A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[Js1 87185]

“Random”

sure Jan

[Pato del Muerto 53506]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

“Random”

sure Jan

He has been assigned other judges as well in SD Florida. You file as much as he does and you are bound to catch them all at some point. 

[Dahobbs 18324]

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure what you're saying. The motion was never limited to a Rule 41 return of property.  That was alluded to as a basis for relief, but not solely.

It inartfully invoked the "anomalous equity" jurisdiction of the court by analogy to the special master appointments and injunctions fairly common in criminal cases.

You say they are common. But look at the basis for those motions, it is Rule 41 or, in some inapposite cases, Rule 17 related to subpoenas. Let's look at the cases cited in her original order:

Richey v. Smith, 515 F.2d 1239, 1245 (5th Cir. 1975) - Rule 41

In re Sealed Search Warrant & Application for a Warrant by Tel. or Other Reliable Elec. Means, 11 F.4th 1235, 1245 n.6 (11th Cir. 2021) - Rule 41 

United States v. Martinez, 241 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2001) - Rule 41

 Smith v. Katzenbach, 351 F.2d 810, 817 (D.C. Cir. 1965) - Rule 41

Matter of SixtySeven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Dollars ($67,470.00), 901 F.2d 1540, 1544 (11th Cir. 1990) - Rule 41

United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 533 (1971) - Rule 41

Oh, here is one she cites that should be a clue to everyone that "equity jurisdiction" here is bullshit: United States v. Dean, 80 F.3d 1535, 1542 (11th Cir. 1996), opinion modified on reconsideration, 87 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 1996) (making clear that the principle behind the doctrine of equitable jurisdiction—“that the state should not be permitted to deny individuals their property without recourse simply because there is no jurisdiction at law”—applies even when the seizure was lawful)

And, this includes the cases where courts were reviewing privilege concerns: 

• In re Sealed Search Warrant & Application for a Warrant by Tel. or Other Reliable Elec. Means, 11 F.4th 1235, 1245 n.6 (11th Cir. 2021) - Rule 41 ("They filed a motion under Rule 41(g), Fed. R. Crim. P., to obtain injunctive relief prohibiting the United States's filter team—which included attorneys and staff who were not involved in the criminal investigation of the Optima Family Companies and the individual owners, managers, and controllers—from reviewing any potentially privileged documents unless either the Intervenors agree or the court, after conducting its own privilege review, orders disclosure")
• See In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d 159, 183 (4th Cir. 2019), as amended (Oct. 31, 2019) Rule 41 (and notably this involved a motion by a third party law firm due to the search of its records unrelated to the person being investigated)

Other cases involving privilege reviews arose in a completely different context and the court had jurisdiction for different reasons. E.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 454 F.3d 511, 523 (6th Cir. 2006), In re Search Warrant for L. Offs. Executed on Mar. 19, 1992, 153 F.R.D. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) involved motions to modify grand jury subpoenas. Because they involved subpoenas as opposed to a warrant, the procedural mechanism was Rule 17/Rule 45 (Criminal/Civil). That mechanism doesn't apply here. 

Trump can't claim relief under Rule 17 because this isn't wasn't a subpoena.. And he made zero effort to show a possessory or ownership interest in the documents under Rule 41. While the Court could properly have jurisdiction for those items that the government admitted were Trump's personal documents, that doesn't confer jurisdiction as to property that Trump hasn't even claimed an interest in. This would be like a court enjoining the FBI from using for its investigation the 100 kilos of cocaine it seized because with the cocaine it had also seized some medical records.  Any other case, any other defendant, the DOJ prevails. 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Native Horn 3581]

What is amazing to me is that we have such intricate analysis of all of this, and yet have the fortitude to yell "MULEDICK!!!" when arriving at a tailgate.  We are a fucking special group of people.  

[956 Worldwide 35594]

The idea that some retired judge gets to read some of the most classified shit we have because DJT took it home with him and wouldn’t give it back is horseshit.  The idea that maybe stuff with TS/SCI markings isn’t REALLY the government’s and it might be DJT’s personal shit (maybe he doodled on it!) is also horseshit.  If you know anything about classified documents and their production, you know it’s horseshit. 
 

