ThePointblank wrote:

She also may have just made it more difficult for Trump to appeal to the SCOTUS. The 11th Circuit only stayed parts of her order; Cannon amended her order to remove those parts. As a result the parts of her original order pertaining to the obviously classified documents no longer exist, and the 11th Circuit's decision is now legally moot. The other parts are still active pending full review. At this moment, there's nothing to appeal to SCOTUS and there won't be until the 11th is done with their full review, which could be a while.

In short, because she amended the order to remove the parts that were stayed, the stay no longer exists. There's nothing for Trump to appeal (for now). The classified docs are completely off the table until after Trump is indicted.

This is a really good point, that I was wondering about as I read Trump's SCOTUS appeal. It appears that Trump is appealing a stay to an injunction that no longer exists in the judicial record, since it's been stricken. Judge Cannon has officially ruled that the Special Master is not to have access to the classified records.

I'm not an attorney, but it seems like what Trump is actually doing now, is appealing Judge Cannon's ruling. The fact that the appellate court stay no longer exists, because the injunction no longer exists, alone would be grounds for dismissal, I would think. Especially since he is arguing on procedural grounds that the appellate court does not have jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Roberts is worried that the Supreme Court is losing legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Trump's appeal is being handled by Justice ClarencevThomas, as receiving justice for Florida, per Avatar's previous post. Virginia Thomas has just finished giving evidence to the Senate 1/6 panel, and still believes that the 2020 election was stolen, or so she claims. She was also involved in many of the cases regarding electoral fraud that were thrown outaround the country. Clarence and Virginia Thomas are husband and wife.

What planet does Chief Justice Roberts live on ?

Avatar2go wrote:

4. As President, it's impossible for him to commit a crime by possession of any document, and that this is merely a dispute between himself and the National Archives.

By that logic, anyone who previously worked for Trump could keep the documents they happened to have at home at the time of resignation/termination.

So, what are the odds someone has his tax records?
And what are the odds Trump will go nuclear when the records are released/sold by a former employee?

VolvoBus wrote:

Chief Justice Roberts is worried that the Supreme Court is losing legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Trump's appeal is being handled by Justice Clarence Thomas, as receiving justice for Florida, per Avatar's previous post. Virginia Thomas has just finished giving evidence to the Senate 1/6 panel, and still believes that the 2020 election was stolen, or so she claims. She was also involved in many of the cases regarding electoral fraud that were thrown out around the country. Clarence and Virginia Thomas are husband and wife.

What planet does Chief Justice Roberts live on ?

I too was worried when I read Justice Roberts' comments about politicization of the Court. His basic point is correct, that it's wrong to cry politics just because you disagree with the Court's decisions.

However he completely ignores the hard turn to starboard the court has undertaken, that has thrown the passengers on the ship of state onto the floor, or at least off-balance. The long trend of the Court has been to make incremental steps, and for the most part, to uphold and expand the rights of the individual, to new groups within US culture. That has reversed with recent rulings.

When the population gets tossed around, they are going to ask questions about who's driving the ship, and why the sudden change in direction. It's very difficult to not link that back to political makeup of the court. So in that sense, perhaps Justice Roberts has blinders on that issue.

One irony is that when Justice Roberts was appointed, he was considered a quite conservative choice. But today, he can be considered a moderate by comparison to the other conservative Justices.

So I'm glad he's there, as I think he will strive to restrain some of the wilder notions of those members. But there's no doubt we are going to be turning to starboard for some time.

SCOTUS must and imho will shut down 45's attempt to appeal the mouse fart of a legal issue! Just to prevent the world from being convinced there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

The 11th District Court of Appeals has granted the DoJ request for expedited appeal. Arguments are to be complete by November 17th. The court allowed a month for Trump to prepare his case, in light of complaints of being swamped.

https://www.axios.com/2022/10/05/specia ... eals-court

DoJ investigation leader Jay Bratt has formally asked Trump to turn over any government documents he may still have in his possession, expressing skepticism that all documents have been relinquished.

