Fogbow

Chilidog wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 9:17 am

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 9:07 am IIRC, his diet Coke has to be passed to him by gloved hands.

All the better

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 7:14 am To my knowledge, all gov't employees and anyone applying for a security clearance has to be fingerprinted.

That is true, but Andy McCabe explained on TV the other night that POTUS does not actually get a Security Clearance, per se, it's something akin to the Queen not having a Passport or Driver's license I guess. Classified material is brought to them but they don't go through the vetting required for a security clearance because what do you do if they can't get one?

After they are President maybe they can get one because there is no legal reason anymore for them to see the stuff, and until Orangus Mangoius it's never been an issue. So Biden did actually withhold giving Trump "access to classified briefings" and the way he used that phrase you could tell he was stepping over the "doesn't really have a clearance" thing.

Getting back to the detailed list of items seized.


A significant number were listed as "Magazines, Newspapers, Press articles and other printedmedia dates xxxc to zzzz"

I recall a story from the beginning of trumpocaust that described how the White House staff would often be at odds trying to present him with news artivles.

I suspect that people like Bannon and Miller figured out early that the best way to get Trump to do what they wanted was to present him with a "newspaper" article that prominently featured trump's name (multiple times), and whatever policy they were pushing.

And the GOP used to call Obama a narcissist.

I bet Biden pulled the daily updates from Trump at the specific request of the intelligence community.

Marcy Wheeler discusses the remarkable fact that no post-November 2020 press clippings were found in any of the boxes seized by the FBI.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/09/03/t ... /#comments

Chilidog wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 1:08 pm Getting back to the detailed list of items seized.


A significant number were listed as "Magazines, Newspapers, Press articles and other printedmedia dates xxxc to zzzz"

I recall a story from the beginning of trumpocaust that described how the White House staff would often be at odds trying to present him with news artivles.

I suspect that people like Bannon and Miller figured out early that the best way to get Trump to do what they wanted was to present him with a "newspaper" article that prominently featured trump's name (multiple times), and whatever policy they were pushing.

And the GOP used to call Obama a narcissist.

Yeah, but that’s a catch-all description everything that’s not government, classified, books, and things that are not documents.

I think the release of this transcript is important, in a good way.

And I will remind you (as if you need me to) that I was wrong about Judge Cannon issuing her order yesterday. She didn't. I goofed.

But now that the transcript is out, she has to be more careful. Like, at one point she asks a question that reveals her ignorance, and (according to Mueller, She Wrote) Bratt had to give her an answer that should have educated her on some point of law. If she issues an order based on that misunderstanding now, it's going to look really, really bad, like Bratt gave her the answer and she still doesn't get it.

If'n she's still editing the order and plans to release it Monday or Tuesday, she'd be wise to read the good lawyers on Twitter dissecting today's transcript.

Link to the Sept 1 hearing transcript:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... transcript

Wasn't she one of the few tfg judges who was at least qualified?

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 1:17 pm

Chilidog wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 1:08 pm Getting back to the detailed list of items seized.


A significant number were listed as "Magazines, Newspapers, Press articles and other printedmedia dates xxxc to zzzz"

I recall a story from the beginning of trumpocaust that described how the White House staff would often be at odds trying to present him with news artivles.

I suspect that people like Bannon and Miller figured out early that the best way to get Trump to do what they wanted was to present him with a "newspaper" article that prominently featured trump's name (multiple times), and whatever policy they were pushing.

And the GOP used to call Obama a narcissist.

Yeah, but that’s a catch-all description everything that’s not government, classified, books, and things that are not documents.

But are they not still records?

What if there is a post-it note from Bannon on the article asking Trump to look at it? To my mind, that makes it a presidential record. Trump did not clip these himself, he was given them by his staff for specific reasons.

My point is that the Trump White House did not issue memos, they clipped articles they themselves planted in the media to argue their positions.

I wonder what the archivist's position on that would be.

So I've read the first half of the hearing transcript. Here's my summary.

Intro by Plaintiff for TFG: The public demands transparency! The DOJ's actions are absurd (no details).

Intro by Def/DOJ: 1. Plaintiff has no standing because the docs Do. Not. Belong. To. You. 2. Court has no jurisdiction because the only avenue open to Plaintiff given the circs is in a D.C. court.

Court: Yeah, yeah, but what harm could it do give the Plaintiff what it wants?

Def/DOJ: Immense harm to ongoing criminal investigation as well as to DOJ attempts to figure track down harm caused by mishandling of docs.

Court: Yeah, yeah, so if I PROMISE not to delay the tracking down part at all, and PROMISE not to delay the criminal investigation...much...are you okay with that?

Def/DOJ: No.

What was astounding to me was that Canon had to bring up the topic of a Special Master having the task of pursuing Executive Privilege claims in addition to Att/Cli Priv claims. I mean, She asked Plaintiff Att. "So you're saying you only want a SM for Att/Cli Priv?" "Yes, your honor" "So you don't want the SM to pursue Exec Priv?" "Oh, wait, um, yeah, yeah, we do!" I am not kidding.

On to part deux.

Part deux:

Court: What is the irreparable harm?

