Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

You may be right about the impact to the case, but here's a twitter thread Neal Katyal posted in which he says a first year law student should write a better opinion than this judge.

 

I think Neal is technically off base there.

The May letter applied to documents produced from the first 15 boxes and couldn't have applied to the documents seized in August.

See also his item 7.  I would much rather have a special master now than a dismissed indictment later.

The Biden administration should weigh in on these and not delegate to the Archivist, at this point.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

For comparison, the Special Master in Cohen's case reviewed as many as 1,000,000 documents, and found 7000 to be privileged, over a period of four months.

The executive privilege inquiry is a bit more nuanced, but we're looking at 1/100th of the documents.

I would expect this to take much less time.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's just going to be a procedural hoop that the Justice Department will have to work through.

the big lebowski dude GIF

Delay and obstruction is defeating justice. Who gives a shit if some dumb procedural rule is followed to the letter if trump and co are just going to flip the table over when they don't like the outcome? It's like you're happy playing tiddlywinks while they're gearing up for a thundedome. 

Your blind trust in the system that everyone is operating in good faith is why we're in this mess. It's how grifters and shiesters like trump are able to operate. You're more worried about decorum and huphuphupmuhlegalese than actually dealing with the fucking fascists. Read what happened to Germany in the 1930s. The fascists bent the legal system to their will, and the legal system followed because thems the rulezzzzzzz

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

For comparison, the Special Master in Cohen's case reviewed as many as 1,000,000 documents, and found 7000 to be privileged, over a period of four months.

The executive privilege inquiry is a bit more nuanced, but we're looking at 1/100th of the documents.

I would expect this to take much less time.


you’re assuming a professional and competent person will be chosen 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

For comparison, the Special Master in Cohen's case reviewed as many as 1,000,000 documents, and found 7000 to be privileged, over a period of four months.

The executive privilege inquiry is a bit more nuanced, but we're looking at 1/100th of the documents.

I would expect this to take much less time.

But those are apples and oranges. There is no executive privilege under these facts unless the conservative judges are once again going to rewrite the law to create one. 
This judge wanted to slow this thing down and try to suffocate it in the crib. 

Posted

The turtle worked very hard to get the judicial branch in their pocket for future events to go their way and it’s working better then expected 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CTC2 said:

But those are apples and oranges. There is no executive privilege under these facts unless the conservative judges are once again going to rewrite the law to create one. 
This judge wanted to slow this thing down and try to suffocate it in the crib. 

For these documents, executive privilege exists, at least for some of them.  I am reasonably sure Biden will waive privilege once they are identified and the claims made.  You don't waive a privilege that doesn't exist.

And, if Trump wants to contest that waiver, he's free to file suit in D. D.C. without anyone having to resort to expedients like "executive privilege doesn't exist when it's an executive-to-executive" thing.  That will be part of Biden's reason for waiving.

That's the most persuasive thing really going on here.  The PRA governs the privilege claims here.  And, contrary to Katyal's assertion, the Archivist's May letter does NOT deal with these documents.  Once the documents and privilege claims are identified and asserted, the PRA comes into play.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn94 said:

So Tribe, Vladek, Litman, Asha, and Katayal are all wrong? Is that really what you are saying, TwiceHorn?

Tribe is wrong on about half the shit he tweets.  I don't know what's up Vladeck's ass, I like him, but that tweet above is nonsense.

Haven't read Asha.

Katyal is talking out both sides of his mouth (before it happened it was a nothingburger, now he has his panties in a twist).

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

NSIAP - great thread for the legal explanation 

That particular thing is nonsense.  The Archivist didn't even know these documents existed when that letter was written.  Other than that letter from 4-5 months ago, neither the Archivist nor the Biden Administration has said boo about these privilege claims.

I'm sure they're bullshit and theyll ultimately fail, but the process must be observed.

Let me be very clear here.  I think the Archivist, backed up by White House counsel, is absolutely legally right and presents a persuasive and ultimately winning argument that the privilege claims here will be waived an otherwise fail in the face of a criminal investigation.

