Fogbow

Been meaning to ask about this, and going through the updated plan reminds me to do so!
As to (c) and (d) -- Is this the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" part of "be careful what you wish for"?

I mean, as for (c), I read this almost as a dare, as in "Go ahead, claim an EP that you think excludes the E from reading the doc." And (d)? "Go ahead, claim an EP that means you yourselves can view the doc." Seems to add up to "You ain't claiming no EP on my watch."

Yeah, Trump is NOT going to sign anything, and his lawyers are NOT going to tell Judge Dearie what he asked for in Trump’s declaration.

I don't know what they're going to do, but they are going to do their level best to protect Trump’s right to go on Hannity and tell the world that the FBI planted evidence and he had already declassified everything. So they're not going to foreclose that by submitting anything that says the government inventory is accurate.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:51 pm Been meaning to ask about this, and going through the updated plan reminds me to do so!

Screen Shot 2022-09-26 at 4.46.36 PM.png

As to (c) and (d) -- Is this the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" part of "be careful what you wish for"?

I mean, as for (c), I read this almost as a dare, as in "Go ahead, claim an EP that you think excludes the E from reading the doc." And (d)? "Go ahead, claim an EP that means you yourselves can view the doc." Seems to add up to "You ain't claiming no EP on my watch."

I'm not sure I'd read (d) to say they can't read the docs themselves. I think it means, "tell me which documents you are claiming executive privilege for that can't be made public outside of the executive branch." That doesn't mean I think his executive privilege claims will prevail; I just think the judge is trying to figure out what it is that he's claiming.

Again, I also think Trump’s lawyers will demur to that requirement: Trump won't claim executive privilege over a specific, identified set of documents. They will either explain that he can't possibly determine which documents are subject to executive privilege, or he'll claim executive privilege covers everything, including the classified documents.

If the lawyers say there are no executive privileged documents, end of executive privilege as an issue.
If they identify a specific set of documents, Judge Dearie will simply explain why they aren't subject to the privilege.
In any event, Judge Dearie, even if he finds one document that is privileged, he's not going to give it back to Trump. So Trump has zero incentive to cooperate.

He has lots of incentives to obstruct and delay, though!

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:53 pmI just think the judge is trying to figure out what it is that he's claiming.

Trump also doesn't know what he is claiming. He says stuff and his attorneys just repeat it.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:53 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:51 pm Been meaning to ask about this, and going through the updated plan reminds me to do so!

Screen Shot 2022-09-26 at 4.46.36 PM.png

As to (c) and (d) -- Is this the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" part of "be careful what you wish for"?

I mean, as for (c), I read this almost as a dare, as in "Go ahead, claim an EP that you think excludes the E from reading the doc." And (d)? "Go ahead, claim an EP that means you yourselves can view the doc." Seems to add up to "You ain't claiming no EP on my watch."

I'm not sure I'd read (d) to say they can't read the docs themselves. I think it means, "tell me which documents you are claiming executive privilege for that can't be made public outside of the executive branch." That doesn't mean I think his executive privilege claims will prevail; I just think the judge is trying to figure out what it is that he's claiming.

I think the judge is forcing them to say what they're claiming. I think it's a null set.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 6:16 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:53 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:51 pm Been meaning to ask about this, and going through the updated plan reminds me to do so!

Screen Shot 2022-09-26 at 4.46.36 PM.png

As to (c) and (d) -- Is this the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" part of "be careful what you wish for"?

I mean, as for (c), I read this almost as a dare, as in "Go ahead, claim an EP that you think excludes the E from reading the doc." And (d)? "Go ahead, claim an EP that means you yourselves can view the doc." Seems to add up to "You ain't claiming no EP on my watch."

I'm not sure I'd read (d) to say they can't read the docs themselves. I think it means, "tell me which documents you are claiming executive privilege for that can't be made public outside of the executive branch." That doesn't mean I think his executive privilege claims will prevail; I just think the judge is trying to figure out what it is that he's claiming.

I think the judge is forcing them to say what they're claiming. I think it's a null set.

Yeah, I think that's right.

Notice of filing and revised inventory.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .116.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 16.1_2.pdf

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:53 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:51 pm Been meaning to ask about this, and going through the updated plan reminds me to do so!

Screen Shot 2022-09-26 at 4.46.36 PM.png

As to (c) and (d) -- Is this the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" part of "be careful what you wish for"?

I mean, as for (c), I read this almost as a dare, as in "Go ahead, claim an EP that you think excludes the E from reading the doc." And (d)? "Go ahead, claim an EP that means you yourselves can view the doc." Seems to add up to "You ain't claiming no EP on my watch."

I'm not sure I'd read (d) to say they can't read the docs themselves. I think it means, "tell me which documents you are claiming executive privilege for that can't be made public outside of the executive branch." That doesn't mean I think his executive privilege claims will prevail; I just think the judge is trying to figure out what it is that he's claiming.

Didn't the 11th appeal court already say that executive privilege is not a thing for a past impotus in its decision on the injunction?

It's seven weeks later....



And........very slightly less enjoying seeing Zee Furher getting punched in the dick...




