US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

[andersweinstein]

Why Did Two of Judge Aileen Cannon’s Law Clerks Suddenly Quit?
Donald Trump’s favorite judge is suddenly losing law clerks.
https://newrepublic.com/post/180023/jud ... lerks-quit

David Lat has been on this on his substack. appending updated details as he gets them (some below).He goes on to discuss how disruptive the turnover likely was. He also includes some clerks' testimonials about Cannon.

One clerk who was slated to serve for two years left after one year, sometime in 2023, after having a child. I flagged this possibility in footnote 1: “Perhaps the clerks had personal issues; sometimes clerks quit because of medical or family issues that arise during their clerkships.” [10:38 a.m.]

Another clerk quit for reasons that are currently unclear—and this person’s law-school classmates have been buzzing about the news. [10:38 a.m.]
...
Actually, I’m still sorting out which clerk left for which reasons, but I believe that one clerk left in October 2023 and another clerk left in December 2023. [11:12 a.m.]

Judge Cannon’s chambers is fully staffed as of now, as reflected in an internal page available to anyone within the federal judiciary. [11:13 a.m.]

In fact, Judge Cannon is arguably “overstaffed” at the current time: she currently has three term clerks, i.e., clerks who are there for a set period of time (one to two years), and one temporary clerk. District judges typically have two to three clerks (depending on whether they convert their judicial-assistant or “JA” slot to a clerk slot); Judge Cannon has four clerks, counting the temporary one. [11:35 a.m.]

[p0rtia]

So which lawyers here would (or would not) write a proposed jury instruction about Canon's second issue: "A president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision."

Which, as I understand it, is 1) not true, and 2) irrelevant to the charges.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

So which lawyers here would (or would not) write a proposed jury instruction about Canon's second issue: "A president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision."

Which, as I understand it, is 1) not true, and 2) irrelevant to the charges.

Here's an IANAL stab at jury instructions for this scenario:

Did the defendant willfuly retain agency records not identifiable as presidential records or personal records?

etc.

[Rolodex]

Can Jack Smith question the law clerks who quit? They might have some interesting information.

[Maybenaut]

Can Jack Smith question the law clerks who quit? They might have some interesting information.

No.

[bob]

Can Jack Smith question the law clerks who quit? They might have some interesting information.

No.

Or, pedantically: Yes, and the anticipated response to just about every question would be, "I can't answer without revealing privileged information, so I decline to do so."

[Maybenaut]

Can Jack Smith question the law clerks who quit? They might have some interesting information.

No.

Or, pedantically: Yes, and the anticipated response to just about every question would be, "I can't answer without revealing privileged information, so I decline to do so."

Which Jack Smith knows, which brings us back to: No.

[andersweinstein]

So which lawyers here would (or would not) write a proposed jury instruction about Canon's second issue: "A president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision."

Which, as I understand it, is 1) not true, and 2) irrelevant to the charges.

IANAL but I do like logic. DOJ did argue your 2), that even IF you believe the PRA allowed him to transmute them into personal records under the PRA, tfg would still not be authorized to possess them per the Espionage Act.

From this point of view, it looks to me like Smith could submit the exact same jury instructions on Cannon's second assumption as he would without it and not violate her order. Ballsy perhaps, but could do it. The briefing would reiterate their argument on irrelevance.

A hypothetical: what if during some meeting prez grabs some undeniably personal record and scribbles some defense secret on the back of it? I think Smith's position must be that pres is no longer authorized to possess it after leaving office.

[RVInit]

This case doesn't even involve the PRA, Smith only indicted him on a smattering of the classified documents, not on anything that involved strictly Presidential records. So, how do either of these instructions have anything to do with any of the charges against Trump?

[bob]

So, how do either of these instructions have anything to do with any of the charges against Trump?

Because, according to reknown constitutional eggspurt, Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, the president can (1) deem any document to be personal, and (2) that decision is unreviewable. And, "of course," the president can declassify any document in his mind, or through actions (like stealing them). So, abra-ka-pocus, nuclear secrets are now his and not classified.

The court might as well asked for jury instructions about how to apply the law if the defendant claims the sky is made out of chocolate.

[p0rtia]

I'm gonna take that as a "No I would not produce any such document if I were Smith," Bob.

[Ben-Prime]

No.

Or, pedantically: Yes, and the anticipated response to just about every question would be, "I can't answer without revealing privileged information, so I decline to do so."

Which Jack Smith knows, which brings us back to: No.

Oh, dear. Oh, dearie dear.

...
...

Or are we not collectively writing a new "Do Re Mi"? Because I totally scanned your line to the tune in my head.

[Maybenaut]

Sorry for the ear worm

[p0rtia]

[raison de arizona]

Or, pedantically: Yes, and the anticipated response to just about every question would be, "I can't answer without revealing privileged information, so I decline to do so."

