I find that dubious because Dearie himself is a judge. Why would he recommend something that would violate Trump’s own rights?
It makes sense that, if Trump wants to claim that something was planted at this point in the proceeding, then he should have to explain why. It doesn’t seem that different than having to put out what evidence you have for your claim in a lawsuit.
I also find it dubious the idea that saying something now would preclude him from making that same argument later in full trial.
And I continue to find it hard to justify Cannon’s claim that her court is in fact the correct court for this action, and that she shouldn’t have moved it over to the judge already dealing with the case.
Trump has made very public claims that the FBI has planted documents and that he de-classified the documents in his possession.
Trump then filed suit to get a Special Master assigned to review the documents that the FBI gathered during the raid.
The Special Master is asking him for the evidence of both of those claims so that those documents could be reviewed with that evidence in mind.
Seems a very reasonable - and prudent - request from the Special Master.
If Trump had said nothing - and then during the review process itself made the claim in objecting to certain docs - that would be atleast slightly different.
And if he wanted to hold those claims as a defense should an actual indictment occur - well he should have kept his yap shut.
You don’t seem to understand my post. I said that Dearie requested obligations in that Cannon is saying he can’t do. Dearie presumably knows the law, so why would he try to sneak one by Cannon, only to have it later overturned in appeal? It seems far more likely that the person with more experience knows what is allowable, and that Cannon is wrong.
I’m also under the understanding that the case in front of Cannon is civil, not criminal, as Trump has not been charged with a crime (yet).
And my point in the last part you quoted is that I don’t see any reason anything needs to be “reserved for trial.” Trump could make his claim both in this civil case, and later on in a criminal trial if one arises. So I don’t see how the possibility of arguing something in trial is a valid reason to say Trump doesn’t have to defend his claim for the purpose of the Special Master.
In short, I don’t understand your logic for why Cannon is right “as a matter of law,” and think it’s more likely that Dearie would be the one who is right.
Dearie had suggested he could work on a more expedited schedule and told the parties they would need to finish their portions of the review by Oct. 21.
Cannon also addressed ongoing disputes Thursday over deadlines set by Dearie as part of his review, siding with Trump’s team and extending the special master review deadline to Dec. 16.
Why is there even a special master if she’s overruling him ever time the baby whines that it’s not fair to make him do things he doesn’t want to do? If thought she’d be chastened by all of the negative press she got for her ludicrous ruling after she was spanked by the DoJ and the 11th Circuit. Apparently not. Once again, she asks, “How high do you want me to jump, sir?”
Yes, he has made this statement in public, but not in any legal proceedings.
He was asked if he actually intends to make that claim. He doesn’t want to say yes or no at this stage. And the judge ruled that he doesn’t have to.
You’re right that I can’t understand the point you’re making. I literally cannot parse the second sentence above.
I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about that. It’s an examination into a potentially criminal matter. It’s an examination into whether the evidence gathered by the search can legally be examined by the investigators.
Don’t you, indeed. A basic principle of of criminal law as practiced in USA is that burden of proof lies with the state. The DOJ must prove its case. The accused person does not have to prove anything. He doesn’t have to tell the prosecutors what defense he intends to use. And it’s usually good strategy to not tell them.
This is not a criminal matter at this time, it is a civil case brought by Donald Trump against the DoJ to argue that the items taken from Mar a Lago are his property. As the Plaintiff in this civil case, he does indeed bear the burden of proof. The United States is the defendant.
But every time he’s asked for sworn statements as to particulars of the case he refuses to answer, ostensibly on the grounds that he might need to make a different claim in court one day. Or, more likely, because he wants to continue making wild accusations in public so he can fundraise off of it.
If Trump was genuinely worried about preserving his defense strategies in a criminal trial – as yet unfiled – all he had to do was… not file this civil lawsuit at all.
It’s like his very own twisted version of the 5th Amendment.
TFG: I am suing the government because they took my personal property! With hunt! Over reach!
Dearie: Please explain how classified government documents are your personal property.
TFG: Well, I could have declassified some of them. You don’t know. I have the power, and I coulda.
Dearie: Fair enough. Please point out which documents specifically you declassified, when they were declassified, how they were declassified, why they were declassified, and any supporting evidence you have to back that up.
TFG: I plead the mumble mumble because i might need to change my story later if I’m indicted and don’t want to go on the record right now.
TFG: This is so unfair! The FBI planted documents and won’t even let me see the inventory because they’re hiding things! Witch hunt!
Dearie: Fair enough. DoJ, give him a copy of the complete inventory along with a sworn statement that it’s true and complete. TFG, let me know if anything on there looks fishy to you in a sworn affidavit, just to make things official all around.
TFG: I plead the mumble mumble because i might need to change my story later if I’m indicted and don’t want to go on the record right now.
TFG: This is so unfair! There were privileged things in there. Bigly privileged! The most privileged things ever!
Dearie: Fair enough. Please rate each document with whether or not it’s privileged and, if so, the exact privilege you’re claiming along with a statement of why you believe that privilege applies. Executive? Medical? Attorney-client? Break it down for me so I can make a decision.
TFG: I plead the mumble mumble because i might need to change my story later if I’m indicted and don’t want to go on the record right now.
This is HIS lawsuit. HIS choice of special master. HIS case to prove. But so far he seems to only want the cachet of saying that he’s fighting in court (Witch hunt! Donate to the fight!) without the petty detail of actually presenting any evidence whatsoever. If he wants to save all of his arguments for a potential future indictment then he shouldn’t have picked this fight in the first place.
That’s his business model. He knows nothing else. He is finding out that the US Government has deeper pockets than some contractor that he wants to sue until they give up and walk away.
I know normally Presidents keep security clearances for life and that’s it’s a matter of courtesy that the sitting President allows former Presidents to continue receiving a Presidential Briefing. That’s useful in case they have any additional knowledge they can share with the sitting President.
In the case of Trump, I recall hearing that Biden has not extended the same courtesy. Does Trump still have a security clearance? Even if they haven’t revoked his, have they at least revoked the clearances for his kids? They certainly don’t have any need to know that I can think of.
There’s a difference between need-to-know and clearance. Just because you have a clearance does not grant you automatic access to classified information. There’s no need to “revoke” a clearance to deny them access if they don’t have a need-to-know.
My relatively uniformed take on this is as follows.
Dearie sole job is to figure out who gets the documents the FBI seized. So he can only ask questions that relate to this task. If there were indeed documents that were planted by the FBI, then Dearie needs to know about them, since they would be evidence of serious misconduct by the FBI, and so they would need to be sent to an entity that is sufficiently independent of the FBI to conduct an investigation of this misconduct.
Of course in reality its all bullshit and everyone involved knows its bullshit whose only purpose is to rile up the rubes. I highly doubt that these allegations will ever make their way into the court room, there is no misconduct and there won’t be an investigation. So Trump can go ahead and avoid further public embarrassment by not having to defend his claims and Dearie can continue his work under the assumption that none of the documents he is reviewing fall under this category.
The distinction about the executive privilege is more problematic. Since by voiding Dearie’s request that the privilege be details as to whether its privileged outside of inside the executive branch Cannon seems to be presupposing that all executive privilege resides with the office holder rather than the office and extends beyond the time he leaves office.
