Extra, Extra: Read All About It

DOJ has responded to citizen Donald Trump's request (available here) that a special master review the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago during the execution of the search warrant. Among other reasons, he says this is necessary to determine whether the documents contain matters that are subject to executive privilege.

You can read DOJ's response and view the attached exhibits here.

Don't miss the exhibits, especially Exhibit "F".

I'm still shaking my head at the first paragraph of Trump's motion, link above, which identifies him as "President" and claims he is the "clear frontrunner" for the Republican party nomination in 2024, and should he decide to run, the clear frontrunner in the 2024 general election.

< Will Anything Keep Trump Up at Night? Trump-Related Open Thread | Jewish New Year and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Is that a hard drive (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 12:07:34 PM EST
    at the top left of exhibit F? Looks like it. If so, with its proximity to classified documents, what is on it? Hmmmm.

    It also looks like (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by fishcamp on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 12:44:25 PM EST
    A little black book which could be equally devastating.

    So Trump's (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 01, 2022 at 10:53:40 AM EST
    moronic lawyer goes on Hannity and claims that she has been in the storerooms many times where the documents are stored. She basically admitted that Trump is letting people who don't have a security clearance wander around top secret documents. I would think this would strengthen espionage charges but what do I know.

    King Charles (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 10, 2022 at 06:43:10 PM EST
    Agreed (none / 0) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 10, 2022 at 07:27:27 PM EST
    All his years of training could not prevent his natural reaction.

    When do they search Bedminster (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 11, 2022 at 02:58:26 PM EST

    Video from May 8, 2021 shows Trump boarding a jet from Florida to Bedminster with multiple boxes bearing a strong resemblance to boxes of top secret materials found at Mar-a-Lago. On May 6, NARA had contacted Trump's team saying documents were missing and may be at Mar-a-Lago.

    Maybe they have already?


    Frank Figliuzzi today (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 11, 2022 at 04:00:36 PM EST

    "And, again, that is linked to the risk review and the criminal case and even -- very kind of tantalizing -- the DOJ says in their, filing 'look, judge, your ruling is actually stopping us, impeding us is the word they used, from finding documents, other classified documents. which could be out there, even in other places.'"

    "So this raises the possibility that they suspect those empty folders, those contents, might have ended up somewhere else," he elaborated. "And the question of somewhere else is why they need to get the investigation back up and running."

    Pretty sure (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 15, 2022 at 08:09:43 AM EST
    this is going to happen either way.

    According to the book, Trump initially didn't want to lower the flags for McCain, which enraged Kelly to the point where he made a crude threat against him.

    "If you don't support John McCain's funeral, when you die, the public will come to your grave and p!ss on it," he bluntly told Trump, who subsequently gave in.

    His grave will probably need to flush

    Very proud (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 04:48:58 PM EST
    of my denomination stepping up to help the migrants in Martha's Vineyard.

    This is what Christians are supposed to do & NOT act like evangelicals.

    As bad as Ron DeSantis's stunt was, ... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 21, 2022 at 02:28:54 PM EST
    ... the good residents of Martha's Vineyard, MA have restored my often-lagging faith in our capacity for empathy and humanity as Americans. Once again, the worst in some of us managed to bring out the best in the rest of us.

    Judge Dearie (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 20, 2022 at 05:37:50 PM EST
    seemed to be saying things that need to be said today.

    "Can't have your cake and eat it"
    That's definitely going to be news to Trump.

    Legal experts explain why Trump's demand for a special master 'really backfired'

    Hey Captain (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 20, 2022 at 07:40:55 PM EST
    That's a nice looking car but doesn't go into legal experts opinions.

    Oops (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 20, 2022 at 08:12:20 PM EST
    Politico has a more detailed (none / 0) (#121)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 20, 2022 at 10:23:52 PM EST
    summary of the hearing, with many direct quotes. Sounds to me like Judge Dearie is not tolerating any b/s from Tr*mp's lawyers, even though that's 90% of their position.

    Trumps dive into Q is the scariest thing yet (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 20, 2022 at 08:36:46 PM EST
    To just go all in.  

    He's saying I control an army of crazy people.  

    It can not end well

    Big Mastriano rally in Harrisburg yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Sep 25, 2022 at 05:41:21 PM EST
    Attended by a grand total of about 50 people.

    The Dems are doing the right thing. Constantly playing on TV, Mastriano's quote "My body, my choice is ridiculous nonsense." It's a true gem.

    Great news. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jmacWA on Mon Sep 26, 2022 at 04:31:47 AM EST
    Went to a Fetterman/Wild (7th district congress woman) rally on Saturday.  Lively crowd of 1000+ at North Hampton Community College.  I hope they along with Shapiro cream the Republicans.  I am pretty confident that Shapiro and Fetterman will win, but Wild's district was made more favorable to the Republican candidate by the gerrymander engineered by our Republican legislature so she is going to just squeak in hopefully.

    I like Cong. Susan Wild (none / 0) (#146)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 27, 2022 at 10:24:25 PM EST
    We are contributing to her campaign, although she represents the district 90 miles north of us. She is not our representative.

    NBC has tape of an interview with (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 27, 2022 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    Mastriano less than a year ago saying he favors prosecuting women for murder if they violate one of the new, restrictive anti-abortion laws. He is going to get more than 40% of the vote, I suppose, just because he is the Republican candidate for Governor. But seriously, I cannot imagine that there has ever been a more out-of-the-mainstream candidate running with a major party endorsement in this State.