The ruling is trash and it’s clearly because this judge is a MAGAT. Get real. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The idea that some retired judge gets to read some of the most classified shit we have because DJT took it home with him and wouldn’t give it back is horseshit.  The idea that maybe stuff with TS/SCI markings isn’t REALLY the government’s and it might be DJT’s personal shit (maybe he doodled on it!) is also horseshit.  If you know anything about classified documents and their production, you know it’s horseshit. 
 

The ruling is trash and it’s clearly because this judge is a MAGAT. Get real. 

Wait till the 11th confirms. Then SCOTUS. 
 

Maybe having a President appoint judges isn’t good for democracy 

[Sbbruin 22144]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

Wait till the 11th confirms. Then SCOTUS. 
 

Maybe having a President appoint judges isn’t good for democracy 

Previously I wouldn't have thought it a big problem.  But now?  Indeed problematic.  DJT has completely fucked up our entire form of government.  I knew he was going to fuck things up when he was elected.  I had no idea he could, or anyone could, do this much damage.  

[TwiceHorn 32079]

30 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You say they are common. But look at the basis for those motions, it is Rule 41 or, in some inapposite cases, Rule 17 related to subpoenas. Let's look at the cases cited in her original order:

Richey v. Smith, 515 F.2d 1239, 1245 (5th Cir. 1975) - Rule 41

In re Sealed Search Warrant & Application for a Warrant by Tel. or Other Reliable Elec. Means, 11 F.4th 1235, 1245 n.6 (11th Cir. 2021) - Rule 41 

United States v. Martinez, 241 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2001) - Rule 41

 Smith v. Katzenbach, 351 F.2d 810, 817 (D.C. Cir. 1965) - Rule 41

Matter of SixtySeven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Dollars ($67,470.00), 901 F.2d 1540, 1544 (11th Cir. 1990) - Rule 41

United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 533 (1971) - Rule 41

Oh, here is one she cites that should be a clue to everyone that "equity jurisdiction" here is bullshit: United States v. Dean, 80 F.3d 1535, 1542 (11th Cir. 1996), opinion modified on reconsideration, 87 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 1996) (making clear that the principle behind the doctrine of equitable jurisdiction—“that the state should not be permitted to deny individuals their property without recourse simply because there is no jurisdiction at law”—applies even when the seizure was lawful)

And, this includes the cases where courts were reviewing privilege concerns: 

• In re Sealed Search Warrant & Application for a Warrant by Tel. or Other Reliable Elec. Means, 11 F.4th 1235, 1245 n.6 (11th Cir. 2021) - Rule 41 ("They filed a motion under Rule 41(g), Fed. R. Crim. P., to obtain injunctive relief prohibiting the United States's filter team—which included attorneys and staff who were not involved in the criminal investigation of the Optima Family Companies and the individual owners, managers, and controllers—from reviewing any potentially privileged documents unless either the Intervenors agree or the court, after conducting its own privilege review, orders disclosure")
• See In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d 159, 183 (4th Cir. 2019), as amended (Oct. 31, 2019) Rule 41 (and notably this involved a motion by a third party law firm due to the search of its records unrelated to the person being investigated)

Other cases involving privilege reviews arose in a completely different context and the court had jurisdiction for different reasons. E.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 454 F.3d 511, 523 (6th Cir. 2006), In re Search Warrant for L. Offs. Executed on Mar. 19, 1992, 153 F.R.D. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) involved motions to modify grand jury subpoenas. Because they involved subpoenas as opposed to a warrant, the procedural mechanism was Rule 17/Rule 45 (Criminal/Civil). That mechanism doesn't apply here. 

Trump can't claim relief under Rule 17 because this isn't wasn't a subpoena.. And he made zero effort to show a possessory or ownership interest in the documents under Rule 41. While the Court could properly have jurisdiction for those items that the government admitted were Trump's personal documents, that doesn't confer jurisdiction as to property that Trump hasn't even claimed an interest in. This would be like a court enjoining the FBI from using for its investigation the 100 kilos of cocaine it seized because with the cocaine it had also seized some medical records.  Any other case, any other defendant, the DOJ prevails. 

I say it's relatively common in certain circumstances because of the similar procedure applied in the recent Cohen and Giuliani search warrant cases.  The notion being when the government executes a search warrant on a premises containing substantial amounts of privileged material (typically attorney client as in the case of a warrant on an attorneys office), we don't rely solely on the filter team/procedure to evaluate that privilege.

