Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-fi...eventh-circuit

This investigation of the 45th President of the United States is both unprecedented and misguided. In what is at its core a document storage dispute that has spiraled out of control, the Government wrongfully seeks to criminalize the possession by the 45h President of his own Presidential and personal records.

That's the opening line to Trump's response to the DOJ.

To clarify a few things -

This is technically a "documents storage" issue, but it involves classified documents so it's a bit more serious than just, "Trump kept some photographs he was supposed to give back to the White House."

But also worth noting: Trump does not own any government documents. Every document marked classified or otherwise is the property of the federal government. He does not own them. Similarly, documents produced in an official capacity while he was president are the property of the federal government. There are mechanisms to request the original documents, or copies, through the archives if he would like to retain some of the non-classified federal documents from his time in office. But he didn't do that so...here we are.

[Breccia]

But he didn't do that so...here we are.

Hey, if these were "his" personal records, why did he give the first batch back?

[Endus]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-fi...eventh-circuit

That's the opening line to Trump's response to the DOJ.

To clarify a few things -

This is technically a "documents storage" issue, but it involves classified documents so it's a bit more serious than just, "Trump kept some photographs he was supposed to give back to the White House."

But also worth noting: Trump does not own any government documents. Every document marked classified or otherwise is the property of the federal government. He does not own them. Similarly, documents produced in an official capacity while he was president are the property of the federal government. There are mechanisms to request the original documents, or copies, through the archives if he would like to retain some of the non-classified federal documents from his time in office. But he didn't do that so...here we are.

Remember, espionage is just a "documents storage issue", apparently. Just like bank robbery is just a "currency storage issue".

[Gelannerai]

Remember, espionage is just a "documents storage issue", apparently. Just like bank robbery is just a "currency storage issue".

It’s yet more non-committal pablum from Trump’s legal team, because the only two actual defenses they could bring to bear in this case are also admittance to criminal acts. It’s a painfully obvious stall, because that’s all they have now.

[cubby]

Trump has violate the law, objectively, and should be facing criminal charges, of Espionage and other related crimes.

Which is why we see Trump doing what he's done his entire life, dodging and diverting, lying and conniving, attempting to avoid responsibility for his actions. He's a liar and con man, the worst of everything that embodies Grifters, and the GQP decided he should be Resident, because "her emails" - and all the other lies the GQP put forth in their multi-decade hate campaign.

That Trump will be indicted is almost a foregone conclusion. I think Garland is only delaying because of the elections, which is a whole other can of discussion worms.

The biggest issue that I see coming is how they will pick a jury to hear the case. At the least, Trump can't know who the jurors are - they would almost certainly be killed, and for sure lifetime victims of harassment by the fuckwit ignorant right. There is precedent for having a jury be not visible to the defendant - mob cases are a good example. I have some ideas about how I would do it, but I'm sure Garland has a small team of legal geniuses working on this right now.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember, espionage is just a "documents storage issue", apparently. Just like bank robbery is just a "currency storage issue".

It's really the best defense they can try to bring, in a case where Trump is objectively guilty of the crime. And I don't use that term lightly, objectively guilty, but the requirements for the charge are so cut and dried - that Trump is defacto guilty of violating the Espionage Act.

[Rasulis]

... even though those seats were for the family.

According to British newspaper The Telegraph, the leader of the U.S.—whoever they would have been at the time of the queen's death—would have been seated in the same fashion, with members of the royal family, past and present U.K. prime ministers, and Commonwealth leaders taking precedent.

With royal protocol dictating that Commonwealth leaders outrank those from other parts of the world at the Queen's funeral, it meant that Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was seated nine rows ahead of Biden.

According to the newspaper, governor-generals from realms where the British sovereign was retained as head of state were seated first, with elected Commonwealth leaders behind them.

In accordance with protocol, the governors-general of the realms that retain the monarch as their head of state, were seated first with and elected Commonwealth leaders behind them.

This meant that leaders of such countries as Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and the Caribbean islands Jamaica, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines were included among those who would have been seated ahead of the U.S. president.

Despite the seating position, Biden was allowed one major privilege, as he was granted permission to arrive at the service in the presidential armored limousine, dubbed "The Beast," which had been flown over from the U.S. for the brief visit.

