1/Court certainly has discretion to appoint Special Master but I don't see any special legal/factual reason to do so now.
I welcome those w/more federal criminal experience to weigh in but in my experience this request seems unnecessary, unjustified & if anything premature.
2/Attny Lynne Stewart's situation 20 years ago was vastly different. Seizure involved countless docs subject to attny-client privilege, including those of other lawyers. Exceptionally concerning for DOJ/FBI to review materials & Court took unusual step to appoint Special Master.
3/Trump's brief repeatedly cites to his "privileges" as if he were still President. He is not. He has NO privilege to retain records - classified or even unclassified - that belong to American people rather than Trump the individual.
4/Why is Special Master even needed at this point? To review what? No one has even been charged yet. Importantly, USG decides classification status. Where I have seen DC Cir appoint someone 30+ years ago it was to assist in #FOIA litigation & make recommendations to judge.
5/I have no issue w/seeking retrieval of personal items, nor seeking more detailed inventory statement. This is routine & others can weigh in. In fact, much of what Trump complains about is routine in my experience.
6/FBI "demanded that the security cameras be turned off" at MAL during search.
Not surprising at all. And Trump legitimately declined & that was the end of it.
7/"They prevented my attorneys from observing what was being taken in the raid."
I've been present when my client's home was searched by FBI. This is routine. I am permitted to hang out but I can't follow agents around the house.
8/"They took documents covered by attorney-client and executive privilege, which is not allowed."
If true, these will be returned. That's whole purpose of "taint teams". I suppose Special Master can render a-c privilege determinations but there is no real e-p privilege in play.
END/More we learn abt search, worse it seems for Trump & his staff/attorneys. Number of classified records he potentially unlawfully maintained continues to grow. Cooperative efforts by USG, not Trump, continue to be revealed.
Pushing for "transparency" may backfire.
Further proof that the more we learn of the facts the worse it is for Trump
2/COL Vindman (brother of @AVindman), who challenged Pres Trump's actions re: #Ukraine, retires on 8/31 aft 25+ years active @USArmy. Not by choice. Following stellar career ruined by Trump NSC, #Army put him out to pasture in position usually filled by junior officer. Why?
3/In Nov 2021, COL Vindman requested @POTUS allow him to retire as COL (only has 14 months in grade instead of normal 3 years). Given unique circumstances, it is appropriate to reward, rather than punish, an individual who stepped forward & successfully challenged US President.
Today, I received #FOIA response from @FBI as part of lawsuit I am handling for AHI records.
ALL records were withheld as exempt pursuant to 7(A), which pertains to ongoing criminal investigations.
Every..single..responsive..page.
2/Yet, last week Court we told "the FBI has completed its search for potentially responsive records. The FBI still anticipates making its first release of responsive, non-exempt material on August 15, 2022, and on the 15th of every subsequent month until production is complete."
3/Really? What records am I to receive every 15th of month when everything is exempt?
Importantly, there is absolutely no way FBI did not know it was going to invoke #FOIA 7(A) when its statement was made to federal judge days earlier. #Disingenuous
It was reported by @washingtonpost that "Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought ... according to people familiar with the investigation."
2/At this point, we don't know if this is true or not. The @FBI's property receipt makes no mention of "Restricted Data" or "Formerly Restricted Data", which is usually how nuclear info is referenced. This info is controlled by Atomic Energy Act.
1/Saying #EspionageAct requires intent to disclose to foreign power or injure US for conviction - the current MAGA defensive talking point - is NOT accurate.
There are multiple criminal provisions that pertain to classified info. They do not all have "spy" characteristics.
2/Ppl forget so easily #HaroldMartin, NSA "hoarder", agreed to 9 years in jail for merely unauthorized possession of classified info w/o any intent to disseminate. His mere knowledge docs were marked classified & he couldn't have them at home was enough.
3/To be sure, some criminal statutes will have potential legal fights given they were not designed for use against POTUS, but there are clear provisions of #EspionageAct that can apply to Trump w/no allegations of "spying" or actual use against US.
1/Most of Twitterverse now knows how vast Presidential authority is to declassify info. Literally can be wave of hand, which is what Trump supporters are arguing he did. Obviously usually a formalized process that exists to ensure actions are always documented, but ... Trump.
2/Still, FBI search on his residence is said to involve classified docs related to nuclear weapons. If true, that could involve what is known as Restricted Data, which is a statutory protection outside of Presidential authority where classified info usually lies.
3/Restricted Data (or "RD") is not subject to automatic declassification like "normal" classified info. Don't take my word for it. This is @TheJusticeDept legal position:
1/Formal statement from COL Yevgeny Vindman's (@YVindman) Legal Team re: issuance of @DoD_IG Report of Investigation that vindicated his lawful #whistleblowing activities. We look to @POTUS now.
"The Department of Defense (DoD) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) Report of Investigation issued today fully vindicates our client Colonel (COL) Yevgeny Vindman (at the time LTC). Through his protected and lawful whistleblowing activities, ...
3/...COL Vindman properly reported misconduct involving officials within the Trump Administration's White House and National Security Council. Based on this latest report, which followed a review by the U.S. Army, it is now conclusive there was illegal retaliation...