The government doesn't contend that it's outside the "anomalous equity" jurisdiction (hence not rule-based) of the district court, but disagrees on the weighing of the equitable factors, principally likelihood of success and irreparable harm/public interest.

Ironically, while Trump's briefing was a disorganized mess, the government's briefing imposed the analytical framework on it, she applied it, and weighed the factors differently.  The one I most violently disagree with is her creation, from apparently whole cloth, that Trump could suffer a wrongful indictment if these documents are improperly used by the government.

Some have argued that a wrongful indictment is not a harm and is remedied by a motion to dismiss the indictment or suppress evidence.  I basically agree with that.  But from a practical standpoint, I would rather disarm any argument that an indictment is based on tainted evidence now, than when there's an actual indictment.

 

 

[Grade of D as in David 13255]

1 minute ago, Sbbruin said:

Previously I wouldn't have thought it a big problem.  But now?  Indeed problematic.  DJT has completely fucked up our entire form of government.  I knew he was going to fuck things up when he was elected.  I had no idea he could, or anyone could, do this much damage.  

The guy bankrupted multiple casinos. Frankly I'm surprised he didn't do more damage.

[Tuco 5093]

1 minute ago, Sbbruin said:

Previously I wouldn't have thought it a big problem.  But now?  Indeed problematic.  DJT has completely fucked up our entire form of government.  I knew he was going to fuck things up when he was elected.  I had no idea he could, or anyone could, do this much damage.  

Just to be clear, Donald Trump doesn't know jack shit about judges. Stacking the courts with shitty ideologues has very little to do with Trump.  This is the Republican Party competently executing a plan, to the detriment of the country. 

[Superhero 9025]

20 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

Like that's not going to happen anyway

I’ll be sure to eat a LOT of asparagus before I piss on his grave. 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Superhero

[Tuco 5093]

3 minutes ago, Superhero said:

I’ll be sure to eat a LOT of asparagus before I piss on his grave. 

I get this image of the queue for the Queen's visitation, except it's filled with Surly posters drinking beer and eating asparagus. 

[Dahobbs 18324]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I say it's relatively common in certain circumstances. . .

That certain is pregnant. Those circumstances are: Rule 41 for return of property, and Rule 17 for challenges to subpoenas. That's my point. She is well outside that realm when she invokes jurisdiction regarding documents that Trump hasn't even actually made a colorable claim of possessory interest, for the purposes of identifying documents covered by a privilege that almost certainly doesn't actually prevent the government from doing what it wants to do, and when she doesn't even have the jurisdiction to make a substantive ruling on application of the privilege. 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 32079]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

 In re Search Warrant for L. Offs. Executed on Mar. 19, 1992, 153 F.R.D. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) involved motions to modify grand jury subpoenas.

With all due respect, this is just wrong.  That case involved both a subpoena and a search warrant, although it denied the special master relief.

It's common enough that it warranted an ABA Journal article in 2018. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/criminal/practice/2018/taint-team-or-special-master-one-recent-analysis/

Quote

The court noted that “federal courts have generally ‘taken a skeptical view of the Government’s use of ‘taint teams’ as an appropriate method for determining whether seized or subpoenaed records are protected by the attorney-client privilege.’” 

That the government has admitted that about 5% (500 pages) of seized materials are potentially attorney-client privileged probably provides sufficient basis to invoke the special master proceeding.  That material should a) not be used in any investigation and, b) in all likelihood returned to Trump.  

I agree that other claims directed to other types of materials (classified, executive privilege) are far weaker, but the matter of separating the sheep from the goats still remains.

Edited September 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 46168]

15 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

The guy bankrupted multiple casinos. Frankly I'm surprised he didn't do more damage.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

doesn't even have the jurisdiction to make a substantive ruling on application of the privilege anyway. 

This is the part that worries me.  I think she does have jurisdiction to evaluate executive privilege under the common law.

Clearly, though, the PRA version applies here, and while she may have subject-matter jurisdiction, the PRA provides that D DC is the proper venue (or has exclusive jurisdiction, it's a little unclear) for challenges under the PRA.  The literal wording of the statute is:

(e)

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.

 

44 USC 2204.  Seems to me that the operative term there is "made by the Archivist."

Edited September 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Covri 6368]

9 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I get this image of the queue for the Queen's visitation, except it's filled with Surly posters drinking beer and eating asparagus. 

