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

[TwiceHorn 31085]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That’s absurd. There’s nothing to waive. Nor does it need to be waived, because only the executive can assert the privilege. Trump can’t assert executive privilege any more than he can assert attorney-client privilege on a communication between me and my lawyer.

it's not that simple.  As demonstrated by Trump v. Thompson, the former President has the right to contest the action by the incumbent President.

The privilege, like all other Article II powers, resides with
the sitting President. Nevertheless, in Nixon v. GSA, the
Supreme Court held that former Presidents retain for some
period of time a right to assert executive privilege over
documents generated during their administrations. 433 U.S. at
449, 451. The Court held that this residual right protects only
“the confidentiality required for the President’s conduct of
office[,]” rather than any personal interest in nondisclosure. Id.
at 448.

 * * *

Slip. Op. at 24.  The PRA's spin on the common-law rule:

If the incumbent President maintains a privilege claim, the
Archivist may not disclose the document absent court order.
36 C.F.R. § 1270.44(e)(2). On the other hand, if the former
President asserts privilege, the Archivist must consult with the
incumbent President “to determine whether the incumbent

President will uphold the claim.” 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44(f)(1). If
the incumbent President upholds and maintains the claim, then
the Archivist may not disclose the presidential record without
a court order. Id. § 1270.44(f)(2). If the incumbent President
does not uphold or withdraws the privilege claim or fails to
decide within 30 days, the Archivist must “disclose[] the
Presidential record” after a 60-day time period, unless a court
orders otherwise. Id. § 1270.44(f)(3)

Slip op. at 33-34.

[TwiceHorn 31085]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're finding a way to justify an objectively terrible ruling from that 11th hour recess appointment fedsoc judge, not finding the "ok to good". The special master process in a vacuum is not objectionable, but when you add in all the actual facts from reality, there is no reasonable justification. Anything else is a lie to yourself and only makes room for more trump fascist fuckery.

Goddamn nuclear secrets aren't a matter of executive privilege. Stop lying to yourself as if this is anything but a corrupted judiciary acting as trump's personal attorneys

I'm not actually talking about the classified stuff.  It, prima facie, is not executive privileged.  But you do have to actually look at the document before making that call.  The Special Master will do that, and I'm ok with it.

[TwiceHorn 31085]

21 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

A. Former. President. Does. Not. Have. Executive. Privilege.

Not true.

Continuing with my recitation from Trump v. Thompson:

There is no question that the former President can file suit
to press his claim of executive privilege.

Slip op. at 35, and:

The Presidential Records Act reflects that understanding
by providing that a former President may initiate an action
“asserting that a determination made by the Archivist violates
the former President’s rights or privileges.” 44 U.S.C.
§ 2204(e). And “[n]othing in [the] Act shall be construed to
* * * limit * * * any constitutionally-based privilege which
may be available to a[] * * * former President.” Id. at
§ 2204(c)(2).

Id.

Here, the Archivist has made no determination.

Edited September 7, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Foosters 17688]

Im going to preemptively address the common misconception that the line "first thing we do is kill all the lawyers" from Shakespeare's Henry VI, was not in fact an attack on lawyers, but an acknowledgement that lawyers are necessary for the continuation of the rule of law.

 

Carry on, @TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31085]

23 minutes ago, Covri said:

TwiceHorn keeps telling us to wait and see and argues in good faith based on his interpretations of the law and doesn't want to give into that Trump has never been held accountable to any law and won't be held to any standards or precedent that has been set regardless. And even if the DOJ or anyone else makes it through all the bullshit ways the law can be delayed/interpreted and manages to bring ol' Donny to justice he'll still avoid any actually consequences of his actions (or his supporters) and nobody will give a shit either way. 

 

 

I concede that Trump has never been held accountable. 

I am optimistic that the DOJ will do it this time and this is but a small twig in the path.  I am also optimistic that the Fulton County DA will do it this time.