But the letter has zero precedential value.  It is confined by its terms to the first 15 boxes, not the subpoena response, and not the documents seized in the search.  Can its reasoning be extended to the seized documents?  Fuck yes, it can.  But the Biden/White House waiver/delegation of waiver it describes, which is a critical part of the PRA process, DID NOT APPLY TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS.

To treat it like a Supreme Court opinion on the subject, that should have bound Cannon, is fucking dumb.  The letter itself states there is no precedent for Trump's position.  True enough.  That also means there's no precedent for the Archivist's position.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Captainant said:

I wish I had 1/1000th of the faith that twicehorn has in our judiciary

I mean, you are aware that the Supreme Court, the exact same one that reversed Roe, poured out Trump in Trump v. Thompson?  And that was a Congressional inquiry, where executive privilege is at its highest.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

the big lebowski dude GIF

Delay and obstruction is defeating justice. Who gives a shit if some dumb procedural rule is followed to the letter if trump and co are just going to flip the table over when they don't like the outcome? It's like you're happy playing tiddlywinks while they're gearing up for a thundedome. 

Your blind trust in the system that everyone is operating in good faith is why we're in this mess. It's how grifters and shiesters like trump are able to operate. You're more worried about decorum and huphuphupmuhlegalese than actually dealing with the fucking fascists. Read what happened to Germany in the 1930s. The fascists bent the legal system to their will, and the legal system followed because thems the rulezzzzzzz

 

I don't have blind trust in the system.

But this is not nearly as outrageous as some are making it out to be.

And, to use your favorite, fuck outta here with "some dumb procedural rule."  Due process is all about procedure.

The PRA was enacted to impose order on this type of situation.  Let it work.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I mean, you are aware that the Supreme Court, the exact same one that reversed Roe, poured out Trump in Trump v. Thompson?  And that was a Congressional inquiry, where executive privilege is at its highest.

Great! It's only half calvinball and horseshit!

Posted
2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

you’re assuming a professional and competent person will be chosen 

They have to have the proper security clearances to start with, which will weed out a lot of people.    Trump’s buddies and family members who had access lost it when Biden took over.   

Posted

Delay, obfuscate, confuse is the tactic. If they delay long enough then people just forget. Just look at Jan 6 and Matt Gaetz as examples. Not one big fish has gone down.

If this goes past the midterms, I doubt there is ever any resolution.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That particular thing is nonsense.  The Archivist didn't even know these documents existed when that letter was written.  Other than that letter from 4-5 months ago, neither the Archivist nor the Biden Administration has said boo about these privilege claims.

I'm sure they're bullshit and theyll ultimately fail, but the process must be observed.

Let me be very clear here.  I think the Archivist, backed up by White House counsel, is absolutely legally right and presents a persuasive and ultimately winning argument that the privilege claims here will be waived an otherwise fail in the face of a criminal investigation.

But the letter has zero precedential value.  It is confined by its terms to the first 15 boxes, not the subpoena response, and not the documents seized in the search.  Can its reasoning be extended to the seized documents?  Fuck yes, it can.  But the Biden/White House waiver/delegation of waiver it describes, which is a critical part of the PRA process, DID NOT APPLY TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS.

To treat it like a Supreme Court opinion on the subject, that should have bound Cannon, is fucking dumb.  The letter itself states there is no precedent for Trump's position.  True enough.  That also means there's no precedent for the Archivist's position.

You and your ilk need to stfu so we can get started on the hangings. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
5 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

  Trump’s buddies and family members who had access lost it when Biden took over.   

Until some dipshit judge says they didn’t lose it. Then twice will show up and explain to us unwashed masses how based on a 1845 ruling by the VT state court that one point raised in the 500 page ruling has about 1% merit in today’s case. Then we should sit back and let justice run its course because it’s never let us down and reasons and shit. 
 

FUCK THIS SHIT

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
20 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Naah, just resigned to shittiness. I’ll miss the Bama game; we’ll be in Scotland dropping the boy off at college. Gonna be a fun travel experience, being that a dumbass blew through a light on Saturday, likely totaled my wife’s ride, and fractured her wrist, and no idea when we can get in to see an orthopedist. So, she’ll be traveling with a broken wrist, and probably won’t be much help hauling luggage and whatnot.
Because why the fuck not.