Nah what you do is you hold off on any liquids and piss one of those dark yellow/brownish dehydrated pisses that stinks like urine from a block away.  The kind Bear Grylls would serve as an after dinner apéritif. 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Covri

[Dahobbs 18324]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

With all due respect, this is just wrong.  That case involved both a subpoena and a search warrant, although it denied the special master relief.

It's common enough that it warranted an ABA Journal article in 2018. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/criminal/practice/2018/taint-team-or-special-master-one-recent-analysis/

I painted too broad a brush there, but the overarching assertion is correct. The motions before that court were:

1) A motion to return property seized pursuant to the search warrant from the law firm (i.e., Rule 41)

2) a motion to modify/quash the grand jury subpoena (i.e., Rule 17). 

Under the first part, the movant(s) need to make a colorable claim of possessory interest, which they could since it involved the return of attorney-client communications. Under the second part the standard is a bit different and too complex to detail here, but that is because subpoenas are different and generally directed to third-parties, not the person being investigated. 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Dahobbs

[C-Man 27779]

Kind of not sure where to put this. I mean it could easily be put in the Comic Relief thread because this is parody, right?

[TwiceHorn 32079]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I painted too broad a brush there, but the overarching assertion is correct. The motions before that court were:

1) A motion to return property seized pursuant to the search warrant from the law firm (i.e., Rule 41)

2) a motion to modify/quash the grand jury subpoena (i.e., Rule 17). 

Under the first part, the movant(s) need to make a colorable claim of possessory interest, which they could since it involved the return of attorney-client communications. Under the second part the standard is a bit different and too complex to detail here, but that is because subpoenas are different and generally directed to third-parties, not the person being investigated. 

Appreciate the debate.  I'm guided on most of these things by what the government argued.

I initially thought the standing issue (he has no claim to rightful ownership of any of these documents and thus lacks standing to argue for their return) was a good one.  But when it became clearer that not all of the seized items were Presidential Records, and some portion were personal and potentially attorney-client privileged, he has enough of a possessory interest to defeat the standing claim.  The government overstated that position to some degree.

[wildcat09 29579]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You're going to need a cite for the bolded.  The government admitted to seizing 500 pages of potentially attorney-client privileged information.  That's significant.  There would appear to be some fairly sizable percentage of the seized materials subject to some fairly legitimate basis for return or non-use.

I really have no idea why she's doing what she's doing.  Favoring Trump is certainly one possibility, and a likely one.  That she's a dumbass baby judge overawed by the case is another.

It would be something indeed if she turned out to be a pro-defendant judge as a general proposition.  It's possible though.

I certainly haven't said that she would do this for any defendant.  Not every defendant can colorably raise these kind of issues. But you can't deny that this case is unusual, or special, legally and every other way because a former President is the party in interest.  There's never been anything like it.

Here you go. Marcy Wheeler's analysis, omitting the quotes from Cannon's injunction because the formatting would get wonky, which are in the link:

Quote

This is why I laid out how small a percentage of the seized records this involves. On August 8, the government seized 11,282 stolen government records, of which 103 are marked as classified, 1,673 press clippings, and around 64 “sets of material” that might be privileged. 

Those 64 sets of material have not been shared with the investigative team. They’ve been segregated by the privilege team. Cannon doesn’t even claim Trump owns them. He may not! They may be White House Counsel documents about the Mazars challenge or White House physician documents about Trump’s COVID treatment. We don’t know whether they do or not because they are being protected, for Trump’s sake.

But the claim that this personal information equates to a property interest is one of three things that Cannon cites to substantiate her claim that something among this vast swath of stolen documents is owned by Donald Trump.

Then, Aileen Cannon double counts stuff. She only knows about — and has “leaked” the details about these medical and tax records — because she (unlike the investigative team) has read and publicly disclosed material from the filter team report. There are upwards of 500 pages that might be privileged (520, the privilege team says), which she counts as a separate property interest of Trump’s from the seized medical and tax records found within those 520 pages that only the privilege team has seen, even though it’s the same 520 pages and US taxpayers might well own those 520 pages (if, for example, they pertained to Trump’s treatment for COVID or DOJ’s defense of Trump in the Mazars case) as well.