    It's a sad statement (none / 0) (#148)
    by jmacWA on Wed Sep 28, 2022 at 04:50:56 AM EST
    When no matter how bad you are if you have the (R) you get the votes.  The GOP has done such a magnificent job of training their rubes to vote against their bets interests that we are in the place we are today.

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 01, 2022 at 03:30:47 PM EST
    Was right. They really are a basket of deplorables.

    My understanding of that statement (none / 0) (#150)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 02, 2022 at 03:42:57 PM EST
    from the beginning was that Hillary was saying that bunch's ideas amounted to a basket of deplorable concepts, not that those people constituted a "basket of deplorables."

    well, the Rs have (none / 0) (#151)
    by leap2 on Sun Oct 02, 2022 at 06:55:16 PM EST
    the loudspeakers and megaphones. And the media. And the depravity and skill to turn simple statements of fact into political flame-throwers.

    Love that exhibit F (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 07:41:50 AM EST
    Has the box of what looks like framed TIME covers.

    That photo is literally worth a thousand words.

    Do we think the judge will still appoint a Special Master?

    Garland (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 07:55:23 AM EST
    is playing hardball,  mumble, mumble, the DOJ does not like to play this out in public, but if you insist; Kaboom!

    The Special Master (none / 0) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 08:33:43 AM EST
     is not necessary for document "filtration" or, now with the filing, for the judge.  As, the filing indicates the Court's jurisdiction is questioned and the case is above the judges's pay grade.  She will be well to forego her initial inclination.

    Looks pretty clear if she does (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 08:56:03 AM EST
    it would just be CYA.  In my non professional opinion.  

    Also it seems that even if she does the whole episode could be seen as a win for Garland just for being given the opportunity to make these public filings.  To get all this stuff out there which would not have been done if Trump was not doing what he and his lawyers are doing.


    She honestly (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 09:05:28 AM EST
    sounds like another incompetent Federalist Society hack. We should spend the next 3 decades campaigning against the Federalist Society.

    Agreed, but we (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 09:37:41 AM EST
    will need $1.6 billion.

    The Trump response (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 09:00:40 AM EST
    Should be entertaining.

    Due today, right?


    I am going (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    to throw that photo around all over the place at every conservative that deserves it. Mary Cheney is having a great time with it on twitter. She probably knew this kind of thing was coming like a lot of us thought.

    Ha! hmmmm, freudian.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by leap2 on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    I assume you meant Mary Trumpf? I know, it's confusing.

    No, (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 01:59:07 PM EST
    I meant Liz. I do not know why I keep calling her Mary.

    Who's on first? (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    Lawyers (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 07:45:21 AM EST
    with lawyers who have lawyers

    Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann told MSNBC that two of Donald Trump's attorneys who were involved in the former president's failure to hand over classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate should probably "stop talking" and "best defense counsel you can possibly get."

    Plus factors (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 02:48:24 PM EST

    As a result, prosecutors have developed a series of so-called "plus factors" that don't appear in the statute itself, but inform decisions about whether to file criminal charges.

    According to former prosecutors, the "plus factors" include whether a suspect had nefarious intent in gathering or keeping the information, whether they had clear knowledge of the materials they had and their gravity, the volume of material taken and whether they lied to investigators.


    But (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 07:17:14 PM EST
    the more sensitive the classified materials, the harder it may be to prosecute....

    I do recall hearing about cases that could never be prosecuted because doing so would reveal top secret material to the public.

    I recall something about this with regard to the Gitmo detainees...

    Peter or J would know better than I, but I would assume that a defense attorney would threaten to demand copies of and introduce at trial all the sensitive materials....

    Can Trump skate as a practical matter because a trial would reveal classified information?


    But then again (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 07:23:24 PM EST
    the U.S. government has prosecuted cases against spies in the past....

    None of the three named violations (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 07:40:17 PM EST
    Require classification. I read this could make things easier

    How is that a single reprobate (none / 0) (#19)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Sep 01, 2022 at 09:57:40 AM EST
    is able to find attorneys willing to be as delusional as he is.

    The related delusion (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 01, 2022 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    that they will be handsomely paid. Or, in the alternative, lawyers who want to be on TV and have "their names in the papers" as prominent defense attorneys. (Most of the genuinely leading defense attorneys I know avoid publicity like the plague. I am an extreme example; I have never even had a web site, for instance. Nor do I agree to TV interviews.)

    I'm expecting a special master (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 01, 2022 at 12:24:42 PM EST
    Am I wrong?

    Logically, the request for a special master (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 01, 2022 at 01:23:44 PM EST
    comes too late. The DOJ already examined the papers, using a "taint team" (i.e., DOJ attorneys not affiliated with the criminal investigation) to perform that same function first. The request for a special master needed to be made on the spot or no later than the next day after the search. So if the judge appoints a special master, imho, it will be just for show, to pretend that they are accommodating Tr*mp's requests and not refusing them out of hand.

    The DOJ, in (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 01, 2022 at 01:41:32 PM EST
    it's filing seems to be expecting a Special Master, while arguing against such appointment.  They have given guidelines for such appointment including a time certain for completion by September 30.   The judge may be awaiting advice from Leo Leonard so she knows what to think.

    Maybe, (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 01, 2022 at 03:06:11 PM EST
    a Solomonic decision by this Trump-appointed judge:  A Special Master appointed with conclusion by September 15.

    A Special Master (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 01, 2022 at 03:19:34 PM EST
    would be delaying but relatively harmless if attorney-client issues are involved, but I worry that her fealty to the Federalist Society will go off to executive privilege, and really muck things up.

