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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much of this order. I am no Trump supporter and I think it’s stupid that the court is even entertaining this process, but I was surprised that Dearie ordered Trump’s team to provide all of its objections to the accuracy of the inventory without having seen the documents themselves. If an entry says something like “357 government documents/photos without classification markings” but provides no further description even of where they were found within Trump’s office, how are they supposed to determine whether those are all documents they believe were taken from his office, or what, if anything, might be missing from the inventory list? At some point Trump will need to take a position on these issues if he’s going to file a 41(g) motion for return of his property, but this does not seem like the appropriate point to require him to do so.

Sounds like you are saying Trump did not take careful notation of what he had. They had boxes stuffed with government documents as well as his own things and no one on his staff had inventoried them? Yikes. Not good records keeping.

Do you keep a written inventory of every news clipping (or comparable piece of paper) in your house to know whether you had 88 or 89. The verification process is not just about the classified documents. I mean, that’s what actually important here and likely why Trump started this process, but Rule 41(g) isn’t about classified documents, it’s about return of property, and the court needs to treat it that way regardless of Trump’s ulterior motives.

I'm a records manager and if I were working for a president who took boxes from the Oval Office you bet your sweet @ss I'd have those boxes inventoried. Yes, if a president has professionals on his staff they should know to inventory everything.

We're not talking about some no-name dude sitting in his own home with a pile of paper of no interest to anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think our national security should take a backseat. I mean Trump was really disorganized but he shouldn’t be penalized for that. He has treasured mementos that must be returned.
Let’s get the priorities straight people!

Why are his treasured Momentos interspersed with classified government documents? Does trump have no administrative staff to keep a record of his personal papers? He gets money from the government to hire administrative staff to keep his records up to date and filed appropriately. And, yes, he should be penalized for his disorganization and for improper storage of classified government documents.

Imagine if Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon had kept classified documents!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think our national security should take a backseat. I mean Trump was really disorganized but he shouldn’t be penalized for that. He has treasured mementos that must be returned.
Let’s get the priorities straight people!

Why are his treasured Momentos interspersed with classified government documents? Does trump have no administrative staff to keep a record of his personal papers? He gets money from the government to hire administrative staff to keep his records up to date and filed appropriately. And, yes, he should be penalized for his disorganization and for improper storage of classified government documents.

Imagine if Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon had kept classified documents!

The PRA was actually passed to keep Nixon from absconding with all his presidential papers, i.e. the evidence about Watergate.
https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/08/14/the-reason-why-presidents-cant-keep-their-white-house-records-dates-back-nixon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More generally, I think it’s important to remember what this proceeding is about. It’s not a criminal proceeding, it’s about seeking the return of his own property that was seized, and asserting any appropriate privileges. Let’s say among the 88 news articles found in one part of his office, Trump knows there is an article about the Yankees signed by Aaron Judge. He really wants that back. But without seeing what’s there, how can he know that it includes his Aaron Judge article? If he doesn’t assert now that it’s missing and it turns out it’s not there because an agent stole it to sell on eBay, will Trump have waived the right to claim it is missing if he doesn’t assert that argument now, before his team sees the documents?

Again, not saying this happened. I have no reason to believe it did. But these are legitimate reasons why Dearie’s process seems problematic.

Exactly. This is not a criminal proceeding - the government first asked nicely for the return of their property and then, when that didn't work, went and got it. When they realized exactly what Trump had kept, it started to get closer to a criminal proceeding - but it didn't start out that way. And btw, Trump's lousy lawyers never properly served the government or even properly filed a complaint? motion? or whatever for this, they just made something up and Judge Cannon indulged them.

DP. You are conflating Cannon's conduct with Dearie's conduct. Cannon's handling of the matter is highly problematic; I won't deny that. But Cannon has delegated specific responsibilities to Dearie and he has to carry them out appropriately or there will be easy grounds for Cannon to ignore his recommendations later. Given the responsibilities delegated and framework set out by Cannon for the special master review, there is zero reason Dearie needs to have Trump's verification before his team can review the documents (because remember, the classified documents are not out of the process). Moreover, nothing in Cannon's appointing order gave Dearie authority to declare that this preliminary verification would be Trump's "final opportunity to raise any factual dispute as to the completeness and accuracy of the Detailed Property Inventory."

Going back to the hypotheticals set forth above, let's say Trump knows he had X number of government documents in a particular drawer, and that is the same number of documents listed in the inventory. He would have no basis to dispute the accuracy and completeness of the inventory, right? But then what happens if, during the review, Trump's team discovers a document that they do not believe was in that drawer, and then also contends that a different document was in the drawer but is not in that set of the produced documents? Can Trump dispute the accuracy of the inventory at that point, or has that ship sailed because he didn't dispute something he did could not have known was up for dispute at the time of his "final opportunity" to raise the issue?

I know someone's first impulse will be to respond that Trump having any government documents is problematic, and I will not dispute that. But for purposes of any future proceedings, including criminal proceedings, which specific documents Trump had may be critically important. So let's set that argument aside for right now.

Moreover, Dearie has not articulated a reason why he needs to proceed in this order and make the verification now rather than after the parties have reviewed the documents. No matter what Dearie might determine now on verification, he still has to allow Trump's team access to all of the seized materials (other than the classified documents) for the privilege review. It does make sense for Dearie to give Trump's team an opportunity to raise any obvious issues with the inventory now because there may be efficiencies to resolving those upfront (particularly if Trump can tell now that something is missing from the inventory), but there is no reason for Dearie to make this Trump's last opportunity to raise those kinds of issues.

The whole process is clearly bullshit, but that makes it all the more important for Dearie to carry out his responsibilities appropriately so that he does not give easy grounds for Cannon to rejects his recommendations and then make it hard for the 11th Circuit to find she abused her discretion in doing so.

That's all well and good, but the 11th Circuit panel said that Cannon has no jurisdiction over any of this. They didn't order her to dismiss the case because that request wasn't before them, but she has a duty to assess her own jurisdiction. This case should be gone and her refusal to do that demonstrates everything she does is in bad faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much of this order. I am no Trump supporter and I think it’s stupid that the court is even entertaining this process, but I was surprised that Dearie ordered Trump’s team to provide all of its objections to the accuracy of the inventory without having seen the documents themselves. If an entry says something like “357 government documents/photos without classification markings” but provides no further description even of where they were found within Trump’s office, how are they supposed to determine whether those are all documents they believe were taken from his office, or what, if anything, might be missing from the inventory list? At some point Trump will need to take a position on these issues if he’s going to file a 41(g) motion for return of his property, but this does not seem like the appropriate point to require him to do so.

Sounds like you are saying Trump did not take careful notation of what he had. They had boxes stuffed with government documents as well as his own things and no one on his staff had inventoried them? Yikes. Not good records keeping.

Do you keep a written inventory of every news clipping (or comparable piece of paper) in your house to know whether you had 88 or 89. The verification process is not just about the classified documents. I mean, that’s what actually important here and likely why Trump started this process, but Rule 41(g) isn’t about classified documents, it’s about return of property, and the court needs to treat it that way regardless of Trump’s ulterior motives.

I'm a records manager and if I were working for a president who took boxes from the Oval Office you bet your sweet @ss I'd have those boxes inventoried. Yes, if a president has professionals on his staff they should know to inventory everything.

We're not talking about some no-name dude sitting in his own home with a pile of paper of no interest to anyone else.

Trump isn't the president anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much of this order. I am no Trump supporter and I think it’s stupid that the court is even entertaining this process, but I was surprised that Dearie ordered Trump’s team to provide all of its objections to the accuracy of the inventory without having seen the documents themselves. If an entry says something like “357 government documents/photos without classification markings” but provides no further description even of where they were found within Trump’s office, how are they supposed to determine whether those are all documents they believe were taken from his office, or what, if anything, might be missing from the inventory list? At some point Trump will need to take a position on these issues if he’s going to file a 41(g) motion for return of his property, but this does not seem like the appropriate point to require him to do so.

Sounds like you are saying Trump did not take careful notation of what he had. They had boxes stuffed with government documents as well as his own things and no one on his staff had inventoried them? Yikes. Not good records keeping.

