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

[Sam the Centipede]

Did she also order them to use smaller words?

No, but they mustn't be horrid to poor ickle Donny Trumpo who is her favoritest bestest prezzikins.

[Greatgrey]

It was 219 words.

After Trump asked Judge Cannon to delay FL trial yesterday because of DC trial, he moved to stay DC trial. Govt now shows Cannon his motion saying it confirms "his overriding interest in delaying both trials at any cost." Asks her not to be "manipulated in this fashion."

Seems to have made Cannon a bit testy:

[raison de arizona]

It was 219 words.

Seems to have made Cannon a bit testy:

https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status ... 81997?s=20

So it was a surreply without leave of the court AND over 200 words?

[Kendra]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/politics ... index.html

A plumber, a maid, a chauffeur and a woodworker are among Mar-a-Lago staffers and contract workers who federal prosecutors may call to testify against former President Donald Trump and his two co-defendants at their upcoming criminal trial in Florida, according to multiple people familiar with the investigation.

CNN has assembled a comprehensive picture of how prosecutors are structuring their case against Trump over his mishandling of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago.

While some of the witnesses who may be called to testify hail from Trump’s inner circle, including his career in business, as a political candidate and from his time in the White House, other potential witnesses are the types of workers rarely noticed by Mar-a-Lago’s wealthy guests, according to the sources.

Other likely witnesses also include Trump Secret Service agents, former intelligence officials, as well as people who were in the room with Trump when he was captured on multiple audio recordings referencing a military document about potential plans to bomb Iran, according to the sources.

But the low-level workers who were the eyes and ears of Mar-a-Lago, if called to testify, could offer the public a new level of insight into the exclusive club and Trump’s approach to sensitive national security information since he left office. Some of them are still employed at Mar-a-Lago.

[RTH10260]

New book details Trump lawyers’ secret meeting with Jack Smith ahead of DC indictment
ABC’s Jonathan Karl offers an account of a fateful July 27 meeting in his forthcoming book.

By KYLE CHENEY
11/13/2023 05:00 AM EST

Jack Smith’s public image, shaped by his near invisibility since taking over the federal criminal cases against Donald Trump, has been that of a sullen, brooding and hard-charging prosecutor.

His steely glare, on display in two arraignments of the former president and in a handful of public photos and videos, has contributed to a sort of mythology around the veteran corruption prosecutor.

ABC’s Jonathan Karl offers an account of the fateful July 27 meeting in his forthcoming book, “Tired of Winning,” that suggests Smith took the same wordless, unsmiling approach to Trump’s attorneys that he’s presented in his few public appearances.

Smith, joined by deputies J.P. Cooney and Ray Hulser — both veteran public corruption prosecutors — greeted Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro, who had started on the job less than two weeks earlier.

“After some short pleasantries, Smith invited the Trump lawyers to sit at the conference table and offered them some water to drink,” Karl writes.

Lauro quickly launched into a lengthy presentation, making the case that Smith should forgo charges against Trump related to his bid to subvert the 2020 election.

Sitting across the table from Smith and his prosecutors, Lauro spoke virtually uninterrupted for nearly an hour, Karl writes.

Lauro’s presentation featured a now-familiar case — that Trump genuinely believed he won the election and was exercising his First Amendment right to challenge it and raise questions; that Trump was following the advice of his lawyers; and that he had already faced impeachment and an extensive congressional investigation over the matter. Indicting him would just inflame a divided country further, Lauro said, according to Karl’s account.

“As Lauro spoke, the prosecutors took notes, but they said nothing. Smith waited until Lauro was done speaking and then, without commenting on what he just heard, he bid the Trump lawyers farewell,” Karl writes. “According to sources with direct knowledge of the meeting, Smith did not ask a single question. And aside from the pleasantries at the start of the meeting (including the offer of a glass of water) and the goodbye at the end, neither Smith nor the two prosecutors said anything at all.”




https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/1 ... h-00126681

[Slim Cognito]

Oh, he's goooooood.