How can you not get in to see someone to set a wrist?  PM Sawbonz.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Tumps chief of staff knowingly gave sensitive polling data to known Russian spies - no consequences 

Correction: it was campaign manager Paul Manafort, who was working for free, and who owed millions to a Russian oligarch. He had formerly worked for Putin’s puppet in Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It was the dumber part of the 5th Circuit before it split.

Agree to disagree.  Fifth retained Louisana and Mississippi.  I mean, come on.

  • Haha 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

How can you not get in to see someone to set a wrist?  PM Sawbonz.

There's nothing to set (and, it turns out, the fracture is right at the radial head, at the elbow -- it's hairline (almost impossible to see, which is good), and most likely nothing that needs to be set or get further treatment other than a sling and not using that arm for much for some weeks).  Lovely bruising, though.  And wearing a sling makes her feel like some car wreck scam artist, so that's fun.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There's nothing to set (and, it turns out, the fracture is right at the radial head, at the elbow.

Her wrist connects to her elbow?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted

All this hand wringing over things that are completely out of our control.  Wake me up when we get to civil war.  I've got some living to do between now and then.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, Goredho said:

All this hand wringing over things that are completely out of our control. 

That's about where I'm at. Don't get me wrong, I follow all the stuff closely. But I also realize I can't do jack about it, except keep voting for those who I think can do something about it. 

Posted
41 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Her wrist connects to her elbow?

Meh.  Heavy bruising at both joints.  I read the initial radiology report wrong -- thought the break was at the wrist, but turns out it was higher up.  Jammed her arm into the wheel pretty hard.

Not that this has anything to do with the impending fall of the Republic, other than it's exhibit 50,000,000 in "everyone is completely fucking selfish in everything they do."

Posted
2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Agree to disagree.  Fifth retained Louisana and Mississippi.  I mean, come on.

Somehow, though, in the past, those two states produced pretty good jurists.

Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

What Twice doesn't see is that Cannon is knowingly and happily playing the role of John Eastman here: providing a pretense of a valid legal basis for Trump's continued obfuscations and barely-veiled exhortations for his supporters to commit violence in his name.

She's not acting to protect the legitimacy of the judiciary. She's shitting all over that. Twice can't seriously think she'd rule this way for any other criminal defendant in the country. What she's doing is giving his supporters the intellectual justification they need (tiny as it is) to continue believing that Trump is being unfairly persecuted. She's buying him time to whip his supporters up into another frenzy in an attempt to make the DOJ decide it's not worth prosecuting him.

Actually, I can.  Extract Trump from the equation and I think this is a right thing to do, maybe THE right thing to do.

Without this, the defendant is almost completely at the mercy of DOJ/FBI's complete good faith in ex parte evaluating the privilege and other aspects of it.  And, although I am rooting for them in this case, I don't trust them that far.  They are, after all, cops, and they might fuck it up to our detriment.

Posted

I'm still lost on how a federal court in Florida has jurisdiction. If there truly is a novel question about executive privilege shouldn't it be decided by the DC District Court? I would think the government's main argument would be for a change in venue.

Posted
9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm still lost on how a federal court in Florida has jurisdiction. If there truly is a novel question about executive privilege shouldn't it be decided by the DC District Court? I would think the government's main argument would be for a change in venue.

Because the documents in question were taken using a warrant obtained in Florida?

Posted

Noticed an article earlier indicating that the funding mechanism behind Trumps TMTG company is in real jeopardy. TMTG (Trump Media and Technology Group) is the business behind Truth Social, and last October it announced it would merge with the Digital World Acquisition Corp (Symbol DWAC) to take the company public. Once the merger was complete, TMTG would receive the approx. $290M DWAC had raised for its SPAC in addition to another $1B in PIPE funds from investors. However, due to a variety of legal concerns/hurdles around TMTG, they haven't been able to complete the merger. 

DWAC's corporate charter mandated that a merger with another company must be completed within 1 year (9/8/22), or funds will be returned to the investors of the SPAC at the original offer price. Knowing there is no way the merger can close this week, DWAC management called a special shareholders vote to extend the timeline another year, but it requires 65% of investors to vote yes. apparently they are nowhere close, probably because a lot of the retail investors dont even follow what the fuck is going on. 

Its an interesting scenario, because if the money is returned to shareholders, it will be at a price of $10.20 a share. DWAC closed Friday at a price of ~$24/share. Due to the uncertainty, this morning it is trading around $20 per share. It seems to me that you have two choices as an investor:

1.) Vote yes and hope the deadline is extended. Its a risk, but you believe the long time value is greater than $10.
2.) If you dont want to vote yes, sell your shares today at $20+ which is double the price you will get if the money is returned. Today's fall in price is evidence some people are taking that approach

But in reality, many retail investors are just not voting, probably because they just arent aware of the vote, how to vote, etc.., and the CEO has been sending out emails begging people to check their spam folders for instructions. But their target audience is likely too busy ranting on Facebook and Twitter about social media censorship, fake news, and Hunter Biden to take the time to fucking vote. 

Until the completion of the merger, to fund the launch of truth social and whatever other stupid fucking ideas they come up with, TMTG has been getting buy on loans and other financing to make due until it got its hands on the motherload $1B plus. I would imagine some vendors are getting a bit nervous: 
https://mashable.com/article/truth-social-unpaid-bills

TLDR - Trump Media and Technology Group is likely gonna lose their SPAC deal, so fat Donnie might have to invest some of his own "billions" (lulz), or raise money from other donors. Probably cant rely on the my pillow guy, because he's still funding frankspeech.com (double lulz). Like usual in Trump world, incompetence rules the day and the funding behind Truth Social is a complete clusterfuck. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-went-judge-shopping-and-it-paid-off-in-mar-a-lago-case

Trump Went Judge Shopping and It Paid Off in Mar-a-Lago Case

Quote

 

When former President Donald Trump summoned up years of bubbling resentment and sued Hillary Clinton and everyone else involved in Russiagate earlier this year, he naturally filed his lawsuit in South Florida—home to his oceanside estate.

And yet, when his attorneys formally filed the paperwork, they selected a tiny courthouse in the sprawling federal court district’s furthest northeast corner—a satellite location that’s 70 miles from Mar-a-Lago. They ignored the West Palm Beach federal courthouse that’s a 12-minute drive away.

Trump’s legal team, it seemed, was specifically seeking out a particular federal judge: one he appointed as president.

The tactic failed, and Trump instead got a Clinton-era judge whom he promptly tried to disqualify for alleged bias. U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks called him out in a snarky footnote.

“I note that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the Fort Pierce division of this District, where only one federal judge sits: Judge Aileen Cannon, who Plaintiff appointed in 2020. Despite the odds, this case landed with me instead. And when Plaintiff is a litigant before a judge that he himself appointed, he does not tend to advance these same sorts of bias concerns,” Middlebrooks wrote in April.

Months later, Trump is once again suing in the Southern District of Florida, this time seeking to hamper the FBI investigation into the way he kept hundreds of classified records at Mar-a-Lago. Except this time, he got Cannon.

The strategy is already paying off.

On Monday afternoon, Cannon single-handedly hit the brakes on the most politically sensitive and consequential FBI investigation ever undertaken. Convinced by Team Trump’s legal arguments that the routine Justice Department methods for carefully handling seized documents aren’t good enough when investigating this particular former president, she ordered that a “special master” be tasked with playing referee to dictate what happens with classified documents that are evidence of a crime.

“The investigation and treatment of a former president is of unique interest to the general public, and the country is served best by an orderly process that promotes the interest and perception of fairness,” she wrote in her order.

As they did last month at Mar-a-Lago, the feds typically rely on a so-called “filter team” to separate constitutionally protected communications between a suspect and their lawyer from evidence that goes to the actual investigators working on the criminal case. But Cannon ordered the appointment of a “special master”—from a list of candidates who are amenable to both the DOJ and Trump—to further oversee the handling of those documents. The fact that Trump may have a say is a notable victory rarely granted to someone accused of crimes as serious as violations of the Espionage Act.

