The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Trump Mar-a-Lago Lawsuit
And why it will fail.
Former President Trump has now appealed the recent ruling by the 11th Circuit in the Mar-a-Lago Seizure Case to the Supreme Court. [His "Application to Vacate" the 11th Circuit ruling is here.] The application now goes to Justice Thomas - the designated Circuit Justice for the 11th Circuit - who will almost certainly refer it to the full Court for disposition.
The emergency appeal is based on some VERY gnarly and complicated jurisdictional and procedural rules, about which I am no expert. But it doesn't look to me like the ex-president's case is a terribly strong one.
Here are the basics. Judge Cannon, you will recall, issued an "Order" this past August, "authorizing the appointment of a special master" to review the seized documents, and "temporarily enjoining the Government from reviewing and using the seized materials for investigative purposes pending completion of the special master review."
The DOJ appealed to the 11th Circuit, arguing, among other things, that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over any seized documents "bearing classification markings" - i.e., labeled "Classified," "Top Secret," or the like - because those documents belong to the Government, and that the portion of the District Court's Order restricting the Government's access to and use of those documents was therefore invalid. The 11th Circuit agreed, and vacated the District Court's Order "to the extent it enjoins the government's use of the classified documents and requires the government to submit the classified documents to the special master for review."
Trump's argument to the Supreme Court is that the 11th Circuit "lacked jurisdiction to review, much less stay, an interlocutory order of the District Court providing for the Special Master to review materials seized from President Trump's home."
Here's why that argument will fail. It is true that a district court's appointment of a special master is an "interlocutory order" that is unappealable while the case is ongoing. But Judge Cannon's Order did more than just authorize the appointment of a special master; it also explicitly enjoined the Government from taking certain actions. And 28 U.S.C.§ 1292(a)(1) specifically gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction over interlocutory orders granting injunctions. As the 11th Circuit put it:
Plaintiff argues that we "lack[] jurisdiction to review the special master's authority." But our order does not address the special master's authority; it addresses the district court's orders as they require the United States to act and
to refrain from acting.
The DOJ appeal wasn't challenging the appointment of the special master, nor was it challenging any of the district court's orders directed to the special master concerning the scope and conduct of his review; rather, it was challenging those parts of Judge Cannon's Order that were directed specifically to them - the government - orders which just happen to be included in the same document in which she appointed the special master. And it assuredly had jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory challenge to those.
This Court has - so far - been very good about dealing even-handedly with Trump's legal arguments when they have had occasion to review them, and rebuffing them when the law was not on his side, and I'm pretty certain it will do so again here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trump's forte is all about creating mass media confusion and drama, then whipping up the MAGA frenzy so that no Republican solon does anything other than support him (no matter what they say on cable news.) The facts don't matter, the law doesn't matter, contradictions don't matter. The good guy vs. the bad is ALL that matters in his world.
Unfortunately for him not all courts can be counted upon to act the way media does. The excuses he spits out daily would be embarrassing for an 8 year old to spout out and no judge that is not "his" will buy into it. Dearie called his bluff with no hesitation and Cannon, acting as Trump's lead counsel, had to try to rescue him.
Dearie and the 11th simply worked the obvious law and facts. The documents are not his. The documents he claims were planted by the FBI are not his. He did not "declassify" the documents and even if he possibly could have done so they are still not his. Executive privilege is also not "his." No doubt he feels he is being persecuted but the fact he hasn't been indicted, arrested, and perp-walked is the indicator of just how gently he is being handled.
+1
But of course opposition to Trump is about creating mass media confusion and whipping up anti-MAGA frenzy too.
Beyond BuzzFeed: The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story
Switching from Trump, a single identifiable guy filing nonsense lawsuits and playing footsie with QAnon
to 'opposition to Trump' which is a nebulous term for a whole lot of people on both aisles?
That's a new goalpost you just made for yourself to meet that isn't actually the same as what OM was describing.
Every point everyone makes that you disagree with is all right-wing conspiracy mongers and QAnon. What he said is patently obvious, as was the initial post on this thread. Why can’t you accept an obvious point every once in a while?
Probably for similar reasons as to why you substitute what you want someone to have written with what that person actually wrote.
'Every point everyone makes that you disagree with is all right-wing conspiracy mongers and QAnon.'
There's a lot of them about.
bevis, this wasn't me talking about Kaz.
Trump is citing QAnon now. Them's the facts.
That doesn’t at all address what I said.
Speaking of which, did you ever identify the evil genius is that’s planting manufactured noise in sonograms so as to control women like Abrams claimed in her statement that you defended?
There was a great comment about the processing required to get that sound out.
But nice job strawmanning some very clear comments I made!
Greenwald took his head out of Putin's ass long enough to write all that?
I remain unclear. Is there any possibility that the Supreme Court could do anything which would result in putting the documents marked classified into the hands of the Special Master? Is that even included in what Trump has asked? If that did happen, would this Special Master resign? He has indicated a disinclination to review those documents.
As I understand things, if the Court were to rule on Trump's application and reverse the Court of Appeals' decision, that would reinstate Judge Cannon's original order enjoining the Government from using these documents while they're under review by the special master. I suppose, though, that Judge Dearie could then say "I'm finished reviewing these documents" and DOJ could ask Judge Cannon to dissolve her injunction as to them. ??
I don’t believe that’s correct – there’s no request to reinstate the injunction against use.
Per the appeal, top of p.3: “This application seeks to vacate only that portion of the Eleventh Circuit’s Stay Order limiting the scope of the Special Master’s review of the documents bearing classification markings.” (emphasis added)
and the conclusion, p. 37: “Accordingly, President Trump respectfully requests the Court vacate the Eleventh Circuit’s September 21, 2022, Stay Order as to the authority of the Special Master to review documents bearing classification markings.” (emphasis added)
Why not? You are assuming that documents marked classified still are. Maybe not. Trump had plenary declassification authority while he was in office. That’s one of things that Judge Dearie is supposed to determine.
Trump has not alleged in court that he declassified the documents, so Judge Dearie has no reason to try to decide whether the documents are declassified. And I think he already indicated that classification markings are prima facie evidence that they are classified and it is up to Trump, the plaintiff, to rebut that prima facie case.
The fact that Trump filed a motion with Cannon to avoid having to say whether the documents were allegedly declassified should be a tipoff to you that his attorneys don't want to make that baseless allegation. If they had any proof on that, they would almost certainly have raised the issue. They don't appear to be as comfortable as you and Trump with the idea that he was able to just think them declassified.
"classification markings are prima facie evidence that they are classified"
Putting a classification banner on a napkin does not make it classified. It just makes it a napkin with words on it. So too with documents. The words have no per se meaning beyond the words themselves.
Check your pockets everyone, there's a Kleppe maniac around...
In 2012, in a former President Clinton matter, Judge Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that control over presidential records rests squarely in the hands of a former president:
“The National Archives does not have the authority to designate materials as ‘presidential records.’ It lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.”.....
“(Seizing the records) is an ‘extraordinary request’ that is ‘unfounded, contrary to the Presidential Records Act’s express terms, and contrary to the traditional principles of administrative law’.”
On that basis, ex-president Bill Clinton was allowed to maintain custody of whatever he wanted, including allegedly classified audio tapes that he stored in his home.
It will be interesting to watch how the DOJ flips their position simply because the matter involves Trump rather than a Clinton.
How do I say, "I have no knowledge of the underlying legal issues in this appeal," without saying, "I have no knowledge of the underlying legal issues in this appeal."
I wasn't speaking to the Appeal on this particular issue, I was speaking of the case overall. If the National Archives does not have the authority to designate materials as "presidential records" and seizing the records is "contrary to the Presidential Records Act" then the entire case against Trump should be dismissed.
1. What case? Be specific.
2. While you are at it, if the claim is for dismissal under the Presidential Records Act, then where should Trump have filed- hint, it would not have gotten him the judge he wanted in Fort Myers.
3. Explain, in detail like you’re discussing this with a slightly dumb golden retriever, exactly how this “case” gets “dismissed” under the “Presidential Records Act,” and how that interplays with the search warrant that was issued.
4. Finally, and for bonus credit, feel free to explain what you just posted has to do with the actual issue in the OP. You can use big legal words if you want.
She’s talking about Judicial Watch’s attempt to get the Archives to cough up recordings Clinton made as part of an oral history.
I know exactly what case she is talking about-https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin
I meant what “case” should be dismissed pursuant to that precedent. You know- the underlying criminal investigation against Trump that led to the search warrant being issued.
(By the way, you really should read the actual precedent. It has nothing to do with what people are claiming. But that requires ... READING. And no, it wasn't about getting the archives to cough up those recordings.)
I only got a few sentences in when I saw it wasn’t worth my time.
Is CindyF (1) a plumber, (2) an IT help desker on the graveyard shift, or (3) a top-of-the-class graduate of South Texas College of Law Houston?
You tell us? You are the one who went to school and/or worked with her.