Yes. Trump probably would have thrown a fit.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...-lago-00057805

Judge Raymond Dearie pushed Trump’s lawyers repeatedly for refusing to back up the former president’s claim that he declassified the highly sensitive national security-related records discovered in his residence.

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too,” said Dearie, the “special master” picked by U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon to vet Trump’s effort to reclaim the materials taken by federal investigators.

Trump has argued that the 11,000 documents taken from Mar-a-Lago were rightfully in his possession, including about 100 bearing classification markings that suggest they contain some of the nation’s most closely guarded intelligence.

Methinks they can't actually prove these were declassified because they're not actually declassified.

[Gelannerai]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...-lago-00057805



Methinks they can't actually prove these were declassified because they're not actually declassified.

Think they’re regretting going for the Special Master yet? The guy is preemptively shredding what little credible defense they could’ve mounted.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...-lago-00057805



Methinks they can't actually prove these were declassified because they're not actually declassified.

More on this - https://lawandcrime.com/trump/as-far...ns-at-hearing/

“The government gives me prima facie evidence that these are classified documents,” Dearie said, referring to the plain markings on the records. “As far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of it.”

Dearie gave Trump’s lawyer James Trusty ample opportunity to explain why his consideration shouldn’t end there.

Want to know where the cake line came from? It was in direct response to this -

On the eve of the hearing, Trump’s lawyers had filed a four-page letter urging Dearie to back off from his demand that they disclose declassification arguments.

“We respectfully submit that the time and place for affidavits or declarations would be in connection with a Rule 41 motion that specifically alleges declassification as a component of its argument for return of property,” Trusty wrote in the filing. “Otherwise, the Special Master process will have forced the Plaintiff to fully and specifically disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment without such a requirement being evident in the District Court’s order.”

The government showed their homework that yes, these are indeed still classified documents.

Thus far Team Trump has not shown their homework, but they swear it's done and sitting in their backpack. Pinky swear.

[cubby]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...-lago-00057805

Judge Raymond Dearie pushed Trump’s lawyers repeatedly for refusing to back up the former president’s claim that he declassified the highly sensitive national security-related records discovered in his residence.

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too,” said Dearie, the “special master” picked by U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon to vet Trump’s effort to reclaim the materials taken by federal investigators.

Trump has argued that the 11,000 documents taken from Mar-a-Lago were rightfully in his possession, including about 100 bearing classification markings that suggest they contain some of the nation’s most closely guarded intelligence.

Methinks they can't actually prove these were declassified because they're not actually declassified.

Trump can't. Because he would have had to follow the rules and ask permission - two things he's genetically unable to do. Anyone who is familiar with Trump and knows the declassification process will know that Trump didn't declassify any documents.

Those poor fuckers who represent Trump are in a world of hurt, but they knew what they were getting into.

[Breccia]

Think they’re regretting going for the Special Master yet?

No.

If they hadn't pushed for one, the FBI would already have everything by now. They are trying to stall, not win.

[Rasulis]

No.

If they hadn't pushed for one, the FBI would already have everything by now. They are trying to stall, not win.

“How am I going to verify the classification? ... What business is it of the court?” Dearie asked during the Tuesday hearing. The judge suggested that the DOJ had given “prima facie evidence” that the records were classified and said that “as far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of it.”

Trump's legal team next move?

[Edge-]

Trump's legal team next move?

"Nuh uh"

Probably.

[Rasulis]

Trump can't. Because he would have had to follow the rules and ask permission - two things he's genetically unable to do. Anyone who is familiar with Trump and knows the declassification process will know that Trump didn't declassify any documents.

Those poor fuckers who represent Trump are in a world of hurt, but they knew what they were getting into.

Christopher M. Kise, formerly the solicitor general of Florida, agreed to defend Trump with an "unusually high" $3 million retainer, The New York Times reported on Friday, citing two unnamed sources familiar with the matter.

Somebody is being smart. Did the other attorneys in the team also got paid in advance?

[Breccia]

“as far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of it.”

"Team Trump picked the wrong guy!"

No. Team Trump could never have won this fight.

As @cubby and others...soooo many others...keep saying, except maybe that one guy, the issue with classified documents is they're fucking classified. That doesn't magically turn off because Trump waves his hand and thinks hard. No record of declassification = still classified.