Cannon held back on deciding whether the FBI should return Trump’s personal items—like accounting documents, medical records, and tax-related correspondence—even though the DOJ has indicated that their placement next to some of the nation’s most highly classified secrets officially makes them evidence of Trump’s criminal recklessness that could be shown at a future trial.

Her ruling was widely criticized by former prosecutors and legal scholars on Monday over the way it awkwardly lent credence to the idea that an ex-president can somehow assert “executive privilege” over government documents, even if federal law enforcement agencies operating with the tacit approval of a current president are acting in their capacity as the current executive branch.

“This special master opinion is so bad it’s hard to know where to begin… her analysis of standing is terrible. Trump wouldn’t own these docs anyway, so why does he get a Master over them?” tweeted Neal Katyal, a national security law professor who was previously the nation’s top lawyer as the federal government’s solicitor general.

Katyal also criticized the way Cannon didn’t do what was largely considered the right move: sending Trump’s lawsuit back to U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart, who approved the search warrant of Mar-a-Lago and already oversaw key elements of this matter.

“She let Trump forum shop for a judge, instead of letting the magistrate judge evaluate these claims. The appearances here are tragic,” Katyal wrote.

Cannon’s order was chock-full of innuendo, including odd swipes at the Biden administration and jabs at investigative journalists for their role in uncovering what exactly Trump did with these classified records at Mar-a-Lago.

“The Court takes into account the undeniably unprecedented nature of the search of a former President’s residence,” she wrote, citing a potential lack of “customary cooperation between former and incumbent administrations regarding the ownership and exchange of documents” and stressing “the interest in ensuring the integrity of an orderly process amidst swirling allegations of bias and media leaks.”

She went even further, noting the importance of having an independent referee oversee the handling of seized materials to ensure that Trump wouldn’t suffer “irreparable injury” from “exposure to either the Investigative Team or the media.”

Her comments notably come at a time when investigative journalists have frequently led the charge on documenting evidence of Trump administration corruption.

Cannon telegraphed much of her decision-making process during the case’s very first public hearing on Thursday, when she entertained the idea of blocking FBI special agents from reviewing the documents they’ve already had for nearly a month—while still allowing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to continue using them to assess the potential damage of having so many national security secrets housed in desk drawers and boxes at a ritzy beach club.

“So would your position change,” Cannon asked a reluctant federal prosecutor on Thursday, “if the special master were permitted to proceed without affecting the ODNI's ongoing review for intelligence purposes but pausing temporarily any use of the documents in criminal investigation?”

According to a transcript, the Justice Department’s top counterintelligence prosecutor, Jay I. Bratt, later summed up why it’s bonkers to have a former president assert executive privilege against a current president to slow down the FBI—and put some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets right back into the hands of a former president who no longer has no authority to have them.

“We have no idea where they would be stored; and again, this would be giving access to people things that they do not have the right to have access,” Bratt said, criticizing what he called “a fanciful view that somehow they would… prohibit the Executive Branch from reviewing the Executive Branch materials for a core Executive Branch function.”

Her comments bewildered legal scholars and raised alarms at the time.

“Truly nonsensical what Judge Cannon may do here. Executive privilege does not work this way,” tweeted New York University law school professor Ryan Goodman, who runs the blog Just Security.

“The Court takes into account the undeniably unprecedented nature of the search of a former President’s residence,” she wrote, citing a potential lack of “customary cooperation between former and incumbent administrations regarding the ownership and exchange of documents” and stressing “the interest in ensuring the integrity of an orderly process amidst swirling allegations of bias and media leaks.”

She went even further, noting the importance of having an independent referee oversee the handling of seized materials to ensure that Trump wouldn’t suffer “irreparable injury” from “exposure to either the Investigative Team or the media.”

Her comments notably come at a time when investigative journalists have frequently led the charge on documenting evidence of Trump administration corruption.

Cannon telegraphed much of her decision-making process during the case’s very first public hearing on Thursday, when she entertained the idea of blocking FBI special agents from reviewing the documents they’ve already had for nearly a month—while still allowing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to continue using them to assess the potential damage of having so many national security secrets housed in desk drawers and boxes at a ritzy beach club.