[Ben-Prime]

Oh, he's goooooood.

It's like he combined the Bruce Lee saying "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times" with the adage to not interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake. He's a master of the 'Keep Ya Damn Mouth Shut and Let Them Take Themselves Out' Style of Kung Fu.

[Suranis]

zod.jpg (47.75 KiB) Viewed 2906 times

[Frater I*I]

zod.jpg

You forgot the tagline...

"Come...kneel before Zod.....ZOODDD!!!"

[Kendra]

I downloaded Jonathan's new book from the library last night.

Edit: Wrong thread

[Rolodex]

So Trump's crack team of lawyers discovered that there were two hearings on the same day - Feb 15, 2024. One is in NYC (fraudulent business document aka "hush money" case) and the MAL docs case in FL. So they went to their friend Judge Cannon to get the date moved, and she agreed.

But here's the kicker - she moved the docs hearing to Feb 12!! An earlier date. LOL

https://themessenger.com/news/trump-can ... g-conflict

[chancery]

Meh. Trump's lawyers had requested "either earlier in the week of February 12 or the prior week." They also informed court that "[t]he Special Counsel’s Office informed us they prefer dates earlier in the week of February 12, 2024."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .216.0.pdf

Judge Cannon selected the later of the two weeks proposed by Trump's lawyers, and chose the first day of the week as the Special Counsel had requested.

This is in fact the way routine litigation housekeeping is supposed to work: the court and counsel make reasonable accommodation for scheduling problems, and counsel exchange information so that the issue can be presented efficiently to the court in a single document.

[Rolodex]

Meh. Trump's lawyers had requested "either earlier in the week of February 12 or the prior week." They also informed court that "[t]he Special Counsel’s Office informed us they prefer dates earlier in the week of February 12, 2024."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .216.0.pdf

Judge Cannon selected the later of the two weeks proposed by Trump's lawyers, and chose the first day of the week as the Special Counsel had requested.

This is in fact the way routine litigation housekeeping is supposed to work: the court and counsel make reasonable accommodation for scheduling problems, and counsel exchange information so that the issue can be presented efficiently to the court in a single document.

I was just surprised they didn't request it to be moved to June or something.

[chancery]

On the other hand:

https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/ ... 3514336427

Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)
@AWeissmann_

Breaking: Judge Cannon’s bias is showing over and over again. Smith has to be weighing whether, when, and how to seek her reversal by the Ct of Appeals and her removal.

Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell
NEW: Judge Cannon denies request by Special Counsel that she set CIPA Section 5 deadline in Trump classified docs case -- where defendant is required to disclose what classified info he intends to use at trial -- and says it will be set in March 2024 (!)

Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)
@AWeissmann_
Not scheduling a CIPA section 5 hearing, which is routine, is a clear sign she is just as much in the bag for Trump as when she issued her horrendous pretrial rulings (both reversed in scathing language by the conservative 11th Circuit). What a piece of work is she.

[Slim Cognito]

What's likely to be next? Appeal to the 11th in hopes they order her to set a date? What if she sets it for spring 2024? I haz questions.

[chancery]

What's likely to be next? Appeal to the 11th in hopes they order her to set a date? What if she sets it for spring 2024? I haz questions.

Challenging a federal district court's scheduling decisions is next to impossible, both procedurally (absent certain special circumstances, you can't take an immediate (interlocutory) appeal before entry of judgment) and on the merits (a judge's discretion on scheduling issues is deep as a river, high as a mountain).

Now, the CIPA statute does provide for interlocutory appeals, so that takes care of the procedural issue, but it's still almost impossible to challenge a scheduling order. I don't know nothing about CIPA, let alone the ultra-specialized issue of CIPA interlocutory appeals, but I _suspect_ that the government wouldn't get any traction with an appeal that doesn't involve inappropriate disclosure of highly sensitive classified information.

Telling the D.C. Circuit that Cannon is just pretending to try to stick to the current trial schedule, but has probably already decided that she's going to move that date would get a big fat "so what" from the court. Ditto telling them that the schedule is inefficient and that Cannon has been dragging her heels.

