The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Department Takes Aim at Judge Cannon
In its latest filing, the Department of Justice seeks to put an end to Judge Cannon's interference with the federal government's investigation documents kept at Mar-a-Lago.
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court spurned Donald Trump's request that the Court intervene in the ongoing dispute over the Department of Justice's review of documents seized at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort. Trump and his attorneys had asked the Court to vacate the Eleventh Circuit's partial stay of Judge Aileen Cannon's order barring federal investigators from continuing to examine seized documents bearing classification markings, but the Court showed no interest in getting involved.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's rebuff of Trump's filing, the Justice Department filed a brief with the Eleventh Circuit seeking to put an end to Judge Cannon's intervention altogether. In the brief, the Justice Department argues that Judge Cannon never had jurisdiction to appoint a special master to review any of the seized documents in the first place, and further explains why there are no plausible bases for claims of Executive Privilege that would justify judicial intervention. The force of the brief is strengthened by its reliance upon the Eleventh Circuit's previous decision, staying portions of Judge Cannon's order.
From the brief:
District courts have no general equitable authority to superintend federal criminal investigations; instead, challenges to the government's use of the evidence recovered in a search are resolved through ordinary criminal motions practice if and when charges are filed. Here, however, the district court granted the extraordinary relief plaintiff sought, enjoining further review or use of any seized materials, including those bearing classification markings,"for criminal investigative purposes"pending a special-master review process that will last months. . . .This Court has already granted the government's motion to stay that unprecedented order insofar as it relates to the documents bearing classification markings. The Court should now reverse the order in its entirety for multiple independent reasons.
Most fundamentally, the district court erred in exercising equitable jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff's action in the first place. The exercise of equitable jurisdiction over an ongoing criminal investigation is reserved for exceptional circumstances, and Plaintiff failed to meet this Court's established standards for exercising that jurisdiction here. The district court itself acknowledged that there has been no showing that the government acted in "callous disregard" of Plaintiff's rights. As a panel of this Court rightly determined, that by itself "is reason enough to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction here." Trump v. United States, 2022 WL 4366684, at *7 (11th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022) (granting motion to stay). The remaining factors under this Court's precedent likewise dictate that the district court's exercise of jurisdiction was error. The Court should therefore vacate the district court's order with instructions to dismiss Plaintiff's civil action.
I would think that the Justice Department has a reasonable likelihood of success with these arguments, in particular because an Eleventh Circuit panel has already indicated its agreement with key portions of the government's arguments. It may take some time, however, as the briefing in this appeal will not be complete until the middle of next month.
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
The brief has an unusually long "certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement", including about a dozen media companies.
Have you read the other briefs? They have all been like that, including the nonsensical replies by Trump's lawyers.
What is the significance of this?
All of those listed entities are the ones who previously filed appearances to litigate the issue of the sealed search warrant and related documents.
My eyes grated briefly on a reference to 'inherent supervisory capacity' or 'inherent regulatory authority' or something similar in Judge Cannon's original opinion.
My criminal law experience is limited to a couple of stale classes and an internship at a prosecutor's office, but I remember thinking 'I never heard of that . . . "
Next use of inherent or equitable should be met with a wedgie.
There is nothing wrong with either word. I do not remember that concept in the context of federal jurisdiction, however. It may be legitimate, but I was surprised to see it from a federal judge.
The Department of Justice seems to think she is severely mistaken, and her circuit court of appeals has signaled at least preliminarily that it is not impressed by her performance.
That headline prompts a question Prof. Adler: Did you work at your college newspaper?
Are you expressing an opinion as to the headline's caliber? 🙂
Yes. It is a fine headline.
DOJ is staffed with people who figure the BOR is just a set of guidelines to be looked at and then ignored. They may be correct in this case, but my opinion still holds.
DOJ delenda est.
FBI delenda est.
Are you suggesting we need an FBI director who is a Democrat (rather than a Republican)?
I do think the Biden "Justice" Department needs to act quickly. When (or perhaps if) new House members are elected in November, the Biden/Pelosi Lame Duck House will seem increasingly petty: to date, the various House and "Justice" department investigations have raised Trump's standing and that trend is likely to escalate after election day. Thereafter, when the House leadership changes in January, it is quite possible that many in the new House Majority will wish to follow in the footsteps of the ousted Biden sycophants, starting all sorts of investigations and perhaps even considering impeachment of Mr. Garland.
So, yes, it is important for Biden's "Justice" Department to do everything it can before it comes under scrutiny by those seeking truth. Academia must work diligently to cajole the Courts into giving gampa Biden, ninny Pelosi, and their cadre a leg up.