“So would your position change,” Cannon asked a reluctant federal prosecutor on Thursday, “if the special master were permitted to proceed without affecting the ODNI's ongoing review for intelligence purposes but pausing temporarily any use of the documents in criminal investigation?”

According to a transcript, the Justice Department’s top counterintelligence prosecutor, Jay I. Bratt, later summed up why it’s bonkers to have a former president assert executive privilege against a current president to slow down the FBI—and put some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets right back into the hands of a former president who no longer has no authority to have them.

“We have no idea where they would be stored; and again, this would be giving access to people things that they do not have the right to have access,” Bratt said, criticizing what he called “a fanciful view that somehow they would… prohibit the Executive Branch from reviewing the Executive Branch materials for a core Executive Branch function.”

Her comments bewildered legal scholars and raised alarms at the time.

“Truly nonsensical what Judge Cannon may do here. Executive privilege does not work this way,” tweeted New York University law school professor Ryan Goodman, who runs the blog Just Security.

Democrats in the Senate mostly either opposed her nomination or withheld voting. Cannon asserted to Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) in writing that she did not have any discussions about loyalty to President Trump. But Cannon would not even address Trump’s hateful rhetoric and damning comments about the judiciary. She dodged the topic when Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) brought up how then-candidate Trump in 2016 bashed the federal judge presiding over the civil fraud case against the scammy Trump University with the claim that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” because “of Mexican heritage.”

“Do you agree with President Trump’s view that a judge’s race or ethnicity can be a basis for recusal or disqualification?” Booker asked in writing.

“As a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the political statements of elected officials, including President Trump,” Cannon responded.

She was confirmed by the Senate and started on the bench a week after Trump lost his re-election bid in November 2020. Fast-forward two years, and Cannon’s first major case involves the very president who appointed her.

Cannon has shown her willingness to turn legal precedent that would normally be expected to harm Trump into a tool that will help him. During the Thursday hearing that led to this recent order, DOJ national security lawyer Julie Edelstein cited a post-Watergate scandal Supreme Court decision that cemented the idea that a former president’s official papers belong to the American people. That case, referred to as Nixon v. GSA, says that executive privilege shouldn’t be cited to keep them private simply because it’s convenient for the person who left office.

In her decision Monday, Cannon managed to cite the lone independent “statement” in a recent Supreme Court opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote that a former president like Trump does retain some executive privilege. She repeated what he wrote then, that “a former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim.”

The only opposition vote favoring Trump in that Supreme Court decision in January came from Justice Clarence Thomas, who remained silent. But he might have something to say on the matter soon enough. If the DOJ appeals this ruling, it could quickly make its way up to the appellate courts, possibly in the form of an emergency request. If it does, legal scholars have noted, the case could end up with the Supreme Court judge assigned to hear extremely time-sensitive matters out of Eleventh Circuit’s three southern states: Thomas.

 

 

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, I can.  Extract Trump from the equation and I think this is a right thing to do, maybe THE right thing to do.

Without this, the defendant is almost completely at the mercy of DOJ/FBI's complete good faith in ex parte evaluating the privilege and other aspects of it.  And, although I am rooting for them in this case, I don't trust them that far.  They are, after all, cops, and they might fuck it up to our detriment.

You’ve got this wrong. There’s no precedent for a special master to review claims of executive privilege - the attorney client docs can be handled by the standing taint team.  The privilege is Biden’s to assert. The privilege should not bar documents from a former executive from the successor executive branch. Trump and his surrogates have lost every attempt (I remember reading about) to assert executive privilege in other courts. 
 

It’s a special process to protect attorney client privilege. Remember we’re talking about top classified documents that affect our national security. 
 

Oh and preventing the DOJ from accessing the materials or continuing in the criminal investigation is relief Trump didn’t even ask for. It’s insane - and impossible to perform if ODNI is supposed to continue its impact analysis. 
 

It was a bad ruling that only the end result in mind. The legal part was abused because of who was asking. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3


×
×
  • Create New...