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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics