Donnie Dumptruck says Mar-A-Lago's been searched by the FBI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s demanded to “be declared” (by whom?) the president. I mean this isn’t even remotely funny anymore. It’s terrifying.

It’s been terrifying for years; where he was headed wasn’t exactly a secret. The GOP is doing nothing to stop this; they just send out talking points to their flying monkeys.

What is the GOP supposed to do? They cant stop him.

They most certainly could. They've had chance after chance to do it. Two impeachments were pretty obvious ones. But even now, they could stop all running to his defense with outlandish excuses, and using their propaganda empire to amplify it. If every major republican came out and condemned Trump for stealing classified information, and Tucker and Sean weren't defending him every night, the number of people backing Trump would dwindle very quickly. But they won't do that, because they know there is a rabid base in their party that would never vote for them again and they don't think that losing those voters with worth saving the country for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s demanded to “be declared” (by whom?) the president. I mean this isn’t even remotely funny anymore. It’s terrifying.

It’s been terrifying for years; where he was headed wasn’t exactly a secret. The GOP is doing nothing to stop this; they just send out talking points to their flying monkeys.

What is the GOP supposed to do? They cant stop him.

They most certainly could. They've had chance after chance to do it. Two impeachments were pretty obvious ones. But even now, they could stop all running to his defense with outlandish excuses, and using their propaganda empire to amplify it. If every major republican came out and condemned Trump for stealing classified information, and Tucker and Sean weren't defending him every night, the number of people backing Trump would dwindle very quickly. But they won't do that, because they know there is a rabid base in their party that would never vote for them again and they don't think that losing those voters with worth saving the country for.

It's a game of chicken.

Fox News earns MONEY for keeping their viewers riled up and watching and buying stuff from ads. Hannity and Carlson play it up for eyeballs, viewership, and professional gain.
Every GOP politicians knows it's suicide to declare themselves against Trump. Only a few politicians have dared to be never-Trumpers, usually in Blue states, usually term-limited. The ones who voted for impeachment were voted out of office. The rest, however much they loathe Trump, are prepared to use his name to stay in power, even if it significantly damages trust in institutions, even if they pushed a portion of the population to believe a lie, and even if it gets people killed. People of their own party.

No one wants to be the first to say no. They are literally painting a target on their backs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s demanded to “be declared” (by whom?) the president. I mean this isn’t even remotely funny anymore. It’s terrifying.

It’s been terrifying for years; where he was headed wasn’t exactly a secret. The GOP is doing nothing to stop this; they just send out talking points to their flying monkeys.

What is the GOP supposed to do? They cant stop him.

They most certainly could. They've had chance after chance to do it. Two impeachments were pretty obvious ones. But even now, they could stop all running to his defense with outlandish excuses, and using their propaganda empire to amplify it. If every major republican came out and condemned Trump for stealing classified information, and Tucker and Sean weren't defending him every night, the number of people backing Trump would dwindle very quickly. But they won't do that, because they know there is a rabid base in their party that would never vote for them again and they don't think that losing those voters with worth saving the country for.

It's a game of chicken.

Fox News earns MONEY for keeping their viewers riled up and watching and buying stuff from ads. Hannity and Carlson play it up for eyeballs, viewership, and professional gain.
Every GOP politicians knows it's suicide to declare themselves against Trump. Only a few politicians have dared to be never-Trumpers, usually in Blue states, usually term-limited. The ones who voted for impeachment were voted out of office. The rest, however much they loathe Trump, are prepared to use his name to stay in power, even if it significantly damages trust in institutions, even if they pushed a portion of the population to believe a lie, and even if it gets people killed. People of their own party.

No one wants to be the first to say no. They are literally painting a target on their backs.

I guess they have no choice but to continue pretending that Trump isn't a bloated, sick, criminal who's dragging them all down below water a little more every day.

