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

[Slim Cognito]

Now that the declassified claim has been debunked, do they go back to the "FBI planted them" bullshit?

[bill_g]

We go to the oldie but goldie "Fake News - The pictures are photoshopped - we didn't store tham all over the floor like that".

[RTH10260]

DOJ's response.

6 Plaintiff repeatedly claims that his passports were outside the scope of the warrant and improperly seized, and that the government, in returning them, has admitted as much. See D.E. 1 at 2 & n.2; D.E. 28 at 3, 8, 9. These claims are incorrect. Consistent with Attachment B to the search warrant, the government seized the contents of a desk drawer that contained classified documents and governmental records commingled with other documents. The other documents included two official passports, one of which was expired, and one personal passport, which was expired. The location of the passports is relevant evidence in an investigation of unauthorized retention and mishandling of national defense information; nonetheless, the government decided to return those passports in its discretion.

[RTH10260]

DOJ's response.

Evidence, thirteen boxes or containers contained documents with classification markings,and in all, over one hundred unique documents with classification markings—that is, more than twice the amount produced on June 3, 2022, in response to the grand jury subpoena—were seized.

[RTH10260]

DOJ's response.

The classification levels ranged from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET information, and certain documents included additional sensitive compartments that signify very limited distribution. In some instances, even the FBI counterintelligence personnel and DOJ attorneys conducting the review required additional clearances before they were permitted to review certain documents.

[jez]

Question about the official passport: Can the state department revoke it? I am guessing it is a diplomatic passport, since they differentiated it from the personal one.

[chancery]

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.

Nah, I was right. The DOJ redacted the name of Trump’s soon to be ex-lawyer; the DOG didn’t rag Trump’s papers for the many defects that make his lawyers look like idiots (as far as I can tell, Trump’s lawyers fucked up service in a way familiar to observers of birther litigation) and that in ordinary litigation would have resulted in the the judge dismissing the motion and telling Trump to try again; the DOJ didn’t point out the myriad ways in which the judge’s order was grossly improper; DOJ have consciously waived a number of point-scoring arguments and focused on the ones that are most important for this proceeding, and that are most resistant to the judge's discretionary power to ignore. And they could have said much more about the lawlessness of the delay, obstruction, and general lawlessness of Trump and his lawyers.

Of course, what they did say was extraordinarily damning. Like a stiletto. Very good work.

[RTH10260]

DOJ's response.

8 Plaintiff’s motion cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) and (c)(1) and this Court’s Local Rule 26.1(g) in support of this request. D.E. 1 at 15. These provisions relate to privilege claims during pre-trial discovery in civil cases, not privilege claims regarding materials seized pursuant to a search warrant. The former President’s request is more properly construed as a request for a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

[Dr. Ken]

[Chilidog]

Is Christina Bobb scheduled to appear tomorrow in Canon's courtroom?

Can the DOJ serve her with a subpoena to testify before the grand jury if she does?

[bill_g]

HA! Called it!

[Slim Cognito]

He's sticking with "I declassified?"

[Shizzle Popped]

ulav7vqbp0l91.jpg (99.13 KiB) Viewed 794 times

[chancery]

Good thread from a law professor who is new to me:

Here’s the U.S. government reply to Trump’s request for a Special Master to be appointed to review files seized from Mar-a-Lago. Everybody should read for themselves.

Like all good briefs, they government’s makes its argument in sharp, delineated legal points. I won’t recap these. What’s striking is how these points go to the heart of what Trump has always refused to accept: the gap between him as a person and the office of the Presidency. 2/

Worth reading the rest of the short thread.

[RTH10260]

Is anyone still proposing that the former guy could be future guy in 2024?

He would be the first potus to never travel outside the US, nor meet with any other digitaries

[Slim Cognito]

I don't know if anyone who lives in this reality is proposing that, but there are people still proposing that.

[p0rtia]

I'll take the over on that.

Pay up.

Nah, I was right. The DOJ redacted the name of Trump’s soon to be ex-lawyer; the DOG didn’t rag Trump’s papers for the many defects that make his lawyers look like idiots (as far as I can tell, Trump’s lawyers fucked up service in a way familiar to observers of birther litigation) and that in ordinary litigation would have resulted in the the judge dismissing the motion and telling Trump to try again; the DOJ didn’t point out the myriad ways in which the judge’s order was grossly improper; DOJ have consciously waived a number of point-scoring arguments and focused on the ones that are most important for this proceeding, and that are most resistant to the judge's discretionary power to ignore. And they could have said much more about the lawlessness of the delay, obstruction, and general lawlessness of Trump and his lawyers.

Of course, what they did say was extraordinarily damning. Like a stiletto. Very good work.

Nice try, Bullwinkle! Your "wet blanket" referred to the issue of whether or not reading it "would be as much fun as we would like it to be."

Well, it was hella MORE fun than even I or any of us, I dare say, ever imagined. Though, "respectful" it certainly was--if you describe "respectful" as "slashing you into little pieces and stomping on you till you look like cat throw-up without breaking either Roberts Rules of Order or the Rules of Etiquette as outlines by Emily Post"!

I rest my case!

[chancery]

[bob]

Question about the official passport: Can the state department revoke it? I am guessing it is a diplomatic passport, since they differentiated it from the personal one.

Passports, even "personal" one's, belong to the U.S. government. It can request them back at any time.

Having said that, the State Department likely is following the DOJ's lead and won't do anything unusual until some other agency does.

[Slim Cognito]

It's not like he can actually use it, right? As soon as he shows up in another country, won't it light up? Unless he's heading to Russia, as if Putin wants him.

[Kendra]

IMPORTANT NOTE:
*Fn 1 in DOJ brief says that it is fine with court unsealing the new detailed inventory of search evidence and giving it to Trump.
*So expect even MORE proof of what was found, i.e. evidence against Trump.
*What a colossal misstep this Trump motion was.

Weissman is on a roll over at his twitter feed, worth a stop. I do hope Nicolle Wallace has him on today along with the rest of the panel she had on Friday.

[Kendra]

Can some intrepid Hill reporter please hunt down Susan Collins and ask if she thinks he's really really learned his lesson this time?

[Kendra]

This morning, get your Mar-a-Lago search news from your preferred source.

Then watch each of these four short videos (there are many more – this is a small sample).

Trump knew mishandling classified was illegal and would land you in jail. He said so specifically and repeatedly.

[RVInit]

Am I correct in my assumption that Christina Bobb* is pretty much now either pretty much going to become either (1) a defendant or (2) a witness, but probably not (3) neither one?

Oops. She was in over her head and probably thought TFG would protect her.


* Assuming she is the one who signed the statement that, "to the best of my knowledge, all items satisfying the subpoena have now been returned".

[bill_g]

To the best of my knowledge, maybe.