Do you keep a written inventory of every news clipping (or comparable piece of paper) in your house to know whether you had 88 or 89. The verification process is not just about the classified documents. I mean, that’s what actually important here and likely why Trump started this process, but Rule 41(g) isn’t about classified documents, it’s about return of property, and the court needs to treat it that way regardless of Trump’s ulterior motives.

I'm a records manager and if I were working for a president who took boxes from the Oval Office you bet your sweet @ss I'd have those boxes inventoried. Yes, if a president has professionals on his staff they should know to inventory everything.

We're not talking about some no-name dude sitting in his own home with a pile of paper of no interest to anyone else.

Trump isn't the president anymore.

What exactly is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More generally, I think it’s important to remember what this proceeding is about. It’s not a criminal proceeding, it’s about seeking the return of his own property that was seized, and asserting any appropriate privileges. Let’s say among the 88 news articles found in one part of his office, Trump knows there is an article about the Yankees signed by Aaron Judge. He really wants that back. But without seeing what’s there, how can he know that it includes his Aaron Judge article? If he doesn’t assert now that it’s missing and it turns out it’s not there because an agent stole it to sell on eBay, will Trump have waived the right to claim it is missing if he doesn’t assert that argument now, before his team sees the documents?

Again, not saying this happened. I have no reason to believe it did. But these are legitimate reasons why Dearie’s process seems problematic.

Exactly. This is not a criminal proceeding - the government first asked nicely for the return of their property and then, when that didn't work, went and got it. When they realized exactly what Trump had kept, it started to get closer to a criminal proceeding - but it didn't start out that way. And btw, Trump's lousy lawyers never properly served the government or even properly filed a complaint? motion? or whatever for this, they just made something up and Judge Cannon indulged them.

DP. You are conflating Cannon's conduct with Dearie's conduct. Cannon's handling of the matter is highly problematic; I won't deny that. But Cannon has delegated specific responsibilities to Dearie and he has to carry them out appropriately or there will be easy grounds for Cannon to ignore his recommendations later. Given the responsibilities delegated and framework set out by Cannon for the special master review, there is zero reason Dearie needs to have Trump's verification before his team can review the documents (because remember, the classified documents are not out of the process). Moreover, nothing in Cannon's appointing order gave Dearie authority to declare that this preliminary verification would be Trump's "final opportunity to raise any factual dispute as to the completeness and accuracy of the Detailed Property Inventory."

Going back to the hypotheticals set forth above, let's say Trump knows he had X number of government documents in a particular drawer, and that is the same number of documents listed in the inventory. He would have no basis to dispute the accuracy and completeness of the inventory, right? But then what happens if, during the review, Trump's team discovers a document that they do not believe was in that drawer, and then also contends that a different document was in the drawer but is not in that set of the produced documents? Can Trump dispute the accuracy of the inventory at that point, or has that ship sailed because he didn't dispute something he did could not have known was up for dispute at the time of his "final opportunity" to raise the issue?

I know someone's first impulse will be to respond that Trump having any government documents is problematic, and I will not dispute that. But for purposes of any future proceedings, including criminal proceedings, which specific documents Trump had may be critically important. So let's set that argument aside for right now.

Moreover, Dearie has not articulated a reason why he needs to proceed in this order and make the verification now rather than after the parties have reviewed the documents. No matter what Dearie might determine now on verification, he still has to allow Trump's team access to all of the seized materials (other than the classified documents) for the privilege review. It does make sense for Dearie to give Trump's team an opportunity to raise any obvious issues with the inventory now because there may be efficiencies to resolving those upfront (particularly if Trump can tell now that something is missing from the inventory), but there is no reason for Dearie to make this Trump's last opportunity to raise those kinds of issues.

The whole process is clearly bullshit, but that makes it all the more important for Dearie to carry out his responsibilities appropriately so that he does not give easy grounds for Cannon to rejects his recommendations and then make it hard for the 11th Circuit to find she abused her discretion in doing so.

That's all well and good, but the 11th Circuit panel said that Cannon has no jurisdiction over any of this. They didn't order her to dismiss the case because that request wasn't before them, but she has a duty to assess her own jurisdiction. This case should be gone and her refusal to do that demonstrates everything she does is in bad faith.

