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

[RTH10260]

Don't shop at drive-in counters

[Maybenaut]

Unless it's already come up due to the time zone difference (I sleep while y'all are busiest, it seems), Axios has a supposition about this that Dearie is believed from his time on the FISA court to be 'suspicious' of the FBI.

Oh boy.

Honestly, that's what prompted Trump’s lawyers to pick him?

Gosh, so he's capable of deciding whether the FBI did a good job here or not. He's gonna be furious that the agents didn't take off their shoes while they were ransacking Trump's personal bedroom, my god the horror, the very horror!

Or maybe he can also tell when the FBI is doing what it is supposed to do, and maybe he understands how fucking dangerous it is for Trump to have any classified documents at all.



I think that's the dumbest supposition on record. Unbelievable. Surreal.

How would Trump’s lawyers know that, even if it were true? Aren’t the decisions of the FISC secret?

Parenthetically, just yesterday I watched a CLE video about the FISC, and the presenter said he was unaware of any request for a warrant that had been denied since the court’s inception. So maybe Dearie’s not that suspicious.

[Ben-Prime]

Gosh, so he's capable of deciding whether the FBI did a good job here or not. He's gonna be furious that the agents didn't take off their shoes while they were ransacking Trump's personal bedroom, my god the horror, the very horror!

So, I volunteered to work tech support for the expanded presidential detail in London today until POTUS went wheels up. While leaving the staging hotel after POTUS was wheels-up and the remaining detail told me "We won't need you Embassy guys for the rest of the day; send back the full team tomorrow", that I read on my phone the article about Trump's shoe-related tantrum.

I laughed so hard that a cop working security out front of the staging hotel looked at me actually concerned. I had to show him the article so he understood it wasn't a maniacal or insane laugh. He just shook his head, sighed, and wished me a good afternoon.

[pipistrelle]

Gosh, so he's capable of deciding whether the FBI did a good job here or not. He's gonna be furious that the agents didn't take off their shoes while they were ransacking Trump's personal bedroom, my god the horror, the very horror!

So, I volunteered to work tech support for the expanded presidential detail in London today until POTUS went wheels up. While leaving the staging hotel after POTUS was wheels-up and the remaining detail told me "We won't need you Embassy guys for the rest of the day; send back the full team tomorrow", that I read on my phone the article about Trump's shoe-related tantrum.

I laughed so hard that a cop working security out front of the staging hotel looked at me actually concerned. I had to show him the article so he understood it wasn't a maniacal or insane laugh. He just shook his head, sighed, and wished me a good afternoon.

What did I miss? I can’t find it.

[Ben-Prime]

Gosh, so he's capable of deciding whether the FBI did a good job here or not. He's gonna be furious that the agents didn't take off their shoes while they were ransacking Trump's personal bedroom, my god the horror, the very horror!

So, I volunteered to work tech support for the expanded presidential detail in London today until POTUS went wheels up. While leaving the staging hotel after POTUS was wheels-up and the remaining detail told me "We won't need you Embassy guys for the rest of the day; send back the full team tomorrow", that I read on my phone the article about Trump's shoe-related tantrum.

I laughed so hard that a cop working security out front of the staging hotel looked at me actually concerned. I had to show him the article so he understood it wasn't a maniacal or insane laugh. He just shook his head, sighed, and wished me a good afternoon.

What did I miss? I can’t find it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-raid-fbi-not-removing-shoes-room-2022-9

[Foggy]

The shoe tantrum:

F97A6E43-B842-47A0-A0CC-623F88A8B520.png

viewtopic.php?p=136883#p136808

If'n you think Judge Dearie is going to allow that kind of malarkey, you have another think coming to you!

[Foggy]

Of course, he conspicuously omits any mention whatsoever of any government documents.

Did you have a lot of government documents that didn't belong to you, Donald?

Documents? What documents? I'm not talking about any silly documents, maybe you're not paying attention here.

The FBI BROKE INTO MY HOUSE.

Broke in, like a burglary? Didn't they have a search warrant signed by a judge?

Search warrant? What search warrant? I'm not talking about any silly search warrant, maybe you're not paying attention here.

They BROKE INTO MY HOUSE, and they RANSACKED it. THEY WORE SHOES IN MY BEDROOM where Melanie never visits.

Do you have any video of the FBI searching Mierda Lardo? Maybe you could release the video and we can see for ourselves whether the FBI "ransacked" the joint.

Video? What video ? I'm not talking about any silly video, maybe you're not paying attention here.

This is an OUTRAGE that is totally outrageous. EVERYBODY should be OUTRAGED now.

And if I get indicted, this country will have “problems ... the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen” ... and I mean worse than the Civil War and WWII. Or I would mean that, if I knew any history at all.

Have a nice day.

[chancery]

In the search warrant proceeding before Magistrate Judge Reinhart, the inevitable follow-up to Docket No. 128.

Brad Heath
@bradheath
weird

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO STRIKE DOCKET ENTRY 128

The United States of America herby moves to strike Docket Entry 128 which purports to be a motion by the United States Department of the Treasury to Intervene in the instant matter. The United States has confirmed the pleading was not submitted by the Department of the Treasury but rather mailed to the Clerk of Court by someone not associated with the Government.

[Foggy]

Jeez, why didn't the shipping clerks flag that one?

[much ado]

Unless it's already come up due to the time zone difference (I sleep while y'all are busiest, it seems), Axios has a supposition about this that Dearie is believed from his time on the FISA court to be 'suspicious' of the FBI.