Some of them, surely, see the writing on the wall and have some instinct for self-preservation? Or not, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s demanded to “be declared” (by whom?) the president. I mean this isn’t even remotely funny anymore. It’s terrifying.

It’s been terrifying for years; where he was headed wasn’t exactly a secret. The GOP is doing nothing to stop this; they just send out talking points to their flying monkeys.

What is the GOP supposed to do? They cant stop him.

They most certainly could. They've had chance after chance to do it. Two impeachments were pretty obvious ones. But even now, they could stop all running to his defense with outlandish excuses, and using their propaganda empire to amplify it. If every major republican came out and condemned Trump for stealing classified information, and Tucker and Sean weren't defending him every night, the number of people backing Trump would dwindle very quickly. But they won't do that, because they know there is a rabid base in their party that would never vote for them again and they don't think that losing those voters with worth saving the country for.

It's a game of chicken.

Fox News earns MONEY for keeping their viewers riled up and watching and buying stuff from ads. Hannity and Carlson play it up for eyeballs, viewership, and professional gain.
Every GOP politicians knows it's suicide to declare themselves against Trump. Only a few politicians have dared to be never-Trumpers, usually in Blue states, usually term-limited. The ones who voted for impeachment were voted out of office. The rest, however much they loathe Trump, are prepared to use his name to stay in power, even if it significantly damages trust in institutions, even if they pushed a portion of the population to believe a lie, and even if it gets people killed. People of their own party.

No one wants to be the first to say no. They are literally painting a target on their backs.

I guess they have no choice but to continue pretending that Trump isn't a bloated, sick, criminal who's dragging them all down below water a little more every day.

Some of them, surely, see the writing on the wall and have some instinct for self-preservation? Or not, I guess.

I naively thought they’d ditch him after he cost them the WH, Senate and house. But they’ve told themselves a story where he’s the ticket to electoral victory. Will be interesting to see if they keep thinking that if there’s no red wave in November. I don’t know how they cannot blame him if they don’t get the senate. He’s the only reason they got such a bad slate and of candidates in what should have been a great year for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happens Supreme Court will rollover for DT.
Justice Roberts are you ready???

It will never get there. They are going by the book.

Trump will litigate the issue of his right to assert “executive privilege” for as long as he can.

It is settled law, it’s not going anywhere. You can’t exercise executive privilege if you’re no longer the executive. He is trying to claim that he was entitled to move the documents to FL while he was still POTUS, and that may be true. He wasn’t allowed to KEEP them. There is not a single coherent legal theory I’ve seen anywhere about that. .

It is far from “well-settled.” US v. Nixon involved a balancing of competing interests utilized prior to enactment of the PRA. That is why the statute sets forth the specified criteria by which the executive branch of axsitting administration can obtain access under certain enumerated circumstances to records of a prior administration for which there is a claim of privilege and why Congress vested the district court in DC with jurisdiction to adjudicate any resulting disputes. This doesn’t mean that Trump has an argument that will carry the day, it just means he has at least a colorable right to assert a claim of privilege that can be overruled by the current exrcutive (the Archivist in this instance).

None of that lets him keep the documents. Saying they are privileged just means the archivist guards access to them. They still belong to the Archives.

Where did PP assert that TFG gets to keep presidential records? No rational person can make this argument. And yet TFG reportedly stormed around the Oval Office raging about “my documents” and left them on the floor of a closet in his personal office. No need to conflate the issues.

So why keep arguing about Executive Privilege if it makes no difference? PP and others keep saying EP is not settled, but Trump is arguing for EP as justification for having the documents. What is PP’s point? EP is irrelevant.

You seem to be missing the forest for the trees to some degree. Trump does not argue explicitly in his motion that he gets to keep any documents on the basis of a claim of executive privilege, whether under an expansive theory of executive privilege or otherwise. The supplemental brief makes no mention of executive privilege whatsoever.

