Ha ha ha. The DOJ opinion is exactly what I thought it would be when I first heard Trump was asking for a "Special Master" to review the Documents he stole. Of course he has no standing to ask the Court to require the seized documents to be handled in any particular way. (He would only have standing with respect to seized items that belong to him and that he his legally entitled to retain. Such items have already been identified and returned to him or are on their way.) This is not only my opinion, and I am certainly no lawyer!, but now, as it turns out, it is also the opinion of the U.S. Government, as expressed in their Court Filing late Yesterday. What I hadn't seen coming however was The DOJ's finding that the District Court in Florida where Trump's incompetent lawyers filed their request for a special master does not have standing, i.e., "lacks jurisdiction", to consider such a request. And that's true too! Such a filing would normally go to the Court that issued the Warrant for search of Mar-a-Lago in the first place. Trump is not only a criminal and a JACKASS, but he and his lawyers are clowns. (Not all his lawyers have been clowns, but those that are competent don't seem to want to associate with him anymore.)
By the way, I should like to point out that couched within the 36-page, Government filing in Florida's West Palm Beach District Court yesterday (https://int.nyt.com/data/documentto...-for-special-master/1b30feb331082a68/full.pdf) is a long narrative with regard to legal precedence bearing on the concept "executive privilege", often presented in the media as having a rather murky, ill defined existence. It is refreshing now to find a brilliant, up to date exposition on the topic of "executive privilege". It is a tour de force! In such, we discover that the concept is anything but murky. This alone makes the filing worth paying close attention.
inb4 cleaner Barr for special master Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointed federal judge from the southern district of Florida just issued an order granting Trump’s motion for a special master and granted an injunction stoping the DOJ from using the documents it seized from a lawful search warrant in its investigation until the special master process is completed. Judge Cannon ruled that one of the main factors for her equitable jurisdiction to hear the case came from the fact that Trump’s reputation could be hurt from the search.
Her jurisdiction seems reasonable once you realize the whole point of the raid is defamation, first of all to remove Trump as a king-maker in 2022, and as a candidate in 2024. Defamation is the prime objective. An indictment would be more like a cherry on top of the defamation. Yes, a special master, since the FBI is so clearly involved in the politics of intimidation and character smears. The second objective is to retrieve any dirt that Trump might have on the FBI.
I don't think I've ever explicitly used that term to describe anybody, not even Trump. I have described the fascist legacy media as a bully that punches down on Trump. And when they punch down on him they punch down on about 81 million others for whom his policies make economic sense. It remains to be seen whether Trump, or those 81 millions will be the victim of those who stole the 2020 election with the help of the fascist legacy media. The concept of victim-hood is best discussed in the Religion/Spirituality forum. Maybe I have not been clear enough there that the closer we come to knowledge, the more we realize there are actually no victims. I believe I've gone to length to explain exactly how that can possibly be. Meanwhile there is the experience of drama, where on any given Sunday, half the population is the victim of some oppressor. Given enough time, those roles switch back and forth in a macabre dance. From what i can tell, the Democrat Party is mostly involved in pandering to victim-hood. It's interesting you mention it. It was a life-changing moment, half my lifetime ago, when I made a conscious decision to take responsibility for everything that happens to me, effectively ruling out the possibility of being a victim. I try to extend sympathy to others, but ultimately have to draw the same line for them as I draw for myself. A couple of awful things have happened to me since then. The awareness that any unpleasant setback is the manifestation of self - sabotage is probably what has kept me out of prison. This world would be a much better place if everyone had this attitude. Of the two major political parties, the Republicans come closest to this attitude. Instead of sympathy, I would rather give the world the knowledge there are no victims.