That would be crazy enough. But to ensure she’d even get to this ruling, Cannon already refused to let DOJ share all this, the 520 pages of potentially privileged material and the tax and medical records therein. The filter team lawyers, Benjamin Hawk, asked to do so last Thursday. But Cannon told him no, because she wanted to do all this “holistically”.

...

So the only reason DOJ still has exclusive possession of the materials on which she hangs her Richey analysis is because she, Aileen Cannon, prohibited DOJ from sharing it, and she uses DOJ’s possession of it to prevent the government from investigating the thousands of government documents Trump stole.

As for the rest, she makes stuff up. As noted, she claims that in the government’s response they admitted that, “The Government also has acknowledged that it seized some “[p]ersonal effects without evidentiary value.” She returns to this citation several times to claim that the government has acknowledged it seized stuff it should not have. Tell me if you can find that acknowledgment in the passage she cites (I’ve bolded what she claims is such an acknowledgement and italicized something Cannon entirely ignored):

...

Look at what she did!!! First, she took a subjunctive statement — that if the FBI were to find personal items without evidentiary value (like his passports, which they already returned, of which she makes no mention, because it would prove the government is right) — and outright lied and claimed it was a concession they had found such things. The reason she doesn’t mention the passports, by the way, is because the government said, “The location of the passports is relevant evidence in an investigation of unauthorized retention and mishandling of national defense information.” So even there, they asserted an investigative interest. But in a passage where the government states, outright, that the Plaintiff has not established the government has seized anything not covered by the warrant, Aileen Cannon simply invents a concession that says they took stuff that is unnecessary to the investigation. Makes it up!

And yet she uses it as part of her “proof” that there are personal belongings among the 11,000 stolen documents. And she invented it out of thin air.

 

[Francisco 2.0 32595]

 

 

 

[Dahobbs 18324]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Appreciate the debate.  I'm guided on most of these things by what the government argued.

I initially thought the standing issue (he has no claim to rightful ownership of any of these documents and thus lacks standing to argue for their return) was a good one.  But when it became clearer that not all of the seized items were Presidential Records, and some portion were personal and potentially attorney-client privileged, he has enough of a possessory interest to defeat the standing claim.  The government overstated that position to some degree.

There is clearly standing (and jurisdiction) to resolve issues related to documents for which he has a possessory interest. But that doesn't give the court carte blanche to restrict government access to other categories of seized evidence. Trump doesn't have a possessory interest in any documents marked classified. And he didn't even provide any evidence that the documents were so intermixed that his personal documents such as medical records and attorney-client communications were somehow intermixed within individual classified marked documents.  Her ruling isn't tethered to the procedural mechanism being utilized or its foundational jurisdictional purpose—ensuring that the state should not be permitted to deny individuals their property without recourse simply because there is no jurisdiction at law. Again, imagine that instead of classified documents, we were talking about cocaine. The fact that some medical records or even attorney-client documents were seized along within the cocaine wouldn't create a basis for restricting the government's access to the rightfully seized cocaine. Yet that is precisely what she has done. 

[Tuco 5093]

Ok, from a practical standpoint, now the special master has been appointed.  I assume it should take him about a day to review the classified documents (or, perhaps I should say "the documents with classified markings") and provide them to the prosecution.  Is there any reason he would hold on to documents which are clearly marked classified which have no Trump notes on them? 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Tuco

[tx 3 putt 78685]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Wait till the 11th confirms. Then SCOTUS. 
 

Maybe having a President appoint judges isn’t good for democracy 

not only is ginni Thomas’s court to agree, they’re going to also say - trump never lost 2020 and he’s still president !

[TwiceHorn 32079]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Here you go. Marcy Wheeler's analysis, omitting the quotes from Cannon's injunction because the formatting would get wonky, which are in the link:

 

Not actually what she said.

Her fundamental premise seems to be that these documents need sorting.  The government has sorted them and made assertions about them.  Letting the government determine what,  it decided in its sole discretion,should be returned to Trump, or not used in a criminal investigation, is asking too much.

You can certainly disagree with that premise, but you can't really argue the point without requiring near-complete deference to the governmental determination.  It's more defensible to defer to the government with respect to the classified stuff than the other stuff, but if the operating principle is that the circumstances require little or no deference, then there you have it.

I think there's a case to be made that deferring to the government in these circumstances implicates what the Trumpists are going to call the "deep state."  And there's a certain value to taking the "deep state" out of it, even if the deep state is a figment of Trumpists' imagination.