Team Trump did finally admit the relevant by refusing to say anything under oath -- they know they're about to see their client charged but don't know which of the many laws he broke will be first. They should also strongly suspect by now, if not outright know, Trump didn't declassify anything but they can't contradict him either.

The next legal move? If I had to guess, it's "piss off the judge". Team Trump has already been given far more credit than he deserves on the merits. If he asks for yet more help, I don't think even this judge will be so forgiving.

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald...e-jean-carroll

Remember the lawsuit journalist E. Jean Carroll filed against trump for sexual assault/rape?

She's also planning to sue him under a new NY law for sexual battery.

Roberta A. Kaplan, the journalist’s lawyer, explained in her letter to the judge that Carroll is now preparing to file a separate lawsuit under New York’s Adult Survivors Act “on the earliest possible date,” which is Nov. 24.

Kaplan also explained that Trump—as he has done in nearly every court case of late—is refusing to turn over court-mandated evidence.

Trump “remains unwilling to produce any documents in discovery,” not “a single document,” Kaplan wrote.

Man, ain't that the truth of it.

[tehdang]

In those words? No, you haven't, and you are correct. Unfortunately, by you consistently saying it was okay

Never said it was okay either.

and then bitch about the FBI going to get them

They made some mistakes in the process of reviewing them. I never said the search warrant wasn't appropriate.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "criticism" AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH. I love you've deluded yourself into believing that's what you're doing. When you spend weeks defending Trump by bringing up Hillary, as though it absolves him, and at no point have answered the questions of "Why he had them", "Why stole them", and "Why he continued to keep them," it shows you are not arguing in good faith and why no one is willing to put up with your bullshit.

If you want a mind reader, go consult a spiritual medium or something. I can't give them to you. If you think you have additional interesting questions beyond what others were asking, do a better job understanding and incorporating the answers I've already given in posts you make. It just shows by conduct that you're uninterested in hearing them from me.

No, the supreme court actually doesn't disagree with me. I literally linked you the fucking case that Trump doesn't have fucking executive privilege. They said as much literally this fucking year.

No, that case didn't show what you claimed it did. I addressed that when you brought it up. It furthermore didn't change the Supreme Court precedent that can before it, which holds now and until a future court establishes new precedent.

Keep telling yourself that. They don't. The case cited doesn't say what you're saying it does. I ignored your bullshit the first time because this reading is absurd on its face, and the judge has been lambasted up and down over it. It's just amazing you're spewing this bullshit still.

I quoted and applied it to the case, but I'm dreadfully sorry you didn't find it convincing ...

The PRA gives archivists the right to review

... but don't pretend this is something other than FBI review of the documents. FARA doesn't have them, FARA hasn't possessed them and been sued for what they've done with them, and the judge didn't give a ruling on FARA. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in sincerely believing the issue is 100% obviously against my position. Distracting from the points I've made shows misunderstanding, not understanding but sincere opposition.

the claims of Presidential privilege must yield to the important congressional purposes of preserving appellant's Presidential materials and maintaining access to them for lawful governmental and historical purposes.

No Mar-A-Lago congressional inquiry exists. Governmental purposes are already honored by the search warrant. I make no bones about the FBI seeking a judge's ruling and handing documents over to FARA when they're done (and cease abusing process in the meantime). This section regards the constitutionality of the Act before the the Supreme Court. What's you're forgetting is what follows, where the Supreme Court explicitly state that their ruling does not overcome all such claims of executive privilege made by presidents out of office. Obviously, they had to write this, specifically because people like you would take what they wrote and pretend no such claims existed anymore.

This Court held in United States v. Nixon . . . that the privilege is necessary to provide the confidentiality required for the President's conduct of office. Unless he can give his advisers some assurance of confidentiality, a President could not expect to receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of his duties depends. The confidentiality necessary to this exchange cannot be measured by the few months or years between the submission of the information and the end of the President's tenure; the privilege is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic. Therefore the privilege survives the individual President's tenure."

I've bolded key parts to aid you.

His First Amendment claim is clearly outweighed by the compelling governmental interests

I never said Trump has a valid First Amendment claim, so I don't know why you bring this up.