Plaintiff/TFG: Um, um, um…. This ongoing criminal investigation is the harm, and DOJ should not have access to the documents they’re using to pursue that crim. inv. because they had no right to take them in the first place. Yeah, that’s it. Oh, and what they’re doing weakens the Office of the Presidency going forward! And BTW, the original warrant is suspect!

Court: So why did you wait two weeks?

Plaintiff/TFG: Um, um um…. Part of that we can’t disclose. The rest is the DOJ’s fault.

Court: (ignoring previous answer): So do you want to ask for Injunctive Relief along with the Spec. Master?

Plaintiff/TFG: Wow, that would be cool, thanks for mentioning it! /sarcasm —but not that far off: “We welcome multiple bases for involvement.”

Court: So what do you want the Spec. Mast. to do?

Plaintiff/TFG: Well, we haven’t thought much about that, but we think they should be able to do all the things you’ve mentioned!

Court: Any response from Gov’t?

Def/DOJ: Yes, your honor. … [back and forth with Court about the insanity of the Court ordering them to stop a criminal investigation for idiotic reasons] You’ll have to enjoin us to get us to stop [implied: if you enjoin us, we will appeal.} Now, to hasten back to the irreparable harm stuff: It is ridiculous to say that an ongoing criminal investigation is in itself proof of irreparable harm. And, regarding the delay in their actions, sorry to say so, but they are lying through their teeth. (paraphrase)

Court: So I know you say that Spec. Mast. is only used for searches of an attorney’s office, where there are files for multiple clients, but isn’t there some carve out for other circus?

Def/DOJ: No

Court: Didn’t is come up in the Giuliani case?

Def/DOJ: Yes, we talked to them and they said it came up, but they only used the Spec. Mast. for Att. Client privilege.

Court: But nobody objected, conceptually, right?

[At which I throw a can of Diet Cherry Coke at the wall]

pOrtia!

Thank you!!

Nice summary and a lead photo that the orange one will hate

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-03/ ... /101403012

June bug wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:09 pm pOrtia!

Thank you!!

Ditto

On what basis could DOJ appeal the judge's order granting the request for a Special Master to review for Exec. Privilege? Asking for a friend. The invasion of a privilege is appealable but DOJ is not the party asserting privilege.

SuzieC wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 6:02 pm On what basis could DOJ appeal the judge's order granting the request for a Special Master to review for Exec. Privilege? Asking for a friend. The invasion of a privilege is appealable but DOJ is not the party asserting privilege.

IANAL so I have no idea, but I do know that it was not the granting of the request for a Special Master that got the most push-back from DOJ; it was the notion that Canon would rule that they (DOJ) had to cease their criminal investigation until such time as she (Canon) was satisfied that the Executive Privilege angle had been adjudicated (keeping in mind that DOJ position is that there is no right of Executive Privilege, for numerous reasons).

There's an argument that appointing a special master isn't appealable order, as few rulings by a district court (short of killing a case) are immediately appealable.

An injunction, however, is an order that's immediately appealable. So if the judge appoints a special master but doesn't otherwise impede the DOJ, that might not be appealable.

But if the judge orders the DOJ to stop investigating, the notice of appeal will be filed as soon as the gavel (proverbially) slams.

I don't think she'll do that. It is literally unprecedented, as in there is no legal precedent supporting such an action.

I agree with pOrtia's recap.

I am not sure about this judge. I don't know if she is taking a belt-and-suspenders approach, or if she is that ignorant, or if she is trying to make a name for herself by blowing up the Presidential Records Act because there are no penalties written into the law.

The government's arguments are strong and quite persuasive. The plaintiff's arguments seem to lack any sort of relevance other than we think it is a good idea--let's try it! C'mon!

And, excuse MY ignorance, how can a civil dispute be used to stop a criminal investigation?

Based upon my reading of the judge's queries, she wants the entire case to vanish. She wants the government to stop its investigation. She wants the government to return all of Donnie's toys. Then the Archives and Donnie can negotiate what stays and what goes. I really think that she does not feel that any crimes have been committed but is near powerless at this point of the proceedings.

She wants the government to stop its investigation. She wants the government to return all of Donnie's toys. Then the Archives and Donnie can negotiate what stays and what goes.

Funny, that's what Trump wants.

SuzieC wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 6:47 pm I don't think she'll do that. It is literally unprecedented, as in there is no legal precedent supporting such an action.

She sure wants to, though.

The second screenshot is part of the DOJ's answer to the question from the court.

Further thought after reading the transcript:

Canon basically ignored everything both sides said. The closest she got to digging into the DOJ's arguments was say "But what harm could it do?" (re the Special Master) and "I think you're potentially overreading Nixon" (re former presidents claiming executive privilege).

Whereas she never challenged blustering and contentless bloviating of the Palintiffs; rather she put words in their mouths and made their arguments for them. She's the one pushing for TFG having legitimate claims of exec priv.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 11:42 am

Off Topic

I don't know if this applies to you, RV, but there is a genetic condition in which people are born without fingerprints. It's rare, but it's a thing.

In my 30ish years of medical transcription, I saw it once. I'd never heard of it before that.

once, in a TV show, I saw a bad guy grab a metal barrel that had a fire inside it to obliterate his fingerprints. I hope that doesn’t apply to you…

Apple will have his prints.