    How long (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 05, 2022 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    until one of the Jan 6 defendants ask for a special master?

    The insurrectionist (none / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 05, 2022 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    would have to get a judge like Cannon who has a curious take on criminal procedures. A judge who has no problem with interfering with an ongoing investigation.  One who states an indictment may sully the reputation if eventually found not guilty.
    And, if the insurrectionist has incompetent lawyers, the judge will fill-in acting on their behalf.  Insurrection charges will need an equity jurisdiction judge.

    In the case of Trump, his lawyers asked for an extraordinary remedy and did not make a  case for it, so the judge did. The judge worried that the private materials, such as medical records , intermingled with the stolen documents were being deprived from Trump, She ventured into executive privilege protecting documents held by a former member of the executive branch against the current executive branch---and Trump's lawyers did not even make that claim.  Apparently, it's the two-president's legal theory.  Or, the any or multiple former president's theory.

    It seems like the judge is guilty of obstruction of Justice.  Like her, I make stuff up.


    The documents (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 05, 2022 at 06:06:44 PM EST
    might be easier to prosecute, and might not I guess, but his crimes involving Jan 6 are IMO far worse and it's not terrible for either justice or politics they might as a result of this legal farce get more of the spotlight in the next 2 months.

    They have been getting too little lately.


    Isn't (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 05, 2022 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    the J6 committee ready to start up again?

    Executive privilege (none / 0) (#31)
    by BGinCA on Tue Sep 06, 2022 at 12:23:33 AM EST
    What criteria would the special master use to determine if something should be excluded due to executive privilege?

    Executive privilege, as applied to a President (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 06, 2022 at 09:27:43 AM EST
    is a deliberative process privilege, protecting the privacy of communications in the nature of policy-making consultations between a President and their higher-level advisers. The Supreme Court held in the Nixon Tapes case and the Trump-era Mazars case that the privilege has more force against a vague Congressional inquiry, but generally must yield to a legitimate criminal law enforcement action by the Dept of Justice, which is within the Executive Branch. The Court has not yet decided whether the authority to waive the privilege rests exclusively with the current President. (If I were the judge here, I would have ruled that Tr*mp waived the privilege in any event by not asserting it in response to this Spring's grand jury subpoena for the same records, and instead largely ignoring that subpoena.)

    Not to get (none / 0) (#34)
    by BGinCA on Tue Sep 06, 2022 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    too far into the weeds, but would the SM have to review a document and determine that it was a communication between TFG and his advisors and then ask TFG if he wished to assert executive privilege?

    The $64 Question (none / 0) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 06, 2022 at 09:54:06 AM EST
    According to Judge Cannon's order, the SM is to "review seized property, manage assertions of privilege and make recommendations thereon, and evaluate claims for return of property."  ..."on or before September 9, 2022, the parties shall meaningfully confer and submit a joint filing that includes ---a) a.list of proposed SM candidates, b) a detailed proposed order of appointing, outlining,  inter alia, the SM's duties and limitations, exparte communication skills, schedule for review, and compensation."

    Attorney/client privilege has a lot of case law for guidance, but executive privilege is different. Apparently, the judge envisions the DOJ and Trump attorneys to experience a kumbaya moment so as to harmonize duties and limitations of the SM. By this Friday. It would be interesting to know what the judge is thinking for "managing assertions of privilege" as the foundation for the joint proposal to be submitted.  But we do know she expects the SM to be a good communicator, a skill that will be needed, in abundance, for explanation purposes.


    The Queen is dead. Long live the King. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 12:42:18 PM EST
    Will Charles have the decency and good sense, I wonder, to abdicate immediately?

    ... but King Edward VIII's romantic involvement with twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson threw the United Kingdom into a clear and profound constitutional crisis, in large part because he was head of a Church of England that had curiously since decided to not allow divorced people to remarry said Church if their ex-spouses were still alive, even though said Church was founded by serial bridegroom (and all-around socio-political tyrant) King Henry VIII.

    Edward VIII had precipitated the crisis shortly after taking the throne by publicly announcing that he and Mrs. Simpson were to be married just as soon as her divorce from her second husband was finalized. The British establishment had already decided that Mrs. Simpson was inherently unsuitable to fill the role of Queen Consort and further, it was widely assumed in the most influential circles that her romance with the then-new king was motivated by her lust for money or power or both.

    Hence, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin engaged in a naked power play by expressly advising King Edward that the majority of the public was opposed to his proposed marriage to Mrs. Simpson, and further indicating that if His Majesty pursued the marriage in direct contravention of his ministers' advice, all members of His Majesty's government would therefore resign immediately and en masse.

    The bachelor-playboy king's subsequent decision to abdicate the throne, having "found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do without the help and support of the woman I love,"  suddenly thrust his younger brother Albert and his young family into the public spotlight.

    Since Edward was unmarried with no children, Albert was Heir Presumptive to the throne. Albert was proclaimed by the Royal Council on Accession as King George VI, and Albert's then-14-year-old daughter Princess Elizabeth was likewise proclaimed George VI's Heiress Presumptive.

    (Edward's abdication also prompted an immediate backlash in the neighboring Irish Free State, where the British monarch was then still recognized as its constitutional head of state. The Irish Parliament moved immediately that very same day to amend the Irish constitution and remove any and all mention of the British monarch. The following day, it passed the External Relations Act and asserted their country's unilateral right to appoint its own diplomats and sign its own treaties and agreements. And that's how the Irish Free State transformed into the present-day Republic of Ireland.)