I went to legitimate schools. If CindyF was there, she was serving breakfast at the cafeterias, making a few bucks as an experimental subject in the psychology laboratory, or maybe entertaining on fraternity row.
Leftists DESPISE the working class. They are welcomed on the Right.
That's why leftists want them to have access to health care, employment protections, minimum wage, clean air and water, educational opportunities for their kids, and so on. The right want to welcome them by making it easier for some broken fool to shoot their kids in classrooms.
Here is a direct link to the opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.144698/gov.uscourts.dcd.144698.13.0.pdf
CindyF would do well to read the opinion in full.
That case does not stand for what you think it stands for. Try reading the entire decision.
That Clinton-era district court decision, whereby a lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing (not on the merits), seems to be a right wing talking point.
Objection! "Try reading the entire decision" implies she read part of the decision. She didn't read any of it.
Look, CindyF knows nothing about law, but she read something in The Federalist or something like that and thinks she does!
No, that is not what Judge Jackson ruled in 2012. In fact, she didn't rule anything even remotely like that. Nor is it clear why you're talking about a case ruling on the authority of the National Archives (which was indeed what the 2012 case was about) when this 2022 case isn't about the authority of the National Archives.
It’s quite unclear to me what TFG’s objective is with this appeal. Since he’s not requesting that the injunction be reinstated, it does not serve any recognizable “delay, delay, delay” function he’s so famous for.
What does putting the 100 classified docs back in front of Judge Dearie actually do? Dearie can see them, and *maybe* TFG’s lawyers with classified access can see them, and even-more-remotely TFG could see them again (since, as I understand it, he has not received courtesy access to classified materials from President Biden). And … so?
My best theory is that TFG ordered his lawyers to “do something!”, and this is the best appeal that a Christopher Kise (a talented attorney!) could come up with. It could be to salve the client’s ego, it could be to keep it in the news (but this is pretty wonkish for most audiences other than lawyers), or a combination of the two.
If he wins, that's great, because winning is never bad. And if he loses, that just plays into his audience's victim cult. They'll get months' worth of complaining about Washington elites out of it.
There's that, and two additional factors.
1. By appealing, Trump makes it seem like there is something to appeal. Where the is smoke .... and all that. More fundraising from the rubes, more staying in the news, and so on. You get threads with people continuing the same old things, "But Clinton," or, "But telepathic declassification," or, "They are just persecuting him!"
2. Trump has always followed the playbook of his mentor, Roy Cohn. Fight. Fight. Fight. Fight. No matter how wrong you are, just keep fighting. The only thing he added to it is that Trump stiffs his attorneys- of course, he famously stiffs everyone, so that's not surprising.
And I'm still amazed that he still has lawyers at this point.
One he found by watching television.
The other he may have found by visiting USAttorneys.com.
Show of hands — how many lawyers trawl for clients at USAttorneys.com?
(Don't laugh -- the "placement service" at South Texas College of Law Houston is a stack of flyers for USAttorneys.com!)
One would think that anyone smart enough to get through law school would be smart enough not to take a Trump case without getting paid up front -- I'd ask for a half million dollar retainer myself -- which of course would be a deal breaker for Trump.
Kise -- who appears to have landed at a clinger firm -- is reported to have banked $3 million as a condition to engagement.
Others may be doing it for the publicity, for the chance to work on something "important" for once, or because they are true-believing fools.
Reputable firms seem unwilling to participate.
Christopher Kise (TFG's counsel of record on this application) reportedly asked for and got a $3M retainer.
One would think that anyone smart enough to get through law school...
That's pretty funny coming from someone who claims to have made it through law school but still thinks that a fetus would be liable for criminal trespass if granted legal personhood.
...would be smart enough not to take a Trump case without getting paid up front — I’d ask for a half million dollar retainer myself — which of course would be a deal breaker for Trump.
Of course...you have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-paid-high-3-million-retainer-attorney-rejected-others-nyt-2022-9
Is that steep? That seems steep. Wonder why.
Your question is, of course, utterly irrelevant to the point at hand.
If I was going to do legal work for a guy notorious for stiffing lawyers, not to mention miring them in their own legal problems, I'd insist on a steep retainer, too.
I never said a fetus "would be liable" for criminal trespass; I said that technically it could theoretically be a civil trespass. As usual you're not even able to read basic English; civil is not criminal and the existence of a trespass may or may not create liability. And the fact that you're still bringing it up all these months later says far more about you than it does about me. But that's fine; just keep broadcasting to the world that you're an idiot.
I was not aware until the above links that Trump actually had paid a retainer; I guess you can only stiff so many attorneys before they stop working for free.
I never said a fetus “would be liable” for criminal trespass; I said that technically it could theoretically be a civil trespass.
Even if that were true (it's not, and you're a liar), phrasing it that way would only be slightly less moronic. Either way, it still makes you a moron.
I’m not inclined to take seriously claims I’m a liar from someone who has issues with basic reading comprehension. Get back to me if and when there’s a reason I should care about your opinion.
I’m not inclined to take seriously claims I’m a liar
I couldn't care less what you take seriously. Your record of lying (incompetently, I might add) speaks for it self.
I have no idea what you said months ago, but what you're saying here is too stupid even to qualify as drivel.
What, specifically, is too stupid to qualify as drivel? Give specifics.
With hope and hard work you might get admitted there someday. Or anywhere for that matter.
"Krychek_2 1 day ago
Flag Comment Mute User
And I’m still amazed that he still has lawyers at this point."
It explains the low quality of his legal representation.
As to theast point, immortals with power fight that way, as government is regularly used by other immortals against their enemies.
What to us seems like constant bickering is just the way those in power do business: pulling out all the stops to hurt each other and win.
Why is this surprising? It's how the entire world, and all of human history, works. They just have to hide it a little better because of journalism, and that this process is made into machinery using cover memes aka narratives.
Smoke and mirrors on the other side:
- the records scooped up in the MAL are either Presidential Records under the PRA, or personal records - except maybe for still classified documents. The President gets to decide, which is which,not the Archives.
- it’s probably unlikely that any of the documents marked classified are still classified - he had plenary declassification authority at the time he was selecting what to remove to MAL.
The smoke and mirrors was in the attempted bootstrapping of a meritless civil PRA dispute into a classified document case, when neither would stand on its own.
it’s probably unlikely that any of the documents marked classified are still classified – he had plenary declassification authority at the time he was selecting what to remove to MAL
It's incredibly likely that the documents marked classified are still classified.
1. "he had plenary declassification authority" but that doesn't entail thinking them declassified. It still requires official action that is documented.
2. TFG has meticulously avoided making any representation in court that the documents were ever declassified.
There is a higher than 99% probability that at least some of the documents marked classified and seized from Mar-a-Lago are still classified. Your premises are flawed and your conclusion couldn't be more wrong.
No, the president doesn't get to decide. Who told you that? Congress decided. They wrote a statute and everything, defining what's presidential and what isn't. It's true that the Archives don't get to decide, but it's not clear why you think that's relevant, since the Archives aren't a party to anything going on in the Florida courts right now.
It is 1,000% certain that all of the documents marked classified are still classified, since
(1) there is zero contemporaneous evidence that they were declassified; and
(2) otherwise Trump would have submitted an affidavit to Cannon saying, "I declassified these documents." But his lawyers have been very very very careful in their submissions to only talk about the possibility that he declassified them, without ever asserting that he did.
But who cares? Declassifying them wouldn't make his theft of them any less criminal. (By definition, anything that was ever classified could never have been a personal record rather than a presidential one.)
You're forgetting about the third through fifth factors: delay, delay, delay. Time is on Trump's side; his goal with everything legal is to try to run out the clock. The 1/6 commission goes caput in January if the GOP takes the House as expected. This criminal investigation and potential prosecution does likewise if (god forbid) Trump comes back in 2025 — and very possibly if DeSantis or any other GOPer does, also.
Is this particular appeal going to accomplish that? No. But flooding the zone with bullshit can all contribute to that.
It's possible that, knowing the nature of the documents, he anticipates that if Dearie ever gets a chance to see them, he'll rule favorably. Perhaps they blatantly expose government corruption of some sort, and/or are the "Crossfire Hurricane" documents which he, on the record and while still President, did order declassified.
I wouldn't say that he'd be smart to anticipate that. But he might think it would happen anyway, given the nature of the documents.
" Perhaps they blatantly expose government corruption of some sort, "
Perhaps they include Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, Obama's aqiqah photographs, and Obama's Communist-Socialist membership card!
If they so "blatantly expose government corruption" ...
1) Whose corruption ... the government TFG was in charge of? That's a nice look.
2) Why didn't TFG publicize them when he was president, when he could have put them on the front page of the NYTimes?
3) If he knows the contents of the docs bearing classification markings, doesn't that mean he necessarily acted with knowledge and intent to hide docs from a lawful subpoena for all docs bearing classification markings?
(And no, don't even bother with the "but he could have declassified them" bleating. The subpoena said "docs bearing classification markings", which covers both actually-classified and declassified-in-TFG's-mind-but-still-marked.)
