Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 12:08 pm
He's starting to sound more and more like Brick Tamlin from Anchorman
https:// twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1562821771438727168
"PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT!"
Keeps me wondering if he ever read anything but the front cover page. Cause it would remind him that he doesn't get to keep stuff in his basement. His basement is not specially waterproof when he redraws the path of the next hurricane
94 Aug 25, 2022 ORDER granting in part 4 Motion to Unseal. On or before noon Eastern time on Friday, August 26, 2022, the Government shall file in the public docket a version of the Affidavit containing the redactions proposed in ECF No. 89-1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart on 8/25/2022. See attached document for full details. (jmd) (Entered: 08/25/2022)
Not long after the National Archives acknowledged in February that it had retrieved 15 boxes of presidential records from former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, Trump began fielding calls from Tom Fitton, a prominent conservative activist.
Fitton, the longtime head of the legal activist group Judicial Watch, had a simple message for Trump — it was a mistake to give the records to the Archives, and his team should never have let the Archives "strong-arm" him into returning them, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
Those records belonged to Trump, Fitton argued, citing a 2012 court case involving his organization that he said gave the former President authority to do what he wanted with records from his own term in office.
The Judicial Watch president suggested to Trump that if the Archives came back, he should not give up any additional records, according to sources with knowledge of their conversations, which have not been previously reported.
While Trump continued to publicly tout his cooperation with the Archives, privately the former President began obsessing over Fitton's arguments, complaining to aides about the 15 boxes that were handed over and becoming increasingly convinced that he should have full control over records that remained at Mar-a-Lago, according to people with knowledge of his behavior at the time.
Trump even asked Fitton at one point to brief his attorneys, said a person familiar with the matter.
"The moment Tom got in the boss' ear, it was downhill from there," said a person close to the former President, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.
Fitton, who is not a lawyer, is referring to this case. And I've seen it parroted by others, including some lawyers who believe they are smart.
But that case isn't that similar. Background: There are some audiotapes of the Big Dawg, and Fitton believed they were made while he was president, and hence would be presidential records under the PRA. The Big Dawg has the tapes, so Fitton Judicial Watch of course sued ... NARA, essentially hoping the court would declare the tapes to be presidential records and order NARA to seize them. The court NOPE'd on that, saying that's not what the law allows or requires. The case, if anything, is about the Archivist's ability and authority to deem records as presidential, and not the president's.
Whether NARA had the authority to retrieve the documents is essentially moot now: there's been a subpoena and a search warrant; if they are presidential records, they're gone and not coming back.
chancery wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 9:08 pm
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.
Yeah, not only do I suspect that Reinhart is not-so-subtly pushing the DOJ to indict the thieving clown, but today is the day Aileen Cannon ordered Trump's lawyers to file a document of some sort explaining why the lawsuit they filed in her court is a stinking pile of dog poo.
Gonna be a good day.
The Twitter machine is going to be fun when they get ahold of the filing.
I can't recall any other high-profile case where the court ordered the release of the affidavit in support of a request for a search warrant. Those are secret. I would not be much more surprised if he ordered release of grand jury testimony or something (no grand jury that I know of, it's hypothetical).
I've seen lots of search warrants and the return documents showing what was seized. I've never seen a search warrant affidavit, I'm pretty sure. Defense attorneys don't get to see those unless something really unusual happens.
Because to get a magistrate to sign the search warrant, you have to show probable cause that the search will turn up evidence of a crime, and in the case of a former president of the United States of America, even if he is a thieving clown, the magistrate has to be damned careful. That means the affidavit has to be really complete ... and damning.
I'm sure Trump was told by his crappy dime-store attorneys that the magistrate would never release the affidavit, so he was perfectly safe yelling about how it HAD to be released.
Foggy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 8:09 am
I'm sure he is.
I can't recall any other high-profile case where the court ordered the release of the affidavit in support of a request for a search warrant. Those are secret. I would not be much more surprised if he ordered release of grand jury testimony or something (no grand jury that I know of, it's hypothetical).
I've seen lots of search warrants and the return documents showing what was seized. I've never seen a search warrant affidavit, I'm pretty sure. Defense attorneys don't get to see those unless something really unusual happens.
Because to get a magistrate to sign the search warrant, you have to show probable cause that the search will turn up evidence of a crime, and in the case of a former president of the United States of America, even if he is a thieving clown, the magistrate has to be damned careful. That means the affidavit has to be really complete ... and damning.
I'm sure Trump was told by his crappy dime-store attorneys that the magistrate would never release the affidavit, so he was perfectly safe yelling about how it HAD to be released.
Which brings us to today ...
I don’t think that’s right. Litigating whether there was probable cause to search is done as a matter of routine. And the only way you can litigate whether the magistrate had probable cause is with the affidavit. The defense is entitled to see the affidavit at the appropriate stage in the proceedings.
The reason it hasn’t been revealed yet is because the investigation is ongoing and no charges have been filed. Once the charges drop, the defense will get an unredacted copy of the affidavit.
Edit: I’m talking in general terms, not about this case. I wouldn’t expect to see an affidavit at this stage ordinarily, and the only reason we’re seeing it now is because of the hoopla.
Record's? Shouldn't that be plural and not possessive?