    George VI's Queen Consort Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother) never forgave Edward for abdicating the throne. The acrimony between the two became acute after the king was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 1951 at age 56. She blamed all the stress her shy husband endured as king on what she saw as her brother-in-law's earlier irresponsibility, which culminated in the shirking of his greater duty to his realm.

    Because of what she had experienced in 1936 and the resultant profound impact it had on her own family, the Queen Mother was therefore staunchly opposed to the idea of monarchial abdication just on principle and impressed that upon her 25-year-old daughter when she ascended to the throne as Queen Elizabeth II in 1952.

    Having closely observed how her father and mother conducted themselves in public during the Second World War, Elizabeth II came to see the primary responsibility of the monarchy as providing its subjects with a shared sense of national purpose, stability and continuity. In her worldview, abdication undermines that role. That's probably why she never stepped aside for her son Charles in her later years. I've no doubt that she probably counseled Charles to likewise reject any notion of abdication once he came to the throne.

    So, I'd say the odds of King Charles III's abdication are somewhere between null and void. But there's no question that his late mother's reign has cast a very long shadow over his own. Whether he can eventually get out from under it and forge his own path remains to be seen.



    IMO, (none / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 12:48:38 PM EST
    the odds on that happening are pretty long.

    The queen is dead (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 01:18:58 PM EST
    Historically interesting, (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 01:36:35 PM EST
    Elizabeth II from President Eisenhower to President Biden.  Also, President Truman when Princess.

    I was a princess when Truman (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    Was president

    I would (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 02:22:36 PM EST
    bestow a Royal upgrade.

    You'll always be our princess (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 09, 2022 at 11:18:13 AM EST
    God Save the Queen

    We mean it man..


    Why should he? (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 01:54:59 PM EST
    Difficult to (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 08:56:16 PM EST
    come up with a good reason why Charles would abdicate.  He waited longer than any heir to secede to the throne, having been groomed for the job all his life.  He worked hard to get his wife to be titled queen consort.  And, there is a lot of money involved--property and money.  And, he is the sovereign. His great uncle abdicated and that did not go well.

    The Queen Consort (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 02:17:18 PM EST
    will be hard to take.

    Watching this spectacle (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 07:33:40 PM EST
    I absolutely agree about abdicateing by the way, and also agree there is zero chance he will, but it occurred to me how much lavish soapy wildly popular entertainment like The Queen and The Crown have normalized this obscene ridiculous spectacle of "royalty".

    I weep for my species


    The Monarchy (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 10, 2022 at 07:56:24 AM EST
    Is in my view, is like a British Disneyland. A big tourist draw and big business.  The medieval pageantry and soapy storybook reality sustain the anachronism.

    Yet the role of monarch in British life ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 21, 2022 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    ... is important. Take, for example, Queen Elizabeth II's unilateral and widely praised decision to address her subjects during the COVID pandemic in April 2020, when Prime Minister Boris Johnson was hospitalized in critical condition with the virus.

    Personally, I think "We Will Meet Again" may well be remembered by historians as her best speech, and the reason it worked is because the monarch is traditionally viewed by the British people as being above base politics. Such royal public addresses are rare, so when it was announced that the Queen would be speaking to the nation, everyone in Britain stopped and listened.

    Elizabeth chose her words deliberately and wisely, and she projected a calming maternal influence on her country and government at a time when politics and events appeared to be spiraling out of control. She got everyone to take a deep breath, recenter and refocus their efforts. No elected political official could have done that.



    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Towanda on Sat Sep 24, 2022 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    and it was one of those times when maybe we could have benefited by having the monarchy again.

    Then again, we have Dr. fquci, and the fools here reject him.


    The crown (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 08:01:54 PM EST
    IMO did quite the opposite for me.

    I tried several times (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 08:11:23 PM EST
    I never made it past the second episode

    Love The Crown (none / 0) (#134)
    by Towanda on Sat Sep 24, 2022 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    but must rewatch Helen Mirren as The Queen. That was terrific

    He won't (none / 0) (#57)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 09, 2022 at 10:24:25 AM EST
    And Camilla probably wouldn't let him.  I'm sure she'll love being Queen Consort.

    Requiescat in pace, Elizabeth Regina.


    Appealed (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 03:57:40 PM EST

    Justice Department Appeals Ruling on Special Master
    September 8, 2022 at 4:46 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 33 Comments

    "The Justice Department said Thursday that it was appealing a judge's decision granting the appointment of an independent arbiter to review records seized by the FBI from former President Donald Trump's Florida home," the AP reports.

    "The department also asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to put on hold her directive prohibiting it from using the seized records for investigative purposes while it contests her ruling to a federal appeals court."

    Washington Post: "The Justice Department wrote in a brief filing that it would be appealing the decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals."

    Apparently 2 parts.

    A request to rethink the looney ruling and plan B appeal the ruling.  A "protective notice of appeal".
    You (judge) have a week to decide.

    The Lawfare blog takes a blowtorch (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 10:48:44 PM EST
    to the Cannon opinion. Lawfare is not a "liberal" much less a progressive site.

    In summary: (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 09, 2022 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    "Judge Cannon's opinion is wrong in almost every way it is possible.for it to be wrong."

    How unusual is it (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 09, 2022 at 08:37:29 AM EST
    for a plaintiff to give a judge a deadline?

    What the press is calling a "deadline" (none / 0) (#55)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 09, 2022 at 09:00:32 AM EST
    is the line in the DoJ's stay motion informing Judge Cotton that they consider the circumstances sufficiently urgent that if she does not grant their requested stay within a week, they will seek emergency relief from the Court of Appeals (Eleventh Circuit). I would call it more a courtesy and candor than a threat.