One thing we haven't discussed is that if an appeal is taken, and the lower court enjoined pending appeal, we're probably looking at a longer delay than just going through with the Special Master.

So, if delay is important, and it is, then I don't like the appeal idea. Nor do I like the 11th Circuit's odds of undoing it or conversely fucking it up worse. Which is why I am rationalizing and explaining the district court's order.  We're fucking stuck with it.

Edited September 7, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Bookman 4603]

Alright I've seen enough. Trump is guilty as shit. We need to lock the motherfucker up.

[TwiceHorn 31085]

1 minute ago, Bookman said:

Alright I've seen enough. Trump is guilty as shit. We need to lock the motherfucker up.

RULE OF LAW!

Bookman's law.  I'm down.

[Bookman 4603]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

RULE OF LAW!

Bookman's law.  I'm down.

One of my better statements during 1L criminal law was "he's guilty of something."

[TwiceHorn 31085]

Just now, Bookman said:

One of my better statements during 1L criminal law was "he's guilty of something."

I actually went on record in Steve Goode's Evidence class that all privileges were bullshit and a barrier to discovering the truth.

Ah, youth.

[Captainant 27250]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing we haven't discussed is that if an appeal is taken, and the lower court enjoined pending appeal, we're probably looking at a longer delay than just going through with the Special Master.

So, if delay is important, and it is, then I don't like the appeal idea.  Which is why I am rationalizing and explaining the district court's order.  We're fucking stuck with it.

This is our fucking concern dude. We are stuck with either letting this terrible decision go unopposed and open up even more avenues for trump fuckery OR appealing and further delaying things. Either option plays to his advantage and to delay and deny justice. 

We are fucking stuck with this shit sandwich, but don't tell me it's filet mignon

Edited September 7, 2022 by Captainant

[Longhorn_Fan68 33779]

3 hours ago, trauma babe said:

In on 420, because if this state of play doesn't have you ingesting copious amounts of weed, something is probably wrong with you

seconded

[TwiceHorn 31085]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This is our fucking concern dude. We are stuck with either letting this terrible decision go unopposed and open up even more avenues for trump fuckery OR appealing and further delaying things. Either option plays to his advantage and to delay and deny justice. 

We are fucking stuck with this shit sandwich, but don't tell me it's filet mignon

You can have mustard, mayonnaise, or ketchup, but you're gonna have to take a bite.

It will be a small one, and some really nice shit, on good bread.

[safe sex 11628]

Quote

Legal analysts lit up social media on Monday in response to the broad and potentially devastating order by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Donald Trump appointee to the Southern District of Florida, temporarily halting the criminal investigation of the former president and his alleged pilfering of classified documents. Her order further authorized a special master to identify and return the small fraction of materials seized in last month’s court-approved search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence that may belong to him. One analyst after another meticulously detailed the failings of Cannon’s reasoning: It was “untethered to the law,” “a political conclusion in search of a legal rationale,” “deeply problematic,” “laughably bad.” At some point, one truly runs out of euphemisms for lawless partisan hackery.

It’s possible to agree with every one of these criticisms but still find them less than satisfying. Because at the end of the day, no matter how much withering criticism she faces, Cannon still gets to put on the black robe and run interference for her benefactor. She will still get a standing ovation at some future Federalist Society gathering. She remains in control of this case. But it’s not just Cannon: Many smart lawyers also noted that the Justice Department now faces the unenviable task of having to appeal this decision up to higher courts that are filled with Trump appointees, which takes the sting out of the opprobrium: For all we know, the Trump-stacked 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or five radical justices on the Supreme Court may also greet her outrageous decision with a standing ovation.

So the problem is not just the extreme and heinous flaws in Cannon’s ruling. It’s also the Trump-shaped world in which Cannon operates, with impunity, which we will all have to endure for the foreseeable future. It’s the brutal reality that we may face a steady stream of depraved decisions like Cannon’s for the rest of our lives—and the pain of hearing from every quarter that nothing can be done to remedy it.