And that's all well and good too, but until the full appeal is decided, the district court case is moving forward and Dearie needs to make sure he crosses his t's and dots his i's in case the appeal does not turn out the way we think it should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much of this order. I am no Trump supporter and I think it’s stupid that the court is even entertaining this process, but I was surprised that Dearie ordered Trump’s team to provide all of its objections to the accuracy of the inventory without having seen the documents themselves. If an entry says something like “357 government documents/photos without classification markings” but provides no further description even of where they were found within Trump’s office, how are they supposed to determine whether those are all documents they believe were taken from his office, or what, if anything, might be missing from the inventory list? At some point Trump will need to take a position on these issues if he’s going to file a 41(g) motion for return of his property, but this does not seem like the appropriate point to require him to do so.

Sounds like you are saying Trump did not take careful notation of what he had. They had boxes stuffed with government documents as well as his own things and no one on his staff had inventoried them? Yikes. Not good records keeping.

Do you keep a written inventory of every news clipping (or comparable piece of paper) in your house to know whether you had 88 or 89. The verification process is not just about the classified documents. I mean, that’s what actually important here and likely why Trump started this process, but Rule 41(g) isn’t about classified documents, it’s about return of property, and the court needs to treat it that way regardless of Trump’s ulterior motives.

I'm a records manager and if I were working for a president who took boxes from the Oval Office you bet your sweet @ss I'd have those boxes inventoried. Yes, if a president has professionals on his staff they should know to inventory everything.

We're not talking about some no-name dude sitting in his own home with a pile of paper of no interest to anyone else.

Trump isn't the president anymore.

What exactly is your point?

Why do you assume that Trump, as a former president, is working closely with a records manager at Mar-a-Lago to document every newspaper clipping he shoves in a drawer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much of this order. I am no Trump supporter and I think it’s stupid that the court is even entertaining this process, but I was surprised that Dearie ordered Trump’s team to provide all of its objections to the accuracy of the inventory without having seen the documents themselves. If an entry says something like “357 government documents/photos without classification markings” but provides no further description even of where they were found within Trump’s office, how are they supposed to determine whether those are all documents they believe were taken from his office, or what, if anything, might be missing from the inventory list? At some point Trump will need to take a position on these issues if he’s going to file a 41(g) motion for return of his property, but this does not seem like the appropriate point to require him to do so.

Sounds like you are saying Trump did not take careful notation of what he had. They had boxes stuffed with government documents as well as his own things and no one on his staff had inventoried them? Yikes. Not good records keeping.

Do you keep a written inventory of every news clipping (or comparable piece of paper) in your house to know whether you had 88 or 89. The verification process is not just about the classified documents. I mean, that’s what actually important here and likely why Trump started this process, but Rule 41(g) isn’t about classified documents, it’s about return of property, and the court needs to treat it that way regardless of Trump’s ulterior motives.

I'm a records manager and if I were working for a president who took boxes from the Oval Office you bet your sweet @ss I'd have those boxes inventoried. Yes, if a president has professionals on his staff they should know to inventory everything.

We're not talking about some no-name dude sitting in his own home with a pile of paper of no interest to anyone else.

Trump isn't the president anymore.

What exactly is your point?

Why do you assume that Trump, as a former president, is working closely with a records manager at Mar-a-Lago to document every newspaper clipping he shoves in a drawer?

+1 He’s always had assistants and his office looked like this. And he hires based on loyalty, not competence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1 He’s always had assistants and his office looked like this. And he hires based on loyalty, not competence.

There have been articles written about his love for piles of paper. He brings them everywhere with him, even on planes.

This is because he's dyslexic, and can't read, and can only write with difficulty (he's got, or perhaps had, a great auditive memory and verbal skills to compensate for it). He feels very insecure about his deficiencies, and surrounds himself with papers to show others that he reads and that he's always in the midst of important work. His piles of paper are not to be touches by assistants apart from fetching and carrying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More generally, I think it’s important to remember what this proceeding is about. It’s not a criminal proceeding, it’s about seeking the return of his own property that was seized, and asserting any appropriate privileges. Let’s say among the 88 news articles found in one part of his office, Trump knows there is an article about the Yankees signed by Aaron Judge. He really wants that back. But without seeing what’s there, how can he know that it includes his Aaron Judge article? If he doesn’t assert now that it’s missing and it turns out it’s not there because an agent stole it to sell on eBay, will Trump have waived the right to claim it is missing if he doesn’t assert that argument now, before his team sees the documents?