That is some mighty impressive grasping at straws.
Let me see if I've got this straight: You think that couldn't be Trump's reasoning, because you think it would be stupid, and you don't think Trump is stupid. Right? Just want to get that last part nailed down on the record...
1) Yes, corruption on the part of... the government Trump was nominally in charge of, but which often was ignoring his orders. See for instance the State Department bragging about lying to him about troop numbers in the Middle East. Nominally he was in charge of them, so how did that happen?
2) Because he's an idiot sometimes, and/or was getting bad advice?
3) Assuming the subpoena lawful, maybe.
OK, you're right, I accept that "TFG could just be that stupid" is also an option. If that's what you want to go with, I'm not going to fight too hard.
And the way to challenge a subpoena is to .. challenge it in the issuing court, not knowingly hide documents and then certify to the court that you've complied. It's contempt and/or obstruction even if you think you have a good excuse. This is law skool 101 stuff.
You're going down a rabbit hole of preposterous excuses.
I think Trump has done a lot of stupid shit. Some of it was stupid in terms of not realizing just how ugly things were in politics, and actually trusting the people nominally on his side or working for him.
Some of it was just stupid.
I think he none the less was a fairly good President, because stupid and trying to do the right thing is better than smart and trying to do the wrong thing, and we've had a long string of Presidents who were cleverly trying to do the wrong thing.
But if he decides not to run in 2024, I'll be quite happy.
You do get that it still doesn't make any sense, right? Even stupidity has its limits, as an excuse.
And if he were stupid on an absolute scale, rather than making bone headed mistakes because he was occupying his first elective office at the age of 70, you'd be right. Seriously, the Presidency probably shouldn't be an entry level position, maybe it should be constitutionally reserved for former state governors, to assure new Presidents could hit the ground running without making rookie mistakes.
But he WAS at least, IMO, trying to do the right things, rather than the wrong things.
No, he wasn’t.
Lots of people tried to say this in 2016 ...
turns out they were absosmurfly correct.
No; the most salient point about Trump — unique about all presidents in American history, or at least all the ones not named James Buchanan — is that he was anti-American. Even Nixon, as crooked as he was, cared about the country. Trump is the first one who actually wanted to harm the country to benefit himself.
OK, you’re right, I accept that “TFG could just be that stupid” is also an option. If that’s what you want to go with, I’m not going to fight too hard.
He was going with that, which was pretty damned obvious from the...
"I wouldn’t say that he’d be smart to anticipate that. But he might think it would happen anyway"
...part, which you apparently weren't smart enough to understand. A question was asked about why he's doing what he's doing. Brett offered a possible explanation, not an excuse.
The irreconcilable part is the idea of Trump exposing government corruption.
Right, and if you're absolutely wedded to the notion that a "sharp", (And I don't mean that as a complement.) businessman's corruption even registers on the same scale as that of high level politicians like Biden, you're an idiot. The dude literally has a crackhead son rolling in money coming from our strategic enemies, and public testimony he's splitting it with dad, and you think Trump is the corrupt one?
I think having a son with a drug problem doesn't make you corrupt, I think starting a university that turned out to be completely fraudulent makes you corrupt, and electing someone like that to government doesn't reduce government corruption, and he certainly isn't interested in anything other than benefitting from government corruption.
Why did you omit the foundation Trump stole from?
Probably because listing all of the corruption Trump is guilty of would take too long.
Then go ahead and list some actual corrupt things.
I just span the 'random single example of Trump fraud' generator.
Right. So howzabout that son-in-law who had an office in the White House? … and who then got $2 billion (with a “B”!) from the country that took down the twin towers?
Call me when Hunter gets an office in the White House.
I’m sad to hear anyone is a crackhead. But only one of those kiddos got access to the PDB.
Look, I don't think much of Donald Trump Jr. either, but "crackhead" seems a bit harsh.
How many times can you cite the same misleading op/ed (not news story) to pretend it says something different than it said? (Why do you think the State Department would even know, let alone be able to conceal, how many troops the Defense Department had in Syria?)
"It’s possible that, knowing the nature of the documents, he anticipates that if Dearie ever gets a chance to see them, he’ll rule favorably. Perhaps they blatantly expose government corruption of some sort, and/or are the 'Crossfire Hurricane' documents which he, on the record and while still President, did order declassified."
How would any determination by Judge Dearie in that regard be within the ambit of the district court's (since modified) order appointing the special master and defining his duties? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.91.0_3.pdf
A classified document is, by definition, a government document. So if the documents with classification markings on them were classified at any time (even if they no longer are), Trump loses.
Maybe not. But we aren’t there yet. You haven’t yet shown that there is a single classified document involved. Just documents marked classified. That’s a big difference that the DOJ is trying to obscure. Sure, there are documents marked as classified. But you cannot presume or assume when it comes to an ex-President that they are still classified. That is because he is not bound by bureaucratic red tape. Rather he has plenary declassification authority, through his power as the head of the Executive Branch, the CIC, and via Obama’s EO on classification. If he says that it is declassified, while still in office, it is declassified. Period. The bureaucrats working in the Executive Branch can’t go back and tell him that he didn’t dot his I’s and crossed his T’s correctly.
The proper question with documents marked as classified is whether the President declassified the, implicitly or explicitly, and not whether they are still classified.
Sure, let's keep the discussion to just documents "marked" as classified, per the subpoena request. I will stipulate that current classification status is irrelevant for purposes of this conversation - heck, even that the docs actually were magically declassified because TFG thought about it. Great. Let's go there.
Is TFG's personal belief that he somehow telepathetically "declassified" a document a valid legal reason to lie about not having a document that is unambiguously responsive to a subpoena for "documents marked classified"? Please discuss which is more important: his personal beliefs, or the court order. Bonus points for cleverly avoiding "rule of law" considerations that some conservatives claim to like.
Is TFG's personal belief that he somehow telepathetically "declassified" a government-owned document a valid legal reason to consider that document a "personal record" instead of the government-owned document that it was 0.1 second before he "declassified" it? Please explain how alleged declassification magically transforms government property into TFG's personal property.
This is a law blog after all; try not to embarrass yourself too much.
Is TFG’s personal belief that he somehow telepathetically “declassified” a document a valid legal reason to lie about not having a document that is unambiguously responsive to a subpoena for “documents marked classified”?
The DoJ's problem, they have no way to challenge the claim of declassification. The President by treating documents as declassified, makes them declassified.
I can read the subpoena as 'marked classified, to mean just documents that are classified. Since the President declassified everything, I can read the subpoena to mean only classified documents, which, they're are none.
Your first three words are a lie.
Grow up, Dave. His point stands. Address it.
The claim that 'marked classified' should not be read literally, but to ignore the first word? Znd that the former President can retroactively declare anything unclassified they want, but needn't provide such proof in court?
There is not much to rebut. It's all ipse dixit and quite wrong as to the law.
I addressed it: nobody who can read can see "marked classified" and think it means "classified."
You rode the short bus to school didn't you?
Ken: "If the document was ever classified, even if Trump declassified it later, Trump loses."
Bruce: "Oh yeah? What if Trump declassified it later?"
I'll spell it out slowly for you:
1) Trump didn't declassify the documents. We know this. For a fact. That Trump had the authority to declassify them (maybe — no, he doesn't have "plenary" declassification authority) is not evidence that he did declassify them.
2) It doesn't matter whether he declassified them.
2a) If he declassified them, then they were formerly classified. If they were formerly classified, then they are not personal records. If they are not personal records, then Trump stole them.
2b) If he declassified them, then they were formerly classified. If they were formerly classified, then they were subject to the subpoena, and Trump not only unlawfully defied the subpoena, but via Bobb perjured himself about their existence.
Once again: grow up. That said, no, we absolutely do NOT know Trump didn’t declassify the documents. Because the DIJ SAYS he didn’t, doesn’t mean he didn’t. So that renders the rest of your BS points moot.
So what proof, if any, would convince you Trump didn't declassify anything?
Also, did you read the part below that about how it doesn't even matter whether Trump did or not?
I don't know what DIJ is. I said that we know he didn't not because some mysterious DIJ said he didn't, but because nobody says that he actually did it, including him. Trump conspicuously failed to do so when bringing his motioncomplaintthing before Judge Cannon. And when his handpicked special master, Judge Dearie, instructed him to identify which documents he supposedly declassified, he flat out refused to do so.
All copies or just the original?
If the documents expose government corruption, why didn't he release them when he had the clear authority to do?
To my eyes, the entire goal at this stage is to try and push everything into the next Congress. If Dems hold, well, at least he bought some time. If MAGA takes over then expect them to comb over everything looking for the next Strzok and Page. After they find that then the rest will be familiar.
If the Republicans take Congress, the next day there will be phones accidentally being wiped by the score, and a huge spate of accidents involving hard drives and hammers. You know, somewhat similar to what happened as the IRS targeting scandal became public.