This has caused a rift in team Trump. Some advisors are proposing a forensic audit of Trump's papers, to establish that no documents remain. Others are proposing a hard line of resistance to the DoJ. Trump himself is said to favor the hard line approach.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityar ... documents/

What would happen if the FBI conducted another search of Trump properties, and found more records?

Yikes!!!

Avatar2go wrote:

What would happen if the FBI conducted another search of Trump properties, and found more records?

His base would scream bloody murder while a decision on whether to charge him with a crime would remain stalled?

Vintage wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

What would happen if the FBI conducted another search of Trump properties, and found more records?

His base would scream bloody murder while a decision on whether to charge him with a crime would remain stalled?

Would it be a new thing? Not, but if there is still some National Security stuff still at Mar-A-Logo they need to come and take it out. No sense in bending to somebody who is a traitor to their own country.

In news from the Mar-a-Lago court docket:

1. The DoJ has informed Judge Cannon that they have retained a document scanning vendor and begun processing the documents. Trump had earlier argued that no vendor could undertake the work.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 37.0_2.pdf

2. Judge Dearie has processed the first 3 batches of the filter team materials, which are those identified by DoJ as having potential attorney-client privilege, or that potentially belong to Trump.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .138.0.pdf

3. Kash Patel has submitted another brief as movant intervenor, recommending summary judgement on behalf of Trump. The brief contains dozens of alleged justifications for the recommendation, as well as Patel's alleged standing in the case.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .135.0.pdf

Avatar2go wrote:

In news from the Mar-a-Lago court docket:

1. The DoJ has informed Judge Cannon that they have retained a document scanning vendor and begun processing the documents. Trump had earlier argued that no vendor could undertake the work.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 37.0_2.pdf

2. Judge Dearie has processed the first 3 batches of the filter team materials, which are those identified by DoJ as having potential attorney-client privilege, or that potentially belong to Trump.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .138.0.pdf

3. Kash Patel has submitted another brief as movant intervenor, recommending summary judgement on behalf of Trump. The brief contains dozens of alleged justifications for the recommendation, as well as Patel's alleged standing in the case.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .135.0.pdf

I have read some bullshit briefs in my time - Patel’s is waaaay up there.

Avatar2go wrote:

In news from the Mar-a-Lago court docket:

1. The DoJ has informed Judge Cannon that they have retained a document scanning vendor and begun processing the documents. Trump had earlier argued that no vendor could undertake the work.

Can secret documents be scanned? I would expect them to have the same sort of protection against scanning/copying as bank notes do.

Aaron747 wrote:

I have read some bullshit briefs in my time - Patel’s is waaaay up there.

Yet another devout disciple throws himself in the path of the bullet to save his beloved spiritual leader.

petertenthije wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

In news from the Mar-a-Lago court docket:

1. The DoJ has informed Judge Cannon that they have retained a document scanning vendor and begun processing the documents. Trump had earlier argued that no vendor could undertake the work.

Can secret documents be scanned? I would expect them to have the same sort of protection against scanning/copying as bank notes do.

"Scanning" can also mean "reviewing the documents and see whether they are classified or not". For example, you scan the headlines of a newspaper... with your eyeballs.

Yes, you can scan these docs with a scanner. No problem. It's mostly laws and strict procedures that safeguard secret documents........ and these rules say that you are strictly forbidden from scanning/photocopying such documents.

Against a malicious agent, these rules don't really help. Get a $100 camera and a $5 SD card, photograph the things, and smuggle out the SD card. (But again, there are strict rules against any electronic equipment at such facilities.)

petertenthije wrote:

Can secret documents be scanned? I would expect them to have the same sort of protection against scanning/copying as bank notes do.

All the classified documents are removed from the scanning requirements, as they are not subject to resolution by the special master. That was the stay requested by the DOJ and granted by the appellate court.

Francoflier wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I have read some bullshit briefs in my time - Patel’s is waaaay up there.

Yet another devout disciple throws himself in the path of the bullet to save his beloved spiritual leader.

I posted a longer comment about Patel's qualifications and motivations, but the moderators deleted it. Suffice it to say that I agree with you both.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-m ... es-2022-10

If the DOJ can prove 45's intent to trade the Mens Rea is on a platter.

aristoenigma wrote:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mar-a-lago-files-2016-fbi-russia-investigation-archives-2022-10

If the DOJ can prove 45's intent to trade the Mens Rea is on a platter.