Again, not saying this happened. I have no reason to believe it did. But these are legitimate reasons why Dearie’s process seems problematic.

Exactly. This is not a criminal proceeding - the government first asked nicely for the return of their property and then, when that didn't work, went and got it. When they realized exactly what Trump had kept, it started to get closer to a criminal proceeding - but it didn't start out that way. And btw, Trump's lousy lawyers never properly served the government or even properly filed a complaint? motion? or whatever for this, they just made something up and Judge Cannon indulged them.

DP. You are conflating Cannon's conduct with Dearie's conduct. Cannon's handling of the matter is highly problematic; I won't deny that. But Cannon has delegated specific responsibilities to Dearie and he has to carry them out appropriately or there will be easy grounds for Cannon to ignore his recommendations later. Given the responsibilities delegated and framework set out by Cannon for the special master review, there is zero reason Dearie needs to have Trump's verification before his team can review the documents (because remember, the classified documents are not out of the process). Moreover, nothing in Cannon's appointing order gave Dearie authority to declare that this preliminary verification would be Trump's "final opportunity to raise any factual dispute as to the completeness and accuracy of the Detailed Property Inventory."

Going back to the hypotheticals set forth above, let's say Trump knows he had X number of government documents in a particular drawer, and that is the same number of documents listed in the inventory. He would have no basis to dispute the accuracy and completeness of the inventory, right? But then what happens if, during the review, Trump's team discovers a document that they do not believe was in that drawer, and then also contends that a different document was in the drawer but is not in that set of the produced documents? Can Trump dispute the accuracy of the inventory at that point, or has that ship sailed because he didn't dispute something he did could not have known was up for dispute at the time of his "final opportunity" to raise the issue?

I know someone's first impulse will be to respond that Trump having any government documents is problematic, and I will not dispute that. But for purposes of any future proceedings, including criminal proceedings, which specific documents Trump had may be critically important. So let's set that argument aside for right now.

Moreover, Dearie has not articulated a reason why he needs to proceed in this order and make the verification now rather than after the parties have reviewed the documents. No matter what Dearie might determine now on verification, he still has to allow Trump's team access to all of the seized materials (other than the classified documents) for the privilege review. It does make sense for Dearie to give Trump's team an opportunity to raise any obvious issues with the inventory now because there may be efficiencies to resolving those upfront (particularly if Trump can tell now that something is missing from the inventory), but there is no reason for Dearie to make this Trump's last opportunity to raise those kinds of issues.

The whole process is clearly bullshit, but that makes it all the more important for Dearie to carry out his responsibilities appropriately so that he does not give easy grounds for Cannon to rejects his recommendations and then make it hard for the 11th Circuit to find she abused her discretion in doing so.

That's all well and good, but the 11th Circuit panel said that Cannon has no jurisdiction over any of this. They didn't order her to dismiss the case because that request wasn't before them, but she has a duty to assess her own jurisdiction. This case should be gone and her refusal to do that demonstrates everything she does is in bad faith.

And that's all well and good too, but until the full appeal is decided, the district court case is moving forward and Dearie needs to make sure he crosses his t's and dots his i's in case the appeal does not turn out the way we think it should.

I don't understand that. Whether Dearie does or doesn't dot his i's is pretty irrelevant. She's not going to adopt any of his recommendations that Trump opposes. And if DOJ has to appeal, it will be Cannon's decisions, not Dearie's, that will be subject to the appeal.