Or secret service phones from around Jan. 6, 2021?
Or secret service phones from around Jan. 6, 2021?
The learned from the Mueller team. They wiped a dozen phones by entering the wrong pin codes numerous times...by accident...on a dozen different phones.
While the Republicans are nipping at ankles and heels, the Department of Justice will be ignoring the Republicans' whining, whimpering, and antics.
But I do not doubt that Trump -- or the type of lawyer he is able to get to work for him these days -- might view 'running out the clock until November (or January)' as a fundamental element of their stategery.
Maybe, but that's just poor stategery (to use the most excellent Bush-ism). DOJ doesn't change hands even if Congress does, and Congress can't pardon anyone.
Maybe that's TFG's goal, but it's not a terribly relevant one. (see earlier discourse about how "TFG is just plain stupid" is one possible explanation for all of this. Also, Hanlon's Razor.)
Trump's goal is running out the clock for as long as possible before he ends up behind bars, and then to make the trial process take as long as possible before he ends up on death row, and then to string out the death row process as long as possible before he ends up in the chair.
That's what people do when they've been caught red-handed committing crimes that carry the death penalty.
Trump’s appeal fails because Cannon sua sponte removed the text from her order that referenced the classified documents.
You can’t appeal something that doesn’t exist anymore.
Thomas is the person responsible for referring this to the court or not, so it’ll probably end up being heard when it should be dismissed, and it’ll fail by a vote of 8-1 because Thomas has no ethics to speak of.
Thomas has no ethics to speak of.
But conceivably, knowing that the rest of the Court won't go along with him, he'll go along for the appearance of lack of partisanship.
That theory has already been busted. Thomas doesn't give a fuck about ethics or whether it appears that he (or his wife) have any or not.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a272_9p6b.pdf
Thomas is the Aileen Cannon of SCOTUS. Completely illegitimate and uncaring as to what the law demands.
There's a black man off the plantation, Jason. Git 'im.
You do yourself a disservice to think race has anything to do with it.
No, Thomas would be getting grief from the left even if he were an albino, but he gets an extra ration of grief from them from daring to be a black conservative.
It's a consequence of the left being so dependent on getting nearly all of the black vote: The moment a black conservative reaches a visible position, they put in an extra effort to destroy them, to discourage any other blacks from emulating them, because blacks thinking they can find a place in the Republican party is an existential threat.
Tell that to Michael Steele
I think that much of the vitriol directed to Clarence Thomas -- whose record on the Supreme Court is markedly hostile to the interests of most black people -- is traceable to the circumstances of his having been nominated to succeed Thurgood Marshall.
Prior to his appointment to the bench, Mr. Thomas made his bones as a Republican toady in large part by criticizing affirmative action. His credentials prior to appointment to the D.C. Circuit were remarkably thin -- a few years as an assistant attorney general in Missouri and a couple of executive branch appointments during the Reagan Administration. His tenure on the Court of Appeals was brief and unimpressive.
When William Brennan retired, Mr. Thomas was not considered to fill the resulting SCOTUS vacancy. When Thurgood Marshall retired, however, the first President Bush suddenly needed a House Negro. As a result, Clarence Thomas became the most prominent beneficiary of affirmative action then or since.
If Mr. Thomas had a sincere bone in his body, he would have declined the appointment.
" whose record on the Supreme Court is markedly hostile to the interests of most black people "
As viewed by Democrats, as is to be expected of any conservative, since conservatives and 'liberals' disagree about what is in the interests of black people, white people, people in general.
Think about Thomas' concurrence in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) -- the twenty-first century's Korematsu. If in the next life Clarence Thomas meets James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner (however unlikely that may be), I hope they give him the old fashioned, low tech lynching he richly deserves.
“The 21st Centuries Korumatsu.”
You don’t like Republican forms of govt much do you? Also, take your meds, your crack-pottery is showing.
Alito is even more of a partisan hack than Thomas, so a 7-2 ruling is at least as likely as an 8-1 ruling.
Agreed that even the Trump appointees aren't likely to grant this, though.
Thomas is at least arguably just an unapologetic extremist. Motivated by politics for sure, but at least pretending to connect back to a version of law.
Alito is unambiguously nothing more than a partisan hack. He doesn't even try to have consistent legal theories.
Well, Alito is consistent in holding that the police are always right.
Thomas should deny the application because it is not important enough to waste the court's time on.
He still has to live with his wife, though. So his calculus here is probably more complicated than just what the law says.
If I were Thomas, the opportunity to no longer have to live with my wife would certainly enter into my calculus, just not the way you've analyzed it.
Some people don't approach marriage as flippantly or casually as most leftists do (a la Bill Clinton) these days.....
The irony of someone needing to reach for an example for the sanctity of marriage ... in a case the involves Trump ... should not be lost on anyone.
Irony is truly dead.
He at least tends to divorce his wife before bomping others....
You're delusional if you believe that.
indeed, I believe the NYPost archives probably can refute that.
But any publicity was good publicity for the Donald at the time. You know, back when his opportunistic grifting persona was that of a free-wheeling, Playboy-cover modeling, Studio 54 pussy grabbing, abortion supporting, Democratic party donating, New Yorker.
But sure, now he's really, really the opposite of all that. Because he's a True Christian(TM) Savior of America(TM) kind of guy who really Cares About Your Values(TM).
Because that's why you pay off pr0n stars to get all intimate with you while married to wife #3.
Seriously JimmyTD. You can lie to us all you like, but don't lie to yourself. That's mentally unhealthy.
Jimmy the Dane : "He at least tends to divorce his wife...."
To give Trump credit (family-values-wise) he's awfully, awfully, awfully fond of daughter Ivanka, praising her as a "piece of ass" like any proud papa would. It's a transcendent love, the Donald telling Rolling Stone magazine: "If I weren’t happily married and, you know, her father......."
Yeah, to the zealous. EVERYTHING must be politicized. Even Thomas’ marriage.
A guest-blogging appearance from the proprietors of The 65 Project would be great!
Russia is probably going tell the Supreme Court to take action on this. I mean according to the media Russia is so powerful that they are Trump's puppet master and can even rig elections (except 2022, that election was un-rig-able).
Of course, their army can't seem to route a small, less sophisticated opposition and Putin is cast as a raving mad man by the same people. He is an idiot except somehow managed to convince OPEC to cut production.
Are we at war with Eurasia or Eastasia again?
This reveals a lot about the Republican psyche. They apparently think that "foreign powers influencing people in the US to vote a certain way" is apparently the same as "rigging an election (i.e., manipulating the actual vote count)". Viewed through this lens, where convincing voters to vote some way or the other is basically synonymous with rigging the election, basically any election you lose is rigged because.
Or put another way: the claims about what Russia did in 2016 have nothing to do with the Republican claims about the rigged election in 2020. People aren't saying Russian trolls hacked into vote-counting machines and changed the outcome, they're saying that they did things like hack into the DNC and release their e-mails in order to influence voting behavior by citizens. That's still illegal and problematic but not the same thing at all. Apparently that's hard to understand, though.
the claims about what Russia did in 2016 have nothing to do with the Republican claims about the rigged election in 2020. People aren’t saying Russian trolls hacked into vote-counting machines and changed the outcome, they’re saying that they did things like hack into the DNC and release their e-mails in order to influence voting behavior by citizens. That’s still illegal and problematic but not the same thing at all. Apparently that’s hard to understand, though.
Oh, bullshit. The claims were that "Russia hacked our election" to the extent that Trump was "not a legitimate president", and the "election was stolen".
Please show any major Democratic politician (e.g., the winner of a primary for a statewide office or Congress) arguing that Russia actually manipulated the election results, not that they influenced people's voting behavior.
Russia literally did engage in "hacking" related to the election, but it was (as I mentioned above) hacking into e-mails and such, not into voting machines:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election
I guess these newfangled computer words must be confusing so when you hear them you think there must only be one computer in the world that anyone could hack into, but the claims and proposed methods of interference are fundamentally different.
Please show any major Democratic politician (e.g., the winner of a primary for a statewide office or Congress) arguing that Russia actually manipulated the election results, not that they influenced people’s voting behavior.
Your head must be jammed so far up your own ass that you can see out through your naval.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoMfIkz7v6s
Russia literally did engage in “hacking” related to the election, but it was (as I mentioned above) hacking into e-mails and such, not into voting machines:
You seem to be the one confused by newfangled computer words (I’ve been a software engineer for 34+ years, so nice try). “Hacked the election” was the term used, not “hacked an email server in an effort that was related to the election”.
As I said, your claim is pure, unadulterated, weapons-grade bullshit.
How dumb are you? I'm continuously amazed.
jb says Russia engaged in "hacking related to the election" and your comeback is that someone said "hacking the election"? How is that a rebuttal! Sounds like you actually agree.
Do you actually think anyone in those clips is suggesting that Russia hacked vote totals? I'm actually curious. It's obvious that they're not, but you really seem to think they are. How does that work?
