Judge Approves Trump's 'Special Master' Request

[excalibur]

The next move will be to have the original warrant quashed as a violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

[berg80]

you thought that was quick?

Considering the government's case is laid out in a 40 page document, yes. Speed reader?

 

[Curried Goats]

The impropriety started six years ago, dumbass.

I'm sure that's when your pussy started leaking, Soy Boy.

 

[Clipper]

It is, of course, nothing of the kind. Your Pavlovian response is noted.

Here's a summary of a part of the government's case.

Jay Bratt trudges to the podium to respond for the government. He begins by reminding the court that this is a pre-indictment challenge to a search warrant and that, at this stage, the plaintiff thus has relatively limited rights. There are only two bases for the court’s jurisdiction at this point, he explains. First, there’s Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property [to] move for the property's return.” But 41(g) doesn’t apply here, he argues. A second basis for jurisdiction, he continues, is found in the court’s “equitable” or “anomalous” jurisdiction. But that would trigger certain burdens that the Trump team simply has not put forward sufficient evidence to overcome.

Delving deeper into the jurisdictional issues at play, Bratt argues that Trump’s motion is “really a 41(g) motion.” But a key factor under 41(g) is a possessory property interest, he says. And because former presidents don’t have a possessory interest in presidential records, “that ends the analysis under 41(g).” In other words, as the government put it in its brief, “Plaintiff has no property interest in any Presidential records (including classified records) seized from the Premises. The PRA provides—under a heading entitled “Ownership of Presidential records”—that “[t]he United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession and control of Presidential records.”

Cannon interrupts to ask whether Bratt is “putting the cart before the horse.” She wonders why, as a matter of Fourth Amendment law, a possessory interest must be established at this stage. In reply, Bratt first reminds the court that Trump had no “reasonable expectation of privacy” because the search was conducted pursuant to a search warrant based on judicial finding of probable cause. He again emphasizes that this proceeding is pre-indictment. If a Fourth Amendment claim needs to be made, then the appropriate time to make it is later in the process—with a motion to suppress evidence or some similar motion.

A Mar-a-Lago Showdown in Federal Court

At least one judge seems to be taking former President Trump’s motion for a special master pretty seriously.

www.lawfareblog.com

In her order, issued on the Labor Day holiday, Judge Cannon said she made her decisions “to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances.”

Judge Grants Trump’s Request for Special Master to Review Mar-a-Lago Documents (Published 2022)

The ruling also effectively barred federal prosecutors from using key pieces of evidence as they continue to investigate whether Mr. Trump illegally retained national defense documents at his estate.

www.nytimes.com

Despite having no legal ground to stand on the judge Trump appointed, persuaded by theatrics,

"With housekeeping matters behind her, Cannon now has Kise rise to argue the merits of Trump’s “Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief.” He begins by observing that there is a “lack of trust” between the parties, a “lack of transparency” in the investigation, and a resulting “lack of faith” in the administration of justice. He implores Cannon to “help restore public confidence” by acceding to Trump’s “modest” request for a special master."

rather than precedent and the government's legally compelling arguments, granted Trump's meaningless notion.

Now Trump will object to whoever is appointed as S.M., claiming the person is biased, delaying the process even longer.

 

[excalibur]

 

[struth]

Considering the government's case is laid out in a 40 page document, yes. Speed reader?

not that hard to read. weak arguments on their party ht

 

[konradv]

I'm not so sure that is true. The part about that they have to agree, not the part about it being a Trump loyalist. Although it would be more than a little ironic for the DNC/DOJ/FBI to object to someone for being loyal to the DNC's opponent.

A special master is basically a delegate of the judge for specific actions. Since the DNC/DOJ/FBI do not want a special master in the first place, it would be illogical to give them the power to simply veto every master the judge proposes.

I'm sure that they have the right to object for cause to any that seem particularly inappropriate, but the judge will rule on their objection.

I see this getting overturned on appeal. All it does is add unnecessary delays.

 

[WEATHER53]

Libs had to squash invermectin as that posed too quick of a remedy and now on other side of street they are launching the “Trump is stalling” objection

 

[struth]

I see this getting overturned on appeal. All it does is add unnecessary delays.

the irony of course would be the appeal adding unnecessary delays

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When we see the body cam footage of the raid, if it shows that the marked documents were there already and not brought in by the cargo pants wearing agents, Trump's attorney may be in trouble.

But not Trump?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Although it would be more than a little ironic for the DNC/DOJ/FBI to object to someone for being loyal to the DNC's opponent.

But it would be most appropriate to object to someone loyal to the focus of the investigation.

 

[Oldestyle]

A federal judge has granted a request by former President Donald Trump’s legal team to appoint a special master to review documents seized by the FBI during a search of his Florida home last month.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Monday granted a request by former President Donald Trump’s legal team to appoint a special master to review documents seized by the FBI during a search of his Florida home last month.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon came despite the objections of the Justice Department, which said an outside legal expert was not necessary in part because officials had already completed their review of potentially privileged documents. The judge had previously signaled her inclination to approve a special master, asking a department lawyer during arguments this month, “What is the harm?”

The appointment may slow the pace of the department's investigation into the presence of top-secret information at Mar-a-Lago, but it is unlikely to affect any investigative decisions or the ultimate outcome of the probe.

JUDGE GREEN-LIGHTS TRUMP’S ‘SPECIAL MASTER’ REQUEST

Not a surprise from a Trump-appointed judge. However, this won't affect the final outcome. What do you think?

Why wouldn't the DOJ have appointed a Special Master before they even conducted the raid? Like any reasonable person wouldn't have known this was going to be a shit storm from the second they showed up at the door of a former President? Why would the DOJ fight the appointment after the fact?

 

[Synthaholic]

This will be appealed and overturned. And it also demolishes Trump's claims that the documents aren't classified. Or that they weren't concealed.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I see this getting overturned on appeal. All it does is add unnecessary delays.

Unnecessary delays for what, though? They accomplished their goal when they published the staged photo.

What more do you think they can accomplish?

 

[Seymour Flops]

But it would be most appropriate to object to someone loyal to the focus of the investigation.

More so than someone loyal to the person who will run against the focus of the investigation in 2024?

 

[Seymour Flops]

But not Trump?

For what?

Back to sloppy filing again?

 

[jc456]

Considering the government's case is laid out in a 40 page document, yes. Speed reader?

You sound concerned

 

[Billy_Bob]

It’s up to Trump to prove he did, not for anyone else to prove he didn’t.

NO.... The presumption of innocence means that the Government must prove that he did not. The onus is on the DOJ and FBI to prove he did not.

 

[Lakhota]

I think it is a good idea in that it will eliminate questions of bias or claims of violating privelege.

I agree with your point. However, nothing will "eliminate questions of bias or claims of violating privilege" with Trump and his demented morons.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm not so sure that is true. The part about that they have to agree, not the part about it being a Trump loyalist. Although it would be more than a little ironic for the DNC/DOJ/FBI to object to someone for being loyal to the DNC's opponent.

A special master is basically a delegate of the judge for specific actions. Since the DNC/DOJ/FBI do not want a special master in the first place, it would be illogical to give them the power to simply veto every master the judge proposes.

I'm sure that they have the right to object for cause to any that seem particularly inappropriate, but the judge will rule on their objection.

WE have a winner.... The judge can choose whomever they want over any objections.