That’s why you investigate and serve warrants, as they’re doing now. And potentially indict/charge a person once you believe there’s enough to convict. That’s not a reason for timing charges right before an election. If they wait two months (after November 8) and then indict him, I don’t think it will harm the case.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
What I’m trying to say (and obviously not doing a very good job at) is that I don’t think DOJ should be timing the charges at all. Make them as soon as it’s appropriate to do so. If that’s tomorrow, great. Day before the election? Yes. January? OK, I won’t be happy about it, but if that’s when they have their ducks lined up, so be it.
Again, Trump isn’t a candidate, and he’ll piss and moan about political motivations no matter what happens or when. IMO the DOJ should do whatever they need to do regardless of the timing.
I think it’s also worth noting that it’s not like this potential indictment/charge just popped up out of the blue. They haven’t been sitting on it for months or years waiting for the perfect time to strike.
Trump’s team has been dicking everyone around, specifically WRT to these documents, for months (years?).
It would be just as plausible to suggest Trump purposely drew this out specifically to make sure if the DOJ charges him, they either have to do it right before the election, making it look political, or right after, buying him a few more months.
He could have turned everything over months ago and dealt with it back then.
All you have to do to prove it is not politically motivated is ask the simple question -
Would we be doing the exact same things if we did not know the identity of the individual(s) involved?
If it were Obama, Biden, Bush, Clinton, Trump, etc - would the exact same procedures be followed?
What? No Cruz or Nunes?
A former president can claim executive privilege in theory, but not if the sitting president waives it (and I believe Biden already has in this case). So yes, it can be asserted in theory, but in this case Trump cannot use that.
Unless the Supreme Court makes a decision that contradicts what was decided in United States v Nixon.
I’m hoping this doesn’t go to the Supreme Court. It shouldn’t have to.
Yes, that’s the problem. Precedent certainly isn’t binding to this court.
Yes. Biden has waived it for purposes of this matter.
Moreover, Trump never made any claim of executive privilege in all the time running up to the search and seizure, despite being made aware many times that DOJ sought to have the records returned, so no basis for him to claim it now.
Oh, feel free to add to the list.
A good take on how this is being viewed in the legal community:
Gift link.
From the article:
Paul Rosenzweig, a former homeland security official in the George W. Bush administration and prosecutor in the independent counsel investigation of Bill Clinton, said it was egregious to block the Justice Department from steps like asking witnesses about government files, many marked as classified, that agents had already reviewed.
“This would seem to me to be a genuinely unprecedented decision by a judge,” Mr. Rosenzweig said. “Enjoining the ongoing criminal investigation is simply untenable.”
“You can’t stop an ongoing investigation, just because the judge is a Trump fan!”
“Sure. But what if we … did?”
So I know there’s a whole thread on the Special Master, but maybe someone here can answer this theoretical.
Say, among the classified docs Trump had no business having, there’s a printout of an email exchange between Trump and Mark Meadows which establishes with zero uncertainty that there was a plot to overturn the 2020 election results, and that Trump both knew it was illegal and was an enthusiastic participant. IOW, the smoking gun DOJ needs to indict for seditious conspiracy.
Is that the kind of thing the Special Master can remove from DOJ custody because it wasn’t directly related to the warrant to search Mar-a-Lago?
The rules for the Special Master have not been decided yet. Whatever he or she does, however, will be reviewable by a judge.
Here’s my questions: by my reading, folks seem to think that the judge is allowing Trump to argue executive privilege because of that phrase appearing in her order. Is that necessarily the case (is there a stronger reason to think so) and if she is, does her opinion actually make a difference in this particular matter?
My understanding is that the DOJ said “Executive privilege doesn’t apply; this is a decided issue.” And the judge has now said, essentially, “I disagree that it’s a decided issue.” That doesn’t mean a whole lot but given lack of any other precedent, it may get cited at some point as this case works its way through the various courts. Trump can claim executive privilege and then cite that this judge never explicitly said he couldn’t.
I’m still trying to figure out how the SM would recognize that something is covered under Executive Privelege if no prior claim has been made - and what difference does it make, since Executive Privelege does not change ownership of the document, just wether or not the information is ‘public’ or not. One could make the argument that the contents of an EP doc could not be used against him, but that is not, overwhelmingly, what this case is about. EP does not go to classified material being held by him.
(cynical answer)
The special master appointed by Trump will remove this document and destroy it for the good of the country, replacing it with a document that “proves” Hunter Biden’s laptop contents were being concealed by the FBI.
Maybe this has been covered someplace and apologies if it has and i missed it, but how can claims of executive privilege be applied against the executive branch itself? The DoJ falls under the executive branch of government.
If/since the MAGA folks have cookies and milk ready for JFK, Jr., I’d like to nominate Sir Alec Guinness to be Special Master.
[ETA: I’d also – if grudgingly – settle for Grandmaster Flash]
ETA: Just noticed the Pit thread on the Special Master. Ending the threadjack w/apologies 
Moderating:
You’re fine.
It’s not a hijack to discuss the special master issue in this thread. The appointment of a special master is a direct outflow of the search and seizure of documents from Mar-a-Lago.
It’s fine also that there is a Pit thread dedicated to the appointment of a special master. Each thread can serve its purpose as appropriate.
A lengthy discussion of what James Comey did in in 2016 shortly before that election and its effects on Hillary Clinton’s campaign would be a hijack. (Eyecock at @Akaj and @smithsb.)
Just clarifying the rules.