Oh, snap! I see what you did. You put ironic quotes around “Justice” each time you used it. Thereby suggesting that our Justice Department is actually uninterested in the principle of justice. That is some high-level shade. Sick burn on them.
But I’m with you. I can’t believe that we’ve wasted valuable tax dollars investigating what was clearly a bunch of disoriented tourists, whose worse offenses were being unable to find a door, so of course they had to break windows to enter. And then being unable to find a bathroom, so of course they shit all over the place and smeared fecal matter on surfaces. I mean; who wouldn’t do that, in their situation?
Yup. A colossal waste of time and energy. And I don’t care if 99.5 percent of the evidence has come from lifelong conservatives and Republicans. It’s all a plot by Democrats. Because reasons.
I blame Obama for all this. Again, because reasons.
You can't reason with bigotry, superstition, or belligerent ignorance.
Add mydisplayname to the list.
Now do the assault on the capitol in the April before that, the one during the Kavanaugh confirmation, the BLM riots and annexation of US territory over the "Summer of Love", the attempted assassination of elected Republicans, the riots ot DJT's inauguration and the attempted interference with delegates for his election. There is no bad behavior you will not justify for the American marxists.
American Marxists vs. uneducated racists, superstitious gay-haters, delusional insurrectionists, and disaffected immigrant-haters.
Where is the hope for America?
How many windows were smashed? How many Capitol Police officers were attacked?
How many people bragged on social media about using violence to attempt to overturn an election? How many people posted photos of themselves committing Federal offenses?
I'm pretty sure that the Feds would also be interested in prosecuting violence at BLM protests too, if they had decent evidence to use in a prosecution.
Turns out it's easier to prosecute folks who are so arrogantly self-assured that they take selfies of themselves committing crimes.
Actually, the Kavanaugh protesters, like the DisruptJ20 attempt to prevent the swearing in, had almost everyone that was arrested released without prosecution. Hundreds of them.
Even those that publicly bragged - including issuing press releases, in addition to Twitter photos - about their illegal actions.
And yes, that includes dozens arrested for assault.
And the reason they weren't prosecuted, especially for serious offenses like assault was ... what again?
That's a good question. I wonder if it had to do with the political leanings of the people making that decision?
It's a lot like the decision to use armed SWAT team raids to arrest elderly anti-abortion protesters over questionable FACE Act violations, while ignoring the hundreds of violent attacks on pregnancy counseling centers that are blatant FACE Act violations.
Or it had to do with the lack of actual assaults.
60 Secret Service agents injured. But, please, tell us about the lack of assaults.
At the Kavanaugh protests?
Just say, “It’s a conspiracy.”.
That way we can quickly move past your accusation of widespread corruption (with no evidence, of course) and get to people who try to make reasonable arguments.
So, what is your explanation for why one group of people who committed crimes like trespassing, seditious conspiracy, assault, vandalism, or arson, were treated differently than a different group of people?
And, without evidence? We knew that the people were arrested in all of these cases, and we know that some groups were released while the other wasn't. This isn't something that rational people debate.
Just like the FACE Act 'violation' armed raids being made against pro-lifers - these are easily discoverable and widely reported facts. So is the fact that there is no investigation and no arrests in the hundreds of reported FACE Act violations against pro-life centers.
If you call acknowledging widely reported events that are covered in press releases by those involved and captured on film by witnesses as "conspiracy", then I think you need to review the meaning of the word.
I haven't looked at any of the cases, so I don't have an opinion. I'm morally certain, however, that you are making broad, unsubstatiated generalizations that the facts of the cases you are railing about to won't back up.
You went into this thinking that "your people" are being persecuted and some "other people" are being let off the hook. You don't need facts, your gut tells you you're right.
To make that case you have to go into a lot more detail than you did with your diatribe.
Well, nice to see you don't have telepathy, although it is sad that you are so delusional as to think you do.
Despite your false use of quotes, I did not ever say anything about "my people", nor did I suggest such. You simply find the basic fact that I recognized that there is a difference in treatment to be sufficient to make up all sorts of fantasies about me.
That is quite revealing about your own worldview - to speak of "conspiracies" - but still tells nothing about what I claimed. In fact, you have made zero arguments against my claims. I have presented facts, you have not. You have not made counter-arguments, you just deny and insult.
You can't even address any specific event, despite the fact that several have been clearly identified! At least pretend to deny some specific claim, rather than just trying to categorically deny everything because you "are sure" that the events you "haven't looked at" and thus "don't have an opinion" of actually panned out the way your self-admitted ignorance prejudged, rather than the way someone that has read about the cases claims.