We watched the same pattern play out at the end of this last Supreme Court term. One case after another blew up decades of existing precedent and tests and doctrine and replaced them with Rorschach exams that transformed contemporary Republican policies into constitutional law. Smart lawyers dutifully digested these opinions and set to work figuring out just how the EPA, or public school districts, or state legislatures that want to stop mass shootings can plausibly work around these new tests. And of course, were we living in a rational regime in which the rule of law governed, that would make perfect sense. But if the last term at the Supreme Court and indeed Cannon’s baffling new order mean anything, they signify that in this new age of legal Calvinball, one side invents new “rules” and then the other scrambles to try to play by them. For every single legal thinker who read the Mar-a-Lago order to mean, quite correctly, that ex-presidents are above the law, furrowing your brow and pointing out its grievous errors only takes you halfway there. The better question is what, if anything, do you propose to do about it? The furrowing is cathartic, but it’s also not a plan.

If there were a principle that best embodies why progressives are losing ground so quickly—even as they are correct on the facts, and the law, and the zeitgeist—it must be this tendency to just keep on lawyering the other side’s bad law in the hopes that the lawyering itself will make all the bad faith and crooked law go away. But for those who are genuinely worried that democracy will rise or fall based on whether a case lands before their judges or others, merely explaining legal flaws in pointillist detail isn’t an answer. And soberly explaining that Cannon was wrong about most stuff but correct about two things is decidedly not an answer, either. You do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to them.

It is not a stand-alone answer to point out that Cannon was a Trump pick—a member of the extremely not-neutral Federalist Society, seated after Trump lost the election—or that the former president’s lawyers forum-shopped in order to get this case in front of her. It also doesn’t help to note that Cannon herself acknowledged the proper venue to adjudicate the executive privilege claims made in this case (which are on their face absurd) is in fact in a different court in D.C., where Cannon has no jurisdiction and where Trump did not make his case. Nor is it an answer to note that federal judges have literally no constitutional authority to stop an ongoing criminal investigation in its tracks, as Cannon purported to do, rendering her decision an imperious assault on the separation of powers. That, too, is an accurate description of the problem. Stating that, too, is not a solution.

Until and unless those of us who are shocked and horrified at lawless rulings by lawless Trump judges are prepared to propose structural solutions, the aggregated effect of criticizing their rulings won’t be to restore the rule of law or even to restore public confidence in the rule of law. The aggregated effect will be just to confirm that we will all be living under the thumb of Donald Trump’s lifetime-appointed hacks for many decades.

There are solutions out there for the problem of Trump’s runaway judges. Expanding the courts—even just the lower courts—is the most bulletproof. Congress has periodically added seats to the federal judiciary from its inception to help judges keep up with ever-ballooning caseloads. Today’s litigants (who are not named Donald Trump) often face yearslong court delays. The Judicial Conference, a nonpartisan government institution that develops administrative policies, has begged Congress to add seats to the lower courts. Some Republicans have supported the idea in recognition of the crisis facing our understaffed judiciary. Letting Joe Biden balance out far-right courts like the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—which will weigh Cannon’s ruling if the government appeals—would go a long way to tame the jurisprudence of Trumpism. When district court judges know their radical decisions will be overturned on appeal, they may be less likely to swing for the fences in the first place.

There are other worthy ideas too. Term limits for justices and lower court judges. Limits on courts’ jurisdiction to strike down democratically enacted laws. Modest reforms that restrict the Supreme Court’s ability to suppress voting rights before an election. Let’s hear them all. (God knows Biden’s court reform commission studied them extensively, to little end.)

 

But the chorus from the left, the middle, and the sane right that the lawlessness is lawless only affirms that we cannot ever escape this closed loop of Trump’s judges. Being really mad but doing nothing to change things is a terrible strategy for democracy and for public confidence in the courts. It creates the illusion that if we work really hard to debunk corrupt rulings, we can force Trump judges to see the light, or feel shame, or do something different. Meanwhile, the targets of our meticulous takedowns laugh at the pains we take to prove them wrong. They. Do. Not. Care.