"How dumb are you? I’m continuously amazed."
You must be new here. Anyone who has read Wuz's comments for any length of time stopped being amazed at how dumb he is long ago. He would be far better off exercising his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent than his First Amendment right to speak.
How dumb are you? I’m continuously amazed.
I'm sure you're fascinated by small, sparkly objects as well. Unlike you, can actually read.
jb says Russia engaged in “hacking related to the election” and your comeback is that someone said “hacking the election”? How is that a rebuttal! Sounds like you actually agree.
Well, given that's not what I responded to...no, I'm not agreeing. Try again, and pay attention to the "People aren't saying" part.
Do you actually think anyone in those clips is suggesting that Russia hacked vote totals?
They're purposely using a simple-minded term ("hacked the election") to suggest to a public that mostly does not know any better that Russia did indeed carry out some sort of technological interference that changed the outcome of the election....nay, that they "Stole the election!" for Trump. Watch the video...they're saying exactly that over and over. Clinton herself repeatedly claimed that it was "stolen" and that Trump was an "illegitimate president", was "pretending to be president", that Trump didn't beat her, etc. What exactly do you think that means?
What are you even talking about? Your brainfissures are incomprehensible to me.
jb said
Russia literally did engage in “hacking” related to the election
then after commenting on his ass, you replied with
“Hacked the election” was the term used
I don't even see where anyone said "people aren't saying" something. Are you literally in the process of making a crack baby as you type?
Your brainfissures are incomprehensible to me.
As is basic English, apparently.
I don’t even see where anyone said “people aren’t saying” something
Those exact words are in his original post, which you would know if you were even semi-literate.
I see where you got confused. You forgot about the post where jb said "hacking related to the election," even though you replied to it. That's ok, your mind is clearly on the fritz, which can cause short-term memory problems.
Hm, as I figured, aside from being dumb you're gullible, which makes sense since you are in a cult after all.
I tracked down when Hillary said "pretending to be president." Of course, it has nothing to do with the election or legitimacy. Her and Trevor Noah were making fun of Trump on the Daily Show, laughing about how he's a reailty TV host trying to handle a global pandemic that he can't deal with by doing the only thing he knows how, which is "pretending to be president." It's pretty funny actually, and true. And totally unrelated to whatever point you're trying to make.
Which is what exactly, anyway? You're trying to convince yourself that Trump is... no better than Hillary? Hopefully one day you figure out that the joke is on you. Not holding my breath though.
https://youtu.be/jwhCtkssg00
Okay, great. Since that video likes to edit down to a few words without context, why don't we take a look at, e.g., the Washington Post "The 2016 election was stolen. Got a nicer way to say that?" article that they showed the headline of (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2016/12/16/the-2016-election-was-stolen-got-a-nicer-way-to-say-that/)
It's cool that you want to interpret that "hacked the election" to mean something about voting machines or actual election mechanics, but that's very clearly not the argument that people were making. (Having said that, it does seem like Hilary made some claims along these lines. What I didn't see, including in your video, is anyone else from the party repeating it.)
Hillary never made any claims along those lines. The couple of words taken out of context were about the popular vote, which she did win, and which Trump kept trying to claim was due to fraud.
So you're saying that Clinton is so stupid and/or delusional she thinks that winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote (you know, the one that actually matters) means that one has had the election "stolen" and that the winner of the EC is then an "illegitimate president"?
Nope.
Then you have no coherent point at all...as usual.
I know your mind needs assistance so I'll give you a helping hand. The point is, you can't string together a bunch of two-word clips and then claim that Hillary said "l won" "the election" "and Trump is" "pretending to be president."
Russia literally did engage in “hacking” related to the election, but it was (as I mentioned above) hacking into e-mails and such,
According to CrowdStrike, there is zero evidence the DNC emails were "hacked".
That is not remotely what Crowdstrike said, liar.
We know Russia did NOT break into the DNC server though and that at most maybe some of the internet trolls had Russian IPs but most of what was called that form of internet traffic was actually real users that just weren't following the narrative.
"How can all these people dislike Hilary that much!!!!!!????" (Answer - they did).
"We know Russia did NOT break into the DNC server though"
LOL. It's hilarious when you guys go from pretty reasonable criticisms of the Russia investigation (e.g., poorly supported FISA warrants) to this sort of weird Obama birth certificate denialism of the well-vetted consensus of the cybersecurity community as well as the national security apparatus.
It is weird how leftists a bunch of leftists think it is "proof" when they all engage in groupthink based upon their political bias then call it "consensus" therefore "proving" the underlying assumption. No actual proof exists. If anything, it looks like it was an inside job not some invasion over a network connection from the outside.
How many lies involving Russia and Trump were circulated in the last 5-7 years? Seriously, can you count? I can't there have been so many.
Huh? You're accusing the left of groupthink?
There was a whole investigation with documented evidence and conclusions. That's called "rational analysis" not groupthink.
Groupthink is when you and your cult get online and circle jerk each other's biases by making up crazy reasons why you're right in spite of evidence and reason.
Well do you have any evidence that Russia hacked into the DNC server?
Any FBI, NSA, CIA forensics report?
Because the DNC's vender never let the authorities examine the server to officially determine who did the hacking.
Now I do think it's probable it was the Russians, or at least plausible, but makes me wonder just what illegal activity the DNC was concerned about being exposed that they couldn't take the risk.
'Because the DNC’s vender never let the authorities examine the server'
Zombie talking points shambling back for Haloween!
Yeah, I mean, kazinski is either too dumb to understand the words he's using, or he's deliberately lying. Nobody examines "the server." They examine an image of the server, which is what the DNC's vendor supplied to the FBI.
Yeah, I mean, kazinski is either too dumb to understand the words he’s using, or he’s deliberately lying. Nobody examines “the server.” They examine an image of the server, which is what the DNC’s vendor supplied to the FBI.
Tell that to Hillary Clinton. You have no idea what you’re talking about. The FBI (and other LE agencies with the expertise to do so) most certainly does obtain physical access to computer systems (sometimes via seizure, sometime via other methods) for the purpose of performing forensic examinations. An image of the server’s drive(s), which can be manipulated after it is taken (I’m not saying that happened, I’m just pointing out that it’s something that is easily doable) that is supplied by the owner/administrator/whomever of the server to the FBI is hardly the same as a direct examination of the server itself, which is routinely done.
Just gonna leave this here so you can maybe stop repeating such dumb talking points in the future:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/zmkxp9/dnc-server-conspiracy-theory-russian-hack-explained
(tl;dr: there's no one "sever", and that's not what you'd look at to understand who was responsible for the hacking anyway)
The Eleventh Circuit order provides that the district court order is stayed to the extent it enjoins the government’s use of the classified documents and requires the government to submit the classified documents to the special master for review. Trump is asking for relief from SCOTUS only as to the portion I have italicized.
An interlocutory order granting or denying an injunction is reviewable on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). An injunction is a means by which a court tells someone what to do or not to do. It directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of the court's full coercive powers. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009).
The district court, by order entered September 22, excepted the approximately 100 documents bearing classification markings from the meaning of the term “seized material” as used in the order appointing the special master and setting forth the materials to be reviewed by him. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.91.0_3.pdf
How is the relief requested by the Trump team not been rendered moot by the September 22 order of the district court?
I'm not sure I'm following your procedural argument here.
1) Judge Cannon orders, inter alia i. injunction against use and ii. submission of docs marked classified to Special Master;
2) By order dated Sep. 21, 2002, the 11th Cir. reverses as to both i. and ii.;
3) By order dated Sep. 22, 2022, Judge Cannon complies with Sep. 21 order; and
4) TFG appeals portion ii. of 11th Cir's. Sep. 21 order.
There's a live 11th Cir. order that has impacted TFG's legal position in the case (totally setting aside quanit aspects like "right v. wrong"). Where does "mootness" come in to play?
Is this a form over substance argument? Is there a different formulation whereby Judge Cannon could have complied with ii. while keeping it appealable for TFG?
Cannon removed the text from her order regarding the classified documents sua sponte. The 11th Circuit ruling was negated by the removal of the text from the original order, so the issue is mooted.
How do you get that Judge Cannon's Sep. 22 order is sua sponte? It states:
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court following the Eleventh Circuit’s Order granting the Government’s Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal. See Trump v. United States, No. 22-13005 (11th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022). The Eleventh Circuit’s Order stays the Court’s Order [ECF No. 64] to the extent it enjoins the Government’s use of the approximately one-hundred documents bearing classification markings and requires the Government to submit those documents to the Special Master for review. In accordance with the Eleventh Circuit’s Order, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: ..."
That's not sua sponte, that's complying with an order from a higher court. It seems pretty clear she did not make that modification on her own.
Unclear on what sua sponte means? Judge Loose Cannon's September 22 order was not sought by any party to the litigation, but was entered by the district court on her own initiative.