You mean the one where they had to evacuate the President and over 100 officers were injured? The one where they burned buildings or did you mean one of the other incidents of leftist violence?
Please! That was the left-wing mob's attack on the White House, not the left-wing mob's attack on the Capitol.
You know, the one where the left-wing made jokes about Trump hiding in a bunker for weeks, and then completely forgotten when it became politically inconvenient. Just like the radical left-wing black nationalist terrorist that attacked the White House last year, killing and seriously injuring police.
And how many demonstrators were murdered?
On 5/29/20, they torched the Secret Service guard house on WH grounds, tore down barricades, 60 Secret Service agents were injured (Capitol Police have little to do with WH security), and fires set around the WH,
And you are free to collect evidence from bookface of people bragging about the assaults, such as selfies of folks committing the assaults, and forward to the FBI and/or Secret Service.
Lots of Jan. 6 rioters convicted themselves with their own macho bragging and ill-advised photos. If you think similarly robust evidence exists for other crimes, put up or shut up.
[crickets]
" the various House and “Justice” department investigations have raised Trump’s standing "
Only among poorly educated, racist, immigrant-hating, gay-bashing, downscale Republicans and conservatives . . . and those losers are being replaced by their betters daily, so I doubt there are going to be enough clingers to help Trump in any material way (beyond attending the occasional Trump rally, Klan rally, or insurrectionist gathering).
This new House you are dreaming about needs to be careful or else they will dig up too much dirt on Republicans.
The House could certainly impeach AG Garland. I doubt the Senate will remove him even with a Republican majority. I would enjoy seeing the House managers trying to make a case for removal from office. I would also enjoy seeing AG Garand call and cross examine some witnesses.
So, you think the Republicans are going to kick off all sorts of investigations and impeachments as soon as they get the chance, but caution the Democrats against seeming petty?
The DOJ needs to act quickly to indict Trump and a number of GOP candidates. Indeed, the courts need to abolish any requirement for identification on absentee ballots and allow ballots to be counted whenever received.
"District courts have no general equitable authority to superintend federal criminal investigations . . . . "
THANK YOU!!!
When I clerked at the District Court level, one of the new case intake tasks we performed Every. Single. Time. for the judge was identifying and verifying the precise basis for federal jurisdiction.
If I'd gone into his office with handwaving about "inherent supervisory authority" I don't know if I would have gotten a very stern rebuke and lecture, or simply fired for incompetence. I kinda suspect the latter.
Federal Jurisdiction was a semester-long course at my law school.
Maybe it still is, and at most (legitimate) law schools.
It was a major component of 1L Civ Pro at my school, but we didn't have a separate course for it.
But I do wonder if Judge Cannon barely managed to pass her class covering jurisdiction, however it happened to be structured.
Federal Jurisdiction was an upperclass elective (taught by a Federalist Societeer); first-year Civil Procedure devoted attention to federal jurisdiction, too. I chose Federal Jurisdiction because I tended to select classes based on instructors rather than subjects.
Cannon's opinions definitely have strong "failed the final" energy. It reminds me of some of my worst law exam performances.
Is this judge one of the ones that Trump nominated who were identified as not qualified?
I remember that being talked about for a hot second, but with Republican control of the Senate I assume they were all confirmed by Mitch & Co.
Cannon was part of a flurry of relatively obscure, young, undistinguished prosecutors nominated by the Trump administration for federal court positions.
In my district and court we encountered a couple of them. Local Republicans experienced in judicial selections said they did not know much about the nominees, couldn't understand (or identify) the reasons for the nominations, claimed they had little or no notice of the nominations.
Much stronger Republican candidates -- in everything from education to reputation, party prominence to Federalist Society activity, professional standing to public service -- watched these unknown, nondescript lawyers become nominated and confirmed.
I think the special master was the right call. The DOJ/FBI has become notorious in these “grab everything” raids for ignoring attorney client privilege and abusing the rights of uninvolved innocents. Since our Justice department (lol) can’t be trusted to behave correctly, then correct behavior needs to be imposed on them.
I know that for many of you the objective is to get Trump at all cost, and I don’t care about that either way, but damned if I want to let DOJ thugs trample on innocents. And shame on you if you are fine with it.
Trump is getting more special accommodation from DOJ and the courts than any other target of the FBI ever (and that's before we even consider the amount of people targeted by state and local authorities).
This is a one time deal for one person. People who think that the system will ever be anywhere close as responsive to much worst injustices are fooling themselves. Indeed, the people complaining about Trump's rights are also the most likely to say that everyone who has been shot and killed in a botched no-knock deserved it.