I'm no advocate or believer in the deep state, but I don't mind defusing the argument.

 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Ok, from a practical standpoint, now the special master has been appointed.  I assume it should take him about a day to review the classified documents (or, perhaps I should say "the documents with classified markings") and provide them to the prosecution.  Is there any reason he would hold on to documents which are clearly marked classified which have no Trump notes on them? 

Maybe he orders the handwriing portion redacted from the documents the government can use?  Maybe make a quick decision on executive privilege with respect to that presumably small subset of the classified documents?

Good question.  As a former FISA judge, I think he'll be sympathetic to the national security concerns and do what he can to alleviate them as quickly as possible.

[Tuco 5093]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Maybe he orders the handwriing portion redacted from the documents the government can use?  Maybe make a quick decision on executive privilege with respect to that presumably small subset of the classified documents?

Good question.  As a former FISA judge, I think he'll be sympathetic to the national security concerns and do what he can to alleviate them as quickly as possible.

As an extension of this court, is he allowed to make any decision on executive privilege, or does that need to go through the DC court?  

[TwiceHorn 32079]

Here's exactly what I would like to avoid.  https://www.agg.com/news-insights/publications/a-tainted-practice-department-of-justice-filter-teams-under-review/

Quote

When Michael Avenatti won a mistrial in his wire fraud trial in the Central District of California in August 2021, it was one of the tamer headlines about the infamous suspended lawyer. However, the lack of fanfare belies the significance of the legal issue that led U.S. District Judge James Selna to declare the mistrial. Judge Selna found that the government’s “taint team” had failed to hand over evidence in its possession after a seizure of data from Avenatti’s law offices. Although no willful misconduct was found, the failure to turn the reviewed evidence over materially hindered Avenatti’s ability to defend himself against the government’s charges. This case is one of a number of recent actions to consider the proper use of taint teams, representing a pushback on the government’s handling of privileged materials in investigations.

Whoops, a taint team fucked it up.  NOWAI!

[Pato del Muerto 53506]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Wait till the 11th confirms. Then SCOTUS. 
 

Maybe having a President appoint judges isn’t good for democracy 

Especially if the legislative body can withhold such confirmations until an executive it likes gets elected. 

[wildcat09 29579]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not actually what she said.

Her fundamental premise seems to be that these documents need sorting.  The government has sorted them and made assertions about them.  Letting the government determine what,  it decided in its sole discretion,should be returned to Trump, or not used in a criminal investigation, is asking too much.

You can certainly disagree with that premise, but you can't really argue the point without requiring near-complete deference to the governmental determination.  It's more defensible to defer to the government with respect to the classified stuff than the other stuff, but if the operating principle is that the circumstances require little or no deference, then there you have it.

I think there's a case to be made that deferring to the government in these circumstances implicates what the Trumpists are going to call the "deep state."  And there's a certain value to taking the "deep state" out of it, even if the deep state is a figment of Trumpists' imagination.

I'm no advocate or believer in the deep state, but I don't mind defusing the argument.

 

C'mon man. The people that argument works on aren't going to be mollified by this clown show.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

As an extension of this court, is he allowed to make any decision on executive privilege, or does that need to go through the DC court?  

The way it's set up, it seems he is to make an initial call on executive privilege.  He is explicitly permitted to consult with NARA on the Presidential/personal records issue.  It's not explicitly authorized concerning the "privilege review."  Nor is it forbidden.

Where it goes from there, no one knows.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

C'mon man. The people that argument works on aren't going to be mollified by this clown show.

True enough, but see also post 21952.  I'd like to avoid that scenario or anything remotely similar.

[Pato del Muerto 53506]

24 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

not only is ginni Thomas’s court to agree, they’re going to also say - trump never lost 2020 and he’s still president !

The court recognizes that a former president does not have the right to retain and possess these materials. 
However, the court also understands that there is an ongoing credible question as to whether defendant won the 2020 election and is or is not the right and correct current president.  The court rules in favor of defendant and strenuously insists that plaintiff focuses on getting to the bottom of this election fraud business. 
 

