Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
- RTH10260
- Posts: 16771
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
I had a small laugh as the DOJ lawyer Joshi got into a discussion with the Judge Pryor about the requested result of the appeal. Joshi asked for "reverse and remand to district court with instructions to dismiss". Pryor said they likely will "vacate" the district courts ruling cause "lack of equitable jurisdiction".
eta fighting tyops
eta fighting tyops
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Thanks, all.
I particularly liked the DOJ lawyer's rebuttal, wherein he listed the shifting purpose of the suit from filing to filing. What a bunch of crap from TFG's team.
I particularly liked the DOJ lawyer's rebuttal, wherein he listed the shifting purpose of the suit from filing to filing. What a bunch of crap from TFG's team.
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
To clarify, Judge Pryor said that if they find a lack of equitable jurisdiction the language in the decretal paragraph would be “vacate and remand” rather than “reverse and remand.”RTH10260 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 6:42 am I had a small laugh as the DOJ lawyer Joshi got into a discussion with the Judge Pryor about the requested result of the appeal. Joshi asked for "reverse and remand to district court with instructions to dismiss". Pryor said they likely will "vacate" the district courts ruling cause "lack of equitable jurisdiction".
eta fighting tyops
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”
Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
- sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3845
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Is Biden even the one who authorized it?Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:14 am Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”
Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
It wasn't a "raid."
He wasn't a candidate.
- Phoenix520
- Posts: 4151
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
- Verified: ✅
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
IAALs, is there a chance that jurisprudence will be trump-proofed in the future?
They could combine this with their experience with organized crime to add non-verbal orders that don’t and never will point a finger directly at the Boss but nevertheless are crystal clear in intent. A rule for Dons, as it were. For example, raise your hand if you think Weisselberg just added the apartment and other, er, salary enhancements on his own, no nod from the Don? Me neither.
They could combine this with their experience with organized crime to add non-verbal orders that don’t and never will point a finger directly at the Boss but nevertheless are crystal clear in intent. A rule for Dons, as it were. For example, raise your hand if you think Weisselberg just added the apartment and other, er, salary enhancements on his own, no nod from the Don? Me neither.
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Also one of the justices made Trusty recharacterize the wording from “raid” to “lawfully executed warrant “, I think.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:34 amIs Biden even the one who authorized it?Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:14 am Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”
Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
It wasn't a "raid."
He wasn't a candidate.
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Not personally, but the buck stops with the Executive. But as the DOJ attorney argued, that’s why we have neutral and detached magistrates - to protect the citizenry from rogue cops and biased prosecutors.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:34 amIs Biden even the one who authorized it?Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:14 am Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”
Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
It wasn't a "raid."
He wasn't a candidate.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
- MN-Skeptic
- Posts: 3838
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
- Location: Twin Cities
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Remember, when Trump was president he wanted the IRS to audit his "enemies" and, sure enough, McCabe and Comey were "randomly" selected for highly detailed IRS audits. Trump wanted the government to do his bidding and he totally believes that Biden must be the same way.Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 1:07 pmNot personally, but the buck stops with the Executive. But as the DOJ attorney argued, that’s why we have neutral and detached magistrates - to protect the citizenry from rogue cops and biased prosecutors.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:34 amIs Biden even the one who authorized it?Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:14 am Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”
Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
It wasn't a "raid."
He wasn't a candidate.
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
A little while ago, I was watching a YouTube clip of Lawrence O'Donnell, speaking about the 11th's ruling. He played a clip of that part of the hearing. When Trusty referred to the "Raid" on Mar a Lago, the judge interrupted and questioned whether that was the proper term to use for serving a lawfully issued warrant. Trusty immediately backed down, apologizing and replacing it with "execution of a warrant".Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:14 am Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”
Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
See 8:22 for the judge's question.
-
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
- Occupation: Dude
- Verified: ✅
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
So, I haz a question:northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:44 pm
The 1st Richey factor is callous disregard (emphasis below is mine):Yet, Trump's lawyers failed to argue a key point from the earlier opinion. They telegraphed that if you can't get past this, you are dead in the water. They still did not argue it?11th Circuit in Trump v USA wrote: We begin, as the district court did, with “callous disregard,” which is the “foremost consideration” in determining whether a court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction. United States v. Chapman, 559 F.2d 402, 406 (5th Cir. 1977). Indeed, our precedent emphasizes the “indispensability of an accurate allegation of callous disregard.” Id. (alteration accepted and quotation omitted).