Trump is still entitled to privilege with his attorneys.
And there is unclassified communication in those boxes related to uninvolved parties. The DOJ has no place to look at that, but they will. Those uninvolved parties should have their rights protected.
There was an article on this website recently discussing how special masters are becoming much more common due to DOJ misbehavior. Trump has received no special treatment here.
They have taint teams for stuff like this. It’s a solved problem.
If yiu want to rein in the FBI and DoJ special pleading for Trump is not how you do it.
The article that discussed the problem taint teams were demonstrated to be worthless. There is no wall.
This flailing is reminiscent of the performance of Vincent LaGuardia Gambini before Judge Chamberlain Haller (a Yale graduate!):
"The state of Alabama has a procedure. And that procedure is to have an arraignment. Are we clear on this? . . . It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it."
(Those people chuckling at the prosecution table are the non-clingers reading this blog. And here is bonus footage of the level of legal analysis encountered daily at this blog.)
If the Special Master is allowed to proceed by the 11th Cir., we will be able to see how the FBI Taint Team performed in comparison to the Special Master’s assessment of ACP.
This will provide an excellent way to test your hypothesis that the Taint Team process is “worthless”. That is, if Judge Dearie finds lots of additional ACP docs that the Taint Team didn’t flag, you will be vindicated.
And if not, will you concede that the Taint Team process is not "worthless"?
Not me. Judge "FISA Rubber Stamp" Dearie is another example of Trump being clueless about who will do an adequate job.
Except that unlike the FISA court, this proceeding is adversarial in nature and Trump's attorneys can appeal denial of ACP status.
If Trump doesn't bother appealing anything, that is, if Trump were to concede that the ACP designations were generally correct, would that be sufficient for you?
I mean, at some point you have to come to grips with actual evidence, not just your fever-dream assumptions.
What article?
Between 2 and 4 weeks ago one of the regular writers on here (not Blackman) wrote a lengthy article about how the appointment of special masters was becoming common in cases like this because the DOJ and FBI were regularly misbehaving as to looking at stuff that they weren’t supposed to.
The article made the pointless that taint teams were simply meaningless cover and didn’t serve their purpose, because they’re on Team Prosecution. The agencies involved are too political (note this is not specific to only Biden) to follow the rules.
The article was posted in the 2nd half of September, give or take.
In a questionable exercise of judgment on my part, I reviewed the titles of every post between September 1 and today (including the Blackman ones); none of them appear to touch on the subject. And a google search of reason.com/volokh for "filter review", "filter team", "taint review", "taint team", "privilege review", or "privilege team" only returns this Short Circuit piece from 2019:
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/11/01/short-circuit-a-roundup-of-recent-federal-court-decisions-26/
Are you sure you read the article on this site?
Maybe it was on reason, but not the Volokh conspiracy blog? A less than 2-minute google didn't support that, but I guess it's possible.
Much is "possible".
Among the things that are "possible" is "bevis the lumberjack is making shit up in his head".
See also: Occam's Razor.
The taint team identifies the material so that the prosecution team can review it more closely before "disregarding" it.
" The DOJ has no place to look at that, but they will. "
This lack of familiarity with search warrants and review of seized material seems comprehensive.
He is, modulo the crime-fraud exception. Is there any evidence (no pun intended) that this is an issue here? They've utilized a taint team from day one. (And note that it's in the DOJ's interest to do so, because if the investigative team is tainted, that may pose an obstacle to future prosecution of Trump.)
I mean, that's factually/legally wrong. If there are communications between me and person X, I have no r.e.p. in such communications that are in person X's possession.
"Trump is getting more special accommodation from DOJ.. than any other target of the FBI ever"
Yes. Where "special accommodation" means 6 years (so far) of politically motivated investigations, lies, innuendo, double standards and lawfare.
Except that Trump did steal and hide highly classified documents. The Democrats DJS not make him do that and investigating Trump is not politically motivated. The only politely motivations is that if it were anyone else they would already be in jail.
"Steal" and "hide" are such rough words . . . and entirely appropriate in this context.
I can't wait for Trump to claim that the gofer who hid the boxes of classified documents at Trump's direction can't testify because . . . executive privilege!
And, after that . . . master-flunky privilege!
If that doesn't work . . . former president-orderly privilege!
Then, when that is rejected, Trump will smile, stand, raise his arms, "classify" the entire room, and head for the door.
I would add that none of this was even known or would be known had Trump simply returned the papers when requested. No one knew this was happening until the NARA had to go o DOJ to get the papers back.
I'm still boggled by the scale of Trump's self-own in this kerfluffle.