 

dissenting opinion:

 

signed,

Edited September 16, 2022 by Pato del Muerto

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

it's fucking wild to me that a former president stole top secret information with the intent to sell it and use it as leverage and here we are debating whether to give it back to him or not. i want off this fucking ride

[Bullneck 19528]

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

Previously I wouldn't have thought it a big problem.  But now?  Indeed problematic.  DJT has completely fucked up our entire form of government.  I knew he was going to fuck things up when he was elected.  I had no idea he could, or anyone could, do this much damage.  

We’ll, I was pretty sure he’d start a nuclear war, so there’s that. 

[tx 3 putt 78685]

if trump and his family sold out the Israelis, we need to let them know asap (through back channels)

 

let them clean up this mess  

[TexasEd 8266]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The idea that some retired judge gets to read some of the most classified shit we have because DJT took it home with him and wouldn’t give it back is horseshit.  The idea that maybe stuff with TS/SCI markings isn’t REALLY the government’s and it might be DJT’s personal shit (maybe he doodled on it!) is also horseshit.  If you know anything about classified documents and their production, you know it’s horseshit. 
 

The ruling is trash and it’s clearly because this judge is a MAGAT. Get real. 

Yep, and this is from a guy who took pictures of SCI products and posted them to Twitter.

You don't write on classified documents unless it is a draft to be revised.  The notes are part of the classified document.  Any notes you take on other papers could also be classified depending on what you write and they must be labeled as such with reference to the original classification source, get a cover sheet and are controlled in the proper manner.

This disregard for national security is enraging.

 

[TexasEd 8266]

Just now, tx 3 putt said:

if trump and his family sold out the Israelis, we need to let them know asap (through back channels)

 

let them clean up this mess  

my guess it was Iran because of his obsession and plan to bomb Iran as a diversion during the election.  But yeah, whatever the Saudis or Russians wanted most is also likely.

 

Here is some levity:

 

 

[lemonlime 5503]

4 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Yep, and this is from a guy who took pictures of SCI products and posted them to Twitter.

You don't write on classified documents unless it is a draft to be revised.  The notes are part of the classified document.  Any notes you take on other papers could also be classified depending on what you write and they must be labeled as such with reference to the original classification source, get a cover sheet and are controlled in the proper manner.

This disregard for national security is enraging.

 

Yes, but what you're not understanding is that they need to redact the note that says "document sent to Putin 2/1/21."

[NAVY 6969]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

if trump and his family sold out the Israelis, we need to let them know asap (through back channels)

 

let them clean up this mess  

 

[Beau Vine 55867]

2 hours ago, Covri said:

Nah what you do is you hold off on any liquids and piss one of those dark yellow/brownish dehydrated pisses that stinks like urine from a block away.  The kind Bear Grylls would serve as an after dinner apéritif. 

I know I'm gonna be a bad guy when the day comes:

[TwiceHorn 32079]

Here's the 11th Circuit public docket if anyone wants to "watch." https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65351635/donald-trump-v-united-states/

I don't think it gets updated as quickly as PACER, but it's not far behind.

No motion on the stay, I'd expect it by the end of the day, though.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2692]

I want to know more about these taint teams, sounds kinky 

[C-Man 27779]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

if trump and his family sold out the Israelis, we need to let them know asap (through back channels)

 

let them clean up this mess  

They skip right past fucking around and get right to the find out phase.

[Grade of D as in David 13255]

34 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I know I'm gonna be a bad guy when the day comes:

Same here along with a nice puddle of number 7 from the Bristol stool chart.

16 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

I want to know more about these taint teams, sounds kinky 

I don't know much other than they're not pussies and they're not assholes either.

[tx 3 putt 78685]

3 minutes ago, C-Man said:

They skip right past fucking around and get right to the find out phase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God

[C-Man 27779]

29 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God

Munich is a such a great movie. (BTW, I've never read about Black September's assassination attempt of Golda Meir. That would make a pretty good flick too.)

[henrygandorf 29225]

back to the special master and how he gets paid.  everyone is like, "trump has to pay him lol".

so, then what happens if he doesn't?  because that's something that he (checks notes) always always does.

wait, let me guess, it will create a...delay of some sort?  his own shitty behavior continues to help him and it's starting to get old.

cue twice with "this whole thing might get pushed back 6-9 months, but that's not actually bad, and here's why"

[Bama Chick 28596]

But sure, let him to continue to abuse our justice system for his own treasonous ends so we can set precedent.

FUCKKKK OFFFFD