We get it. Lawyers are trained to lawyer. But if you are lawyering within a system you believe to be broken, or immoral, or lawless, and you aren’t standing up with meaningful fixes for that system, you are, fundamentally, acceding to that lawlessness. It is a moral victory to point out the errors, but it’s also a tacit concession that the system is, in fact, legitimate, no matter how low it may go. Every one of us is going to need to decide how long we can continue to operate that way.

There are too many things wrong with the Cannon order to litigate. And there are too many things wrong with Trump’s judicial dominion of every part of our lives— for years to come—to litigate. So maybe it’s time to stop litigating them and start fixing them

From The Solution to the Trump Judge Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About

Interested in your thoughts @TwiceHorn

[HenryJames 65848]

Look it’s perfectly normal for a federal judge in a civil case to stop the attorney general from looking at classified documents because the private citizen who stole them might claim executive privilege.

[cactusflinthead 27588]

7 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

From The Solution to the Trump Judge Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About

Interested in your thoughts @TwiceHorn

Yes, this part.

"So the problem is not just the extreme and heinous flaws in Cannon’s ruling. It’s also the Trump-shaped world in which Cannon operates, with impunity, which we will all have to endure for the foreseeable future. It’s the brutal reality that we may face a steady stream of depraved decisions like Cannon’s for the rest of our lives—and the pain of hearing from every quarter that nothing can be done to remedy"

 

[TwiceHorn 31085]

1 minute ago, trauma babe said:

From The Solution to the Trump Judge Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About

Interested in your thoughts @TwiceHorn

A bit hysterical.  "Potentially devastating." JFC.

The Special Master thing is eminently survivable by the DOJ, no matter how much you may disagree with it or think it's corrupt.

I have said repeatedly that this will not affect the outcome of the issues.  The Biden Administration will most likely waive or refuse to uphold any privilege claim made by Trump, and Trump wont' be able to articulate any reason why that's wrong and the D DC will uphold the Biden decision as it did in Thompson.  And the documents will be turned over to the FBI (and, I should note, the classified stuff almost immediately because it won't be subject to a privilege claim), and the investigation will proceed.

[bolverk 29261]

Gotdammit, @TwiceHorn, stop shitting in my sandbox of Schadenfreude! Everytime I see your avatar trying to over-rationalize shit about law I don't know the fuck about, I want to pop a balloon behind his smug little cat ass.

[TwiceHorn 31085]

3 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Look it’s perfectly normal for a federal judge in a civil case to stop the attorney general from looking at classified documents because the private citizen who stole them might claim executive privilege.

What's going to happen is that the Special Master will decide almost immediately that the classified documents, because they don't reflect executive process or deliberation (Agency, maybe, but not the executive or advisors) are not plausibly the subject of any executive privilege claim at all, and will be passed to FBI directly.

[TwiceHorn 31085]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Gotdammit, @TwiceHorn, stop shitting in my sandbox of Schadenfreude! Everytime I see your avatar trying to over-rationalize shit about law I don't know the fuck about, I want to pop a balloon behind his smug little cat ass.

With all due respect, people just want to throw their little tantrums without understanding how the law works.

[Woland 729]

There is all that this speculation about nuclear secrets, but my bet on intel that could be sold for top dollar would be information on the opposition to MBS.

[TXSG8R 3325]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I concede that Trump has never been held accountable. 

I am optimistic that the DOJ will do it this time and this is but a small twig in the path.  I am also optimistic that the Fulton County DA will do it this time.

One thing we haven't discussed is that if an appeal is taken, and the lower court enjoined pending appeal, we're probably looking at a longer delay than just going through with the Special Master.

So, if delay is important, and it is, then I don't like the appeal idea. Nor do I like the 11th Circuit's odds of undoing it or conversely fucking it up worse. Which is why I am rationalizing and explaining the district court's order.  We're fucking stuck with it.

Is DOJ forced to appeal because of the bad precedent it would set if they go along with it?  Would it breathe more life into Trump and his cronies other claims of executive privilege?  

[Captainant 27250]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A bit hysterical.  "Potentially devastating." JFC.

The Special Master thing is eminently survivable by the DOJ, no matter how much you may disagree with it or think it's corrupt.

I have said repeatedly that this will not affect the outcome of the issues.  The Biden Administration will most likely waive or refuse to uphold any privilege claim made by Trump, and Trump wont' be able to articulate any reason why that's wrong and the D DC will uphold the Biden decision as it did in Thompson.  And the documents will be turned over to the FBI (and, I should note, the classified stuff almost immediately because it won't be subject to a privilege claim), and the investigation will proceed.

Great, and what about the precedent of a federal judge unilaterally shutting down a criminal investigation based on a decision that has no basis in law? 

Sure sounds like you just enjoy eating shit

[Ghost of LL 15327]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not actually talking about the classified stuff.  It, prima facie, is not executive privileged.  But you do have to actually look at the document before making that call.  The Special Master will do that, and I'm ok with it.

Ok, then what the fuck are we talking about? Because that’s all that matters viz. any criminal prosecution.

[HenryJames 65848]

3 minutes ago, Woland said:

There is all that this speculation about nuclear secrets, but my bet on intel that could be sold for top dollar would be information on the opposition to MBS.

Too bad we can’t investigate it because a federal judge in a civil case stopped the attorney general from looking at classified documents because the private citizen who stole them might claim executive privilege.

[cactusflinthead 27588]

Goddammit @immamac a perfectly good fyck8ng rant lost in the ether because post reply is on its period.

[bolverk 29261]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

With all due respect, people just want to throw their little tantrums without understanding how the law works.

Like I said, I don't know shit about fuck, and you might be right. Also, I do appreciate your patience over the years in explaining the law, but in this case ...

[TwiceHorn 31085]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Ok, then what the fuck are we talking about? Because that’s all that matters viz. any criminal prosecution.

There's a bunch of different types of documents.

The classified stuff, which continues to be subject to ODNI review, which will not facially permit a claim of executive privilege.

Some other stuff which might, and might have some evidentiary value as to the classified stuff (why it was there?).

Some personal shit, that won't matter either way.

And some attorney client privileged stuff, that probably also won't matter either way.

The special master will do the initial sort on it.  The Biden administration will review and waive privilege, and on we go. 

And best of all, this occurs in the most public fashion that it can possibly occur in, and resolves any privilege issues before indictment.  If there is an indictment.

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Satchel 6908]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What's going to happen is that the Special Master will decide almost immediately that the classified documents, because they don't reflect executive process or deliberation (Agency, maybe, but not the executive or advisors) are not plausibly the subject of any executive privilege claim at all, and will be passed to FBI directly.

Well, one can certainly hope. Finding a special master acceptable to all sides is going to be tricky. He/she is going to have be cleared to see the nuclear secrets of some foreign country. That damn Trump…

[TwiceHorn 31085]

The alternative to this is letting the FBI/DOJ do it behind closed doors, where we all just have to trust them.

The same FBI/DOJ that alters emails in FISA warrants and does other dumb and malicious cop shit in investigations all the time.  And jeopardizes prosecutions in the process.

Do I really think they'll fuck it up?  No, not really, but this goes a long way to eliminating any argument based on that kind of thing.

 

[Pato del Muerto 52233]

So how long do they argue over the assignment of special master?

does that person have the only and final call?  What if they say it all goes back to trump and the gvt can’t see any of it?  Is there recourse? 
 

we have to assume team trump will push and pull and lean and obfuscate and threaten until they get who they want doing what they want. 

[lemonlime 5503]

How could trump
Possibly possess anything subject to executive privilege? He’s no longer the executive. The documents the
FBI seized are either government documents that trump stole or they’re personal documents that wouldn’t be executive privileged. That’s an insane result that he could steal documents from the government and then claim the government can’t get them back because they’re trumps own super secret documents

[Goredho 17272]

In on 421, because it's 1 higher than 420, isn't it?