Hiding lawfully subpoenaed documents (especially ones marked "classified"), and then lying about it, is never a good idea. Even if you're a one-term loser ex-President.
I mean, it seems obvious. Trump was stealing nuclear secrets to sell to Putin. What's hard to understand about this?
That's actually one of the four or five plausible (and not at all flattering) explanations, though not the most plausible.
So, seriously, what is the innocent explanation for, forget his taking classified documents, but focus on his failure to comply with a subpoena and then lying to the DOJ about (or having his attorney lie about) whether he complied?
The obvious answer is that the coverup was necessary to hide evidence of more serious crimes. That's not an 'innocent' explanation, of course.
Right, remember we have known since 2015 or 2016 that Trump is a secret Russian agent. Yes we had Mueller and the most comprehensive investigation in the history of the world, but that just confirms it. *dons tin foil hat*
Eh? I'd call you a monomaniac, but I don't think you can count that high.
@dd: Make Trump the subject and dingbats like you come out of the walls in great numbers.
I figure the government owns a lot of this stuff but they owned a lot of the stuff Clinton destroyed, too. What's missing is any indication that anyone should care.
Right, and so Trump should be jailed soon. Just to be clear, though, if it was Clinton, the FBI would ask nicely, she'd decline, and that would be the end of it.
Deflection. It's an admission.
But, on the comparison Hillary didn't take things to which she was not entitled. She had produced all appropriate email to the House when asked. Then, when a more comprehensive subpoena came, she complied to the extent possible. She didn't lie to the DOJ that she had complied when she didn't. She was forthcoming about the fact that the tech guy wiped the drive after the subpoena arrived. She fully cooperated in the investigation.
You must be assuming she gave the order to wipe the hard drive after receiving the subpoena or knew it hadn't been wiped and failed to stop the tech guy from wiping the hard drive. But she had a plausible story backed by third party testimony, which makes it hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that didn't happen. You can assume it, but DOJ isn't playing favorites by recognizing that the evidence for prosecution is based on the timeline and supposition, whereas the defense would have actual witnesses (plural). Your certainty carries no weight with either a grand jury or a petit jury.
So you're sayin' there's a chance!
You are talking about a Congressional subpoena, not a DOJ subpoena. There was no DOJ subpoena for Clinton. The DOJ would not have dreamed of initiating any kind of public investigation of Clinton or whispering of any such thing -- much less issuing her a subpoena or conducting a raid on her home, obviously. They only got involved to "investigate" after the Congressional subpoenas started flying.
What they did, eventually, was to just ask nicely for the server, and wait patiently until they got their hands on it, only after it had been bleached and acid-washed in an attempt to make all data unrecoverable (the team's mobile devices were smashed with hammers, too). Similarly, the FBI/DOJ asked for the DNC's email server but that request was rejected and the FBI never got it.
"You must be assuming she gave the order to wipe the hard drive after receiving the subpoena or knew it hadn’t been wiped and failed to stop the tech guy from wiping the hard drive. But she had a plausible story backed by third party testimony, which makes it hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that didn’t happen. You can assume it, but DOJ isn’t playing favorites by recognizing that the evidence for prosecution is based on the timeline and supposition"
Um, what are you talking about? The only crime that the DOJ/FBI breathed a word of in the same sentence as Clinton was the mishandling of classified information. That didn't have anything to do with deleting emails or failing to comply with a subpoena, it had to do with using the private server in the first place, for official business and classified information, probably to circumvent FOIA and other laws. You may recall, that's the one where Comey said 18 USC 793(f) was violated but should not be enforced, decided to step outside the role of the FBI and publicly assume AG Lynch's prosecutorial discretion, and revised his remarks to say "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent."
"The DOJ would not have dreamed of initiating any kind of public investigation of Clinton or whispering of any such thing — much less issuing her a subpoena or conducting a raid on her home, obviously."
"The only crime that the DOJ/FBI breathed a word of in the same sentence as Clinton was the mishandling of classified information."
You might want to decide which side of your own argument you'd like to be on.
As I said, the DOJ would not initiate it. They only got involved after it was a major public scandal with Congressional hearings. And, of course, there were no subpoenas or surprise armed home invasions. Just friendly meetings on the tarmac and such.
Side note, I just learned Christopher Sign, former University of Alabama football player and Emmy award winning reporter who broke that story, sadly apparent-suicided himself last year after he and his family had been receiving death threats.
Your declaration that "Hillary didn’t take things to which she was not entitled" is a real howler.
Six years of freedom and delay and fundraising.
And he also got six years of research and planning and thought and handwringing and defenders of all types.
Everyone else might get their baby blown up by flash-bang while the suspect is at another house, their kid shot while the cops aim for an unthreatening dog, choked out while arguing over a summons for untaxed cigarettes, forced to perform sexual acts while a detective takes pictures, spend three years in Rikers, and severe depression over a backpack, strip-searched on the side of the road or in school, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.
And these are just extreme examples off the top of my head. What doesn’t make the news is the routine petty indignities and mistakes law enforcement subjects people to without a thought.
Pretty much any type of abuse can happen to anyone by law enforcement with limited time or thought and it will generate much less concern by Trump supporters.
I'm not much concerned about the injustices Trump is suffering here than you imagine, but your hypocrisy is on full display.
'Hypocrisy' has become the 'sour grapes' of the right.
I agree this seems to be a special case and there appears to be no real reason for the special master. This seems to be an exercise in delaying an investigation. This seems especially true because we have seen Judge Cannon trying to micromanage the special master since the appointment. I think her decision to appoint the SM would be taken more seriously if she had made the appointment and then stepped back to let the SM work.
You think you or I would get a special master if the FBI searched our homes and offices and seized a bunch of documents?
As I said above, there was an article on this website a couple of weeks back on this. The courts are becoming more aware of how abusive the DOJ has been.
You’re fine with uninvolved people having their rights taken away as long as you get Trump? If so, shame on you.
This is special pleading, and strawmanning bernard.
Reform is not done by bending over backwards for one special man.
Did I mention the Volokh article discussing how this is becoming a more common response by courts, because the DOJ has proven itself not trustworthy.
This is not just a special deal for Trump.
Of course, you’re a government guy so the government can never do wrong by you. Since you’re defending the DOJ, I gotta believe you’re fine with your fellow (non-Trump) citizens having their rights violated. I’m sure you’d feel differently it it was your personal rights.
But it is a special deal for Trump.
Cannon appointing the special master was absolutely not following an increasingly common trend.
You did, but you've still not actually provided any evidence this article existed.
I’m not gonna do your fucking research.
Look, I don’t give a shit. Bend your knee before the corrupt, all powerful DOJ. I don’t care about trump. You don’t care about privacy rights.
Whatever.
I suppose the FBI was cool to seize all the assets outside their jurisdiction in the California safe deposit deal. Those people have no rights if our betters want it.
Your claim. You provide the cite.
"Do your research" is bool and sheet evasion.
I’m not gonna do your fucking research.
Bullshit, Bevis. You said there's an article. Now, where the fuck is it?
Are you seriously saying it's anyone else's job to find and link to it?
No. Absolutely not. Either provide a link or STFU. Citations to mystery articles don't cut it.
It’s lame as hell and beneath you to appeal to authority and then refuse to provide it.
I hope that once things cool down you either link the cite or admit error.
His point that “taint teams” are the sham any sensible person would expect them to be doesn’t depend on the existence of a Reason article saying so, so that your claim that he is lying about that suggestion for where you might find a disquisition on the subject entirely misses the point, as well as being implausible and an obvious attempt to deflect. Do your own fucking research on the subject rather than focus on his suggestion as to where more info on the subject might be found.
His claim doesn't depend on anything.
This is very much a special deal for Trump in Judge Cannon’s court; she denied a special master to review attorney client privilege claims arising from documents seized pursuant to a warrant from the moving party's office in a Medicare fraud criminal investigation. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article267164396.html
"Did I mention the Volokh article discussing how this is becoming a more common response by courts, because the DOJ has proven itself not trustworthy."
You keep referencing this article, but no one seems to be able to find it. Can you link it so we can all reference it?
Who are the uninvolved losing their rights? Do you think another individual would get as much consideration as Trump? I think another individual doing this would be in far more trouble.
I dunno about trump, I could see it either way.
The innocent are anyone who engaged in written communication with trump and their correspondence ended up in one of those boxes.
They have nothing to do with this but the DOJ is going to read all of their private correspondence with an eye toward finding something to charge them with.
What rights, exactly, are the people "who engaged in communication" with Trump losing? Please be specific.
If I send an email or send a letter to Al Capone, and it's seized in accordance with a lawfully issued search warrant of Al's office ... what right of mine is violated by execution of the search warrant?
If the FBI gets a warrant to listen to my phone, the fact that I'm talking to someone at the other end of the phone line doesn't mean their rights are somehow violated. And if the person at the other end of the phone line is a co-conspirator, yes it is perfectly legit for the FBI to go after them as well.
What's your alternative? I mean, if your position is that the FBI should have to get a new and separate warrant every time I talk to a new person because of their rights ... well, just pause a minute and reflect on how completely and utterly ridonkulous and unworkable that would be.
