It starts out confused and confusing (and I expect it to continue that way).
He thinks it was okay if he had records that didn't belong to him as long as they were in a "secure setting."
"Presidential records" by definition under the PRA, do not belong to him.
In response to the government's explanation that (1) he doesn't own presidential records and (2) personal records stored with stolen stuff have evidentiary value, he quotes the 4th Amendment privacy right.
He seems to think that his right to privacy includes the right to conceal documents that are not his 😕
I mean seriously?
The fruit of the poisonous tree means that evidence obtained in an illegal search can't be admitted at trial, but the search wasn't illegal. . .
. . . and the remedy is a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence, not a special master.
I think the highlighted sentence means that he is still asserting ownership rights over presidential records.
Trump himself wrote this sentence. There is no other explanation.
I think the logic is that if he took presidential records, the only statute he can possibly violate is the Presidential records act.
He also must have written this one, too⤵️
The PRA does not give a former president the right to possess documents.
Because he's insisting that he has a right to possess the documents, everything that follows from that will be gibberish (because he doesn't).
This is what I mean ⤵️
I'm having trouble translating from gibberish to English, but I think here he is saying that even if he doesn't own the stuff that the government seized, he still has the right to challenge the search.
(But that's not what a special master is for.)
He goes on and on, conflating his right to challenge a search as unreasonable with his request for a special master.
A special master, for example, screens for privileged docs, which has nothing to do with whether a search comported with the Fourth Amendment.
The logic here seems to be that there are no enforcement provisions in the Presidential Record Act, so the fact that he refused to give them back is not an illegal act, which means he was entitled to possess them, which means he should get a special master.😕
He actually seems to be challenging his right to possess the documents.
I guess he's moved on from "the documents were planted" and arrived at "I have the right to keep them."
The government argued that the fact that he claims the documents were privileged is proof that he isn't supposed to have the because under the PRA, privileged docs belong in the Archives.
He responds with: The fact that they are privileged means a special master is appropriate.
It's like trying to have a discussion with a cinderblock.
He's either dumb or willfully not understanding that the filter review can be completed while the review for harm to national security is ongoing.
I like this one: The only reason we know about any of this is (1) Trump announced the search, and (2) he filed this silly lawsuit.
Yet, he suggests that a special master is needed or the government will selectively leak.
Remember when I first wrote my FAQs in response to demands that the DOJ tell the public about the ongoing investigations, and I said no no no it needs to be leakproof and carried out with the highest integrity?
This is why. These accusations now sound silly.
Next, he doesn't like the procedures that the DOJ is following (even though they were set out in the warrant).
As far as a special master, he wants to add conditions, including allowing his lawyer to review the material for privilege.
(Note: he means executive privilege)
The first highlighted sentence may have been a slip. He's not the president.
He continues to frame what happened as "standard give-and-take . . . regarding Presidential library contents. . ."
So he was assembling a presidential library with all those highly classified docs?🤦♀️
After that, I need a mental health break, and JJ tells me it's time for a walk, and who am I to argue with a dog?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
. . . I saw more unfairness and injustice than you can imagine. I saw poverty confused with neglect. I saw victims of domestic abuse treated like criminals.
But you know what?
I never gave up on rule of law . . .
. . . because I know that as imperfect as it is, there isn't a better alternative.
I never shouted "THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT," which is what's behind this comment ⤵️
Instead, I did my part to improve the system and try to create more fairness . . .
When Twitter was yelling "JUST INDICT HIM NOW THIS IS A SLAM DUNK WHAT IS THE DOJ WAITING FOR" I warned everyone that it will not be so easy and the process is always harrowing.
Guess what?
The process is harrowing . . .
Not long ago, I was assured that people were losing confidence in the DOJ because Garland refused to announce that there was a criminal investigation, and if people just knew there WAS an investigation, they'd all calm down.
Well, know you know there's an investigation . . .
He is making life easy on the investigators because he isn't denying that he possessed the documents and refused to give them back. (He referred to the repeated demands from the government as a "give and take").
From this⤵️ we can assume that the DOJ didn't include "obstruction" on the search warrant for the fun of it and that they'll get everyone involved in hiding those documents.
The three issues are: whether Trump is currently entitled to the return of any property, to injunctive relief, and to the appointment of a special master.
No. No. and No.
First: These records don't belong to Trump.
That's sort of important, right?
We expected this: The work of screening for attorney client privilege is done. (The brief opens with a reminder that Trump waited 14 days to file his motion). #1
Next, the government has an urgent need to finish its review to assess risks to national security. #2
These former prosecutors who served in Republican administrations offer three independent reasons the court should deny Trump's request for a special master.
(1) Special masters are for claims of attorney-client privilege, not executive privilege. Besides, it makes no sense. . .