Unlikely to stick. It appears that at most, it could be proven that the suggestion was made in a discussion. Nothing more unless there's an email from Trump or one of his actors with instructions to do so. If that were the case, that DOJ would've likely already charged.

It's interesting that Trump's view of things always being a negotiation, consistently gets him into trouble.

The discussions with Russia about dirt on Hillary. The discussions with Zelensky about dirt on the Bidens. The discussions with North Korea about nuclear weapons. The discussions with the DoJ over classified documents. Now the potential discussions with the Archives about exculpatory information on himself.

It's no wonder that he views the FBI search as illegal, they came in and took away all his negotiating power.

Christina Bobb has testified to the DoJ that she was asked by Evan Corcoran to serve as Mar-a-Lago records custodian, and sign the affidavit affirming that all classified documents had been returned.

The custodian position had remained officially unfilled, and Bobb was a Trump staff attorney. But she did not participate in the search. Accordingly she asked the affidavit language be amended to "the information provided to me", with regard to the search completeness. The search was conducted by Corcoran and other Trump staff.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -documents

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... -rcna51459

In my experience a lawyer that asks to amend the affidavit sensed it was untrue. Also invites disbarment since the nature of classified documents are so critical for exactitude.

aristoenigma wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-lawyer-christina-bobb-speaks-federal-investigators-mar-lago-case-rcna51459

In my experience a lawyer that asks to amend the affidavit sensed it was untrue. Also invites disbarment since the nature of classified documents are so critical for exactitude.

Not really, any attorney would back off from attesting to something without personal knowledge.
Other attorneys reading her 'as far as I know' caveat would know that her statement is meaningless, not so much for the press though.

One school of thought says using a caveat in an affidavit when you are a lawyer is tantamount to misleading. The affidavit was being relied on by more than the press.

Avatar2go wrote:

Christina Bobb has testified to the DoJ that she was asked by Evan Corcoran to serve as Mar-a-Lago records custodian, and sign the affidavit affirming that all classified documents had been returned.

The custodian position had remained officially unfilled, and Bobb was a Trump staff attorney. But she did not participate in the search. Accordingly she asked the affidavit language be amended to "the information provided to me", with regard to the search completeness. The search was conducted by Corcoran and other Trump staff.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -documents

IIRC Corcoran was one of Trump's legal staff. As he was one of those conducting the search, and apparently drew up the original affidavit, why am I getting the sneaking thoughts that he knew the affidavit was false and was setting Bobb up as the fall-guy from the start ? Surely, a lawyer would never do that. !!

I think the fact that there was no official custodian of records is telling. Trump had not been able to keep anyone in that position, even in the White House.

Imagine if you were hired to maintain the records, and the President is carting them off to his various residences, hoarding them in boxes, tearing them up, or flushing them.

It would be a Sisyphean task.

VolvoBus wrote:

IIRC Corcoran was one of Trump's legal staff. As he was one of those conducting the search, and apparently drew up the original affidavit, why am I getting the sneaking thoughts that he knew the affidavit was false and was setting Bobb up as the fall-guy from the start ? Surely, a lawyer would never do that. !!

I wondered that too. Was it letting someone else take the fall, or was it just incompetence? Bobb was loyal to Trump so might not question things too much, either way.

What does it say that we can't really tell the difference? Both have been features of the Trump administration.

One thing I think is certain, Trump himself believes he is entitled to those documents. That's why he keeps referring to Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Sisyphus is a figure from Greek mythology who, as king of Corinth, became infamous for his general trickery and twice cheating death. He ultimately got his comeuppance when Zeus dealt him the eternal punishment of forever rolling a boulder up a hill in the depths of Hades.

Good analogy avatar. 45 is going to forever roll up a hill in hopes of getting a ride on AF One again.

Avatar2go wrote:

VolvoBus wrote:

IIRC Corcoran was one of Trump's legal staff. As he was one of those conducting the search, and apparently drew up the original affidavit, why am I getting the sneaking thoughts that he knew the affidavit was false and was setting Bobb up as the fall-guy from the start ? Surely, a lawyer would never do that. !!