[Beantown Express 2.0 6531]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's a bunch of different types of documents.

The classified stuff, which continues to be subject to ODNI review, which will not facially permit a claim of executive privilege.

Some other stuff which might, and might have some evidentiary value as to the classified stuff (why it was there?).

Some personal shit, that won't matter either way.

And some attorney client privileged stuff, that probably also won't matter either way.

The special master will do the initial sort on it.  The Biden administration will review and waive privilege, and on we go. 

And best of all, this occurs in the most public fashion that it can possibly occur in, and resolves any privilege issues before indictment.  If there is an indictment.

 

What makes you think any of this will actually happen once somehow, someway Jared Kushner is named as the Special Master and he declares everything was declassified and stop bothering my father in law.   Listen, I am no lawyer but what am I missing here.  He had classified info that he took and that is illegal.  Is that even a question?   He got caught doing something illegal, period.  

[TwiceHorn 31085]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So how long do they argue over the assignment of special master?

does that person have the only and final call?  What if they say it all goes back to trump and the gvt can’t see any of it?  Is there recourse? 
 

we have to assume team trump will push and pull and lean and obfuscate and threaten until they get who they want doing what they want. 

It's not "all goes back to Trump."  Most of it is still going to be in the custody of NARA.  The classified shit is absolutely not going back to Trump.  I'm virtually certain this is just going to be a sort of which documents are which.

I think the ultimate determination on whether privilege prevents materials going to the FBI is going to have to be made by the Archivist/Biden Administration.  Then Trump can sue to keep it privileged and he'll get poured out in a matter of weeks ala the 1/6 documents.

[lemonlime 5503]

Not true.
Continuing with my recitation from Trump v. Thompson:
There is no question that the former President can file suit
to press his claim of executive privilege.
Slip op. at 35, and:
The Presidential Records Act reflects that understanding
by providing that a former President may initiate an action
“asserting that a determination made by the Archivist violates
the former President’s rights or privileges.” 44 U.S.C.
§ 2204(e). And “[n]othing in [the] Act shall be construed to
* * * limit * * * any constitutionally-based privilege which
may be available to a[] * * * former President.” Id. at
§ 2204©(2).
Id.
Here, the Archivist has made no determination.

The Presidential Records Act guides when the executive branch may release presidential records to others. And yes there are some rare occasions when a former president may be able to assert exec privilege to stop the current president from releasing records. The PRA has nothing to do with records someone removed from the governments custody and has been hiding from the government

[Sawbonz 27297]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A bit hysterical.  "Potentially devastating." JFC.

The Special Master thing is eminently survivable by the DOJ, no matter how much you may disagree with it or think it's corrupt.

I have said repeatedly that this will not affect the outcome of the issues.  The Biden Administration will most likely waive or refuse to uphold any privilege claim made by Trump, and Trump wont' be able to articulate any reason why that's wrong and the D DC will uphold the Biden decision as it did in Thompson.  And the documents will be turned over to the FBI (and, I should note, the classified stuff almost immediately because it won't be subject to a privilege claim), and the investigation will proceed.

You left out the part where the judge overrules the sitting President’s waiver of the former President’s assertion of privileges and commands the DOJ to give the documents back. Because that’s coming 

[Captainant 27250]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The alternative to this is letting the FBI/DOJ do it behind closed doors, where we all just have to trust them.

The same FBI/DOJ that alters emails in FISA warrants and does other dumb and malicious cop shit in investigations all the time.  And jeopardizes prosecutions in the process.

Do I really think they'll fuck it up?  No, not really, but this goes a long way to eliminating any argument based on that kind of thing.