His principal argument is that the DOJ should be ordered to stop reviewing “presumptively privileged” presidential and other siezed materials and that a Special Master be appointed to conduct the review. While I have admittedly only skimmed the motion and supplemental filing, Trump is asking for the following relief:

(1) for the Master to identify privileged materials and/or attorney-client communications (the FBI reportedly segregated five boxes for review by the privilege review team in accordance with the warrant) because a taint team review does not adequately safeguard his Fourth Amendment rights,

(2) for the Master to return any materials outside the scope of the warrant (there are repeated references to passports that already have been returned as well as “personal papers”),

(3) for DOJ to file a more detailed receipt for the siezed materials (Trump notes generic descriptions of “photos” and “handwritten notes”) that could enable him to seek the return of property pursuant to FRCrimP 41, and

(4) a more fulsome explanation as to the warrant was sought because, at least in his mind, he was being entirely cooperative and in any event the execution of a warrant at a place used as a residence by a former president is unprecedented.

It is possible to infer that Trump might want the Master to return materials found to be outside the scope of the warrant, even if they are presidential records, but I didn’t read the papers as advocating for this.

The presumed endgame here is to gather as much information as possible to attack the warrant as a Fourth Amendment violation and then assert that the materials should have been protected based on the assertion of a latent claim of executive privilege. This would be the crux of a subsequent Rule 41 motion envisioned by Trump. Some may dismiss assertion of a latent claim of executive privilege as DOA, and they very well may be proven correct, but the Presidential Records Act vests a former executive with a statutory right to raise this exact type of legal challenge.

We will all wait to see how it plays out.

[Anonymous]

This is all taken direct from the Roy Cohn playbook. Cohn taught Trump that when the federal government files a lawsuit against you then you need to file your own lawsuit in response regardless of merit. It’s akin to legal mudwrestling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happens Supreme Court will rollover for DT.
Justice Roberts are you ready???

It will never get there. They are going by the book.

Trump will litigate the issue of his right to assert “executive privilege” for as long as he can.

It is settled law, it’s not going anywhere. You can’t exercise executive privilege if you’re no longer the executive. He is trying to claim that he was entitled to move the documents to FL while he was still POTUS, and that may be true. He wasn’t allowed to KEEP them. There is not a single coherent legal theory I’ve seen anywhere about that. .

It is far from “well-settled.” US v. Nixon involved a balancing of competing interests utilized prior to enactment of the PRA. That is why the statute sets forth the specified criteria by which the executive branch of axsitting administration can obtain access under certain enumerated circumstances to records of a prior administration for which there is a claim of privilege and why Congress vested the district court in DC with jurisdiction to adjudicate any resulting disputes. This doesn’t mean that Trump has an argument that will carry the day, it just means he has at least a colorable right to assert a claim of privilege that can be overruled by the current exrcutive (the Archivist in this instance).

None of that lets him keep the documents. Saying they are privileged just means the archivist guards access to them. They still belong to the Archives.

Where did PP assert that TFG gets to keep presidential records? No rational person can make this argument. And yet TFG reportedly stormed around the Oval Office raging about “my documents” and left them on the floor of a closet in his personal office. No need to conflate the issues.

So why keep arguing about Executive Privilege if it makes no difference? PP and others keep saying EP is not settled, but Trump is arguing for EP as justification for having the documents. What is PP’s point? EP is irrelevant.

You seem to be missing the forest for the trees to some degree. Trump does not argue explicitly in his motion that he gets to keep any documents on the basis of a claim of executive privilege, whether under an expansive theory of executive privilege or otherwise. The supplemental brief makes no mention of executive privilege whatsoever.