Their 4A right regarding searches.
The government had a warrant to seize classified documents. They have no probable cause to look at anything else.
But they will because the FBI has never given a shit about the Bill of Rights.
You're displaying fundamental ignorance about how the 4th amendment works.
Basic scenario: I send a letter to Al Capone, and it's in Al's possession in Al's desk in Al's office. Maybe it's a love letter! Maybe it's about smuggling ethanol from Canada! Doesn't matter.
If the letter I wrote is seized from Al's desk pursuant to a judicially authorized search warrant of Al's office, I have exactly zero 4th Amd rights in that letter. Zero, zip, zilch. None, nada, nope.
You're not just wrong, you're so completely wrong it's laughable.
You are, of course, 100% wrong, factually and legally.
1) They have no 4A right regarding a search of Trump's property. It simply doesn't exist.
2) The government did not have "a warrant to seize classified documents." You're completely making up stuff. Fun fact: the warrant doesn't even mention "classified documents"! (Yes, I'm being pedantic, in that it does mention "documents with classification markings," which might or might not be the same thing, depending on whether Trump is lying (ha!) about having declassified stuff. But… that is only one of four categories of documents that the warrant authorizes the seizure of.)
3) Even if you had accidentally been right about that, that would not make your claim that they "have no probable cause to look at anything else" correct. That's not how search warrants have ever worked. (How are they supposed to know whether something is covered by the warrant without having looked at it?)
Because it says CLASSIFIED in fucking huge letters on it. If it doesn’t let it be.
However emotional you get about the subject, that's not what the warrant actually said.
Your problem is that you're inventing a counter-factual reality in your head, then arguing about warrant language that exists only in your imagination.
Sad, really.
The scant academic veneer of this blog has become vanishingly thin. It courts right-wing commenters whose ignorance when expressing unqualified declarations is exceeded by their confidence.
Exactly nothing on this site exceeds you in your tediousness, shithead.
The fact is that anyone writing to President Trump should have known that they were creating Presidential record that would be kept. Letters are in fact a basic research tool for historians. This is not NARA's, DOJ's or the FBI's fault. Had those documents been returned they would go into the achieves and no one but some history geek would have seen them. The documents are only getting attention because they were illegally kept.
Chris Christy has suggested that Trump kept these documents out of spite because he lost the election. I suspect that Gov Christy is correct and that there is really little of interest to the former President other than having them. I don't know that there is any real issue here other than the failure to return the documents and so I think a person corresponding with the President is safe.
Spite is one possible explanation. Another is your garden-variety malignant narcissism - he can tell himself "see, I'm still important, I have sooper-sektrit documents! I didn't lose! Mine, mine, mine!"
Pathetic, really, like most malignant narcissists when they bottom out.
"Chris Christy has suggested that Trump kept these documents out of spite because he lost the election."
That is practically Trump-supporter levels of apologetics. We know for a fact that he kept dirt on foreign leaders because 'maybe I needing later', and it appears he also gathered up material he hoped to use to blackmail the subsequent US administration. It's beyond any reasonable doubt at this point that Trump stole documents he felt had value to him.
Who are these imaginary uninvolved people having their rights taken away, and how exactly has this been done?
You are not being rational.
” I think the special master was the right call. ”
Your legal opinions are fascinating . . . to other half-educated, delusional, disaffected clingers, maybe.
Why does this blog attract so many yahoos who like to dispense legal analysis? Must be the catering to disaffected, half-educated losers.
Self awareness is not one of your strong points.
(Neither is anything else.)
This blog does not cater to me, clinger.
It caters to you.
And you deserve each other.
See you down the road as the culture war continues to unfold.
I'm curious how many of the briefs you have read so far.
Your perspective makes me believe the number is zero.
Maybe Judge Cannon should start looking at Yale and pick up the clerk candidates Judge Ho won't hire.
"In its latest filing, the Department of Justice seeks to put an end to Judge Cannon's interference with the federal government's investigation documents kept at Mar-a-Lago."
Investigation documents, eh? Which investigation, "Crossfire Hurricane"?
No, Jade Helm.
Gov. Abbott was right. The federal government planned an invasion of Texas to take away their guns. And now there's proof, but they don't want you to know about it.
If you look closer I was attempting to poke fun at Adler's sloppy typo. He is missing a word like "into" or "of."
Yup. And I was poking fun at the Q-Anon-level conspiracy theories that the lunatic fringe embraces.
Wow, you don't know "Crossfire Hurricane" was an actual FBI investigation?