But the panel already ruled on jurisdiction. They specifically went through each of the Richey factors and said that "none of the Richey factors favor exercising equitable jurisdiction over this case. Consequently, the United States is likely to succeed in showing the district court abused its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction over Plaintiff's motion." All of the recommendations and decisions will be thrown out and this will have been a waste of time and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More generally, I think it’s important to remember what this proceeding is about. It’s not a criminal proceeding, it’s about seeking the return of his own property that was seized, and asserting any appropriate privileges. Let’s say among the 88 news articles found in one part of his office, Trump knows there is an article about the Yankees signed by Aaron Judge. He really wants that back. But without seeing what’s there, how can he know that it includes his Aaron Judge article? If he doesn’t assert now that it’s missing and it turns out it’s not there because an agent stole it to sell on eBay, will Trump have waived the right to claim it is missing if he doesn’t assert that argument now, before his team sees the documents?

Again, not saying this happened. I have no reason to believe it did. But these are legitimate reasons why Dearie’s process seems problematic.

Exactly. This is not a criminal proceeding - the government first asked nicely for the return of their property and then, when that didn't work, went and got it. When they realized exactly what Trump had kept, it started to get closer to a criminal proceeding - but it didn't start out that way. And btw, Trump's lousy lawyers never properly served the government or even properly filed a complaint? motion? or whatever for this, they just made something up and Judge Cannon indulged them.

DP. You are conflating Cannon's conduct with Dearie's conduct. Cannon's handling of the matter is highly problematic; I won't deny that. But Cannon has delegated specific responsibilities to Dearie and he has to carry them out appropriately or there will be easy grounds for Cannon to ignore his recommendations later. Given the responsibilities delegated and framework set out by Cannon for the special master review, there is zero reason Dearie needs to have Trump's verification before his team can review the documents (because remember, the classified documents are not out of the process). Moreover, nothing in Cannon's appointing order gave Dearie authority to declare that this preliminary verification would be Trump's "final opportunity to raise any factual dispute as to the completeness and accuracy of the Detailed Property Inventory."

Going back to the hypotheticals set forth above, let's say Trump knows he had X number of government documents in a particular drawer, and that is the same number of documents listed in the inventory. He would have no basis to dispute the accuracy and completeness of the inventory, right? But then what happens if, during the review, Trump's team discovers a document that they do not believe was in that drawer, and then also contends that a different document was in the drawer but is not in that set of the produced documents? Can Trump dispute the accuracy of the inventory at that point, or has that ship sailed because he didn't dispute something he did could not have known was up for dispute at the time of his "final opportunity" to raise the issue?

I know someone's first impulse will be to respond that Trump having any government documents is problematic, and I will not dispute that. But for purposes of any future proceedings, including criminal proceedings, which specific documents Trump had may be critically important. So let's set that argument aside for right now.

Moreover, Dearie has not articulated a reason why he needs to proceed in this order and make the verification now rather than after the parties have reviewed the documents. No matter what Dearie might determine now on verification, he still has to allow Trump's team access to all of the seized materials (other than the classified documents) for the privilege review. It does make sense for Dearie to give Trump's team an opportunity to raise any obvious issues with the inventory now because there may be efficiencies to resolving those upfront (particularly if Trump can tell now that something is missing from the inventory), but there is no reason for Dearie to make this Trump's last opportunity to raise those kinds of issues.

The whole process is clearly bullshit, but that makes it all the more important for Dearie to carry out his responsibilities appropriately so that he does not give easy grounds for Cannon to rejects his recommendations and then make it hard for the 11th Circuit to find she abused her discretion in doing so.

That's all well and good, but the 11th Circuit panel said that Cannon has no jurisdiction over any of this. They didn't order her to dismiss the case because that request wasn't before them, but she has a duty to assess her own jurisdiction. This case should be gone and her refusal to do that demonstrates everything she does is in bad faith.

And that's all well and good too, but until the full appeal is decided, the district court case is moving forward and Dearie needs to make sure he crosses his t's and dots his i's in case the appeal does not turn out the way we think it should.

I don't understand that. Whether Dearie does or doesn't dot his i's is pretty irrelevant. She's not going to adopt any of his recommendations that Trump opposes. And if DOJ has to appeal, it will be Cannon's decisions, not Dearie's, that will be subject to the appeal.