Yes, keep framing things as the trumpists do. That the FBI and DOJ are irreparably corrupt and cannot be trusted so we must kowtow to trump. Because trump is always the victim.  Shit, you're even picking up rep from chicken sandwich now lol. That's how fucking hard you're talking the bait

[TwiceHorn 31085]

13 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

The Presidential Records Act guides when the executive branch may release presidential records to others. And yes there are some rare occasions when a former president may be able to assert exec privilege to stop the current president from releasing records. The PRA has nothing to do with records someone removed from the governments custody and has been hiding from the government

I don't think that's correct.  The first step was to get the records back in the custody of the government.

The Archivist certainly thought the PRA applied to the first 15 boxes, because that's pretty much the whole basis of her letter.

[Ghost of LL 15327]

34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's a bunch of different types of documents.

The classified stuff, which continues to be subject to ODNI review, which will not facially permit a claim of executive privilege.

Some other stuff which might, and might have some evidentiary value as to the classified stuff (why it was there?).

Some personal shit, that won't matter either way.

And some attorney client privileged stuff, that probably also won't matter either way.

The special master will do the initial sort on it.  The Biden administration will review and waive privilege, and on we go. 

And best of all, this occurs in the most public fashion that it can possibly occur in, and resolves any privilege issues before indictment.  If there is an indictment.

 

Why do we need to resolve something pre-indictment that has no bearing on the indictment? The judge might have well have enjoined the prosecution pending the awarding of the Vince Lombardi trophy for all that has to do with anything, as you yourself admit.

 

This is dumb and pointless sophistry.

[lemonlime 5503]

13 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

The Presidential Records Act guides when the executive branch may release presidential records to others. And yes there are some rare occasions when a former president may be able to assert exec privilege to stop the current president from releasing records. The PRA has nothing to do with records someone removed from the governments custody and has been hiding from the government

My internet's been down most of the day.  And looking back on my posts, JFC the typos.

But wanted to add that this is the start of the PRA, setting forth definitively that presidential records belong to the government, meaning the American people, and not to trump or anyone else who occupied the executive branch for a few years.

§2202. Ownership of Presidential records

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.

The PRA then goes on to delineate when the archivist can release Presidential Records and procedures for current and former presidents to assert privilege to stop the archivist from releasing Presidential Records.  Nothing in the PRA suggests that a former president could assert executive privilege to stop the executive from retrieving these records.  In fact, the first section of the PRA specifies that the government shall retain complete ownership, control and possession of those records, and trump plainly has violated the PRA.

[TwiceHorn 31085]

I

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Yes, keep framing things as the trumpists do. That the FBI and DOJ are irreparably corrupt and cannot be trusted so we must kowtow to trump. Because trump is always the victim.  Shit, you're even picking up rep from chicken sandwich now lol. That's how fucking hard you're talking the bait

I have a long history of being suspicious of the FBI, who are cops in better suits, subject to most of the criticisms of cops more generally.  It's well documented on this site.

I'm not framing it as Trumpists do.  I am acknowledging a reality that Trump will try to challenge any indictment based on the handling of allegedly privileged documents.  You KNOW that's coming.

It just so happens that this disarms that inevitable motion to dismiss to a large extent, if not completely.

 

[TwiceHorn 31085]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Why do we need to resolve something pre-indictment that has no bearing on the indictment? The judge might have well have enjoined the prosecution pending the awarding of the Vince Lombardi trophy for all that has to do with anything, as you yourself admit.

 

This is dumb and pointless sophistry.

Do you deny that, if indicted, Trump will raise every objection to the search in a motion to dismiss? 

I am confident that the probable cause part of it is unimpeachable and unwinnable by Trump.

The handling of potentially privileged documents is a bit more blurry.  If this gets done according to the order, that blurriness becomes a lot more lucid and transparent.

I don't want a Trump indictment dismissed because some FBI dildo fucked up the documents or because some judge finds that the PRA wasn't followed or some such.

[TwiceHorn 31085]

9 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

My internet's been down most of the day.  And looking back on my posts, JFC the typos.

