Anonymous wrote:Submitting as an exhibit a photo of an array of Top Secret documents juxtaposed with a framed cover of Time Magazine is atomic wedgie grade lawyering.

Anonymous wrote:This will go down in the annals of stupendously bad lawyering. Comically bad. They not only managed to fail to preserve any colorable claim of executive privilege (which means Congress could seek the documents from NARA based on a Biden waiver) but also made themselves witnesses to the alleged crime, if not active participants in the concealment and obstruction. Plus one of them now has exposure to a false statements claim. Bravo.

Better yet, in collecting the 15 boxes and materials produced pursuant to the grand jury subpoena, the attorneys had access to TSzSCI and SAP materials for which not even the FBI Case Team and head of the NSD/Counterintelkigence Branch had clearance. WTF were they thinking?

Anonymous wrote:They are refusing to return some of Trump's personal items because the fact that they were comingled with TS/SCI papers shows he saw the papers. They will return personal items that have no evidentiary value. The comingled items will be used in court. Lordy I hope there are tapes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link to attachments https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.1_1.pdf

including this gem

Trump was ordered to appear in front of a grand jury (Attachment C)? That’s new.

That's the subpoena for documents that was served in May. There's a footnote where DOJ got permission from CJ Howell to disclose Grand Jury information.

Trump is screwed. They found classified documents in his office desk

the government seized the contents of a desk drawer that contained
classified documents and governmental records commingled with other documents. The
other documents included two official passports, one of which was expired, and one personal
passport, which was expired. The location of the passports is relevant evidence in an
investigation of unauthorized retention and mishandling of national defense information;
nonetheless, the government decided to return those passports in its discretion.

Also

Although Plaintiff does not specify what material he contends was
seized in excess of the search warrant, certain personal effects were commingled with
classified material in the Seized Evidence, and they remain in the custody of the United States
because of their evidentiary value. Personal effects without evidentiary value wi

ll be returned

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link to attachments https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.1_1.pdf

including this gem

Hoo boy. I know there's been a lot of speculation as to who signed this certification, but this person has better be the informant or they have got some real problems.

Also:

LOCK HIM UP.

Anonymous wrote:Link to attachments https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.1_1.pdf

including this gem

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link to attachments https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.1_1.pdf

including this gem

Trump was ordered to appear in front of a grand jury (Attachment C)? That’s new.

the government seized the contents of a desk drawer that contained
classified documents and governmental records commingled with other documents. The
other documents included two official passports, one of which was expired, and one personal
passport, which was expired. The location of the passports is relevant evidence in an
investigation of unauthorized retention and mishandling of national defense information;
nonetheless, the government decided to return those passports in its discretion.

Although Plaintiff does not specify what material he contends was
seized in excess of the search warrant, certain personal effects were commingled with
classified material in the Seized Evidence, and they remain in the custody of the United States
because of their evidentiary value. Personal effects without evidentiary value wi

Anonymous wrote:Link to attachments https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.1_1.pdf

including this gem