I wondered that too. Was it letting someone else take the fall, or was it just incompetence? Bobb was loyal to Trump so might not question things too much, either way.

What does it say that we can't really tell the difference? Both have been features of the Trump administration.

One thing I think is certain, Trump himself believes he is entitled to those documents. That's why he keeps referring to Presidents Clinton and Obama.

If it was pure incompetence, surely Corcoran would have signed with the original wording. Don't forget there was another staff lawyer who Trump wanted to swear that everything had been returned, back in January or February time. He declined because he smelled a rat. Was Bobb actually practising when she joined Trump, or just a TV anchor ? Either way, I hope she has enough stashed away to pay her lawyer.

Oh well. As they say ' MAGA = Making Attorneys Get Attorneys. '

The DoJ has filed notice with Judge Dearie and Judge Cannon that the scanning of the seized Mar-a-Lago documents is complete, and are being made available electronically to all parties.

Excluding the classified materials which are in the possession of the DoJ, and the filter team materials (possibly privileged or Trump property) which had already been scanned and reviewed, the seized documents total 21,792 pages. So roughly 10% of what Trump had claimed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .140.0.pdf

Avatar2go wrote:

The DoJ has filed notice with Judge Dearie and Judge Cannon that the scanning of the seized Mar-a-Lago documents is complete, and are being made available electronically to all parties.

Excluding the classified materials which are in the possession of the DoJ, and the filter team materials (possibly privileged or Trump property) which had already been scanned and reviewed, the seized documents total 21,792 pages. So roughly 10% of what Trump had claimed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .140.0.pdf

How long till someone in Trump's staff starts leaking it all?

The numbers aren't huge, but they are still syaying there are outstanding documents to be located from Trump .

Avatar2go wrote:

The DoJ has filed notice with Judge Dearie and Judge Cannon that the scanning of the seized Mar-a-Lago documents is complete, and are being made available electronically to all parties.

Excluding the classified materials which are in the possession of the DoJ, and the filter team materials (possibly privileged or Trump property) which had already been scanned and reviewed, the seized documents total 21,792 pages. So roughly 10% of what Trump had claimed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .140.0.pdf

What?? Trump exaggerated?? Say it ain’t so. Imagine if Trump had one of the hookup apps…what numbers would be throw around on there…

The DoJ has filed their response to the Trump SCOTUS challenge over the Mar-a-Lago classified documents. They request the case not be heard by the Court.

1. The appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the case, and ruled correctly in denying access to the seized classified documents.

2. The DoJ is likely to win the expedited appellate court case on the district court ruling, based on the merits.

3. SCOTUS would be unlikely to hear a challenge to this appellate ruling, based on the merits.

4. Trump has shown no irreparable damage resulting from his or the master's inability to review the classified documents.

This case has now descended into the legal weeds, so we will have to see if SCOTUS agrees to hear it.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183 ... fe05290000

Some believe there are still documents out there he has not handed over that are at Bedminster, New Jersey

https://www.newsweek.com/did-trump-tran ... ry-1741796
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/07/doj-sus ... house.html

This puts a whole other spin on things. And a second district court could be involved. Which judge would he go shopping for this time?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/12/politics ... index.html


Looks like they may have Trump on Obstructuion.

A Trump employee has told the FBI about being directed by the former President to move boxes out of a basement storage room to his residence at Mar-a-Lago after Donald Trump’s legal team received a subpoena for any classified documents at the Florida estate, according to a source familiar with the witness’ description.

The FBI also has surveillance footage showing a staffer moving boxes out of the storage room, the source told CNN.

The witness account of Trump’s actions after the subpoena was served in May coupled with the footage could be key to the federal criminal investigation that’s looking into a range of potential crimes, including obstruction, destruction of government records and mishandling of classified information.

Prosecutors said in August that that some documents were likely removed from a storage room before Trump’s lawyers examined the area, while they were trying to comply with the subpoena.

“The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation,” prosecutors wrote at the time. “This included evidence indicating that boxes formerly in the Storage Room were not returned prior to counsel’s review.”