But the panel already ruled on jurisdiction. They specifically went through each of the Richey factors and said that "none of the Richey factors favor exercising equitable jurisdiction over this case. Consequently, the United States is likely to succeed in showing the district court abused its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction over Plaintiff's motion." All of the recommendations and decisions will be thrown out and this will have been a waste of time and money.

I would think the DOJ would just file a motion to dismiss the whole matter based on jurisdiction. and if Canon denies it then appeal it. Jurisdiction motions can be made at any time I thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much of this order. I am no Trump supporter and I think it’s stupid that the court is even entertaining this process, but I was surprised that Dearie ordered Trump’s team to provide all of its objections to the accuracy of the inventory without having seen the documents themselves. If an entry says something like “357 government documents/photos without classification markings” but provides no further description even of where they were found within Trump’s office, how are they supposed to determine whether those are all documents they believe were taken from his office, or what, if anything, might be missing from the inventory list? At some point Trump will need to take a position on these issues if he’s going to file a 41(g) motion for return of his property, but this does not seem like the appropriate point to require him to do so.

Sounds like you are saying Trump did not take careful notation of what he had. They had boxes stuffed with government documents as well as his own things and no one on his staff had inventoried them? Yikes. Not good records keeping.

Do you keep a written inventory of every news clipping (or comparable piece of paper) in your house to know whether you had 88 or 89. The verification process is not just about the classified documents. I mean, that’s what actually important here and likely why Trump started this process, but Rule 41(g) isn’t about classified documents, it’s about return of property, and the court needs to treat it that way regardless of Trump’s ulterior motives.

I'm a records manager and if I were working for a president who took boxes from the Oval Office you bet your sweet @ss I'd have those boxes inventoried. Yes, if a president has professionals on his staff they should know to inventory everything.

We're not talking about some no-name dude sitting in his own home with a pile of paper of no interest to anyone else.

Trump isn't the president anymore.

He was when he filled those boxes up to take to Mar-a-lago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much of this order. I am no Trump supporter and I think it’s stupid that the court is even entertaining this process, but I was surprised that Dearie ordered Trump’s team to provide all of its objections to the accuracy of the inventory without having seen the documents themselves. If an entry says something like “357 government documents/photos without classification markings” but provides no further description even of where they were found within Trump’s office, how are they supposed to determine whether those are all documents they believe were taken from his office, or what, if anything, might be missing from the inventory list? At some point Trump will need to take a position on these issues if he’s going to file a 41(g) motion for return of his property, but this does not seem like the appropriate point to require him to do so.

Sounds like you are saying Trump did not take careful notation of what he had. They had boxes stuffed with government documents as well as his own things and no one on his staff had inventoried them? Yikes. Not good records keeping.

Do you keep a written inventory of every news clipping (or comparable piece of paper) in your house to know whether you had 88 or 89. The verification process is not just about the classified documents. I mean, that’s what actually important here and likely why Trump started this process, but Rule 41(g) isn’t about classified documents, it’s about return of property, and the court needs to treat it that way regardless of Trump’s ulterior motives.

I'm a records manager and if I were working for a president who took boxes from the Oval Office you bet your sweet @ss I'd have those boxes inventoried. Yes, if a president has professionals on his staff they should know to inventory everything.

We're not talking about some no-name dude sitting in his own home with a pile of paper of no interest to anyone else.

Trump isn't the president anymore.

What exactly is your point?

Why do you assume that Trump, as a former president, is working closely with a records manager at Mar-a-Lago to document every newspaper clipping he shoves in a drawer?

Why did Trump, while he was president, not have professional staff inventory what he was shoving into boxes to cart off? Do you not know anything about how such things are supposed to work? Who was handing out property passes for those boxes to leave the White House? They should have been inventoried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More generally, I think it’s important to remember what this proceeding is about. It’s not a criminal proceeding, it’s about seeking the return of his own property that was seized, and asserting any appropriate privileges. Let’s say among the 88 news articles found in one part of his office, Trump knows there is an article about the Yankees signed by Aaron Judge. He really wants that back. But without seeing what’s there, how can he know that it includes his Aaron Judge article? If he doesn’t assert now that it’s missing and it turns out it’s not there because an agent stole it to sell on eBay, will Trump have waived the right to claim it is missing if he doesn’t assert that argument now, before his team sees the documents?