    Sounds a lot like (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 09, 2022 at 09:13:58 AM EST
    a deadline

    Yeah, well, yes and no (none / 0) (#58)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 09, 2022 at 10:38:18 AM EST
    The DoJ cannot tell the judge she has to act by a certain date or face adverse consequences (either to herself or in the case) as a result of missing that deadline. They are just saying the urgency of the matter does not allow more elbow room than that, before they seek relief elsewhere. So, I would not call that a true "deadline."

    Very unusual, in my experience. Also, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2022 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    The defendant's were pretty gutsy with the, with all due respect, your honor, X in your order is wrong!

    Another excellent, serious and well-informed (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 09, 2022 at 03:26:39 PM EST
    analysis, free of name-calling and personal insults to the judge. Just laying out the opinion for all its errors and weaknesses.

    from what (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 07:11:05 PM EST
    I have read it seems that she either completely lied about the PRA or is a complete idiot on the subject.

    So (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 07:23:07 PM EST
     according to the appeal the DOJ just filed she has a week to decide if she cares that her ruling is considered  a punchline or if she wants to  hope for a DeSantis supreme court nomination by letting it stand.
    They said, change what you said or we appeal to the circuit court.
    I say she goes for the supreme court.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 07:29:54 PM EST
    she'll stick to her incompetent guns. I might be wrong here but I think the 11th can do a stay of her decision until they take up the case? I'm sure Peter knows the answer to that.

    To me it seems she is pushing the DOJ to go ahead and indict.


    If she has motive (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 08, 2022 at 07:36:58 PM EST
    I would think it was more personal.  But who knows.

    I don't think she will push the DOJ to do anything rash.


    By midnight (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 09, 2022 at 07:58:28 PM EST
    Looking forward to seeing who Trump wants for a Special Master.

    Little disappointed (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 09, 2022 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    I was expecting Joe Arpaio and the pillow guy

    Plaintiff's Proposed Candidates

               The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie (ret.) - former Chief Judge of the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of New York, served on the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Court, formerly the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

               Paul Huck, Jr.--founder, The Huck Law Firm, former Jones Day partner, formerGeneral Counsel to the Governor, former Deputy Attorney General for the State of Florida.

    Government's Proposed Candidates

                The Honorable Barbara S. Jones (ret.) - retired judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, partner in Bracewell LLP, and special master in In re: in the Matter of Search Warrants Executed on April 28, 2021 and In the Matter of Search Warrants Executed on April 9, 2018.

               The Honorable Thomas B. Griffith (ret.) - retired Circuit Judge of the United States Courtof Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, special counsel in Hunton Andrews KurthLLP, and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School.

    The DOJ (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 13, 2022 at 05:12:41 PM EST
    now says Judge Dearie is acceptable to the government.  If  Dearie is OK why would the Trump side include him?  Maybe, with his FISC court experience, the argument against including the documents with security markings is hoped to be weakened   IfTrump wants Dearie, there must be an angle, and not a.good one.   The Trump side did not find either of the government's candidates for SM to be acceptable.

    Once again, it seems to me, Garland (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 13, 2022 at 07:09:26 PM EST
    is calling Tr*mp's bluff. By agreeing to Judge Dearie, that is. And I think you have put your finger on it. Suggesting a former FISC judge was a clever tactic to make giving the SM authority over the classification issues, and not just attorney-client privilege, seem reasonable. Which it isn't. The DOJ's nominees were both solid options for a conventional atty-client review (conventional if this were a grand jury subpoena, that is, not for a warrant), but not if the judge was going to adhere to her position on the classified dox. The other Tr*mp-side nominee was ridiculous, not a real option.

    As a legal nonprofessional (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 13, 2022 at 06:22:51 PM EST
    The way they are treating this seems they care about it and are doing what's called for but .. we got a whole other thing goin on over here and this is a bit if a sideshow.

    I think the blast of subpoenas of people around Trump means they are going to indict him - non professional here - for Seditious Conspiracy.

    That would make stolen secrets an important footnote

    As far as the judge he seems to be a real person.  It seems like events are moving past it.


    I read (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 13, 2022 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    the minute DOJ said Dearie was fine Trumpers are saying that they don't want him because of the FISA court and Carter.

    That would look pretty silly (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 13, 2022 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    wouldn't it?

    My thinking (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 10, 2022 at 07:31:14 AM EST
    is that Huck is a distractor for the plaintiff's "correct answer" of Dearie., the Reagan-appointed judge who also served on the FISA Court (appointed by John Roberts).  This would give support to Judge Cannon for allowing a SM review of documents with security markings.

    She and Huck are Federalists (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 10, 2022 at 07:53:42 AM EST

    Donald Trump nominated the "Godfather of the Federalist Society in Miami" to be the special master of the documents the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago.

    That's how Paul Huck, Jr. was described to The Washington Post in 2020 by, "José Félix Díaz, a former state legislator and consultant with Ballard Partners, a powerful lobbying firm closely associated with Trump."

    Based on actions so far I see little reason to hope this person cares what we think.


    Yes, Judge Cannon (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 10, 2022 at 10:49:56 AM EST
    does not care what anyone thinks, save for her masters. Even those scholarly critiques of her opinion are unlikely to move her.

     It is disconcerting to observe the grand reverence that is afforded this judge by legal reviewers, such as that in the law blog cited above. I imagine them all standing up when they read her ruling.