But wanted to add that this is the start of the PRA, setting forth definitively that presidential records belong to the government, meaning the American people, and not to trump or anyone else who occupied the executive branch for a few years.

§2202. Ownership of Presidential records

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.

The PRA then goes on to delineate when the archivist can release Presidential Records and procedures for current and former presidents to assert privilege to stop the archivist from releasing Presidential Records.  Nothing in the PRA suggests that a former president could assert executive privilege to stop the executive from retrieving these records.  In fact, the first section of the PRA specifies that the government shall retain complete ownership, control and possession of those records, and trump plainly has violated the PRA.

See my quotations from Trump v,. Thompson, above, post 21001.

There are no penalties for violating the PRA. 

But the PRA mostly subsumes executive privilege for documents, as opposed to testimony, and imposes a procedure and order on it.  It make Biden or his delegate the ultimate authority, subject to court review.

Edited September 7, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Ghost of LL 15327]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Do you deny that, if indicted, Trump will raise every objection to the search in a motion to dismiss? 

I am confident that the probable cause part of it is unimpeachable and unwinnable by Trump.

The handling of potentially privileged documents is a bit more blurry.  If this gets done according to the order, that blurriness becomes a lot more lucid and transparent.

I don't want a Trump indictment dismissed because some FBI dildo fucked up the documents or because some judge finds that the PRA wasn't followed or some such.

But you admit that an assertion of executive privilege has no basis with respect to the classified documents. Trump hasn’t even asserted that.  So why would I be worried about something so plainly unmeritorious succeeding?

[pacman 7282]

58 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

With all due respect, people just want to throw their little tantrums without understanding how the law works.

Digging a little deeper, I'd say people just have quite a bit of fatigue regarding the hope that Justice exists in this country, more specifically when it applies to Trump. Idealists are getting tired of this snake that grew legs continually slithering his way out of every immoral misdeed without the slightest hint of repercussion. That fatigue leads to emotional reaction.

[CTC2 2719]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Do you deny that, if indicted, Trump will raise every objection to the search in a motion to dismiss? 

I am confident that the probable cause part of it is unimpeachable and unwinnable by Trump.

The handling of potentially privileged documents is a bit more blurry.  If this gets done according to the order, that blurriness becomes a lot more lucid and transparent.

I don't want a Trump indictment dismissed because some FBI dildo fucked up the documents or because some judge finds that the PRA wasn't followed or some such.

Have you even been in a case with a special master involved or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express?

[SizzleChest 8275]

[TwiceHorn 31085]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

But you admit that an assertion of executive privilege has no basis with respect to the classified documents. Trump hasn’t even asserted that.  So why would I be worried about something so plainly unmeritorious succeeding?

If this special master thing doesn't take place, there will be no ruling unless it comes in the form of a motion to dismiss an indictment.

It's confusing, messy, and there are different standards applicable to different documents.  No one on here can keep it straight.

I'd rather have it cleaned up in advance, all the Is dotted and Ts crossed in the event Trump is indicted.

[lemonlime 5503]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

See my quotations from Trump v,. Thompson, above, post 21001.

That case was about whether the archivist could release Presidential Records, and whether a former president could assert privilege to stop the archivist from releasing those records, which were already in the government's possession as they were government records.  It has nothing to do with whether a former president could hide Presidential Records from the current executive.  The records were Presidential Records, and the issue was whether the archivist could give those records over to the January 6 Committee.

 

From your quote:

The Presidential Records Act reflects that understanding by providing that a former President may initiate an action "asserting that a determination made by the Archivist violates the former President's rights or privileges." 44 U.S.C. § 2204(e). And "[n]othing in [the] Act shall be construed to * * * limit * * * any constitutionally-based privilege which may be available to a[ ] * * * former President." Id. at § 2204(c)(2).

 

[TwiceHorn 31085]

2 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

Have you even been in a case with a special master involved or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express?

Several actually.  One dealing with attorney-client privilege and three or four with technical special masters (patent infringement).