Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard

[Dr. Ken]

Well there’s a new amicus brief, says Trump is full ‘o shit.


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 41.1_2.pdf

Looks like unsolicited outside Republicans saying Trump is full of shit and not what we're waiting for

[Chilidog]

To be fair, Trump IS full of shit.

[Dave from down under]

We’re waiting for the DOJ to say (again) that Donnie is full of it
And why it doesn’t serve justice for anyone (looking at a certain judge) for it to be treated other than as full off it.

[bob]

Well there’s a new amicus brief, says Trump is full ‘o shit.

"For completeness":

Amici are former federal prosecutors Donald B. Ayer, Gregory A. Brower, John J. Farmer Jr., Stuart M. Gerson, Peter D. Keisler, William F. Weld, and former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman.

[Kendra]

Looks like they are taking it to the wire? It's a little after 8PM Pacific time, and 9PM should be 12PM Eastern?

[Greatgrey]

Looks like they are taking it to the wire? It's a little after 8PM Pacific time, and 9PM should be 12PM Eastern?

“Wait wöt? You want us to file something when we still haven’t been served regarding the original filing?”

[Delarin]

yay it's here!

[Chilidog]

It's filed

[Slarti the White]

It's filed

Is there a link for Rikker?

[bob]

It's filed

Is there a link for Rikker?

DOJ's response.

[chancery]

32 -- Aug 29, 2022 -- SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed by Donald J. Trump. United States Of America served on 8/29/2022, response/answer due 10/28/2022. (Halligan, Lindsey) (Entered: 08/29/2022)

Boilerplate, likely automatically generated.

The government has 60 days to respond to any summons. In this case, ieffectively already has done so.

So, I guess Trump has properly served the summons . . . , or . . . hmm

[Greatgrey]

Finis!

7BA94582-A48D-4A21-8FF9-A9955BD10DEF.jpeg (414.81 KiB) Viewed 768 times

[bob]

On June 3, 2022, three FBI agents and a DOJ attorney arrived at the Premises to accept receipt of the materials. In addition to counsel for the former President, another individual was also present as the custodian of records for the former President’s post-presidential office.

When producing the documents, neither counsel nor the custodian asserted that the former President had declassified the documents or asserted any claim of executive privilege. Instead, counsel handled them in a manner that suggested counsel believed that the documents were classified: the production included a single Redweld envelope, double-wrapped in tape, containing the documents. The individual present as the custodian of records produced and provided a signed certification letter, which stated in part the following:

Based upon the information that has been provided to me, I am authorized to certify, on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump, the following: a. A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida; b. This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena; c. Any and all responsive documents accompany this certification; and d. No copy, written notation, or reproduction of any kind was retained as to any responsive document.

I swear or affirm that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

"Another individual" (read: Kash Patel) ought to lawyer up.

Heck, counsel also ought to lawyer up.

Through further investigation, the FBI uncovered multiple sources of evidence indicating that the response to the May 11 grand jury subpoena was incomplete and that classified documents remained at the Premises, notwithstanding the sworn certification made to the government on June 3. In particular, the government developed evidence that a search limited to the Storage Room would not have uncovered all the classified documents at the Premises. The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.

Somebody snitched.

[Greatgrey]

[bob]

DOJ's main arguments:

1. NO STANDING. Aren't his papers (for the most part); he has no legal interest in them.

2. For the items that may be his, we can keep them because, duh, evidence of criming.

3. Can't special master executive privilege documents, which isn't a thing in this situation.

4. There's very little attorney-client material; we're ready to follow the procedures already authorized by a different judge.

[p0rtia]

`

Uppercut to Judge Canon, who staggers backward, arms a-windmill.

[Chilidog]

Boom shock a locka

The timeline is brutal and devastating to Trump.

Once again, it's not the crime, it's the cover up.

[keith]

Three Dog Night? I thought it was from the musical "Hair"

It is from "Hair":

But 3 Dog Night did a cover of it (as have others).

Lyrics sites tend to not credit the original performers, especially when the lyrics they are using are from cover versions, since covers sometimes (often) change the words.

I suspect there is some kind of copyright/royalty thing about quoting lyrics taken from a particular performance instead of crediting the actual composer.

[Greatgrey]

Boom shock a locka

The timeline is brutal and devastating to Trump.

Once again, it's not the crime, it's the cover up.

Too early for

Brunt Toast?

[bob]

Here's the shown Time cover (March 4, 2019):

[bob]

A first-read analysis (it continues at the link):


It notes items were seized from his office, meaning he personally was doing the possessing. And obstructing.

No covfefe boy this time!

[Chilidog]

That was worth waiting for.

I'm off to bed a happy chilidog

[much ado]

And it's only Tuesday...

[p0rtia]

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but the 40 page brief will likely be reserved, measured, focused, and respectful towards Trump, his lawyers, and the judge. In other words, not as much fun to read as we would like.

I'll take the over on that.

Pay up.

[Slarti the White]

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but the 40 page brief will likely be reserved, measured, focused, and respectful towards Trump, his lawyers, and the judge. In other words, not as much fun to read as we would like.

I'll take the over on that.

Pay up.

Just finished reading the whole thing. Gotta agree with p0rtia here. Wow.

I'm interested to see what kind of response is filed tomorrow -- it doesn't seem likely that it will be very compelling in light of the Government's tour de force. The DOJ certainly seems to have linearized their waterfowl very rigorously. The number of citations to the case involving Nixon (and executive privilege) alone was impressive.

A question to the lawyers here -- is it as bad as it sounds for those who signed the statement saying that they had diligently searched for documents responsive to the subpoena and didn't find anything? Because it sounds pretty bad. I'm wondering which of the usual suspects will step up to defend Trump on this one -- or will this be when the Republican party as a whole decides to throw Trump under the bus? Because I'm pretty sure that every minute they delay will raise the electoral cost...

As for whether or not it's time for "brunt toast", if the toast isn't brunt by now, I don't think it will ever be.