Here, the district court concluded that Plaintiff did not show that the United States acted in callous disregard of his constitutional rights. Doc. No. 64 at 9. No party contests the district court’s finding in this regard. The absence of this “indispensab[le]” factor in the Richey analysis is reason enough to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction here. Chapman, 559 F.2d at 406.
Yes, I know. They're stuck because their client demands they do something, but the law gives them nothing.
They laid out the other Richey factors for completeness, but it is quite clear that if they cannot get through the first one, they have nothing, despite the apparently thinking of Loose Cannon, who avoids actual things like law and precedence.
In my field, if I feel like a client is being unreasonable, untruthful, pulling the same crap year after year, I can tell him and the horse he rode in on to F off. Makes no difference in my ethics. I can just walk away and let him hang himself out to dry.
So, the legal field says that lawyers have to stick with their client on any issue? They must argue that the Earth is flat or that corresponding parts of congruent triangles are NOT equal if their client so demands? And the judges and opposing counsel have to sit through and respond to all this crap? To me this is a colossal waste of resources.
It is bad enough at the trial level. I sorta get it. See if you can pull the wool over the judge's eyes or hope that opposing counsel is 25 years old and graduated from Miskatonic a la Dr. C.
But once it is determined that the entire argument/complaint/ruling is nothing more than Swiss cheese, lawyers should be permitted to fold their tent and tell their client adieu.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
- Slim Cognito
- Posts: 7283
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
- Location: Too close to trump
- Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
- Verified: ✅
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Is it just me or was O'Donnell suppressing, mostly successfully, a smirk throughout that entire segment?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
x5
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
This is what I’ve always understood. Lawyers do have constraints. He could go self representing and not be constrained. Isn’t this raison d’etre for sovcits i.e. they’re smarter than common lawyer/folk. Consequently clogging courts.
d) Defense counsel is the client’s professional representative, not the client’s alter-ego. Defense counsel should act zealously within the bounds of the law and standards on behalf of their clients, but have no duty to, and may not, execute any directive of the client which violates the law or such standards. In representing a client, defense counsel may engage in a good faith challenge to the validity of such laws or standards if done openly.
d) Defense counsel is the client’s professional representative, not the client’s alter-ego. Defense counsel should act zealously within the bounds of the law and standards on behalf of their clients, but have no duty to, and may not, execute any directive of the client which violates the law or such standards. In representing a client, defense counsel may engage in a good faith challenge to the validity of such laws or standards if done openly.
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
It’s pretty complicated. Some decisions are the lawyer’s and some are the client’s. The lawyer decides what issues to raise and what evidence to present. The client can’t force a lawyer to litigate an issue the lawyer knows to be frivolous. The client cannot force the lawyer to present evidence the lawyer knows to be false (what the lawyer “knows” (or ought to know) about the relative falsity of evidence isn’t always easy to pinpoint.humblescribe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:37 pm [
So, I haz a question:
In my field, if I feel like a client is being unreasonable, untruthful, pulling the same crap year after year, I can tell him and the horse he rode in on to F off. Makes no difference in my ethics. I can just walk away and let him hang himself out to dry.
So, the legal field says that lawyers have to stick with their client on any issue? They must argue that the Earth is flat or that corresponding parts of congruent triangles are NOT equal if their client so demands? And the judges and opposing counsel have to sit through and respond to all this crap? To me this is a colossal waste of resources.
It is bad enough at the trial level. I sorta get it. See if you can pull the wool over the judge's eyes or hope that opposing counsel is 25 years old and graduated from Miskatonic a la Dr. C.
But once it is determined that the entire argument/complaint/ruling is nothing more than Swiss cheese, lawyers should be permitted to fold their tent and tell their client adieu.
The client gets to decide how he pleads and whether he testifies. You hear a lot of crap on TV where the lawyer says, “Don’t tell me that you did it because then I can’t put to on the stand to say you did it.” That’s bullshit. Just because the client tells the lawyer something doesn’t mean it’s true. But if the lawyer *knows* the story the client is about to testify to is false, then all the lawyer can do it tell the judge that the client wishes to make a statement.