      The analysts note she has done everything wrong that can be done wrong. The facts that underpin her opinion are not miscalculated, misinterpreted or misunderstood, they are just missed.  She certainly is not dumb (Duke Univ, Univ. Michigan Law). so it would be dumb of us to conclude  that it was an unintentional error.

    It seems as if the judge worked the facts backward to achieve the outcome desired . (A tactic Gorsuch used iin the Seattle case of the football coach holding prayer sessions on the 50-yard line).  

    And, of course, the coup de grace, that Trump is special, in a league of its own. The court needed to assure no reputational harm to the plaintiff--a plaintiff who settled a claim for $25 million for defrauding students at Trump University., paid hush money to a porn star, had his charity disbanded by the state, instigated an overthrow of the US government, inter alia.

    Lady Justice was not blindfolded for this opinion, this federalist judge has equipped  her with a judicial Webb telescope on behalf of this plaintiff. She will continue to do so, as long as she has the opportunity.


    Heard yesterday .... (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 10, 2022 at 07:58:12 AM EST
    from some republican

    "The long arm of the law is going to reach around and find Trump.

    Maybe it's just my many friends in low places but this conjured a different image for me than he intended.  I think.


    I think (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 10, 2022 at 10:25:10 AM EST
    this judge's incompetence is going to force an indictment before the midterms.

    As long as he gets (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 10, 2022 at 11:06:52 AM EST
    a reach around he can't complain.

    Trump does not (none / 0) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 10, 2022 at 11:55:31 AM EST
    plan on even giving the taxpayers a reach around.  He wants  to equally split the professional fees, expenses and consultants costs that the SM may require between him and the government.

    The DOJ told the judge that the plaintiff should bear all the costs for the SM that Trump,requested.


    Ken Starr dies at 76. (none / 0) (#77)
    by desertswine on Tue Sep 13, 2022 at 05:48:50 PM EST
    Starr died at a hospital Tuesday of complications from surgery, according to his former colleague, attorney Mark Lanier. He said Starr had been hospitalized in an intensive care unit in Houston for about four months.

    Most famous (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by BGinCA on Tue Sep 13, 2022 at 07:31:37 PM EST
    for Clinton/Lewinsky, but other highlights from his 'illustrious' career:
    Cover-up of Baylor rape/sex scandals, which led to his resignation
    Engineering the Jefferey Epstein sweetheart deal.
    Among his failures,: losing appeal to reinstate Prop 8 in California
    Seeking to obtain constitutional immunity for Blackwater murderers.
    I'm sure there will be those who miss him.
    Sorry to see that this will overshadow the death of the great Jean-Luc Godard and Ramsey Lewis earlier today.

    One of those (none / 0) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 13, 2022 at 08:40:03 PM EST
    who will surely miss him is Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was one of Starr's Independent  Counsel staff, for four years.  Kavanaugh is  reported  to have been of great help to Starr in preparing the salacious parts the  Clinton/Lewinsky Report.

    A sad commentary on the state of (none / 0) (#85)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 14, 2022 at 09:18:43 AM EST
    print journalism (starved for space in the paper edition. due to severely reduced income), this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer had an obit for Starr toward the back, a front-page story on the murder of a local Philly rapper in a robbery in Los Angeles, and no mention of either Godard or R. Lewis. At least not today.

    Jean-Luc Godard obituary (none / 0) (#88)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 15, 2022 at 09:15:40 AM EST
    ran this morning, a day late, in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

    What was his diagnosis, I wonder? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:49 PM EST
    What condition puts you in intensive care for four months, and then calls for a last-ditch, high-risk, hail-Mary surgery?

    Reminds of Steve McQueen's (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    life ending surgery in Mexico.

    Electoral Count Reform (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 14, 2022 at 02:09:53 PM EST
    and Presidential Transition Improvement Act,

    Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Prevent Future Coup
    September 14, 2022 at 2:36 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 47 Comments

    "A pair of centrist House lawmakers on Wednesday is rolling out a bill aimed at preventing stolen elections in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack, mirroring bipartisan legislation in the Senate," NBC News reports.

    "Moderate Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Fred Upton (R-MI) are co-sponsoring the House legislation, known as the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, which would overhaul the antiquated 1887 Electoral Count Act."

    Judge Cannon goes for Supreme Court nom (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 15, 2022 at 07:31:20 PM EST
    I am very curious to see (none / 0) (#90)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 15, 2022 at 08:11:27 PM EST
    what the 11th Circuit now does when the govt moves for a stay pending appeal on national security grounds. Remember, they have already filed their appeal, which was on hold pending these interim proceedings.

    They had asked her (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 15, 2022 at 08:30:10 PM EST
    to ask for him to finish by mid oct.  She gave him til the end of Nov.  

    Cannon now (none / 0) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 15, 2022 at 08:46:50 PM EST
    has a lock on a Supreme Court nomination in a Republican Administration.   Certainly, a perfect replacement for Alito or Thomas.

    They are discussing this (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 15, 2022 at 09:23:30 PM EST
    on Lawerence.  It sounds like the SM guy is expected to be a pretty serious referee.  

    My question is, when he says what should be done with this stuff how binding is his opinion on her.

    Can she ignore him?


    Cannon's first (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 08:45:01 AM EST
    opinion stated that the SM would report to her, she would have the final say as the judge for the case. It would seem that she would adhere to the SM's ruling, but I would not be so sure about that if the SM's findings do not fit into her planned outcome.