I’m quite certain about what “sua sponte” means. Here’s one def:
(emphasis added)
It’s the exact frackin’ opposite of “In accordance with the Eleventh Circuit’s Order” as quoted and bolded in the actual text of Cannon’s Sep. 22 order reproduced above.
Are you seriously suggesting that an action a District Court takes in direct response to an order from a higher Court of Appeals, upon motion by one of the parties to the case (here, DOJ), is somehow “sua sponte“? And thereby renders further appeals on the exact content of that very same Court of Appeals order“moot”?
That’s … nonsensical.
She was not required to strike the text from the order, was she? The 11th's ruling stood on its own whether she amended the order or not.
So you’re correct that the 11th Cir does not specifically remand with instructions to enter that order. If that’s the sole basis for calling it sua sponte and moot, I at least count myself answered.
I still think that her specific statement of “In accordance with the Eleventh Circuit’s Order” is the key part here. Call it a clarifying order; acknowledgment of the appeals court order in fast-moving litigation; whatever. She didn’t have to, but the reason the Sep. 22 order was issued is clear on the face of the document. It’s not out of the blue because the D.Ct. spontaneously reconsidered.
So absent controlling 11th Cir or S.Ct. precedent that a D.Ct. order directly acknowledging the order of the higher court reversing the D.Ct. somehow magically transforms an otherwise appealable order into an unappealable “sua sponte” order, I feel extremely comfy that the case would not be moot as far as the S.Ct. is concerned. The S.Ct. could simply overrule the 11th with instructions to Cannon on remand. They won’t, but they could.
"So absent controlling 11th Cir or S.Ct. precedent that a D.Ct. order directly acknowledging the order of the higher court reversing the D.Ct. somehow magically transforms an otherwise appealable order into an unappealable 'sua sponte' order"
Whence do you surmise that that would be "an otherwise appealable order"? An order appointing and defining the duties of a special master is not (ordinarily) subject to interlocutory appeal.
Look, I think our fundamental disconnect is that IMHO “In accordance with the Eleventh Circuit’s Order” actually means something. That it means what it says. That Sep 22 follows Sep 21. That it's responsive to a higher appeals court, even if poorly worded exactly like I'd expect from a partisan hack like Judge Cannon. That an assertion of "sua sponte" is distinguishable from "mootness" in this context.
Have we not made our respective positions clear?
If you're right, I look forward to the DOJ making the argument to the S.Ct. that it's moot. And the S.Ct. refusing to hear the appeal on those grounds.
I doubt it.
It does mean something: that Cannon doesn't know what she's doing.
There is no such Eleventh Circuit order as she (and you) appear to think. Go ahead and read it. Here's what the 11th Circuit said:
That is not an order to her to do anything.
And to be clear, I think the 11th Cir. absosmurfly got the Sep. 21 opinion and order correct, and that TFG's appeal to the S.Ct. is foolish and doomed.
But I'm just not seeing how the D.Ct.'s [grudging] compliance with an order from a higher court instantly renders the further appeal "moot".
Where does mootness come into play? Let me elaborate.
Suppose SCOTUS, as Trump has requested, vacates the Eleventh Circuit’s September 21 Stay Order as to the authority of the special master to review documents bearing classification markings. That would not vacate the district court's September 22 order removing the 100 or so documents at issue from the ambit of "seized material" reviewable by the special master.
I surmise that Judge Loose Cannon could further modify her September 15 order appointing and defining the duties of the special master, but that hasn't happened yet. The current state of the record is that the documents bearing classified markings are not reviewable by Judge Dearie.
Um, the S.Ct. could trivially remand to the D.Ct. with instructions to reinstate the parameters of the Sep. 15th order.
Mootness refers to a case for which no relief can be granted. Actionable relief is trivial in this matter by the S.Ct. overruling the 11th Cir’s Sep 21 order, and remanding to Cannon with instructions.
The appeal is not moot, however much you bandy about your increasingly obvious misunderstandings of what “sua sponte” and “mootness” actually mean.
To repeat, Judge Cannon issued the Sep. 22 order in response to the Sep. 21 order from the 11th Cir. Her order clearly and unambiguously says so. That’s not sua sponte. The appeal was on motion of a party (DOJ); the 11th Cir’s order to Cannon and Cannon's action on that order are the opposite of sua sponte. This is law skool 101 type stuff.
Just because I agree with the 11th Cir., and think that the S.Ct. will not take the case (yet) doesn’t mean I agree with your completely inaccurate procedural argument.
It literally can't.
The only thing SCOTUS can do is vacate the 11th Circuit's stay. But doing so would not grant Trump any relief, because the order that the 11th Circuit stayed no longer exists.
She purported to do so. She did not, because there was no such order from the 11th circuit. Her order was indeed sua sponte, because it was relief that no party had asked her for and that the 11th circuit did not order.
Your #2 is wrong, and therefore your #3 is.
The 11th Circuit did not reverse anything. It granted a stay of Cannon's injunction/order, with respect to the classified documents.
Thus, when Cannon amended her injunction/order on September 22, she was not "complying with" anything. She (either not knowing what she was doing, or in an effort to evade further appellate review), was amending her order to remove its application to classified documents. Since there no longer is an injunction/order with respect to classified documents, the stay is moot, and the appeal of the stay is moot.
I am not clear on how the limited relief requested of SCOTUS by Trump, if ordered, will inure to Trump's benefit. The review of documents by the special master would continue unabated, as would the Department of Justice investigation of criminal conduct by Trump and his minions.
I made the same point above, as did Stephen Lathrop.
But one general possibility has since occurred to me: TFG doesn’t actually know what the ~100 classified docs seized by the FBI even are, because he’s lazy, incurious, and cut corners and didn’t perform a diligent review like he claimed in the subpoena response.
So he has no memory, or insufficient memory, of what docs he might want to later claim he “secretly mentally declassified” as his excuse for not being in possession of documents marked classified. Not necessarily convincing, but enough to create doubt for a jury.
And so he needs them to be in the review database so that he can say things like “oh, that document about the nuclear secrets of an ally? Yeah, I remember that, it was about [ UK | France | Israel ], of course I declassified it”. Even the titles of the document would suffice; he doesn’t have to see the classified content.
It’s probably still a stretch, and doesn’t absolve him of falsely certifying a complete response to the subpoena as to “documents bearing classification markings”. But then he could try to spin a secondary “well, since I thought they were declassified, I misunderstood the subpoena” excuse.
Technically, he can't know what 100 documents the FIB has, because the FIB is perfectly capable of having inserted new documents into the boxes they took.
And Trump has claimed the FBI planted stuff but has so far avoided saying exactly what they planted in any legal filing.
IIRC Cannon ruled that Trump cannot even be required by the SM to state which documents he claims were planted.
I'm curious how he's supposed to know what they might have planted, without having a detailed inventory of what they claim to have.
I’m curious why you think it matters.
He was asked to make a legal claim that the detailed inventory list was accurate or not. HE REFUSED.
He did not attempt to specify that this document or that was planted. He did not attempt to claim any particular box, item, letter, or gift was planted.
He refused to say that the list was inaccurate AT ALL.
Trump is full of shit, and somehow you keep believing his lies.
Of course - because he doesn’t know if the list was accurate. Why should he have to stipulate that the list was accurate, if he doesn’t actually know that it is?
How does he not know if the list was accurate?
Bruce….you just don’t get it. It’s embarrassing to me that I have to explain it to you:
If the FBI planted anything whatsoever, as Trump alleges while not under penalty of perjury, then the list of what was taken is not accurate.
He refuses to allege even that much under penalty of perjury.
That’s how full of shit he and the people who believe him are.
I'm curious, then, as to how he knows they planted anything?
I am curious to know why he knows that they didn’t slip any documents in. Keep in mind that the FBI expressly denied Trump’s attorneys access to MAL during the raid. This is why defense attorneys are routinely allowed to observe execution of search warrants. But they were denied permission here, and the obvious question is why? Was it to ultimately slip some other documents in, or to disappear some of the documents seized? We obviously don’t know.
What a nutter. You think if they were going to slip documents in and out they would do it at Mar-a-Lago? Why?
I don't know if it's true that they excluded defense attorneys or if that's another lie like the one about them turning off the surveillance cameras. Even if true, I can imagine multiple legit reasons like, they're handling classified material.
'why he knows that they didn't'
He doesn't.
Where do you get that defense attorneys are routinely allowed to observe execution of search warrants? That has not been my experience.
This is a complete fabrication. Defense attorneys are
routinelynever allowed to observe execution of search warrants.(But of course they could observe it via surveillance footage, even though Trump falsely claimed that they were required to turn it off.)
Where does that get Trump? The statutes germane to issuance of the search warrant do not distinguish between classified and unclassified documents. (Although the presence of classified markings makes Trump's refusal to comply with the grand jury subpoena even more inexplicable.)
I mean, you're not wrong: it would still be a pretty damn weak argument IMHO. I'm trying to come up with [semi]plausible guesses as to why he needs to see the ~100 classified docs now, i.e. before the start of any criminal proceedings. I think the arguments are losers, but he's clearly trying to make them for some reason. Maybe even stupidity, as Brett pointed out.
