Trump Charged With 37 counts of Espionage, Obstruction and related crimes

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yeah, I saw that. For the record, I think her attacks on Sarah Lynch are uncalled for and unhelpful.

[N.E. Brigand]

Agreed. Wheeler is prickly and does get into a lot of unnecessary arguments.

- - - - - - - - -
Edited to add: That said, I think that, broadly speaking, Wheeler is right on the substance here.

One of the rotating news stories on my MSN feed right now has this headline: "Judge Again Sides With Trump in Mar-a-Lago Documents Fight."

Anyone seeing that headline won't realize how crazy the judge's ruling is. This it the sloppy both-sides journalism that Wheeler is excoriating.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Most of the headlines that I have seen (including Sarah Lynch's Reuter's article) are more like "Judge Overrules Special Master in Mar-a-Lago Documents Fight" which still doesn't get at how factually and procedurally absurd the ruling is, but is technically correct. I think Charlie Savage's article in the New York Times does a good job of summing up the situation; better actually than Wheeler does (though admittedly she through something out quickly before going to bed since she lives in Ireland.

ETA: Here is a link to his article:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ultimately, I do agree with Renato Mariotti's take on this.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And CNN of all places has this headline: Judge bails Trump out of special master plan that would have forced uncomfortable submissions in court

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Even Andrew Weissmann gets the procedural story wrong. He says in the clip below that Trump's team appealed the special master's order that he declare whether the inventory was correct (essentially whether anything was planted) to Judge Cannon. That is not correct. They objected to the special master, and Judge Cannon just jumped in and overruled him. That's the part that is so crazy.

[RoseMorninStar]

Good lord. Is there no check & balance on a bad judge?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here's a somewhat contrary opinion that I think has some merit

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is really the bottom line.

[River]

Indicting at the deadline would be poetic, but I'd rather see the DoJ simply give Cannon no further say whatsoever and move at their own pace.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To some extent, that simply isn't possible, since she still essentially has control over the non-classified documents, that would be a part of the criminal case (though the classified documents are the more crucial part)

[N.E. Brigand]

Here's a somewhat contrary opinion that I think has some merit:
... [Secrets & Laws tweet asking what in Cannon's appointment order gave Dearie authority to require Trump to certify the list]

Counter-counter-argument:


I think the problem with this portion of Cannon's order yesterday is:

1. Dearie's job is to review all (non-classified) seized documents.

2. So he needs a list of all the seized documents:
-a. If something that was seized is missing from the list, it needs to be found for Dearie to review.
-b. If something on the list doesn't belong (i.e., if it was "planted by the FBI"), it isn't subject to Dearie's review.

3. And there's no point in Dearie working from a list only to have Trump later say the list was wrong in the first place.

[River]

I wonder...is some of this discrepancy rooted in Cannon seeing Trump as a defendant in a criminal case and therefore not the one burdened by proof and Dearie seeing him as a plaintiff in a civil case and therefore very much burdened by proof?

[N.E. Brigand]

My personal opinion is that Judge Cannon, as Josh Marshall writes in this editorial, is "corrupt." She's not only put forward a tortured view of the law -- which led to the 11th Circuit appeals court overturning the part of the decision they were asked by the Dept. of Justice to rule on -- but she also contradicted herself as soon as Dearie's application of the very instructions she had ordered proved to be detrimental to Donald Trump's case. Her goal is to delay Trump's indictment as long as possible with an eye toward Republican retaking the House of Representatives (and perhaps the Senate) and then using subpoena power to put the Dept. of Justice on the hot seat.

The best response to that would be for Democrats to hold Congress in November's elections.

- - - - - - - - - -
The Washington Post reports that Chris Kise, the lawyer to whom Donald Trump paid $3 million and then sidelined from this case, had a plan to help the former president avoid being charged, but it required Trump to de-escalate, and he refused.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The DoJ have filed a motion to expedite the appeal, with the following schedule:

Oct. 14 opening brief
Nov. 4 response brief
Nov. 11 reply brief,
With oral argument scheduled as soon after as possible. They note that Trump opposes the motion.

ETA: Here is the motion if anyone is interested in reading it: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... dite-final

[Sunsilver]

This will surprise absolutely no one who's not a Trump supporter.
As a matter of fact, more than one person who posts here predicted it!

Ironically enough, it is the content of electronic messaging accounts that are missing this time around...
Not quite the same as e-mails, but darn close!

Also, the National Archives is not yet certain that all of the missing files have been returned. Obviously, when numerous file folders seized from Mar-a-Lago were empty, that's a logical concern.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/national-arc ... 39823.html

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Trump has opposed the motion to expedite, in a filing by Christopher Kise apparently is still handling the appeal.

He wants to have a full 30 days to file a responsive brief after the DoJ files there opening brief and he wants oral argument not to be set until January 2023 or later. He claims that "the government cannot possibly be prejudiced if this appeal is not expedited" however he makes no effort whatsoever to respond to the reasons the DoJ gave for why they and the public would be harmed by not expediting the appeal. Most interesting is that he says in a footnote that "President Trump disagrees with and objects to the Government’s distorted and argumentative presentation of facts concerning the unprecedented raid of his home, its conduct in these proceedings, and the procedural history of this case" when in fact the DoJ presentation of the facts and procedural history match what the 11th Circuit panel said in their opinion granting the previous motion for a stay. What is still unclear to me is whether the same panel will hear this motion and the appeal itself.

[N.E. Brigand]

In an interview last night, former president Donald Trump said this about the documents the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago: "Who knows what was planted? Who knows what was put in there? Who knows what was taken out?"

[River]

Well he's got access to an inventory and presumably knows what was on his property so...he does.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The implication both of Trump's own comments and the position taken by his attorneys is that he does not know what was there, remarkable as that may seem.