Oh boy.

Honestly, that's what prompted Trump’s lawyers to pick him?

Gosh, so he's capable of deciding whether the FBI did a good job here or not. He's gonna be furious that the agents didn't take off their shoes while they were ransacking Trump's personal bedroom, my god the horror, the very horror!

Or maybe he can also tell when the FBI is doing what it is supposed to do, and maybe he understands how fucking dangerous it is for Trump to have any classified documents at all.



I think that's the dumbest supposition on record. Unbelievable. Surreal.

Yeah. Exactly.

Trump supporters seem to be incapable of understanding nuances. I don't think that Trump is going to like how this turns out.

[Chilidog]

Is there a link to the docket in the motion for a stay?

[raison de arizona]

https://www.docdroid.net/xaR0rDa/propos ... -order-pdf

[Chilidog]

That's what I was looking for.

Also I heard that Trump requested To modify the response schedule.

[much ado]

That Amicus brief might leave a mark.

[RTH10260]

The district court’s order does not grapple with the law. Instead, it simply
asserts that there is a “dispute” about whether the records are actually classified
and whether the former President has a possessory interest in classified records.4
ECF No. 89 at 4–5. As to the latter, the district court cited no authority or analysis
for its apparent conclusion that a private citizen might actually have a possessory
interest in classified records. And there is none. That error alone warrants
reversal, and justifies a stay now

[Chilidog]

That Amicus brief might leave a mark.

To bad page 11 is missing.

[RTH10260]

Moreover, the district court suggested that it need not “accept the
Government’s conclusions” that these materials are classified. Id. at 3–4. But the
law is clear that the court lacks the authority to challenge whether material is
properly classified; that determination is for the Executive Branch alone.5 See Gill,
2014 WL 1331013, at *2 (“The determination of whether to classify information
and the proper classification thereof is a matter committed solely to the Executive
Branch. . . . A defendant cannot challenge this classification. A court cannot
question it.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Roark v. United States,
2015 WL 2085193, at *3 (D. Or. May 4, 2015) (declining to engage in further
judicial review of classified documents at issue in Rule 41(g) motion where
government submitted declaration of NSA expert stating that the documents were
classified).6 We agree with the district court that an “evenhanded procedure does
not demand unquestioning trust in the determinations of the Department of Justice”
in all things; but such a procedure does require the district court to follow the law.

[RTH10260]

Second, the district court’s order also ignored the clear law that former
President Trump cannot claim a possessory interest in the approximately 100
classified documents by calling them Presidential records. The Presidential
Records Act (“PRA”) clearly states that all Presidential records are the property of
the U.S. government: “The United States shall reserve and retain complete
ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records.” 44 U.S.C. § 2202; see
Cook v. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., 758 F.3d 168, 171 (2d Cir. 2014) (“In
passing the [PRA], Congress made presidential . . . records the property of the
United States, ending the historic practice of presidents taking ownership of
records created during their administrations.”).

[RTH10260]

The district court did not address any of this well-established law, or the
former President’s concession. In fact, the district court’s order denying the
Government’s motion for a partial stay does not even contain the words
“Presidential records” or a citation to the PRA. Instead, the court referred vaguely
to “important and disputed issues” related to privilege that needed to be resolved
by a special master. ECF No. 89 at 4.

It was legal error for the district court to conclude that it was possible for the former President to succeed in
establishing a possessory interest in Presidential records.

[RTH10260]

Executive privilege cannot be invoked by a former president to prevent the
Executive Branch from using its own classified information in the performance of
executive functions. Nonetheless, in this case the district court appointed a special
master to “resolve” the former President’s assertions of executive privilege against
the Executive Branch. Because any such assertions must fail as a matter of law,
the appointment of a special master to review those assertions was legal error.
This error is most egregious in regard to the 100 or so classified documents.

[RTH10260]

It is well-accepted that any record subject to executive privilege is, by
definition, a Presidential record. See 44 U.S.C. § 2201(2) (“Presidential records”
are materials “created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff,
or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to
advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to
or have an effect upon the carrying out of the [President’s] constitutional, statutory,
or other official or ceremonial duties.”). As shown in Section I, Presidential
records belong to the U.S. government, not former President Trump. Thus,
because none of the materials over which former President Trump asserts
executive privilege belong to him, a special master review of the 100 or so seized
classified documents cannot result in the “return” of any such documents subject to
executive privilege to former President Trump. A special master review of such
materials would be a pointless endeavor.

[sugar magnolia]

Oh my. This could get interesting fast.

[much ado]

This is so much fun.

And it's only Monday.

[Chilidog]

Check out the footnotes.

[RTH10260]

A FORMER PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED TO NO GREATER
PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW THAN ANY OTHER
CITIZEN.
The district court also erred by repeatedly affording greater protection to the
plaintiff because he is a former president. As an initial matter, the district court’s
original analysis of whether it had jurisdiction over the former President’s Rule
41(g) motion relied heavily on the purported “irreparable injury” from the “threat”
that the former President would be subject to “future prosecution” based on the
seized records. ECF No. 64 at 10. In that order appointing a special master, the
district court held: “[a]s a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the
United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its
own. A future indictment . . . would result in reputational harm of a decidedly
different order of magnitude.” Id.
But the law is clear that, as a general matter, the collateral consequences of a
potential criminal prosecution, including “the cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of
having to defend against” it, cannot “by themselves be considered ‘irreparable’ in
the special legal sense of that term.”