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

[Greatgrey]

Well Raj Patel has dropped his seal. Sad.

Now he wants to be the Special Master!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 3.61.0.pdf

[Luke]

As an aside, GG is showing me SO MUCH LOVE for including him in my reply to Mark Levin. He says he's made SO MANY NEW FRIENDS and is just loving all the attention. Told him he deserves a Fogbow Hero of Socialist Labor medal when Foggy gets those fired up. Well, maybe he might have gently mentioned the Court of BunDogs, but it was in a loving way.

[Delarin]

How do you retain a security clearance after you leave your job? Is it like a library card? Even former presidents have to have their continued clearance approved by the current POTUS, don't they?

There is clearance, and then there is access. One can maintain a clearance until its expiration date and have access granted or taken away as needed. One requires both clearance and authorized access (and at least one other thing) to actually see the information.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Trump's clearance, if he ever had one, could very well have stayed active after he left the White House, but he would have no authorized access unless an executive branch agency granted it.

Edited, because grammar.

[Luke]

POLITICO:

Judge considers temporary limit on DOJ access to Trump documents
DOJ attorneys pushed back sharply against any such limits, warning against disruption of their ongoing criminal investigation.
By JOSH GERSTEIN, KYLE CHENEY and NICHOLAS WU 09/01/2022 12:47 PM EDT Updated: 09/01/2022 04:55 PM EDT

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A federal judge indicated Thursday that she’s giving serious consideration to temporarily barring Justice Department investigators from reviewing material seized from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon suggested that she’s mulling imposing that restriction, while potentially allowing an exception for the intelligence community to continue reviewing national security risks from the potential exposure of the slew of sensitive documents the FBI found at Trump’s compound earlier this month.

Cannon’s willingness to consider restraints — even for a period of time — on prosecutors and investigators in the politically explosive inquiry is some of the first positive news for Trump and his attorneys in a saga that presents an acute legal threat and has caused new strains with Republican elected officials. Justice Department attorneys pushed back sharply against any such limits, warning against disruption of their ongoing criminal investigation of Trump’s handling of classified documents. Cannon, who previously said she was inclined to order an outside review of the materials seized from Trump’s estate, appeared undeterred during a 90-minute hearing that featured arguments from DOJ counterintelligence officials and Trump’s legal team. Senior Justice Department attorney Jay Bratt repeatedly pleaded with Cannon, a Trump appointee, not to interrupt their ongoing criminal probe, emphasizing that the search warrant executed Aug. 8 was clearly valid and lawfully authorized to obtain “evidence of three significant federal crimes.” “He is no longer the president and because he is no longer the president he did not have the right to take those documents,” said Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence section in the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “He was unlawfully in possession of them…This plaintiff does not have an interest in the classified and other presidential records.”

Cannon signaled concern about a couple of instances in which the investigative team had flagged potentially privileged material that was not screened out during the initial review of records by the DOJ “filter team” assigned to prevent such occurrences. The judge gave no indication she planned to limit the privilege claims Trump could lodge in a still-to-be-determined review process. That suggested she could impose a special master with broad purview to screen documents for any potentially subject to executive privilege claims by Trump — despite DOJ’s argument that no such claim could ever be upheld in this context. “It would be unprecedented for the executive to be able to successfully assert privilege against the executive branch,” said Julie Edelstein, a Bratt deputy. However, Cannon said she thought prosecutors were “overreading” Supreme Court precedents on executive privilege. The judge suggested former presidents may retain some element of executive privilege over their papers and it isn’t clear whether a current president can simply nullify that in all cases. “I’m not sure it’s as cut and dried as you suggest,” Cannon told Edelstein. Cannon issued no immediate ruling on the special master issue and said she plans to issue a written order. She did indicate she plans to unseal more documents related to the dispute. If Cannon ultimately issues an order acceding to Trump’s requests, it could cause significant disruption to DOJ’s investigation, Bratt said. Although DOJ warned that such a disruption would also harm the intelligence community’s review of the seized records for risks to national security, Cannon said she envisioned a potential carveout to allow that review to continue, even while DOJ would lack access.

Bracing for possible defeat, Bratt said that if Cannon opted to deploy a wide-ranging special master and prevent DOJ from accessing the materials during the review, she should issue a formal injunction. An order of that kind would likely be appealable by the Justice Department. Cannon didn’t press Trump’s team about the former president’s claim to have declassified many of the materials seized during the search, but she did pause to correct Bratt when he called the documents classified rather than “marked as classified.” “We treat them as presumptively classified, “ Bratt replied. “We would not turn them over to somebody who does not have the appropriate clearances.” Trump’s team, however, said they were requesting access to all of the seized materials to lodge potential privilege claims.

More: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/0 ... t-00054521

[bob]

Aren't there different levels of Top Secret clearances?

There's compartmentalized information, so having top-secret access doesn't necessarily permit access to "need to know" information that you don't need to know.