Which Jack Smith knows, which brings us back to: No.

Oh, dear. Oh, dearie dear.

...
...

Or are we not collectively writing a new "Do Re Mi"? Because I totally scanned your line to the tune in my head.

Which brings us back to no, no, no, no, no, no!

[RTH10260]

MTN Michael Popok on the latest out of the Cannon court, starts off with a snippet of a CNN interview with Ty Cobb

[Frater I*I]

Which Jack Smith knows, which brings us back to: No.

Oh, dear. Oh, dearie dear.

...
...

Or are we not collectively writing a new "Do Re Mi"? Because I totally scanned your line to the tune in my head.

Which brings us back to no, no, no, no, no, no!

As a kid who had to watch that movie every year growing up when it came on TV because my dad is a fan of musicals I want you to know...

I hate you all....with love...

[Rolodex]

Oh, dear. Oh, dearie dear.

...
...

Or are we not collectively writing a new "Do Re Mi"? Because I totally scanned your line to the tune in my head.

Which brings us back to no, no, no, no, no, no!

As a kid who had to watch that movie every year growing up when it came on TV because my dad is a fan of musicals I want you to know...

I hate you all....with love...

Have you heard the This American Life episode about SOM? A woman told the story of how she loved it so much and thought it was the story of Leisl and Rolf - just a love story between a teen girl and a mailman. It turns out as a girl, she had ever only seen the first part of the movie. Never had seen the 2nd half and didn't understand the Nazi talk, etc and how awful Rolf was. As an adult she finally watched the whole movie. Super interesting story!

[Suranis]

You people behave or I'll send the real Maria von Trapp after you.

Maria.jpg (36.19 KiB) Viewed 492 times

[Rolodex]

This looks like a clip of a filing from this case, so I brought it here. But Parloff has an interesting observation.

[RTH10260]

Judge’s inaction in Trump classified documents case dashes July trial hopes
US judge Aileen Cannon’s delays in setting a schedule means prosecutors are unlikely to get their wish for a trial in July

Hugo Lowell
Tue 2 Apr 2024 12.00 CEST

The prospects of Donald Trump going to trial in July on charges of retaining national security documents, as suggested by special counsel prosecutors, are rapidly diminishing, with the judge overseeing the case yet to issue a schedule weeks after she was presented with the potential options.

The US district judge Aileen Cannon received proposed trial start dates from Trump and the special counsel Jack Smith more than a month ago in advance of a hearing ostensibly to settle the matter in Fort Pierce, Florida, but she has still not decided when the proceeding will begin.

As a result, Trump has been able to avoid filing certain pre-trial motions that have to be completed before the case can proceed to trial, playing into his strategy of trying to delay the case as much as possible before the 2024 election in November.

Trump’s legal strategy for all of his criminal cases has been to delay, under the calculus that winning re-election would enable him to appoint a loyalist as attorney general who could direct prosecutors to drop the case, or pardon himself if he was convicted.

The Trump legal team proposed an August trial date to Cannon last month, seemingly as part of a gambit to weaponize the classified documents case in Florida to block off his legal calendar and prevent the 2020 election interference case in Washington from going to trial before the election.

But Trump has not had to strain himself to engineer such an outcome: Cannon’s own inaction in the case has made a trial in July unrealistic.

Trump was indicted in federal district court last year for violating the Espionage Act in keeping classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club, which means his case is proceeding to trial under the complicated and sequential rules of the Classified Information Procedures Act, or Cipa.

The next stage of Cipa in Trump’s prosecution is section 5, where Trump has to disclose to prosecutors in a notice the specific classified documents they want to use at trial. It is considered a key step because it protects against any surprise disclosure of national security secrets at trial.

The judge would probably need to give Trump several weeks to draft a specific enough notice. If Trump, like most defendants, files too vague a notice, prosecutors would have to challenge the filing and force Trump to give more detail about which documents he intends to use in his defense.

But when prosecutors suggested a July trial date, they envisioned an 18 March deadline for Trump to file his section 5 notice, a date that expired two weeks ago. Additionally, prosecutors did not include in their proposed schedule any time for litigation if Trump’s notice was too vague.

[Greatgrey]

Finally someone, Jack, call out Trump’s totally fucked interpretation of the PRA. He lets Cannon know she’s got strange ideas too.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_1.pdf

[bob]

The prosecutor also "requests" that the court fish or cut bait. So, in the event the court makes a stoopid ruling, to please do so before jeopardy attaches, so the prosecutor can talk to the adults in the 11th Cir.

[Greatgrey]

The prosecutor also "requests" that the court fish or cut bait. So, in the event the court makes a stoopid ruling, to please do so before jeopardy attaches, so the prosecutor can talk to the adults in the 11th Cir.

And that’s just Page 2. There’s moar!

[Greatgrey]