Wha? How’d I end up in here?
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
I was envisioning more of a reboot of the SNL skit where Reagan is a Mastermind but with Trump frantically typing as he watches the FEDs pull into Mar A Lago as the “IT” team stare in amazement.
If she’s making serious errors, shouldn’t the prosecution be appealing those decisions immediately so as to avoid having the verdict overturned on appeal?
Appealing to whom?
The next highest level court.
I believe appeals come after the verdict, not before the trial even begins.
Not for everything. In fact, the prosecution has already appealed the special master decision in this case. And won that appeal.
I read this on the BBC website this morning:
Former US President Donald Trump has been implicated by one of his employees in a classified documents case, according to a court filing.
Yuscil Taveras, an IT director identified as Trump Employee 4 in legal documents, changed his testimony after switching lawyers, say prosecutors.
He now accuses Mr Trump and two aides of “efforts to delete security camera footage”, says the filing.
It goes on to say (I copied this because I know that Americans cannot see the original):
The chief judge overseeing the federal grand jury, James Boasberg, offered a public defender to Mr Taveras after prosecutors pointed out a conflict of interest for his lawyer Stanley Woodward, who was being partly funded by Mr Trump’s Save America political action committee.
“Advising Trump Employee 4 to correct his sworn testimony would result in testimony incriminating Mr Woodward’s other client, Nauta; but permitting Trump Employee 4’s false testimony to stand uncorrected would leave Trump Employee 4 exposed to criminal charges for perjury,” the filing said.
On 5 July, Mr Taveras informed Judge Boasberg that he no longer wished to be represented by Mr Woodward and would instead accept the offer of legal aid.
“Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump Employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, [Carlos] De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage, as set forth in the superseding indictment,” the court filing says.
So just to keep everyone up to date on the excuses. Whereas before it was “I Declassified!” and upthread we discussed how that doesn’t really matter, now it’s “Anyone has a right to delete the security footage of their own home!”
What’s sad about these herrings is that there are some who will think they’re reasonable defenses.
Yup. 30 years same organization IT/IS/GIS I’ve got the keys to the kingdom as it it were, but we have good back up strategy that one person or a catastrophe could never burn the kingdom down.
That’s how it’s supposed to work.
“Delete the servers” makes me chuckle though. That’s like saying “Delete the car” Ummm what? It’s Trump speak for “I am clueless, make it go away”.
But would that destroy the packets?
It’s their inability to appreciate nuance that’s the problem. They latch on to one thing, and insist that that one thing is applicable to every situation, even if it’s not.
In this example, yes, generally speaking, you do have the right to delete footage. That is, if you’re doing it before you receive a subpoena for that security footage. After that, if you delete it, you’re committing a crime. It’s that “Sometimes circumstances change” thing that they can’t grasp.
That’s not even this case, that was a completely different case, a civil trial.
The DOJ can’t appeal all of the judge’s decisions, that would be nonsense. The judge has a lot of leeway. I don’t think they can really do anything at this point except ask for another judge, but they would take something really egregious. It’s extremely rare.
Do they really need that much benefit of the doubt?
If this had been Hillary Clinton and there was a routine deletion after 5 years (or however long), they’d be besides themselves with conspiracy theories about what was removed and how hard the book needs to be thrown at her.
Context doesn’t matter. The law doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters to them is which “side” is involved.
It’s understandable that with all these cases against Trump, you’d get them mixed up. But the special master appointed to review the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago was indeed this case. (gift link)
True, but there are some things they can likely appeal right now. I’m thinking of the decision to deny a Garcia hearing. Not having one would grounds for an appeal by the defendent after the trial is over and would likely result in a mistrial. So to preclude that happening, I expect the prosecution could appeal right now.
Oh delivery services have that down. Eh what? 
Wow. Check your date. That was last year. That was a civil case where Trump sued the federal government for taking “his” stuff.
Trump wasn’t even indicted until June of this year, and then Cannon was assigned the case. Two separate legal cases revolving around the same issue, with the same judge.
Indeed.
OK, you’re right I am conflating the two cases. Yet I believe the appeal in that earlier case was made before the final conclusion of that case.
This could get interesting! The latest co-defendant in the documents case has invoked his right to a speedy trial and requests that trial to be held within the 70 day time limit. He did not, however, request to sever his case from trump.
“Mr. DeOliveira has not filed any motions in this case,” Murrell’s filing says. “He does not concede that the interests of justice require a delay in his trial, and he asserts his right to a speedy trial within 70 days of his first appearance on July 31, 2023.
“By undersigned counsel’s calculations,” Murrell added, “that would be October 9, 2023.”
Does that make him something of a sacrificial pawn, giving Every Other Possible Defendant a (probably attenuated) look at the Prosecution’s case?
I’m wondering what advantage there would be to DeOliveira in going first and going fast.