His principal argument is that the DOJ should be ordered to stop reviewing “presumptively privileged” presidential and other siezed materials and that a Special Master be appointed to conduct the review. While I have admittedly only skimmed the motion and supplemental filing, Trump is asking for the following relief:

(1) for the Master to identify privileged materials and/or attorney-client communications (the FBI reportedly segregated five boxes for review by the privilege review team in accordance with the warrant) because a taint team review does not adequately safeguard his Fourth Amendment rights,

(2) for the Master to return any materials outside the scope of the warrant (there are repeated references to passports that already have been returned as well as “personal papers”),

(3) for DOJ to file a more detailed receipt for the siezed materials (Trump notes generic descriptions of “photos” and “handwritten notes”) that could enable him to seek the return of property pursuant to FRCrimP 41, and

(4) a more fulsome explanation as to the warrant was sought because, at least in his mind, he was being entirely cooperative and in any event the execution of a warrant at a place used as a residence by a former president is unprecedented.

It is possible to infer that Trump might want the Master to return materials found to be outside the scope of the warrant, even if they are presidential records, but I didn’t read the papers as advocating for this.

The presumed endgame here is to gather as much information as possible to attack the warrant as a Fourth Amendment violation and then assert that the materials should have been protected based on the assertion of a latent claim of executive privilege. This would be the crux of a subsequent Rule 41 motion envisioned by Trump. Some may dismiss assertion of a latent claim of executive privilege as DOA, and they very well may be proven correct, but the Presidential Records Act vests a former executive with a statutory right to raise this exact type of legal challenge.

We will all wait to see how it plays out.

PRA says that challenge has to be in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happens Supreme Court will rollover for DT.
Justice Roberts are you ready???

It will never get there. They are going by the book.

Trump will litigate the issue of his right to assert “executive privilege” for as long as he can.

It is settled law, it’s not going anywhere. You can’t exercise executive privilege if you’re no longer the executive. He is trying to claim that he was entitled to move the documents to FL while he was still POTUS, and that may be true. He wasn’t allowed to KEEP them. There is not a single coherent legal theory I’ve seen anywhere about that. .

It is far from “well-settled.” US v. Nixon involved a balancing of competing interests utilized prior to enactment of the PRA. That is why the statute sets forth the specified criteria by which the executive branch of axsitting administration can obtain access under certain enumerated circumstances to records of a prior administration for which there is a claim of privilege and why Congress vested the district court in DC with jurisdiction to adjudicate any resulting disputes. This doesn’t mean that Trump has an argument that will carry the day, it just means he has at least a colorable right to assert a claim of privilege that can be overruled by the current exrcutive (the Archivist in this instance).

Irrelevant. Asserting a claim of privilege does not allow him to have personal custody of any records; it just means the public may not get to see them. It's a red herring argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about what this special master would do. Say he determines a document is subject to executive privilege. Then what? That basically proves it belongs to the government and trump illegally had it.

A special master typically operates behind the scenes because they are supposed to act in a role as impartial advisor to the court who can make findings and recommendations to the court. Filings may not be docketed. Hearings — such as they are — may not be transcribed or open to the public. It provides cover to Trump.

That doesn’t answer the question. Trump wants a special master to determine what docs are subject to executive privilege. So what if the special master does that? What is the result? Surely they won’t give him the docs back. What’s the point?

Trump...doesn't control executive privilege.

We can expect him to argue otherwise based on language in US v. Nixon characterizing certain presidential communications as presumptively privileged. NARA has explained the reasons Trump is not correct but he’s simply trying to kick to can closer and closer to the midterms and the presumptive announcement of his candidacy.

Even if they were once covered by Executive Privilege doesn’t make them Trump’s personal documents. It means they are Presidential records that belong to the National Archives. Trump doesn’t get to keep government property.

I’m not sure anyone is arguing otherwise. Even Trump’s filing only seek return of materials outside the scope of the warrant (and presumably not presidential records).

https://www.justsecurity.org/82873/assessing-trumps-claim-of-executive-privilege-on-fbi-access-to-mal-docs/

Anything covered executive privilege is by definition a presidential record. And his filing doesn’t mention any other privileges, like AC. That is what is so baffling about the request, and the judges apparent decision to go with it.