[bob]

Now, the CIPA statute does provide for interlocutory appeals, so that takes care of the procedural issue, but it's still almost impossible to challenge a scheduling order. I don't know nothing about CIPA, let alone the ultra-specialized issue of CIPA interlocutory appeals, but I _suspect_ that the government wouldn't get any traction with an appeal that doesn't involve inappropriate disclosure of highly sensitive classified information.

Too also: By the time briefing and argument were complete, the appellate court might not render its ruling about the March 2024 deadline until ... March 2024.

I mean, yes, it would be possible to seek an expedited appellate schedule. But I doubt it would be granted, or be granted to include a meanfully quicker resolution.

"People are saying," if the prosecutor is willing to accept delay, this may be the best path to ask the 11th to boot Cannon from this case.

[chancery]

"People are saying," if the prosecutor is willing to accept delay, this may be the best path to ask the 11th to boot Cannon from this case.

Not sure I follow. Do you mean an appeal concerning a Cannon ruling about classified information?

[bob]

"People are saying," if the prosecutor is willing to accept delay, this may be the best path to ask the 11th to boot Cannon from this case.

Not sure I follow. Do you mean an appeal concerning a Cannon ruling about classified information?

Yeah: "People are saying" that, in addition to asking for an appropriate ruling on the classified-information hearing, the prosecutor should also ask the 11th to reassign this case to a different judge.

[Maybenaut]

"People are saying," if the prosecutor is willing to accept delay, this may be the best path to ask the 11th to boot Cannon from this case.

Not sure I follow. Do you mean an appeal concerning a Cannon ruling about classified information?

Yeah: "People are saying" that, in addition to asking for an appropriate ruling on the classified-information hearing, the prosecutor should also ask the 11th to reassign this case to a different judge.

People might well be saying that, but people, IMO, are engaging in wishful thinking.

[chancery]

Well, as far as I know, there hasn't been a substantive decision yet on disclosure of classified information, although I guess she's given an indication that she might order wholesale disclosure of classified information to Nauta and Oliveira, which strikes me as whacko.

[Slim Cognito]

Thanks all!

[Dave from down under]

Well, as far as I know, there hasn't been a substantive decision yet on disclosure of classified information, although I guess she's given an indication that she might order wholesale disclosure of classified information to Nauta and Oliveira, which strikes me as whacko.

Is it against the law for a judge to disclose classified information to people without clearance???

Perhaps she should be treated as a National security threat.

[chancery]

I suspect* that the more likely way it would play out would be a ruling to the effect that it would be a violation of due process for a defendant not to have access to certain classified information, or for the information not to be given to the jury. (One of the things that the CIPA does is set up a procedure for telling the jury that documents are classified without giving them to the jury. But in theory, at least, a judge could rule that the procedure is not constitutionally adequate in a particular case.)

At that point the government has to decide if the harm to national security is worth the value of continuing with the prosecution. I believe that it's because of the delicacy of such decisions that the CIPA allows interlocutory appeals, as some protection against a run-amuck judge.

And I agree with the general wisdom that this would pretty much be the government's only opportunity to boot Judge Cannon. The Eleventh Circuit was very much not amused about her treatment of classified information in the Trump v. United States litigation last year. Two strikes might be enough.

It would still be very far from a sure thing. But without a classified information issue, the chances would be nil, absent evidence of chummy conversations about the case between the Trump campaign and the judge. Judge Cannon's career as a prosecutor didn't prepare her for this kind of litigation, she's very inexperienced as a judge, and she doesn't appear to be a quick learner or the sharpest blade on the bench. However, under extremely settled law, she has enormous discretion to set the pace of the case and, to a degree, stack the deck a bit in Trump's favor. There is no reason to think that she lacks the ability, if she so choses, to use that discretion in a way that won't get her reversed.

_________
* Again, IANACrL, and what little I know about CIPA comes from social media.


________

[Dave from down under]

Perhaps rendition to a “friendly” place might resolve any ambiguity