Again, not saying this happened. I have no reason to believe it did. But these are legitimate reasons why Dearie’s process seems problematic.

Exactly. This is not a criminal proceeding - the government first asked nicely for the return of their property and then, when that didn't work, went and got it. When they realized exactly what Trump had kept, it started to get closer to a criminal proceeding - but it didn't start out that way. And btw, Trump's lousy lawyers never properly served the government or even properly filed a complaint? motion? or whatever for this, they just made something up and Judge Cannon indulged them.

DP. You are conflating Cannon's conduct with Dearie's conduct. Cannon's handling of the matter is highly problematic; I won't deny that. But Cannon has delegated specific responsibilities to Dearie and he has to carry them out appropriately or there will be easy grounds for Cannon to ignore his recommendations later. Given the responsibilities delegated and framework set out by Cannon for the special master review, there is zero reason Dearie needs to have Trump's verification before his team can review the documents (because remember, the classified documents are not out of the process). Moreover, nothing in Cannon's appointing order gave Dearie authority to declare that this preliminary verification would be Trump's "final opportunity to raise any factual dispute as to the completeness and accuracy of the Detailed Property Inventory."

Going back to the hypotheticals set forth above, let's say Trump knows he had X number of government documents in a particular drawer, and that is the same number of documents listed in the inventory. He would have no basis to dispute the accuracy and completeness of the inventory, right? But then what happens if, during the review, Trump's team discovers a document that they do not believe was in that drawer, and then also contends that a different document was in the drawer but is not in that set of the produced documents? Can Trump dispute the accuracy of the inventory at that point, or has that ship sailed because he didn't dispute something he did could not have known was up for dispute at the time of his "final opportunity" to raise the issue?

I know someone's first impulse will be to respond that Trump having any government documents is problematic, and I will not dispute that. But for purposes of any future proceedings, including criminal proceedings, which specific documents Trump had may be critically important. So let's set that argument aside for right now.

Moreover, Dearie has not articulated a reason why he needs to proceed in this order and make the verification now rather than after the parties have reviewed the documents. No matter what Dearie might determine now on verification, he still has to allow Trump's team access to all of the seized materials (other than the classified documents) for the privilege review. It does make sense for Dearie to give Trump's team an opportunity to raise any obvious issues with the inventory now because there may be efficiencies to resolving those upfront (particularly if Trump can tell now that something is missing from the inventory), but there is no reason for Dearie to make this Trump's last opportunity to raise those kinds of issues.

The whole process is clearly bullshit, but that makes it all the more important for Dearie to carry out his responsibilities appropriately so that he does not give easy grounds for Cannon to rejects his recommendations and then make it hard for the 11th Circuit to find she abused her discretion in doing so.

That's all well and good, but the 11th Circuit panel said that Cannon has no jurisdiction over any of this. They didn't order her to dismiss the case because that request wasn't before them, but she has a duty to assess her own jurisdiction. This case should be gone and her refusal to do that demonstrates everything she does is in bad faith.

And that's all well and good too, but until the full appeal is decided, the district court case is moving forward and Dearie needs to make sure he crosses his t's and dots his i's in case the appeal does not turn out the way we think it should.

I don't understand that. Whether Dearie does or doesn't dot his i's is pretty irrelevant. She's not going to adopt any of his recommendations that Trump opposes. And if DOJ has to appeal, it will be Cannon's decisions, not Dearie's, that will be subject to the appeal.

But the panel already ruled on jurisdiction. They specifically went through each of the Richey factors and said that "none of the Richey factors favor exercising equitable jurisdiction over this case. Consequently, the United States is likely to succeed in showing the district court abused its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction over Plaintiff's motion." All of the recommendations and decisions will be thrown out and this will have been a waste of time and money.

I would think the DOJ would just file a motion to dismiss the whole matter based on jurisdiction. and if Canon denies it then appeal it. Jurisdiction motions can be made at any time I thought.

DOJ has appealed already. The panel granted the partial stay because they found DOJ was likely to win the appeal. They just haven’t ruled on the full appeal.