has in his compound.
I haven’t seen the footage. Unless you have, then you’re assuming every action of every agent conducting the search was witnessed. It’s curious that the security footage leading up to the raid wasn’t seized. Especially in light of the claim that Trump and his staff had not properly secured documents. The assumption being that if the security cameras were so ubiquitous that they would have captured any event where documents in secure storage were accessed, and/or removed.
Trump’s side WAS present during the search.
According to Trump’s attorney’s, they were not permitted to be inside the residence during the search. Is that not true?
When it was over the FBI handed Trump’s lawyers a receipt detailing all the boxes they took according to the law.
Did the property receipt detail (by document) what was in the boxes? If not, then all we have is their word that what was in those boxes was discovered during the search. So the question remains unanswered: then what removes reasonable doubt that some “evidence” did not come from the search?
Does anyone with an ounce of sense believe that Joe Biden (Biden’s handlers – Susan Rice in particular, and Ron Klain specifically) did not push for this ‘raid’ on MAL? The immediate reaction from the spokespersons for the WH was ‘Joe Biden didn’t know anything about this.’ Since Joe never tells a lie, I guess we should all accept this denial?
Mystal is a grotesque, hateful, awful person. It is shameful that Brian Roberts gives him a platform to spew his hatred. The viewers who consume his hate, and the advertisers who finance it, are worse. Why Roberts allows it is a mystery. I mean, Roberts was a moderate Republican while he was consolidating the cable industry. Now he heads a gigantic global media/cable empire. Unsurprisingly, Roberts is now a Democrat. Better to be on the side of the mob than a target of the mob. Though that didn’t really help the French aristocrats and nobleman who sided with the Jacobins who ended up getting their own heads chopped off.
Or maybe MSNBC is such a tiny part of the Roberts clan empire he just doesn’t care. As long as MSNBC breaks even or turns a profit selling Mystal’s hatred to affluent Democrats, then there’s no need to change it. He’s got his yachts, mansions and servants to look after.