Fogbow

bob wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 11:31 pm
DOJ's response.

DOJ wrote: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.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 11:31 pm
DOJ's response.

DOJ wrote: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.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 11:31 pm
DOJ's response.

DOJ wrote: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.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:35 am

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 10:15 am

chancery wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:48 am 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.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 11:31 pm
DOJ's response.

DOJ wrote: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 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 9:08 am

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/

chancery wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:59 am

p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:35 am

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 10:15 am

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.

jez wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:53 am 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.

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.

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.