Page 29 of 167
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 6:06 pm
by chancery
chancery wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:42 pm
One of Wheeler's main points is that Trump is appearing pro se and that, because his lawyers haven't appeared as counsel, they are not subject to the obligations of an officer of the court.
But she appears to be completely wrong about this. The opening sentence states that Trump is moving "through his undersigned counsel," and the pleading is signed by all three lawyers. That's an appearance.
Puzzling that she got this wrong.
Now I understand. For a while the docket sheet listed Trump as "pro se." This is likely a combination of e-filing errors and the fact that it takes some finite time for the e-filing system to digest the various inputs made when a proceeding is commenced.
E-filing errors happen all the time, even with good firms experienced in federal litigation. So they don't necessarily mean much. And it's understandable that Wheeler was confused by the statement in the docket that Trump was filing pro se, although I think that a practitioner (Wheeler is a sharp person with a huge depth of expertise in many areas relevant to this litigation, but not a lawyer, let alone a litigator) would have waited until the docket sheet settled down before unleashing the snark.
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 6:19 pm
by chancery
bob wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 6:02 pm
A seasoned magistrate, who regularly signs warrants and presides over litigation about warrants will not be impressed.
Judge Reinhart sits in West Palm Beach. Trump filed in the Fort Pierce division of SDFL, apparently because a Trump appointee is the current duty judge in Fort Pierce.
I deleted a prior tweet about where President Trump filed his motion for a special master because it appears that the matter was *randomly* assigned to Judge Cannon from West Palm Beach — even though (1) she sits in Fort Pierce; and (2) the duty judge for WPB is Judge Rosenberg.
Still curious if this will be transferred to Judge Reinhart, or does it need to be assigned to an Article 3 Judge? And if so, will it go to the judge which previously resolved the objections to one of Judge Reinhart's orders?
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 6:56 pm
by MN-Skeptic
chancery wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:34 pm
Edit: I don't know why my post shows a tweet from the middle of the thread. It's worth it to scroll up to the top and read the whole thing.
Tweet quote tip - When you select "Copy link to tweet" from a tweet thread, the link will be to the tweet you selected and the one above it. I typically go to the second tweet in a thread and select it. That way the first two tweets in a thread will appear here.
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 7:19 pm
by Kendra
https://www.amazon.com/gp/vine/newslett ... US_Default&
Patel says Trump just has to say documents are declassified and if there's a witness then, poof! They are declassified. Sounds legit.
So Kash didn't know they were there? Can't wait to hear about fingerprints
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 7:59 pm
by bob
It is near Taitzian level of dumb.
It is acceptable to request that property be returned, and for a special master to be appointed. I'm not sure there's anything especially wrong with filing a separate lawsuit, as opposed to filing under the case number for the original warrant application.
But there are laws and rules and cases you cite when you want those things. And you supply evidence to support your claims. This trash did neither and contains huge amount of legally irrelevant greivances.
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:07 pm
by chancery
Good succinct thread from a former federal prosecutor:
THREAD: What should we make of the motion filed by Trump's legal team regarding the search warrant executed at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence?
Today Trump's legal team filed a very unusual motion regarding the search at his residence.
It is hard for me to explain just how unusual and bizarre this motion is, but I will try to do so in this thread.
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:12 pm
by RTH10260
bob wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 7:59 pm
https:// twitter.com/SpiroAgnewGhost/status/1561834934880202752
It is near Taitzian level of dumb.
It is acceptable to request that property be returned, and for a special master to be appointed. I'm not sure there's anything especially wrong with filing a separate lawsuit, as opposed to filing under the case number for the original warrant application.
But there are laws and rules and cases you cite when you want those things. And you supply evidence to support your claims. This trash did neither and contains huge amount of legally irrelevant greivances.
From the impotus news release: why does he need a Special Master when he claims in this wordsalad that the documents had been declassified?
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:23 pm
by Kendra
If most of these documents are super super sekrit stuff that can only be looked at by staff in a super sekrit secure room, how do they pick a special master, likely not qualified to look at this super sekrit stuff, to look through them?
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:45 pm
by RTH10260
I have long been wondering what authorities, if any, did show the thumbscrews and similar medevial hardware to all those people who may have snooped the Top Secret papers. Have they been sworn to secrecy for life, under threat of being sent to a Russian gulag camp in deepest Siberia, or lifelong residency at Gitmo?