DOJ’s response should be good. 🍿

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happens Supreme Court will rollover for DT.
Justice Roberts are you ready???

It will never get there. They are going by the book.

Trump will litigate the issue of his right to assert “executive privilege” for as long as he can.

It is settled law, it’s not going anywhere. You can’t exercise executive privilege if you’re no longer the executive. He is trying to claim that he was entitled to move the documents to FL while he was still POTUS, and that may be true. He wasn’t allowed to KEEP them. There is not a single coherent legal theory I’ve seen anywhere about that. .

It is far from “well-settled.” US v. Nixon involved a balancing of competing interests utilized prior to enactment of the PRA. That is why the statute sets forth the specified criteria by which the executive branch of axsitting administration can obtain access under certain enumerated circumstances to records of a prior administration for which there is a claim of privilege and why Congress vested the district court in DC with jurisdiction to adjudicate any resulting disputes. This doesn’t mean that Trump has an argument that will carry the day, it just means he has at least a colorable right to assert a claim of privilege that can be overruled by the current exrcutive (the Archivist in this instance).

None of that lets him keep the documents. Saying they are privileged just means the archivist guards access to them. They still belong to the Archives.

Where did PP assert that TFG gets to keep presidential records? No rational person can make this argument. And yet TFG reportedly stormed around the Oval Office raging about “my documents” and left them on the floor of a closet in his personal office. No need to conflate the issues.

So why keep arguing about Executive Privilege if it makes no difference? PP and others keep saying EP is not settled, but Trump is arguing for EP as justification for having the documents. What is PP’s point? EP is irrelevant.

You seem to be missing the forest for the trees to some degree. Trump does not argue explicitly in his motion that he gets to keep any documents on the basis of a claim of executive privilege, whether under an expansive theory of executive privilege or otherwise. The supplemental brief makes no mention of executive privilege whatsoever.

His principal argument is that the DOJ should be ordered to stop reviewing “presumptively privileged” presidential and other siezed materials and that a Special Master be appointed to conduct the review. While I have admittedly only skimmed the motion and supplemental filing, Trump is asking for the following relief:

(1) for the Master to identify privileged materials and/or attorney-client communications (the FBI reportedly segregated five boxes for review by the privilege review team in accordance with the warrant) because a taint team review does not adequately safeguard his Fourth Amendment rights,

(2) for the Master to return any materials outside the scope of the warrant (there are repeated references to passports that already have been returned as well as “personal papers”),

(3) for DOJ to file a more detailed receipt for the siezed materials (Trump notes generic descriptions of “photos” and “handwritten notes”) that could enable him to seek the return of property pursuant to FRCrimP 41, and

(4) a more fulsome explanation as to the warrant was sought because, at least in his mind, he was being entirely cooperative and in any event the execution of a warrant at a place used as a residence by a former president is unprecedented.

It is possible to infer that Trump might want the Master to return materials found to be outside the scope of the warrant, even if they are presidential records, but I didn’t read the papers as advocating for this.

The presumed endgame here is to gather as much information as possible to attack the warrant as a Fourth Amendment violation and then assert that the materials should have been protected based on the assertion of a latent claim of executive privilege. This would be the crux of a subsequent Rule 41 motion envisioned by Trump. Some may dismiss assertion of a latent claim of executive privilege as DOA, and they very well may be proven correct, but the Presidential Records Act vests a former executive with a statutory right to raise this exact type of legal challenge.

We will all wait to see how it plays out.

If his problem is that he doesn’t want the FBI and DOJ to have the documents then he should have turned them over to Archives. He created the necessity for FBI and DOJ to intervene. It’s a stupid argument over an irrelevant point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about what this special master would do. Say he determines a document is subject to executive privilege. Then what? That basically proves it belongs to the government and trump illegally had it.