Like the tweet suggested, the attorney could review items generically top secret, but not anything that's been compartmentalized.

All of this is a bit before the horse, of course: no indictment has been filed, and the judge hasn't (yet) ordered access to the seized items.

[jez]

POLITICO:

--- snipped some stuff ----

Yup, asshole is going to get away with it.
Cannon does realize that her appointment is for life. That she doesn't have to bow to his orangeness any longer. Right?

[Frater I*I]

Yup, asshole is going to get away with it.
Cannon does realize that her appointment is for life. That she doesn't have to bow to his orangeness any longer. Right?

Only if she's willing to let the grift bucks stop flowing into her "charity" [or what ever wingnut welfare organization that she probably is head of....]

[Delarin]

Aren't there different levels of Top Secret clearances?

Technically no, but effectively yes.

Only three levels of clearance are defined in E.O. 13526, and they are categorized according to the impact to national security (damage, serious damage, or exceptionally grave damage) if there is an unauthorized disclosure. So technically, disclosure of TS/SCI material and "merely" TS material would both be equally bad for the national security.

But unauthorized disclosures could result in other bad things such as risk to human life, so the extra letters restrict the number of TS-cleared individuals that can see that material - intelligence, for example.

[Slim Cognito]

How do you retain a security clearance after you leave your job? Is it like a library card? Even former presidents have to have their continued clearance approved by the current POTUS, don't they?

There is clearance, and then there is access. One can maintain a clearance until its expiration date and have access granted or taken away as needed. One requires both clearance and authorized access (and at least one other thing) to actually see the information.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Trump's clearance, if he ever had one, could very well have stayed active after he left the White House, but he would have no authorized access unless an executive branch agency granted it.

Edited, because grammar.

TY

[Delarin]

I find myself wondering if TFG ever had a clearance of any kind to begin with. After all, there is no constitutional requirement to have one, and what if he failed the background check? He would have to have access to the information anyway in order to discharge his constitutional duties.

I sure would like to see a requirement that every candidate on the general election ballot have a TS background investigation done. They wouldn't have to pass it, but the voters should know whether they passed or not. I know... that will never happen...

[Greatgrey]

As an aside, GG is showing me SO MUCH LOVE for including him in my reply to Mark Levin. He says he's made SO MANY NEW FRIENDS and is just loving all the attention. Told him he deserves a Fogbow Hero of Socialist Labor medal when Foggy gets those fired up. Well, maybe he might have gently mentioned the Court of BunDogs, but it was in a loving way.

I swear to Jeebuz I’m sending these guys your way.

[Luke]

Delarin, just wanted to say thank you for giving us great insight from your experience. Having so many people with deep understanding in various fields makes Fogbow the best place online for learning and discussion.



GG, you're going to send me a bunch of hot boys? That's punishment? Did they break out of the Gateway House of Boys?

Here we are right now in Fort Lauderdale, Neon and I are not in the shot because I'm taking the photo and he's getting the next round of beers*

White-Party-PS-633x450.jpg (99.87 KiB) Viewed 974 times

* Just kidding, those boys aren't here right now.

[pipistrelle]

Stupid question but shouldn’t a judge nominated by the subject of an investigation recuse herself?

Short answer: No.

Federal judges routinely are asked to rule against the position of the person who nominated them. A contrary rule would hamper the judiciary (which is already understaffed) and encourage judge shopping by throwing in frivolous claims meant only to draw a recusal.

The way the system is supposed to work is either party can move for recusal. I don't expect that to happen here.

Judges are supposed to self-recuse if their impartiality reasonably could be questioned. Note the weasel language and who gets to decide. So I don't expect a self-recusal either.

Thanks. I was thinking it must be fairly unprecedented to have this high a level an investigation of someone who nominated judges. (I was too young to follow Watergate, and i didn't know birtherism was a serious pastime until I came here — heard a references, then it flitted off my radar). As for this judge's impartiality... (whispers "executive privilege, huh?")

Edit: Birtherism wasn't an investigation, though, right?

[keith]

Million-dollar mouthpiece gotta earn those duckets Trump IOUs (tm)

FIFY

[Foggy]

I am not a lawyer, but I write fiction. This is fiction.

Response and Request for Clarification

The United States of America acknowledges receipt of the Court's order and will immediately obey that order; however the government is left with a question regarding the interpretation of the order.

When the Court's order says that the government is "enjoined from further examination or review of the allegedly classified documents," until after the Special Master's review is completed, can the government assume that means only the content of the documents, and not any fingerprints or other evidence that may have been developed from the physical documents themselves? In that regard, the government hereby notifies the court that all the documents have been fingerprinted, and the fingerprints of 27 separate individuals have been identified, and all of those individuals have been further identified by names because their fingerprints were already on record at the FBI (and by the way, those individuals had better contact the United States Attorney and start singing because it's a race now to see who's going to get the best deal as a plea bargain if they describe why their fingerprints are on those documents).