But the lawyer can’t always just walk away. Courts really don’t want unrepresented people appearing before them, so they’re reluctant to let a lawyer out of a case. And the lawyer is extremely limited in what they can tell the court if they’re trying to get off of a case. They can say things like, “the client and I have an irreconcilable difference of opinion about how to proceed.” The court would understand that to mean that the client is insisting that the lawyer do something unethical. The judge might have a come-to-Jesus session with the client and then require the lawyer to stay on the case. Or he might let the lawyer out.
But no, as a general matter, the lawyers aren’t required to do unethical shit just because the client wants it. Trumps lawyers are doing it because they want to.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
- keith
- Posts: 4295
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
- Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
- Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
- Verified: ✅lunatic
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Fify
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Would scarcely get your feet wet
- Foggy
- Dick Tater
- Posts: 11027
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
- Location: Fogbow HQ
- Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
- Verified: grumpy ol' geezer
WHY NOT BOTH?
Why not both? They want to AND they can't get paid otherwise, if they are getting paid at all.
I'm Foggy and I forget if I approved this message.
-
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Curious, can someone explain for us non-lawyers what difference this would make? ("Vacate" vs "reverse")Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:40 amTo clarify, Judge Pryor said that if they find a lack of equitable jurisdiction the language in the decretal paragraph would be “vacate and remand” rather than “reverse and remand.”RTH10260 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 6:42 am I had a small laugh as the DOJ lawyer Joshi got into a discussion with the Judge Pryor about the requested result of the appeal. Joshi asked for "reverse and remand to district court with instructions to dismiss". Pryor said they likely will "vacate" the district courts ruling cause "lack of equitable jurisdiction".
- bill_g
- Posts: 6805
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:52 pm
- Location: Portland OR
- Occupation: Retired (kind of)
- Verified: ✅ Checked Republic ✓ ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Vacate annuls a decision.
Reversal favors the opposition.
Reversal favors the opposition.
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
I'm tempted to answer "no."andersweinstein wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:36 am Curious, can someone explain for us non-lawyers what difference this would make? ("Vacate" vs "reverse")
The discussion between Judge Pryor and the DOJ lawyer turned on issues of the district court's subject matter jurisdiction and the nature and extent of the appeals court's appellate jurisdiction. It involved a number of technical issues, made confusing by the fact that in some contexts the terms "vacate" and "reverse" ... let's just say that they are overlapping venn circles.
The question was whether the appeals court should restrict itself to vacating the injunction against the government's use of the unclassified recovered documents or whether it could, and should, go further and direct Judge Cannon to dismiss the entire equitable proceeding, thus "reversing" the entirety of the judge's exercise of judicial power (including the appointment of the special master).
If the court limited itself to vacating the injunction against use of the documents, Trump could argue that the appointment of the special master had not been disturbed, and also that the equitable proceeding remained open for other purposes and remedies that Judge Cannon might think up, e.g., unsealing the search warrant affidavit.
One curious conundrum that might follow from a ruling directing Judge Cannon to dismiss the proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would be the continuing validity of the orders that required Trump to pay the expenses of the special master proceeding.
-
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Thanks for trying! I relistened to that section, and Joshi for DOJ made an argument based on some Supreme Court case [ETA: Munaf v. Geren (2008)] that even if they chose to vacate the injunction for lack of equitable jurisdiction, they still had appellate jurisdiction to dismiss the whole case. It sounded like Pryor was happy to have that position:chancery wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 10:02 am ...
The question was whether the appeals court should restrict itself to vacating the injunction against the government's use of the unclassified recovered documents or whether it could, and should, go further and direct Judge Cannon to dismiss the entire equitable proceeding, thus "reversing" the entirety of the judge's exercise of judicial power (including the appointment of the special master).
If the court limited itself to vacating the injunction against use of the documents, Trump could argue that the appointment of the special master had not been disturbed, and also that the equitable proceeding remained open for other purposes and remedies that Judge Cannon might think up, e.g., unsealing the search warrant affidavit.
...