Oh, no...wait, that was just indigestion....enjoyment at full levels again....

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 6:16 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:53 pm
I'm not sure I'd read (d) to say they can't read the docs themselves. I think it means, "tell me which documents you are claiming executive privilege for that can't be made public outside of the executive branch." That doesn't mean I think his executive privilege claims will prevail; I just think the judge is trying to figure out what it is that he's claiming.

I think the judge is forcing them to say what they're claiming. I think it's a null set.

IANACrL, but it seems to me that Judge Dearie's orders are going to substantially reduce Trump's room for dishonest maneuvers in connection with any indictment. A completely self-inflicted injury.

I think that the lawyers are smart enough to know that Trump's claims are absurd, but he is probably insisting that they make these claims. The lawyers are trying to use weasel-words that will imply his claims, such as the idea that the FBI planted evidence, without coming right out and saying it.

This will give them plausible deniability. The MAGA base hears them claim this, but, if called on it by a judge, they think they can say "But, we never said that". IOW, they want to have their cake and eat it, too.

They (especially the lawyers) know that they are speaking to two audiences, each with different expectations. The MAGA crowd wants their deep-state, liberals-are-evil, red meat, while the court (at least Dearie's court; Cannon's, not so much) wants facts, unambiguous statements and valid points of law. Since TFG's outrageous claims have no basis in fact or law, the lawyers, who want to keep their bar cards, are dancing around the claims.

Dearie is saying "Give me a simple yes or no answer. Has the FBI planted evidence? If you answer yes, give me specific examples of such planted evidence, and prove to me, unequivocably, that it was, indeed, planted. If you answer no, I don't want to hear about it again.

Frater I*I wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:44 pm It's seven weeks later....



And........very slightly less enjoying seeing Zee Furher getting punched in the dick...




Oh, no...wait, that was just indigestion....enjoyment at full levels again....

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:49 pm

Frater I*I wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:44 pm It's seven weeks later....



And........very slightly less enjoying seeing Zee Furher getting punched in the dick...




Oh, no...wait, that was just indigestion....enjoyment at full levels again....

Yeah, I too am strapped into the Vogon Poetry Appreciation Chair for maximum enjoyment.

In some instances, the DOJ's revised inventory adds documents to its original count, while in other places it subtracts. The few differences between the versions of the inventory mostly concern the quantity of non-classified government documents and Trump’s collection of magazine and newspaper articles.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... To_Cm4_8_4

What the heck is he doing with so many books?

eBay

On Newsmax, Trump lawyer Alina Habba is back to baselessly insinuating that FBI agents planted evidence at Mar-a-Lago

A couple more clips at the link.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-tr ... ref=scroll

Trump’s ‘Special Master’ Delay Is Already Backfiring
FLAT CIRCLE
For years, Donald Trump has managed to tie up lawsuits and investigations by delaying cases and hiding behind the Oval Office desk. His latest ploy is failing miserably.

On Friday, Dearie set an Oct. 28 deadline to know what documents Trump actually wants to hold back from the DOJ on the head-scratching theory that a former president can cite “executive privilege” that somehow supersedes the current executive branch.

In doing so, Dearie is moving significantly faster than the instructions he received to wrap things up by the end of November from the Trump appointee down south who played along with the intended delay tactic, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon.

Dearie is even bringing in reinforcements. In an order Thursday, Dearie said he’s tapping retired magistrate judge James Orenstein to help sort through the gargantuan mountain of 11,000 documents—and without hesitation ordered Trump to pay him $500 an hour to do it.

[University of Richmond law school professor Carl W.] Tobias called Dearie’s decision to recruit Orenstein “a master stroke.”

“That will expedite matters exponentially, and that’s all good. The whole point of this litigation is to delay,” Tobias said. “[Dearie] has a reputation as a no-nonsense, very professional, very experienced jurist… he has cut through the bullshit offered up by Trump’s lawyers and gotten to the point,” Tobias said.

CNN is reporting that the $3M lawyer Chris Kise is being sidelined He's not leading the document case anymore. Unclear why. Maybe he masterminded the failed Special Master mess?

orlylicious wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:18 pm CNN is reporting that the $3M lawyer Chris Kise is being sidelined He's not leading the document case anymore. Unclear why. Maybe he masterminded the failed Special Master mess?

I just saw that too. I seem to recall something flashing across the net about some connections to foreign government(s) in his past. Slow work day, I'll see what I can find.

I'm not one of the attorneys handling it, but yes, they planted stuff, presumably.

Aaron Rupar @atrupar wrote: On Newsmax, Trump lawyer Alina Habba is back to baselessly insinuating that FBI agents planted evidence at Mar-a-Lago

If Trump fired him, does he keep the retainer?

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 2:53 pm I'm not one of the attorneys handling it, but yes, they planted stuff, presumably.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1574752603623358465

Aaron Rupar @atrupar wrote: On Newsmax, Trump lawyer Alina Habba is back to baselessly insinuating that FBI agents planted evidence at Mar-a-Lago

Yeah - the lawyer who signed a affidavit that all classified documents had been handed over and there is nothing to be found any longer at MaL...