"She also enjoined the FBI and the Department of Justice from reviewing or using those documents in its criminal investigation." That's handy! Opinion: Judge’s ruling for Trump is astonishing Opinion by Jennifer Rodgers Published 9:29 AM EDT, Tue September 6, 2022 04:02 - Source: CNN Attorney explains judge's comments on Trump special master ruling Editor’s Note: Jennifer Rodgers is a former federal prosecutor, adjunct professor of clinical law at New York University School of Law, lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School and a CNN legal analyst. The opinions expressed here are her own. Read more opinion at CNN. CNN — US District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a stunning, if not entirely surprising, order Monday granting former President Donald Trump’s request for a special master to review documents the FBI seized last month at his Mar-a-Lago resort. She also enjoined the FBI and the Department of Justice from reviewing or using those documents in its criminal investigation. Cannon had previewed this result – both with her questions and statements at Thursday’s hearing – as well as in her initial scheduling order before the Justice Department even had an opportunity to be heard. But when it arrived, the judge’s written order struck many legal experts, including me, as being extremely weak in its legal analysis. Here’s why. To exercise jurisdiction, Cannon had to find “exceptional circumstances,” which in turn refers to a set of criteria for the judge to consider. A similarly high burden applied to the judge’s decision whether to appoint a special master and whether to enjoin the Justice Department from possessing the seized materials – notably, only one of these things, the special master, was requested by Trump’s team; Cannon helpfully volunteered the other. Each of these requests also had their own legal requirements, with the burden again on Trump to show he was entitled to the relief sought. On all these legal questions, Cannon’s consideration of these issues was superficial and conclusory. For example, she determined that Trump would be irreparably injured in part because he has a need for the documents seized, in part because information about these items may be leaked to the press and harm him and in part because these documents may subject him to criminal prosecution. But the judge neither cited nor sought any information about what documents Trump alleges he may need. (Anyone subject to a search arguably has a similar need without justifying special master review.) On the second issue, she concluded that leaks may harm Trump without mentioning or having in the record any facts from which one could find that any leaks to date could be attributed to the government as opposed to Trump. (He has been significantly more vocal about the search than the government has.) Finally, the notion that irreparable harm as a legal matter can be demonstrated by the execution of a legitimate, judicially authorized search warrant is unprecedented. Again, every person subjected to such a search could claim harm, rendering the argument ineffective as to Trump. To issue an injunction against the Justice Department, Cannon also had to find that Trump had carried his burden of proof by showing he had a likelihood of success on the merits of each of his claims, including executive privilege, for which she ordered a special master review. The judge provided no support at all that Trump will ultimately succeed in this legal argument. Indeed, there are multiple legal reasons that Trump’s executive privilege argument is almost certain to fail. Cannon was correct that the Supreme Court hasn’t spoken definitively on the exact point of whether a former President can ever assert such a privilege over the sitting President’s contrary determination, but there is a big difference between saying something is not 100% off the table and saying that the argument has a likelihood of prevailing. And one final questionable part of the court’s order: It’s not entirely clear on what jurisdictional basis Cannon ordered the Justice Department to refrain not just from reviewing but also from “using” the seized documents in any way, and how far that goes. Does that mean that if one of the investigating agents saw a name on a document, he could not now approach that person for an interview? What if the interview is scheduled; may it proceed? If the team had decided on another round of subpoenas based on what it’s learned, must it hold off? Under what authority does a judge order not only that the Justice Department and FBI put questioned documents aside but also orders them to forget all about investigative steps they’ve taken in the two weeks before Trump’s attorneys got their act together to file a motion? All of this means that the order is extremely vulnerable to being overturned on appeal, assuming the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals panel hearing it consists of at least two unbiased judges inclined to follow the law. So the million-dollar question for the Justice Department is: Should it appeal? In making its decision, the department will likely consider two things: How harmful could Cannon’s opinion be as precedent moving forward as to others subject to search warrants who may seek a similar special master review? How much will the injunction harm the Trump investigation, and is it therefore worth trying to get it lifted? Cannon’s opinion is unlikely to be helpful to other defendants. She leans heavily on the “exceptional” nature of searching a former President’s home when considering jurisdictional questions as well as whether a special master should be appointed. She also emphasizes multiple times the need for ensuring the appearance of fairness and integrity that presumably would not apply to a search of a more typical subject. And because Cannon fails to engage legally at all on the executive privilege question, it’s not as if her opinion leaves a bad precedent there. Consideration of the second question may push the Justice Department toward appealing, however. An appeal would cause a delay but likely not as much as the process for finding and gaining security clearance for a special master, coupled with the time it would take the master to conduct a review and return the documents. There is also the uncertainty over what Cannon has enjoined the Justice Department from doing (and whether it’s legal). So far, the department has litigated aggressively with respect to this search warrant. We should know soon whether that practice will continue with an appeal of the judge’s order. https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/opinions/trump-mar-a-lago-special-master-ruling-rodgers/index.html