Why would he move the documents to the Residence instead of just shipping them back?

casinterest wrote:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/12/politics/trump-employee-fbi-mar-a-lago-boxes/index.html


Looks like they may have Trump on Obstructuion.

A Trump employee has told the FBI about being directed by the former President to move boxes out of a basement storage room to his residence at Mar-a-Lago after Donald Trump’s legal team received a subpoena for any classified documents at the Florida estate, according to a source familiar with the witness’ description.

The FBI also has surveillance footage showing a staffer moving boxes out of the storage room, the source told CNN.

The witness account of Trump’s actions after the subpoena was served in May coupled with the footage could be key to the federal criminal investigation that’s looking into a range of potential crimes, including obstruction, destruction of government records and mishandling of classified information.

Prosecutors said in August that that some documents were likely removed from a storage room before Trump’s lawyers examined the area, while they were trying to comply with the subpoena.

“The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation,” prosecutors wrote at the time. “This included evidence indicating that boxes formerly in the Storage Room were not returned prior to counsel’s review.”

Why would he move the documents to the Residence instead of just shipping them back?

Because, as he admitted to the most recent rally audience, they’re ‘mine!’, or some other batshit reason.

“This case has now descended into the legal weeds, so we will have to see if SCOTUS agrees to hear it.”

Hit the nail on the head right there, classic Trump legal move. Drag it all down into the sewer to his level of expertise. Obstruct, confuse, bend the truth into oblivion. Only difference this time is he’s up against the A team. Hope the man’s sleeping like crap at night.

casinterest wrote:

Why would he move the documents to the Residence instead of just shipping them back?

The consistent pattern has been Trump trying to transfer jurisdiction over the documents to himself.

He can do that by physically segregating the documents, which he did by taking them first to Mar-a-Lago, and then to his residence. He can also do it with the special master process, wherein he can make the claims of privilege, personal records, and declassification, without having to prove them in court.

However neither strategy has worked. The Archives informed on him to regain the missing records. His employees informed on him to generate the search warrant. And the special master is informing on him with regard to the assertions of privilege & personal records. I suspect that even if the DoJ had not vacated the stay, the special master would have informed on him for the classified records as well.

It's basically the same issue as with Jan 6. The people around him wouldn't go along with his plan. He can dictate things within his businesses, and within the executive branch as President. But he can't dictate the morals or honesty of others.

The Supreme Court, in a one sentence decision, declined to hear Trump's challenge to the appellate court ruling denying access by the special master and Trump counsel, to the seized classified documents from Mar-a-Lago.

The next major decision will be the appellate court ruling next month, over the appointment of the special master. By that time, a major part of the master's work will be done. So it may be the court will overturn the district ruling, but allow the master to finish the work.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022 ... e-classif/

Avatar2go wrote:

The Supreme Court, in a one sentence decision, declined to hear Trump's challenge to the appellate court ruling denying access by the special master and Trump counsel, to the seized classified documents from Mar-a-Lago.

The next major decision will be the appellate court ruling next month, over the appointment of the special master. By that time, a major part of the master's work will be done. So it may be the court will overturn the district ruling, but allow the master to finish the work.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022 ... e-classif/

I can’t wait for the Truth Storm. “All I did was tell them that someday—and that day may never come—I’ll ask you a favor. And twice they’ve abused my friendship!”

The reality is that POTUS is only one cog in selection of SCOTUS justices. These people are lined up years in advance, and accordingly they think in decades, not The Don’s temporal whims.

The DoJ has filed their brief in the 12th District Appellate Court, for overturning Judge Cannon's entire ruling appointing the Special Master.

It mostly reiterates the argument that the four Richey tests for equitable jurisdiction are not met, and that the appellate court has already agreed in their stay of the classified documents injunction. But it also contains some new arguments:

Judge Cannon had noted instances where the FBI Review Team had returned documents to the Filter Team, as potentially privileged. She gave this as an example of error, and justification for the Special Master review.

The DoJ brief clarifies that there were 3 events. In the first, an agent saw a law firm letterhead within a box of newspaper clippings, and returned the entire box for further review. Trump did not assert privilege for that document.