(insert joke of notarized form with bloddy thumbprint and $0.03 stamp)
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 9:05 pm
by Greatgrey
300 classified documents
Boxes moving around
Trump’s lawyer rummaging thru them
All normal
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 9:08 pm
by chancery
Someone on twitter pointed out that one of Trump's lawyers, Lindsey Halligan, works at a large Florida firm, Cole, Scott & Kisane, which has over 500 attorneys. The firm apparently has expertise in white collar criminal investigation and defense, although possibly not in the hyper-specialized area of Espionage Act claims. One of the name partners, Thomas Scott, is a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
Halligan, however, specializes in insurance property claims. And she's apparently doing this matter on her own, without help from the white collar crime specialists at her firm. The firm's name is conspicuously absent from her signature block.
It reminds me of the amusing incident from June 2021, when Lindell filed a RICO/LOL (but I repeat myself) suit against Dominion Voting Systems. The lawyer who signed the complaint was one Alec Beck, a labor/employment law specialist, who was a partner in the Minneapolis office of Barnes & Thornburg, a large national firm. He signed the complaint in his capacity as a B&T partner.
Within 24 hours of the complaint's filing, B&T had fired Beck and withdrawn as counsel for Lindell.
https://abovethelaw.com/2021/06/mypillo ... rico-suit/
I've seen no indication that CS&K has parted ways with Halligan, but
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 9:12 pm
by bob
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 9:18 pm
by MN-Skeptic
Gift link to the NYTimes article -
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 9:20 pm
by RTH10260
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 9:21 pm
by chancery
One thing about Trump's document is that it's filed as a separate action without complying with most of the rules for a separate complaint, but styled as a motion, without following most of the rules for motions. To be fair there is no rule governing a Youtube comment.
I know I am kind of obsessing about this but this is my area and this is historically and flamboyantly incompetent and surreal. Like imagine you love football and it's the Super Bowl and it's kickoff and the kicker whips out a javelin and kills the mascot and yells FOOT FAULT
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 9:23 pm
by Greatgrey
Ummm… this seems bad.
- 0A6E5A9B-E131-469D-8AC9-6A6F3E7C6937.jpeg (441.62 KiB) Viewed 840 times
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 9:38 pm
by RTH10260
How many operatives do Russia and China have working among the staff at MaL? Like cleaners and janitors? The WH kid mowing the lawn?
Off Topic
re cleaners. in a former life I worked at a computer center with fairly acceptable security for the kind of business they ran. So one weekend the cleaner decided to show her husband where she works, took him and their wiener dog down the otherwise unsecured industrial elevator (it did require a simple floor access key) and wandered around the mainframe cpus and spinning harddrives (the huge floor filling things - think early 1970s). Luckily the dog was well potty trained
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 9:48 pm
by Kendra
MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 9:18 pm
Gift link to the NYTimes article -
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
TY!
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:00 pm
by Kendra
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:24 pm
by Kriselda Gray
That's actually a really good article
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:30 pm
by Danraft
It is a great article.
Stated some very inflammatory facts in a passive observational voice... which is interesting.
The fact there were documents in a closet in Trump's office...
The fact that Trump himself reviewed the docs.
The fact that documents were observed moving in and out of storage and being placed in new containers
The fact that the form news anchor, his attorney, signed that there were no more documents.
The fact that there were NSA and CIA documents pertaining to national security
The fact that there is a further request for more footage of cameras requested after the warrant search
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:40 am
by chancery
@kyledcheney
The May 10 letter between NARA and the Trump team is extraordinarily damning for Trump team, confirms there was "special access program" level material found in files at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump ally John Solomon's team posted it here:
https://justthenews.com/government/cour ... -documents
"The Executive Branch here is seeking access to records belonging to, and in the custody of, the Fed Govt itself...to “conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported."
Trump allies pointed to this letter as some kind of evidence of Biden White House meddling. What it shows is officials expressing extreme alarm about national security damage based on records being held by Trump.
The letter shows that even though NARA recovered 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago in January, FBI didn't access them until May.
"Among the materials in the boxes are over 100 documents with classification markings, comprising more than 700 pages."
The letter does more to show how Trump and his team resisted NARA entreaties than anything that has come out so far.
And this is all before subsequent tranches were discovered at Mar-a-Lago.
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:50 am
by chancery
Fascinating final passage in the letter to Trump's counsel from the National Archives and Records Administration (linked to in preceding post):
Please note that, in accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3), the former President’s designated representatives can review the records, subject to obtaining the appropriate level of security clearance. Please contact my General Counsel, Gary M. Stern, if you would like to discuss the details of such a review, such as you proposed in your letter of May 5, 2022, particularly with respect to any unclassified materials.
Curious to know whether Trump's representatives were able to obtain clearance.
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2022 1:36 am
by Luke
"Obtained" is such BS, the dotard made him a custodian of NARA records. As noted above, this makes the dotard look even worse -- wonder if Solomon even asked before releasing it. To my knowledge, he doesn't have the security clearance to look at these records, imagine Kush doesn't anymore either, and the current POTUS pulled the dotard's clearance. Unlikely Christina Bobb does either. This letter helps make clear they are just "at the beginning" of the investigation, who knows how many people had access to NatSec materials. This is a disaster for our security and these people most be held to full account.
Here's the full letter in spoiler to save time and having to give a click to creepy Russian stooge John Solomon's site.
Full text of National Archives letter to Trump on classified documents
► Show Spoiler
Just the News has obtained the full text of the letter that the National Archives sent to former President Donald Trump requesting classified documents
By Ben Whedon Updated: August 22, 2022 - 10:29pm
May 10, 2022
Evan Corcoran Silverman Thompson 400 East Pratt Street Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202 By Email
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
I write in response to your letters of April 29, 2022, and May 1, 2022, requesting that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) further delay the disclosure to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the records that were the subject of our April 12, 2022 notification to an authorized representative of former President Trump.
As you are no doubt aware, NARA had ongoing communications with the former President’s representatives throughout 2021 about what appeared to be missing Presidential records, which resulted in the transfer of 15 boxes of records to NARA in January 2022. In its initial review of materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials. NARA informed the Department of Justice about that discovery, which prompted the Department to ask the President to request that NARA provide the FBI with access to the boxes at issue so that the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community could examine them. On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel’s Office—affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum—formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes.
Although the Presidential Records Act (PRA) generally restricts access to Presidential records in NARA’s custody for several years after the conclusion of a President’s tenure in office, the statute further provides that, “subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke,” such records “shall be made available . . . to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. §
2205(2)(B). Those conditions are satisfied here. As the Department of Justice’s National Security Division explained to you on April 29, 2022:
There are important national security interests in the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community getting access to these materials. According to NARA, among the materials in the boxes are over 100 documents with classification markings, comprising more than 700 pages. Some include the highest levels of classification, including Special Access Program (SAP) materials. Access to the materials is not only necessary for purposes of our ongoing criminal investigation, but the Executive Branch must also conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps. Accordingly, we are seeking immediate access to these materials so as to facilitate the necessary assessments that need to be conducted within the Executive Branch.
We advised you in writing on April 12 that, “in light of the urgency of this request,” we planned to “provid[e] access to the FBI next week,” i.e., the week of April 18. See Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 2(b), 74 Fed. Reg. 4,669 (Jan. 21, 2009) (providing a 30-day default before disclosure but authorizing the Archivist to specify “a shorter period of time” if “required under the circumstances”); accord 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44(g) (“The Archivist may adjust any time period or deadline under this subpart, as appropriate, to accommodate records requested under this section.”). In response to a request from another representative of the former President, the White House Counsel’s Office acquiesced in an extension of the production date to April 29, and so advised NARA. In accord with that agreement, we had not yet provided the FBI with access to the records when we received your letter on April 29, and we have continued to refrain from providing such access to date.
It has now been four weeks since we first informed you of our intent to provide the FBI access to the boxes so that it and others in the Intelligence Community can conduct their reviews. Notwithstanding the urgency conveyed by the Department of Justice and the reasonable extension afforded to the former President, your April 29 letter asks for additional time for you to review the materials in the boxes “in order to ascertain whether any specific document is subject to privilege,” and then to consult with the former President “so that he may personally make any decision to assert a claim of constitutionally based privilege.” Your April 29 letter further states that in the event we do not afford you further time to review the records before NARA discloses them in response to the request, we should consider your letter to be “a protective assertion of executive privilege made by counsel for the former President.”