Pryor: I will look at that case and it would seem to me that if you are right, what we are really talking about is a middle position. I was right about vacate but you are right about the authority for instructions to dismiss. Ordinarily if the district court lacks jurisdiction, that is what we do, we vacate with instructions to dismiss.
Joshi: Fair enough, and I'm not going to fight you too hard on it. If what the language says is vacate with instructions to remand and dismiss the case. I think we would be perfectly happy with that. [AW: DUH]
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
That's right. This is why it is not uncommon for a sovcit defendant to fire his/her court-appointed public defender; because the PD won't argue in court that the defendant is the "living man, John Smith, not the legal fiction, JOHN SMITH" or that the defendant does not consent to the law(s) he is accused of violating and therefore can not be charged. All of these arguments are legal nonsence and any lawyer who argues them in court, risks his license to practice law.Reddog wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:54 pm This is what I’ve always understood. Lawyers do have constraints. He could go self representing and not be constrained. Isn’t this raison d’etre for sovcits i.e. they’re smarter than common lawyer/folk. Consequently clogging courts.
d) Defense counsel is the client’s professional representative, not the client’s alter-ego. Defense counsel should act zealously within the bounds of the law and standards on behalf of their clients, but have no duty to, and may not, execute any directive of the client which violates the law or such standards. In representing a client, defense counsel may engage in a good faith challenge to the validity of such laws or standards if done openly.
- Foggy
- Dick Tater
- Posts: 11027
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
- Location: Fogbow HQ
- Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
- Verified: grumpy ol' geezer
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
Yeah, if'n I could accurately predict what courts are gonna do, I could make a lot of money.
Sometimes predictions are really flimsy. Uncertain, ill-considered, and often, in my case, half-baked.
A good prediction must be fully baked, or it collapses when you pull it out of the oven.
Some predictions cause you to go WAY out on a limb.
Which can be a little bit daunting, carrying an oven with a half-baked prediction in it way out on a limb, so don't fall and break your neck.
On the other hand, I predict that the 11th Circuit will rule next week and will vacate, dismiss, flush, deny, dismiss and stomp on the case, on the basis that Judge Cannon is a neo-maxie-zoom-dweebie.
You can't see my prediction if you cover your eyebones.
Sometimes predictions are really flimsy. Uncertain, ill-considered, and often, in my case, half-baked.
A good prediction must be fully baked, or it collapses when you pull it out of the oven.
Some predictions cause you to go WAY out on a limb.
Which can be a little bit daunting, carrying an oven with a half-baked prediction in it way out on a limb, so don't fall and break your neck.
On the other hand, I predict that the 11th Circuit will rule next week and will vacate, dismiss, flush, deny, dismiss and stomp on the case, on the basis that Judge Cannon is a neo-maxie-zoom-dweebie.
You can't see my prediction if you cover your eyebones.
Edit: .
Narrator: You said dismiss twice.
Me: I like dismissals.
Hahaha from Blazing Saddles
Narrator: You said dismiss twice.
Me: I like dismissals.
Hahaha from Blazing Saddles
I'm Foggy and I forget if I approved this message.
-
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
- Occupation: Dude
- Verified: ✅
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
You know, Foggy, that baking on Earth falls within very closely determined parameters.
But when a feller is exoplanetary, that sorta throws everything way out of whack. You're way out beyond the normal planet range. It's gotta be about 5 degrees Kelvin or whatever. Everything slo-o-o-o-w-s way down to a near stand still. Baking at any level is problematic.
But if anyone can surmount those exoplanetary nuances, it is our doggedly determined master of mirth, Supreme Dick Tater.
(I find your mood changes quite amusing; I look forward to them!)
But when a feller is exoplanetary, that sorta throws everything way out of whack. You're way out beyond the normal planet range. It's gotta be about 5 degrees Kelvin or whatever. Everything slo-o-o-o-w-s way down to a near stand still. Baking at any level is problematic.
But if anyone can surmount those exoplanetary nuances, it is our doggedly determined master of mirth, Supreme Dick Tater.
(I find your mood changes quite amusing; I look forward to them!)
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard
New special counsel & US attorney (SDFL) hard at work on this Thanksgiving, rebutting arguments from Trump lawyers in Mar-a-Lago docs case. (May look like 1st public special counsel stationery but we had stmt last week. Letterhead looked improvised)