In the second event, an agent saw a lawyer's name in notes handwritten on a phone log, and returned the entire log for review. That resolution remains under seal, as does the third event. But as DoJ pointed out, these are examples of due care, not error as Trump and Judge Cannon asserted.

The DoJ also gives a detailed argument for the Trump assertions of declassification, executive privilege, and personal documents. First, at no time has Trump made assertions of these actions in document negotiations, transfers, or in court. He has only implied that he had these powers as President. Nor has he offered any evidence of any such actions.

Second, that as the appellate court already ruled, declassification does not alter the contents of the documents, or their ownership by the government.

Third, that executive privilege does not apply to the PRA, which designates documents as government property. Nor does it apply to former presidents, who may only request privilege from NARA, after the records are transferred.

Fourth, that the PRA requires the distinction between personal and presidential records must be made at their creation or receipt, and further must abide by the clear rules set out in the act.

Fifth, that multiple claims are contradictory and exclusionary. Documents that are personal cannot fall under classified or privileged, classified cannot cannot fall under privileged or personal, etc.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... s-case.pdf

Avatar2go wrote:

The DoJ has filed their brief in the 12th District Appellate Court, for overturning Judge Cannon's entire ruling appointing the Special Master.

It mostly reiterates the argument that the four Richey tests for equitable jurisdiction are not met, and that the appellate court has already agreed in their stay of the classified documents injunction. But it also contains some new arguments:

Judge Cannon had noted instances where the FBI Review Team had returned documents to the Filter Team, as potentially privileged. She gave this as an example of error, and justification for the Special Master review.

The DoJ brief clarifies that there were 3 events. In the first, an agent saw a law firm letterhead within a box of newspaper clippings, and returned the entire box for further review. Trump did not assert privilege for that document.

In the second event, an agent saw a lawyer's name in notes handwritten on a phone log, and returned the entire log for review. That resolution remains under seal, as does the third event. But as DoJ pointed out, these are examples of due care, not error as Trump and Judge Cannon asserted.

The DoJ also gives a detailed argument for the Trump assertions of declassification, executive privilege, and personal documents. First, at no time has Trump made assertions of these actions in document negotiations, transfers, or in court. He has only implied that he had these powers as President. Nor has he offered any evidence of any such actions.

Second, that as the appellate court already ruled, declassification does not alter the contents of the documents, or their ownership by the government.

Third, that executive privilege does not apply to the PRA, which designates documents as government property. Nor does it apply to former presidents, who may only request privilege from NARA, after the records are transferred.

Fourth, that the PRA requires the distinction between personal and presidential records must be made at their creation or receipt, and further must abide by the clear rules set out in the act.

Fifth, that multiple claims are contradictory and exclusionary. Documents that are personal cannot fall under classified or privileged, classified cannot cannot fall under privileged or personal, etc.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... s-case.pdf

Impressive and precise brief. The DoJ really have their A team working the litigation on this.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/politi ... ident.html

Most lawyers would be too embarassed to waste higher courts' precious time. But they are getting paid by political backers so what the heck I guess. This guy is purely motivated by being in the news, Reading this article its all about attention and getting into restaurants.

And this article is pathetic.

https://www.axios.com/2022/10/16/donald ... ans-israel

The DoJ has filed the document dispute log over the Filter A batch of materials. Of the 15 documents, 9 are in dispute, either over personal or executive privilege claims.

6 clemency requests
2 immigration & border control initiatives
1 military academy request for sports program

Trump is relying heavily on the failed Judicial Watch case against the Archives & President Clinton to claim he can designate records as personal.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .150.0.pdf

Trump counsel complained that the DoJ did not wait for them to file a joint dispute, so requested more time to make their own filing.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .151.0.pdf

This could drag on for some time, if they are fighting over 60% of the documents, and have covered only the first 15.

Kash Patel was ordered to testify before
a federal grand jury investigation of the Mar-a-Lago documents case, in response to a federal subpoena.

In an earlier appearance, he had plead the Fifth to all questions. Now he has been granted limited immunity by a federal judge, in return for his testimony.