Wow, lol
Of couse I know. It's one of the songs on repeat for my right wing friends. The whole "no basis for a warrant", "they spied on Trump", "Mueller found nothing" chorus is as old and tired as it is false.
Much like Jade Helm being an attack on Texas by the Federal Government to take away all their guns. It's all fever swamp nonsense.
BCD, Crossfire Hurricane was indeed an actual FBI investigation, and it found conclusive proof Putin was helping Trump. What the fuck is wrong with you?
It did not find such evidence. It did find evidence that the FBI and CIA knew that the Clinton campaign was going to CLAIM this. Then they used the few contacts they had as pretext for an investigation. It was weak justification. The press should have howled to the wind about investigation of an opposing political campaign. This is well along the path to single party states and authoritarian states. This is worse than what Nixon did.
But I guess that no Democrat is above the law and no Republican is below the law.
Why lie? The conclusion of that investigation was that Trump had been assisted by Russian interference. That's established, widely reported fact.
Don't lie, cretin. Crossfire Hurricane wasn't investigating Russians, it was investigating Trump. And it was a hoax which found nothing wrong after tremendous hoo-hah.
WE GOT THE NAME RIGHT TAKE THAT LIBS!
The circumstances are not exceptional!
The disregard is not callous!
All made-up bullshit.
Explain how his constitutional rights were shown callous disregard.
They asked for the documents.
They issued a subpoena for the documents.
They retrieved some documents in response to the subpoena along with a sworn statement (which was a lie) that they were receiving everything responsive.
They went to a Judge with affidavits and evidence that Trump had continued to keep documents hidden, in defiance of the subpoena.
They received a warrant, and proceeded to search according to its terms.
They found the evidence they believed they would (and probably more).
Where were his rights shown "callous disregard?" That's the legal standard under Richey and you cannot possibly meet that standard.
You are full of shit, as usual.
Not even Judge Loose Cannon found callous disregard of Donald Trump´s constitutional rights.
Gee, if it was bullshit, maybe Trump’s legal team should have made that argument. I wonder why they didn’t even try?
From the 11th Cir.’s Sep. 21, 2022 opinion:
(emphasis added)
Perhaps you should join Trump’s legal team! (Hold out for a sweet, sweet $3M advance fee, too, if you want to get paid.)
I'm not saying it isn't the law, or that Trump should win. Just that it's made-up bullshit.
What you're saying, is that you have no idea what is going on, and that you'd rather stomp your feet and yell at clouds than learn.
The briefs are available. The rulings are available. Read them. You will find that the only thing that is 'made-up bullshit' is your claim.
JACK: Exigent circumstances? That's bullshit.
OSCAR: Maybe. But it's legal.
Yeah, you didn’t need to back up anything, it’s all funny jokes even if your OP sure seemed like it wasn’t!
I’m trying to find the callous disregard clause in my copy of the Constitution, can you point me to it? 😉
On a serious note, though. How calloused does disregard have to be before it is callous? And is that better or worse than congealed or ossified disregard?
Considering that you cannot identify a single step in the process which has shown disregard at all for Trump's rights, and that (as Zarniwoop pointed out) not even Trump's lawyers are claiming otherwise, it would seem that you should have nothing whatsoever to complain about.
It also seems that such a situation will not actually deter you.
"(Hold out for a sweet, sweet $3M advance fee, too, if you want to get paid.)"
There are two types of Trump lawyers. There are the ones who get paid millions of dollars up front to get up to speed with the case, and then resign - and then there are the ones who perjure themselves by signing documents which say things that aren't true. I'm not sure M L is qualified to join even the latter group.
" The circumstances are not exceptional!
The disregard is not callous!
All made-up bullshit. "
When third-shift IT deskers opine about legal issues that trigger their political disaffectedness.
"District courts have no general equitable authority to superintend federal criminal investigations."
Indeed, but given the last 21 years of evidence, perhaps they should.
Meanwhile
Durham has taken two cases to trial, and both have ended in acquittals. After more than three years looking for misconduct in the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe, Durham has only secured one conviction: the guilty plea of a low-level FBI lawyer, who got probation.
That he only got probation is precisely the atrocity that proves the corruption of the system, not evidence that egregious corruption didn't happen.
And of course Durham is a placebo button. His uselessness proves what?
Sorry that your utter conviction that the Russia Hoax was hoax, like the election fraud, could not be proven in a court of law.
Clinesmith wasn't even unearthed by Durham, he was found out by Inspector General Michael Horowitz three years ago but the IG doesn't have the authority to lay charges.
But, we were assured by many here that Durham really had the goods.
They were wrong??