The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President’s purported “protective assertion of executive privilege.” See 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44(f)(3). Accordingly, I have consulted with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to inform my “determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege.” Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a).
The Assistant Attorney General has advised me that there is no precedent for an assertion of executive privilege by a former President against an incumbent President to prevent the latter from obtaining from NARA Presidential records belonging to the Federal Government where “such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2)(B).
To the contrary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), strongly suggests that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege “against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked.” Id. at 447-48. In Nixon v. GSA, the Court rejected former President Nixon’s argument that a statute requiring that Presidential records from his term in office be maintained in the custody of, and screened by, NARA’s predecessor agency—a “very limited intrusion by personnel in the Executive Branch sensitive to executive concerns”—would “impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers.” Id. at 451; see also id. at 455 (rejecting the claim). The Court specifically noted that an “incumbent President should not be dependent on happenstance or the whim of a prior President when he seeks access to records of past decisions that define or channel current governmental obligations.” Id. at 452; see also id. at 441-46 (emphasizing, in the course of rejecting a separation-of-powers challenge to a provision of a federal statute governing the disposition of former President Nixon’s tape recordings, papers, and other historical materials “within the Executive Branch,” where the “employees of that branch [would] have access to the materials only ‘for lawful Government use,’” that “[t]he Executive Branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, and the Act facially is designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by some applicable privilege inherent in that branch”; and concluding that “nothing contained in the Act renders it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch”).
It is not necessary that I decide whether there might be any circumstances in which a former President could successfully assert a claim of executive privilege to prevent an Executive Branch agency from having access to Presidential records for the performance of valid executive functions. The question in this case is not a close one. The Executive Branch here is seeking access to records belonging to, and in the custody of, the Federal Government itself, not only in order to investigate whether those records were handled in an unlawful manner but also, as the National Security Division explained, to “conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps.” These reviews will be conducted by current government personnel who, like the archival officials in Nixon v. GSA, are “sensitive to executive concerns.” Id. at 451. And on the other side of the balance, there is no reason to believe such reviews could “adversely affect the ability of future Presidents to obtain the candid advice necessary for effective decisionmaking.” Id. at 450. To the contrary: Ensuring that classified information is appropriately protected, and taking any necessary remedial action if it was not, are steps essential to preserving the ability of future Presidents to “receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of [their] duties depends.” Id. at 449.
Because an assertion of executive privilege against the incumbent President under these circumstances would not be viable, it follows that there is no basis for the former President to make a “protective assertion of executive privilege,” which the Assistant Attorney General informs me has never been made outside the context of a congressional demand for information from the Executive Branch. Even assuming for the sake of argument that a former President may under some circumstances make such a “protective assertion of executive privilege” to preclude the Archivist from complying with a disclosure otherwise prescribed by 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2), there is no predicate for such a “protective” assertion here, where there is no realistic basis that the requested delay would result in a viable assertion of executive privilege against the incumbent President that would prevent disclosure of records for the purposes of the reviews described above. Accordingly, the only end that would be served by upholding the “protective” assertion here would be to delay those very important reviews.
I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s “protective” claim of privilege. See Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a); see also 36 C.F.R. 1270.44(f)(3) (providing that unless the incumbent President “uphold” the claim asserted by the former President, “the Archivist discloses the Presidential record”). For the same reasons, I have concluded that there is no reason to grant your request for a further delay before the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community begin their reviews. Accordingly, NARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question , as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.
Please note that, in accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3), the former President’s designated representatives can review the records, subject to obtaining the appropriate level of security clearance. Please contact my General Counsel, Gary M. Stern, if you would like to discuss the details of such a review, such as you proposed in your letter of May 5, 2022, particularly with respect to any unclassified materials.
Sincerely,
DEBRA STEIDEL WALL
Acting Archivist of the United States
Re: Trump's Classified Docs: FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - Mar-A-Lago, DOJ, Merrick Garland - GOP Madness, Fallou
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2022 4:39 am
by Sam the Centipede
Chilidog wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:49 pm
I'm disappointed
I wanted to see Orly Taitz
I am sure many long-serving Fogfolk share your yearning and dream that over in Loogoony Niguel those spidery eyelashes are fluttering as our heroine collates
* and staples
** an ever-enlarging stack of zibbits.
* inartfully
** defectively