Patel has claimed publicly that he did not agree to the immunity deal, but instead was compelled to testify against his will.

Patel was one of two point persons who negotiated with the National Archives on behalf of Trump, and us being questioned about Trump's claims of declassification and assertion if privilege.

Patel has also filed a movant intervenor brief on behalf of Trump, asking Judge Cannon for summary judgement in Trump's favor.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics ... index.html

Avatar2go wrote:

Kash Patel was ordered to testify before
a federal grand jury investigation of the Mar-a-Lago documents case, in response to a federal subpoena.

In an earlier appearance, he had plead the Fifth to all questions. Now he has been granted limited immunity by a federal judge, in return for his testimony.

Patel has claimed publicly that he did not agree to the immunity deal, but instead was compelled to testify against his will.

Patel was one of two point persons who negotiated with the National Archives on behalf of Trump, and us being questioned about Trump's claims of declassification and assertion if privilege.

Patel has also filed a movant intervenor brief on behalf of Trump, asking Judge Cannon for summary judgement in Trump's favor.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics ... index.html

The nerve of this Patel guy...every move literally in bad faith.

Special Master Judge Dearie has filed his intent with Judge Cannon, to request guidance from the National Archives as to the application of the Presidential Records Act, to the Trump Mar-a-Lago materials.

He has given 3 days for either side to submit briefs of their concerns, and has scheduled a hearing on December 1 to determine the rules for document identification. Although these will be recommendations only, which will have to be approved by Judge Cannon.

Trump has filed a brief in opposition to Special Master Judge Dearie consulting with the National Archives on the Presidential Records Act, to determine the disposition of the Mar-a-Lago documents.

The brief claims it is improper for a judge to have ex-parte communications with an expert witness, and also that the National Archives has a political bias and agenda against him.

Trump asks instead that representatives of the Archives be required to appear at hearings, to give testimony under examination by counsel.

Not sure how that can happen for the review of thousands of documents. It would seem like Judge Dearie's plan to have the Archives review the documents independently and make recommendations, is more practical & orderly.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 75.1_2.pdf

Avatar2go wrote:

Trump has filed a brief in opposition to Special Master Judge Dearie consulting with the National Archives on the Presidential Records Act, to determine the disposition of the Mar-a-Lago documents.

The brief claims it is improper for a judge to have ex-parte communications with an expert witness, and also that the National Archives has a political bias and agenda against him.

Trump asks instead that representatives of the Archives be required to appear at hearings, to give testimony under examination by counsel.

Not sure how that can happen for the review of thousands of documents. It would seem like Judge Dearie's plan to have the Archives review the documents independently and make recommendations, is more practical & orderly.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 75.1_2.pdf

Think how long the Trump route would take.

bennett123 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Trump has filed a brief in opposition to Special Master Judge Dearie consulting with the National Archives on the Presidential Records Act, to determine the disposition of the Mar-a-Lago documents.

The brief claims it is improper for a judge to have ex-parte communications with an expert witness, and also that the National Archives has a political bias and agenda against him.

Trump asks instead that representatives of the Archives be required to appear at hearings, to give testimony under examination by counsel.

Not sure how that can happen for the review of thousands of documents. It would seem like Judge Dearie's plan to have the Archives review the documents independently and make recommendations, is more practical & orderly.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 75.1_2.pdf

Think how long the Trump route would take.

Precisely.

The DoJ has filed the first list of disputed documents to Judge Dearie, from the FBI Review Team. These were not withheld by the Filter Team. They have been color coded as follows:

1. Yellow-highlighted rows identify documents on which the parties disagree as to categorization as Presidential records or not based on document-specific issues

2. Green-highlighted rows identify documents as to which the parties disagree as to categorization as Presidential records or not based solely on the decision in Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration

3. Red-highlighted rows identify documents that the parties agree are Presidential records, but as to which the parties disagree on executive privilege.

It's interesting that they are segregating the disputes based on the Judicial Watch case, which Trump claims entitles him to claim any records as personal, at his discretion. My guess is that DoJ expects that claim to be denied by the Master and the Court.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .176.1.pdf