    Most reviews of Judge Raymond Dearie are very good, but some caution may be called for here, too.  I am old enough to remember the accolades and assurances for the integrity of Barr's appointee, John Durham, to investigate the investigators of the 2016 election.

    I think DOJ has to appeal to the 11th circuit and hope for justice.


    A special master is a one-time member (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    of the judge's staff. He has no independent authority to act as a judge. The SM submits a report and recommendation (R&R) to the judge, including both "findings of fact" and legal analysis. But the ruling, in the end, must be that of the judge. So, no, she cannot "ignore" the SM's R&R, but neither is she bound by it, if she thinks it is mistaken. The parties are ordinarily given a reasonable amount of time to read and file objections to the R&R; those objections go to the judge. Typically, once a court appoints a SM -- precisely because that person is highly qualified and well respected, and because the whole premise of using a SM is that the task at hand requires time and/or expertise that the judge herself does not have -- the R&R is very likely to be accepted. Normally, the SM's findings of fact would receive the greatest deference, with perhaps somewhat less weight (although still substantial) given to the legal analysis and final recommendation.

    I guess my other question is (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 15, 2022 at 09:32:40 PM EST
    can anything be done about this judge?  Or is she there for life no matter how ridiculous her edicts are?

    Judge Cannon, like all federal district judges (none / 0) (#97)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 10:05:02 AM EST
    (as well as Circuit Judges and S.Ct. Justices) are appointed for life, that is (per US Const, Article III, sec. 1) "during [their] good Behaviour." A federal judge can only be removed by impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors," or pressured to resign due to disability or misconduct, following an investigation by the committee of judges that exists in each Circuit for that purpose. A judge cannot be (or at least, never is) removed for making stupid decisions. That's what appeals are for.

    Well (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 11:13:47 AM EST
    MAGA world will love this.  That's obviously her goal.  I sort of think that won't be true for everyone.
    She is basically saying, in writing, Trump is getting and should get special treatment.   I think most reasonable people will take a dim view of that.   Especially in view of recent events.

    That may all have little to nothing to do with the outcome of the case but I think it is a - another - pretty solid and easy to understand reason to say the courts are on the ballot.

    I just think, like so much for Trump world, in the end this leagal strategy will blow in their face.  


    But (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 11:18:48 AM EST
    all that said I also think there is potential long term benefit to giving Trump every break.  Otherwise known as enough rope.  When it tightens it won't be a bad thing to be able to point to every break he got along the way.

    Because I think he is right.  Heck will break loose when he is nabbed.


    Re Dearie (none / 0) (#100)
    by smott on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 11:19:42 AM EST
    If Trump picked him, Trump owns him.
    And Cannon can overrule him anyway.

    With the end of the rule of law, comes the beginning of tyranny.

    DOJ a has to get away from this judge any way they can. Indict Trump in DC. Anything.


    It was just reported on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 11:31:19 AM EST
    he is famous for being slow.  So, yeah.

    Dearie me (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 12:30:17 PM EST
    "If Trump picked him, Trump owns him." I do not agree with this at all. First of all, Tr*mp did not pick Dearie. Tr*mp's lawyers suggested him, the DoJ concurred that the suggestion was suitable, and Judge Cannon picked him. And it is flatly untrue, in any event, that all Tr*mp-nominated judges rule automatically according to Tr*mp's preferences. In this instance, in particular, Tr*mp has no power over Judge Dearie, and no way to threaten or retaliate against him. I despise Tr*mp as much as anyone, but it does not behoove (or benefit) us to stray from the path of truth.

    The DOJ notified (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 12:52:12 PM EST
    the judge that Dearies (appointed by Reagan)  was also acceptable to them, in effect, assuring his appointment as SM.  And, with Dearie's experience with security as a former FISA judge (appointed by John Roberts) laid a red carpet out for the judge to deny the DOJ bid to carve out those seized documents with security markings.

    Since the DOJ has played this case brilliantly, it is my hope that this was a part of their strategy/bait for a successful appeal.  


    Yes (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 01:53:23 PM EST
    but while would not say he owns him... Their other pick was a non-starter.  No one expected either of the two from the DOJ to be acceptable.  So learning today he is famously slow, John King CNN, he does smell a little like a plant.

    It could easily be another self own.  But it's just one more way that at least in the short term Trump got exactly what he thinks he wants.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 02:14:18 PM EST
    It is going swimmingly for Trump, so far, in the District Court. Judge Cannon has filled in the holes in Trump's defense,  DOJ asked that the SM's work be done in October and she gave Dearie until the end of November.  No doubt she could wind up granting an extension, if one was requested.  DOJ could protest, and she would not hesitate to blow them off., if just a little more is needed.

    As I have suggested in earlier posts, Cannon is not dumb, and this ruling, which is not really American law, is not just a stupid one.  In my opinion , it is corrupt.  The whole shebang needs to be appealed.


    I wonder how the DOJ (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    will interpret the vague stuff about "well, some FBI can participate and you can do some stuff blah blah"

    This whole thing is on indefinite hold.  Right?   I heard this morning that every decision the judge makes about every individual document, when ever he get around to making them, can be appealed.

    Maybe the DoJ will just do what they have to do and say they were doing their best to follow her BS insructions.

    Like I said I think events are overtaking this


    According (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 04:47:21 PM EST
    to Armando the vague stuff is vague enough to drive a truck through the middle and that the DOJ should just notify Cannon that they are continuing their criminal assessment.