I assume that once/if he's charged, there would be additional 6th amendment protections enabling him to learn what the docs are, and make arguments that they were declassified, planted, and/or that he didn't know about them, or whatever his excuse du jour is.
Once Trump is charged, the documents taken from Mar-a-Lago would be discoverable at Trump's request pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(1)(E)(iii).
Excuse me. That should be Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(iii).
Yep. Well, maybe? At some point the FRCP and even 6th Amd might still conflict with FRCP 401: are the contents of the docs relevant? Could the gov't redact the precise blueprints of a nuclear warhead design, enough info to actually build one, from a jury trial about possessing the nuclear warhead design?
Even if there might some theoretical limitations about how much of the highly classified info a jury gets to see, I don't think that's relevant to why TFG can/should see them at the present time. I think we're on the same page here.
You are assuming that the nuclear warhead design (likely Iranian anyway) are the critical formerly classified information. Very likely, most of the documents marked classified were in the binder formally ordered declassified Trump’s last full day in office that implicate DOJ NSD and FBI CD in perfidy and malfeasance in their Crossfire Hurricane/RussiaGate investigation. Trump formally ordered their declassification because his requests to do so had been routinely ignored over the previous year or two. They would come back almost completely redacted, and in his opinion (having seen the unredacted versions), the redactions were primarily to protect the perfidy and malfeasance of those two divisions.
This, BTW, is why the DOJ is fighting so hard to keep the documents from being seen by the Special Master, Judge Dearie – because if he does find that they have been declassified (by Trump’s formal order to do so), then there is no real argument to keep the contents out of the incriminating RussiaGate documents out of public eye.
Anything else is probably a red herring. Trump isn’t the type of guy to hold onto documents marked classified (but probably aren’t) because he is a kleptomaniac. He very likely did so, because they implicated someone or some organization in perfidy and malfeasance. Given the heavy involvement of DOJ NSD and FBI CD, it is likely that their primary target is the binder of RussiaGate documents formally ordered declassified by Trump, that implicate those two divisions. If there are blueprints for nuclear warhead design, they are almost assuredly not ours, but those of another country – there have been suggestions that they are Iranian, kept to embarrass the Obama Administration in their ill fated Nuclear deal with the Iranians.
So, hell yes, the DOJ will do whatever they can to keep these documents out of view of the jury, and the public. But I will suggest that they will first have to prove that they are still classified, or maybe more precisely, weren’t declassified by Trump. They are still trying to finesse that issue by convincing everyone that documents marked classified means that they are classified. Judge Cannon, at least sees through that. Judge Dearie - not so much.
'Very likely, most of the documents marked classified were in the binder formally ordered declassified Trump’s last full day in office that implicate DOJ NSD and FBI CD in perfidy and malfeasance in their Crossfire Hurricane/RussiaGate investigation.'
This is pure invention, not even supportable as invention since Trump made no move to release such documents after he'd declassified them and had plenty of time and opportunity to do so.
'then there is no real argument to keep the contents out of the incriminating RussiaGate documents out of public eye.'
There was no real argument for Trump to not release such documents ages ago, if they existed.
'But I will suggest that they will first have to prove that they are still classified,'
Since there's no legal claim being made that they've been declassified, I doubt it.
'Judge Cannon, at least sees through that'
If Judge Cannon is making legal claims about the classification staus of the documents that have not been made by Trump, then she should probably just resign and start working for him directly.
And again, the classification staus is irrelevant to any criminal case the DOJ is making against Trump.
The Democrats are dirty, filthy people who will stop at nothing to advance their evil goals. The lying smears against Herschel Walker are a great example.
These people are not good Americans who see things differently. They're evil, despicable, vermin who deserve to be rounded up and exterminated.
Don't a lot of the 'lying smears' come from his son, himself a conservative?
"The Democrats are dirty, filthy people who will stop at nothing to advance their evil goals. The lying smears against Herschel Walker are a great example."
Uh, the maxim, I've got receipts on that, here applies quite literally. Mr. Walker has a self-serving motive to lie. Is Walker or his accuser less credible?
So does some nasty c*nt who supports liberal ideals. Much like Ford. Ford had much more reason to lie than Kavanagh did.
What was that reason? 'Oh I'll get harassed by vicious right-wing trrolls? What fun!'
So which Herschel Walker was the one telling the truth - one kid, two kids, four kids?
Was he lying then, or is he lying now?
Maybe his FBI employment file could illuminate this point.
Or his diploma from college.
Or his college record indicating he graduated at the top of his class.
I am not from Georgia, so I do not have a comprehensive list of Herschel Walker's remarkable collection of silly lies . . . nor do I respect the knuckle-dragging clingers who will vote for this pathetic, violent, cheating, deplorable, disgusting Republican loser.
Unsurprisingly, the 11th Circuit just agreed to expedite the underlying appeal.
Between Judge Cannon's antics, and the Trump's attorney's inability to take a hint, this was almost pre-determined. But still, given just how wonky the opinions we have been seeing have been lately are, this is a somewhat hopeful sign that we might be getting back to regular order and process.
Nice, I’d better make some more popcorn!
Also, now DOJ can also add "TFG's appeal is premature, given the on-going related appeals in the 11th Cir."
I already would have been surprised if the S.Ct. had taken up TFG's present weak-sauce appeal, but Id be .. even more shocked(?) if they do now.
Whether raised by the government or not, the Court of Appeals should address whether Donald Trump has adequately pleaded his standing to file this lawsuit as regards his purported claim of executive privilege. Article III standing is essential to the subject matter jurisdiction of a federal court.
Trump's pleadings are unverified, and he has submitted no declaration or affidavit in the trial court attesting to any facts. Trump has failed to plead injury in fact -- his pleadings speak of a presumption of executive privilege, but fail to affirmatively assert that Trump has invoked such privilege against the executive branch of the federal government. There is also no assertion that the holder of the privilege -- President Joe Biden -- has made any assertion of executive privilege.
Before they can do that, they have to figure out what exactly Donald Trump was claiming. Unlike the incompetent Cannon, they noted that Trump's pleading — whatever it was — was not a 41(g) motion. Fine — but what was it?
From the order:
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Might there be a typographical error in that schedule?
If not, why 10 days (roughly) for Appellant, 27 days (roughly) for Appellee, then 7 days for Appellant?
DOJ suggested 21 days (Oct 14 to Nov 4). See Mot. to Expedite, para 12.
TFG argued 21 days was too short, asked for Nov. 14. See Opposition, para 1.
11th Cir. split the difference.
I speculate that DOJ is saying “we’re ready to throw down now", TFG responded with “we’re whining”, and 11th Cir. said “OK, you can have almost as much as the FRCP says despite your whining”.
Here are my thoughts:
1) The 100 or so documents marked as classified are almost assuredly copies. It is likely that some, if not many of them incriminate the DOJ and FBI in their Crossfire Hurricane investigation (from the binder Trump formally ordered declassified). The originals would be owned by the DOJ. Overall, classified documents are owned and controlled (through chain of command up through POTUS) by the creator of the documents (and their superiors), and the President and his WH are intelligence consumers, not creators. The USG has the originals, and know what the documents are – they don’t need the copies to prepare for litigation, though they may need them for actual trial.
2) The USG has possession of the documents marked classified. They obviously know exactly what those documents are, where the originals are, etc. The whole thing here seems to be to keep the identification of those documents from Trump’s attorneys, Judge Cannon, and now, Judge Dearie, whose security clearance is almost assuredly high enough to see all of those documents. Definitely anything RussiaGate related – he was the FISC judge who approved the 4th FISA warrant on Carter Page.
Judge Dearie was requiring that Trump’s attorneys identify their claims to have possession of the documents marked classified. My understanding is that Judge Cannon overrode that. The problem is that none of them know what documents the DOJ has here marked classified, so requiring Trump’s attorneys to specify their claims to them having been declassified, covered by privilege, etc, are premature.
3) DOJ is making a big deal about the documents being marked as classified. Trump’s attorneys are calling BS. He had full authority to declassify them, both through his position as head of the Executive Branch and CIC, and via Obama’s EO on classification and declassification. Assuming or presuming that documents are classified because they are marked that way with everyone else, but it is invalid with the President with plenary declassification authority. What the bureaucrats working for him say is completely irrelevant to his absolute power to declassify.
4) Trump’s position is that there is no “government records” exception to documents removed by an exiting President – the documents in dispute are either Presidential (subject to the PRA) or personal, and there is no role for Archives in determining what is what.
5) The DOJ seems determined to rush things as fast as they can in putting the documents marked classified beyond the reach of Trump or the court. They appear unwilling to give Trump or the court enough information to assert any sort of privilege or classification status. Except that if some of the documents involve RussiaGate/Crossfire Hurricane, the documents very likely implicate the FBI’s CD and DOJ’s NSD in misfeasance, if not malfeasance -both seemingly deeply involved in this case. One big reason that Trump gave for formally ordering the declassification of that binder of documents was so that these organizatio/no couldn’t disappear evidence of what he considered misfeasance and even malfeasance in their part. Also note that under Obama’s EO, classification of those documents would be invalid if the classification was done to prevent embarrassment.