A special master typically operates behind the scenes because they are supposed to act in a role as impartial advisor to the court who can make findings and recommendations to the court. Filings may not be docketed. Hearings — such as they are — may not be transcribed or open to the public. It provides cover to Trump.

That doesn’t answer the question. Trump wants a special master to determine what docs are subject to executive privilege. So what if the special master does that? What is the result? Surely they won’t give him the docs back. What’s the point?

Trump...doesn't control executive privilege.

We can expect him to argue otherwise based on language in US v. Nixon characterizing certain presidential communications as presumptively privileged. NARA has explained the reasons Trump is not correct but he’s simply trying to kick to can closer and closer to the midterms and the presumptive announcement of his candidacy.

Even if they were once covered by Executive Privilege doesn’t make them Trump’s personal documents. It means they are Presidential records that belong to the National Archives. Trump doesn’t get to keep government property.

I’m not sure anyone is arguing otherwise. Even Trump’s filing only seek return of materials outside the scope of the warrant (and presumably not presidential records).

https://www.justsecurity.org/82873/assessing-trumps-claim-of-executive-privilege-on-fbi-access-to-mal-docs/

Anything covered executive privilege is by definition a presidential record. And his filing doesn’t mention any other privileges, like AC. That is what is so baffling about the request, and the judges apparent decision to go with it.

DOJ’s response should be good. 🍿

I see a lot of civil procedure arguments incoming.

[Anonymous]

Ultra MAGA Trump lackey is retiring from USSS.

Good riddance. He should never have been allowed back after her took a leave of absence to work on Donnie's campaign.

Maybe he will have more time to testify to the J6 committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about what this special master would do. Say he determines a document is subject to executive privilege. Then what? That basically proves it belongs to the government and trump illegally had it.

A special master typically operates behind the scenes because they are supposed to act in a role as impartial advisor to the court who can make findings and recommendations to the court. Filings may not be docketed. Hearings — such as they are — may not be transcribed or open to the public. It provides cover to Trump.

That doesn’t answer the question. Trump wants a special master to determine what docs are subject to executive privilege. So what if the special master does that? What is the result? Surely they won’t give him the docs back. What’s the point?

Trump...doesn't control executive privilege.

We can expect him to argue otherwise based on language in US v. Nixon characterizing certain presidential communications as presumptively privileged. NARA has explained the reasons Trump is not correct but he’s simply trying to kick to can closer and closer to the midterms and the presumptive announcement of his candidacy.

Even if they were once covered by Executive Privilege doesn’t make them Trump’s personal documents. It means they are Presidential records that belong to the National Archives. Trump doesn’t get to keep government property.

I’m not sure anyone is arguing otherwise. Even Trump’s filing only seek return of materials outside the scope of the warrant (and presumably not presidential records).

https://www.justsecurity.org/82873/assessing-trumps-claim-of-executive-privilege-on-fbi-access-to-mal-docs/

Anything covered executive privilege is by definition a presidential record. And his filing doesn’t mention any other privileges, like AC. That is what is so baffling about the request, and the judges apparent decision to go with it.

DOJ’s response should be good. 🍿

I see a lot of civil procedure arguments incoming.

A 1L final exam’s worth. But DOJ is going to nuclear on the privilege issue. It would have been thoroughly researched prior to moving forward with a subpoena and then warrant application. It’s in the can. Maybe even something from OLC.

[Anonymous]

He'd be in jail if they had something. Do you honestly think they'd wait to arrest him just so they could drip drip drip to friendly media?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He'd be in jail if they had something. Do you honestly think they'd wait to arrest him just so they could drip drip drip to friendly media?

You don’t arrest someone in this context until a grand jury has returned criminal charges. You don’t ask the grand jury to return criminal charges until you believe you have all of the significant relevant evidence so that you don’t lose the chance to bring additional and/or heightened charges. DOJ is not going to rush this. If they’re going to charge him, it will be with everything they can.