    That was my impression (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 05:19:59 PM EST

    Very tempting, (none / 0) (#113)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 17, 2022 at 08:25:25 AM EST
    but that may be a trap that jeopardizes the criminal case.  This is, essentially, a slam dunk case being cunningly undermined by a smart, corrupt judge.  Surely, this is recognized by the DOJ and being carefully treaded upon for the appeal now in motion.

    At least 11th Circuit is not dragging their feet (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 17, 2022 at 08:02:44 PM EST

    The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals set a Tuesday deadline for Donald Trump's attorneys to respond to the Department of Justice call for a partial stay of a controversial opinion by Judge Aileen Cannon.
    The Appeals Court set a noon deadline on Tuesday for Trump to respond.
    Former federral prosecutor Renato Mariotti said, "very quick response from the Court of Appeals, which is a good sign for DOJ."

    Let's hope Mariotti is right.


    And quite a speedy smackown (none / 0) (#135)
    by Towanda on Sat Sep 24, 2022 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    I read that Cannon was overturned on all eight points of her ruling.

    And that, now that she has amended her ruling to reflect the appeal ruling, she removes recourse to appeal her ruling to SCOTUS. She does not want to risk a smackdown there, too.


    And quite a speedy smackdown (none / 0) (#136)
    by Towanda on Sat Sep 24, 2022 at 12:40:48 PM EST
    I read that Cannon was overturned on all eight points of her ruling.

    And that, now that she has amended her ruling to reflect the appeal ruling, she removes recourse to appeal her ruling to SCOTUS. She does not want to risk a smackdown there, too.


    And quite a speedy smackdown (none / 0) (#137)
    by Towanda on Sat Sep 24, 2022 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    I read that Cannon was overturned on all eight points of her ruling.

    And that, now that she has amended her ruling to reflect the appeal ruling, she removes recourse to appeal her ruling to SCOTUS. She does not want to risk a smackdown there, too.


    Judge Cannon's order states she reviews de novo. (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 03:42:32 PM EST
    In other words, she gets to decide.

    Has Cannon seen (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 16, 2022 at 05:49:50 PM EST
    the top secret documents yet?  I do not believe that  to be the case.

    She is a disaster.  I would try to not let her do that.....She thinks it is all just a bunch of nonsense.....Would she care about the top-secret documents becoming public?


    Interesting read (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 19, 2022 at 04:44:11 PM EST
    Tish has an announcement (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 20, 2022 at 07:17:48 PM EST
    11th Circuit lifts the stay (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 21, 2022 at 06:59:49 PM EST
    Chalk (none / 0) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Wed Sep 21, 2022 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    one up for the DOJ
    On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stayed a controversial ruling by a Florida district court judge that had effectively blocked the Justice Department and national security agencies from reviewing highly classified documents seized by the FBI at former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.

    I wouldn't want (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 21, 2022 at 07:09:14 PM EST
    to be on ketchup duty at Tara Lago tonight.

    By 15 seconds (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 21, 2022 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    Retired Supreme Court journalist (none / 0) (#141)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 24, 2022 at 08:44:12 PM EST
    Lyle Denniston, now over 90 years of age, has put up a post to his blog for the first time in more than a month, providing (as usual) a terrific overview of the situation with the search litigation. Lyle writes with exquisite accuracy, and deep experience and knowledge of the legal system, for an intelligent, non-lawyer audience.

    Thank you for posting that. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by leap2 on Sat Sep 24, 2022 at 09:28:28 PM EST
    What a clear and understandable writer. According to the little info blurb about him on the upper right of the page:

    His online, eight-week, college-level course - "The Supreme Court and American Politics" - is available from the University of Baltimore Law School, and it is free.

    That might be fun to take.


    Question (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 23, 2022 at 03:02:00 PM EST
    Yesterday judge Dearie said about Trump's mouthing  off about planted evidence and falsified evidence lists,  prove it.
    By next Friday.
    My question is when Friday comes and he can't prove it and won't shut up about it, we know he won't, what happens then?

    Then Dearie will take it as a fact (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 23, 2022 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    beyond dispute that the document list provided by DoJ for review is accurate and complete. He also asked -- as would be SOP for such a review -- for the Tr*mp team to go first by identifying which of the 11,000 dox they claim to be subject to some kind of personal privilege (such as atty-client) that could even potentially protect them from review by govt lawyers in the early stages of a criminal investigation. Really, Dearie should not have to review all 11K dox to see if any may be privileged. It is totally normal for the objecting party to be required first to make some specific claim.

    Is (none / 0) (#131)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 23, 2022 at 05:05:07 PM EST
    there any possibility of some kind of gag order?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 23, 2022 at 05:31:38 PM EST
    will they, can they, make him stop?

    I would (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 24, 2022 at 07:29:34 PM EST
    say they could try but IIRC this is one of the reasons why he has problems getting & keeping attorneys--he won't shut up.

    The First Amendment give Tr*mp the right (none / 0) (#140)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 24, 2022 at 08:28:20 PM EST
    to rant all he likes (including lies) to express his opinion about the terrible injustices he feels are  being done to him. A gag order typically can only prevent the lawyers or parties in a case from discussing the facts or issues in a way that could prejudice a jury. But there is no jury here (yet). The only gag order I can imagine would be one that bars everyone involved from publicly disclosing the contents of the classified documents. Not one that tries to keep someone from spouting falsehoods about a matter of public interest, and which are not defamatory.

    TY Peter. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 24, 2022 at 07:28:37 PM EST
    I am sure that Trump has no idea of what of the 11K documents to tell the court to review. Maybe he will just make up something.

    Really interesting play, King Charles III, (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 27, 2022 at 08:46:38 PM EST
    a few years ago.