And by the way please understand that if this case results in charges against the former president of the United States, and if that case goes to trial, and if the trial goes to jury, there will be no opportunity for the content of these documents to be revealed or entered into evidence and so the content of the classified documents is basically irrelevant at this point in the CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

Respectfully submitted,

[Suranis]

Well Raj Patel has dropped his seal. Sad.

Now he wants to be the Special Master!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 3.61.0.pdf

Hard to know what to select but I will choose this paragraph

Whereas, under the Constitutional reality President Trump's castle, even during its weakest state,can withstand the entire Government of the United States with it's impenetrable shield supported by His Honor's status, precedent, Privileges, Immunities, substantive Due Process rights,and/or the Fourth Amendment search and seizure; and

To misquote a movie, "Son, stay off the drugs."

[Flatpoint High]

Aren't there different levels of Top Secret clearances?

There's compartmentalized information, so having top-secret access doesn't necessarily permit access to "need to know" information that you don't need to know.

Correct. My father had Q Clearance, yet once he turned over the analysis papers he wrote, he no longer had access to them.

Like the tweet suggested, the attorney could review items generically top secret, but not anything that's been compartmentalized.

All of this is a bit before the horse, of course: no indictment has been filed, and the judge hasn't (yet) ordered access to the seized items.

[Reality Check]

"Spy hard" sounds like the title of a porno flick.I apologize for requesting the thread rename. Next time I will leave well enough alone.

[bob]

"Spy hard" sounds like the title of a porno flick.

"Spy Hard" was the name of a 90s parody of Bond movies.

* * *


500 documents (over 64 bundles) doesn't seem like that much.

[Slim Cognito]

Sounds like trump's judge is inclined to believe the docs were declassified because trump said so? If that's the case, how does DOJ convince her that's not true, or can they convince her that's not true? Is she required to listen to, you know, people who actually know their stuff or can she take the word of the OSG and return everything?

[p0rtia]

"Spy hard" sounds like the title of a porno flick.I apologize for requesting the thread rename. Next time I will leave well enough alone.

Yeah, that.

The first purpose of a title is to indicate the content. IMO, any title for this thread that doesn't start with Mar-a-Lago, which is how this issue is most frequently identified these days, doesn't do its job (cf "Pravda"). And while I"m here, yes, the kitchen-sink style for titles is also a weak choice (cf "Pravda").

I don't mean any of this personally. I've made a living as an editor for 30 years, so I see it has my responsibility to weigh in (again), if not for this thread, but going forward.

[keith]

I don't mean any of this personally. I've made a living as an editor for 30 years, so I see it has my responsibility to weigh in (again), if not for this thread, but going forward.

Could you maybe volunteer a bit of your time over at PoliticusUsa and teach 'em the meaning of the word 'proof-read'?

They mean well, I think, and I don't begrudge them taking the shortcut of voice-to-text software to grab their quotes, but geebus, they really ought to check the output of that software before they hit the publish button.

[sugar magnolia]

"Spy hard" sounds like the title of a porno flick.I apologize for requesting the thread rename. Next time I will leave well enough alone.

Yeah, that.

The first purpose of a title is to indicate the content. IMO, any title for this thread that doesn't start with Mar-a-Lago, which is how this issue is most frequently identified these days, doesn't do its job (cf "Pravda"). And while I"m here, yes, the kitchen-sink style for titles is also a weak choice (cf "Pravda").

I don't mean any of this personally. I've made a living as an editor for 30 years, so I see it has my responsibility to weigh in (again), if not for this thread, but going forward.

And the "kitchen sink" approach with several topics listed also means we frequently have to see the same posts over and over in multiple threads. An occasional cross-post is expected but posting the same thing repeatedly in multiple threads gets tedious very fast.

[p0rtia]

I don't mean any of this personally. I've made a living as an editor for 30 years, so I see it has my responsibility to weigh in (again), if not for this thread, but going forward.

Could you maybe volunteer a bit of your time over at PoliticusUsa and teach 'em the meaning of the word 'proof-read'?

They mean well, I think, and I don't begrudge them taking the shortcut of voice-to-text software to grab their quotes, but geebus, they really ought to check the output of that software before they hit the publish button.

Alas, even if I had the time, I'm not that kind of editor. My sig file is "I never said I could spell." I couldn't proofread my way out of a wet paper bag.

And what's up with PoiticusUSA?

[Foggy]

Off Topic

Yeah, this is not really a newspaper, so it's understandable that titles are a little bit ... difficult. Imprecise.

'Course, this is a precisely accurate reflection of the recent economic, social, and financial permutations and trends in national and international events, as we gracefully and professionally adapt to and navigate the implacable and accelerating shift from the "Information Age" to the "Disinformation Age".

So we have that goin' for us ...