My suspicion all along has been that disappearing those documents is really what is driving much of the case. Sure, the upper levels of the DOJ may have a political aim here (supposedly, the case got AG and maybe WH approval), esp trying to get something done before the midterms, but lower down, most of the bureaucrats involved are probably fairly apolitical.
This is so detached from any kind of legal reality, I have to say ... I'm not angry, I'm impressed. Also? I'd love some of whatever it is you're smoking.
For anyone that actually cares, the unanimous 11th Circuit opinion, delivered in 24 hours after the final brief was in, and delivered as a PCA by a panel that had 2/3 Trump appointees, thoroughly dismantles the completely specious reasoning employed above. Read it!
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22671434-11th-cir-opinion-granting-partial-stay-trump-v-us
"But Crossfire Hurricane!...."
People like Bruce are the ones holding libertarians back politically. Smart, but even more paranoid. He reminds me of 90% of the characters on The X Files.
"It is likely that some, if not many of [the 100 or so documents marked as classified] incriminate the DOJ and FBI in their Crossfire Hurricane investigation (from the binder Trump formally ordered declassified)."
And you posit that "likel[ihood]" based on what facts, pray tell?
1) Rampant speculation.
2) Security clearance is not the only thing involved in whether someone is permitted to see TS documents.
3) A nothingburger. Trump did not have 'absolute power' to declassify documents while President. Notably absent from any of his court filings is a sworn statement that he declassified anything. None of the laws he has clearly broken rely on the documents being classified or not.
4) You are wrong. The statute is clear in defining what is what, and you cannot simply decide otherwise in blatant violation of the statute.
5) Again you manage to write a paragraph of nothing.
I feel bad that you felt it necessary to put your thoughts in writing, as they contributed nothing.
"Trump did not have ‘absolute power’ to declassify documents while President."
The entire foundation for classified information is an executive order. Trump could have signed an order that said "there is no longer such a thing as classified information" and it would have been so. He could certainly declassify anything he wanted to as POTUS.
Oh wow, no laws involved, despite what everyone has said!
False. That is only true for some types of classified information.
The "entire foundation" for classified information is not based on executive order. Things that have been classified as National Defense Information are, things that have been classified by statute (say for instance, the Atomic Energy Act) are not.
So despite your claims otherwise, Trump cannot simply declassify anything he wants while he was President, and thus does not have 'absolute power' regarding declassification.
Maybe check your facts before you pretend to correct someone.
E.O. 13526 covers the overwhelming majority of classified information. The info related to the Atomic Energy Act is an exception to the rule, not vice versa.
In other words, you were wrong.
The entire foundation for classified information is not an Executive Order.
Trump could not have signed an EO removing the concept of classified information from the government.
Trump did not have authority to 'certainly declassify anything he wanted to as POTUS.'
In baseball, that would be three strikes right there. You're out.
BS. Cite the statute, and show that it applies to a sitting President, preventing him from declassifying anything he wants.
Your question is a little weird and rude, the only statute mentioned was about presidential records, not classified material. What is BS exactly?
The President can declassify anything he wants, but that makes it worse! You think it's ok for presidents to declassify top-secret nuclear documents for their own personal use once they're out of office? That would be a much bigger scandal than just oops, how did that get in there. You guys are just crazy in your blind devotion to an orange man.
Fortunately for you, although he can declassify whatever he wants, he has to tell people that he did it, while he had the power to. Just like with all other presidential actions, it takes effect when he orders it, not when he thinks it.
"although he can declassify whatever he wants, he has to tell people that he did it"
That isn't what E.O. 13526 says regarding declassifying national defense information. What is the basis for your assertion?
Are you suggesting that he can't declassify it at all, or that he can declassify it in his mind?
This might explain it on a dumbed-down level enough that you stand a chance of understanding it.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified
Once you are done reading that, remind yourself that the laws Trump has clearly broken DO NOT CARE ABOUT CLASSIFICATION.
You'd do well to shut the fuck up about that, since it's been said to you at least a half-dozen times by now.
FFS Bruce, are you smoking "Crossfire Hurricane" from a glass pipe?
And you are pretending that the DOJ IG didn't fiind 17 issues of malfeasance on the part of the DOJ NSD and esp FBI CD, involving the 4 FISA warrants on Carter Page, at a minimum showing that at least the latter two were illegally obtained. We started with the text messages from FBI CD supervisor Peter Strzok to his lover LisaPage, up through the indictments of Special Prosecutor Durham, most recently of Igor Danchenko, Steele’s primary subsource, who turns out to have been on the FBI’s payroll as a Confidential Human Source (essentially equivalent to Carter Page’s relationship with the CIA - the critical piece of information that FBI CD attorney Clinesmith reversed for the last FISA application). They knew along that Steele’s claims were mostly rubbish - they had the guy who made them up in their payroll. None of this was disclosed to the FISC.
If you don’t believe that RussiaGate happened, that it was an operation run primarily by the FBI CD, and was designed to harm, if not destroy, Trump, then you are blind. As you can tell, I can go on all days with the facts and names of those involved. And cite (typically government) sources for all of it.
You're displaying a basic, basic misunderstanding. TFG is the one making a "big deal" of this, not DOJ.
The subpoena was for "documents marked as classified". The present-this-minute status is not what the subpoena asked for. TFG lied about "documents marked as classified" being returned, and did not say "I have no currently classified documents according to my own idiosyncratic beliefs".
DOJ has argued to both Judge Cannon and the 11th Cir. that the actual classification status is irrelevant.
It's not DOJ that is making a big deal of classification status. That's TFG's smoke screen that you're sucking on.
The 11th Cir. called the entire Q of classification status a "red herring". Gobble gobble on TFG's ... arguments.
The fact remains that the DOJ’s claim that the documents are classified is the sole quasi legitimate justification for them being government property. Absent that, they are either personal or Presidential records, neither of which go to the DOJ or FBI. And in the past, the determination of which was which was totally in the hands of the ex President.
1,000% false. All presidential records are government property, from the nuclear launch codes to the receipt from Home Depot for redecorating the Oval Office.
What the fuck does "go to the DOJ or FBI" have to do with anything? Whether classified or unclassified, all presidential records ultimately go to the Archives.
Again, false. The president (not, of course, an ex president) is tasked with separating the two types of documents. But the difference is statutorily defined, and the president doesn't get to say that an official document is a government record because he thought it in his head.
‘DOJ is making a big deal about the documents being marked as classified.’
Their classification status is irrelevant to the criminal charges the search was performed under, it just means they require special handling.
Among the charges in the search warrant affidavit is retention of national defense information. Classification status is relevant to that charge. It's a separate issue from government vs. private property. The classification markings are evidence of their being government property (as well as evidence of their being classified).
If the case goes to trial the government will have to prove that the documents are national defense information or that they are government property, and then the defendant can offer evidence that they are personal photocopies of something Trump declassified. I say defendant because the government could bring charges against Trump's team but not Trump himself.
They most certainly can bring charges against Trump.
He has publicly stated that he was the one who sent these things to Mar-A-Lago.
He is the one who packed up the 15 boxes for NARA in January 2022.
He is the one who wanted his lawyer to lie on his behalf and tell NARA that all Presidential records had been returned to NARA.
He is the one who claimed a 'diligent search' had been performed in response to the DOJ subpoena while secretly hoarding ~100 or so documents responsive to the subpoena and refusing to hand those over.
'Classification status is relevant to that charge.'
Is it? Or are they documents he should not have had in his posession regardless of their classification status?
Classification markings are evidence that a responsible executive branch classification authority determined that "the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security". They may still meet that criterion - the authority can presumably offer testimony to that effect - and if so, and the information is national defense related, that would suffice to trigger the Espionage Act once Trump ceased to be President. It is irrelevant whether he had declassified the document (unless he did so because it was no longer sensitive, which is where the testimony comes in) or whether it is an original or a photocopy.
You should have observed the maxim about better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt.
Your argument is about as reasonable as saying, "When Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were killed, OJ was actually in Connecticut and had documents to prove it, and the searches of his property were actually so the police could remove his proof." (Well, actually, yours is worse, because the searches of OJ's property were immediate. It's more like the police waited months to search his home, and yet in all that time OJ never (a) said he was in Connecticut at the time; or (b) showed these documents to anyone.)
"The emergency appeal is based on some VERY gnarly and complicated jurisdictional and procedural rules, about which I am no expert. But it doesn't look to me like the ex-president's case is a terribly strong one."
Should have stopped typing after the first sentence. Rent free!
Arthur "I went to legitimate schools" Kirkland.
Arthur "And all I got was this $150K T-Shirt to show for it" Kirkland.