The Act's regulation of the Executive Branch's function in the control of the disposition of Presidential materials does not, in itself, violate such principle, since the Executive Branch became a party to the Act's regulation when President Ford signed the Act into law and President Carter's administration, acting through the Solicitor General, urged affirmance of the District Court's judgment. Moreover, the function remains in the Executive Branch in the person of the GSA Administrator and the Government archivists, employees of that branch.

This concerns an FBI criminal investigation, not FARA. I don't know why you would bring this up. FARA isn't in the position to indict Trump. The FBI did not declare it had no intention of brining a criminal case against Trump, and hand them off to FARA. Trump couldn't legitimately object to that, if the FBI had done this.

The mere screening of the materials by Government archivists, who have previously performed the identical task for other former Presidents without any suggestion that such activity in any way interfered with executive confidentiality, will not impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers, and will be no more of an intrusion into Presidential confidentiality than the in camera inspection by the District Court approved in United States v. Nixon

Trump's lawsuit does not concern screening procedures of archivists, it concerns criminal investigations done by the FBI. Please note and state for the record that you know FARA isn't FBI or DOJ. FARA review isn't DOJ or FBI review. I have to keep pointing out the many times people object to claims I never made.

[Ripster42]

blah blah whine blah.

Quote from the case she's citing like I did. The case doesn't back her up. The case she's citing says that during criminal investigations the DoJ gets to look at those comms. It directly refutes her and you. It's why I quoted that part of the case.

You're full of shit, and she's a terrible jurist.

[Breccia]

Never said--

Trump still hasn't cited privilege on the stand. As such, nothing you've cited (correctly or not, mostly not) is still irrelevant.

Especially considering Team Trump is now demanding evidence from the DOJ that the items are still classified.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers filed their own papers to the same appeals court, making some of the same arguments they had made before Judge Dearie. They claimed, for example, that the Justice Department had not proved that the documents it had deemed as classified continued to be classified and hinted that Mr. Trump might in fact have declassified them.

“The government again presupposes that the documents it claims are classified are, in fact, classified and their segregation is inviolable,” the lawyers wrote. “However, the government has not yet proven this critical fact. The president has broad authority governing classification of, and access to, classified documents.”

Fortunately, that's not how it works. And it seems like the "special master" isn't buying it, from the quotes several of us have posted. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the defense can't just say "I make this unfounded claim, and now the prosecution has to prove it's wrong". I believe the term is "affirmative defense". And I also believe they're trying this to avoid having to say, under oath, they're declassified. Too bad they all have "classified" stamped all over them.

[gondrin]

Trump still hasn't cited privilege on the stand. As such, nothing you've cited (correctly or not, mostly not) is still irrelevant.

Especially considering Team Trump is now demanding evidence from the DOJ that the items are still classified.



Fortunately, that's not how it works. And it seems like the "special master" isn't buying it, from the quotes several of us have posted. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the defense can't just say "I make this unfounded claim, and now the prosecution has to prove it's wrong". I believe the term is "affirmative defense". And I also believe they're trying this to avoid having to say, under oath, they're declassified. Too bad they all have "classified" stamped all over them.

To add to this, according to Trump's lawyers, he had handwritten notes on the documents itself and therefore, executive privilege. Yes, that is their words.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ab49aa4ca2f67e

Trump lawyers say his handwritten notes on top secret documents mean they fall under executive privilege

Former President Donald Trump's attorneys are asserting the top-secret government documents seized by FBI agents last month are subject to executive privilege because the former president scribbled handwritten notes on them.

Via Politico's Kyle Cheney, Trump's attorneys made this argument in a footnote in their latest court filing in which they argue the handwritten notes mean that the documents "could certainly contain privileged information," thus "further supporting the need for an independent, third-party review of these documents."

Cheney also notes that Trump's lawyers' major argument is that the burden is on the Department of Justice to prove that the documents in question are still classified, even as they acknowledge that the documents were marked as classified at the time of their seizure at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.

"The government again presupposes that the documents it claims are classified are, in fact, classified and their segregation is inviolable," they argue. "However, the government has not yet proven this critical fact."

Trump's legal team has so far avoided explicitly saying that the former president declassified the documents he brought with him to Mar-a-Lago, and is now arguing that it is the DOJ's job to prove that he didn't do so.