Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Sep 8, 2022 21 tweets 7 min read Read on X
Here we have the DOJ's motion for a partial stay pending trial. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

They don't want to be enjoined from further review of records bearing classification markings and they don't want to give records bearing classified markings to a special master.

1/
They disagree with the entire order, but they're appealing the part that can cause actual damage to the government and the public. (Screenshot #1)

They've already segregated those records.
They offer three reasons for the appeal. (#2)

2/
Reason #1: The court's decision was mostly focused on Trump's personal documents and he can't claim he owns government documents marked classified.

Also, documents marked classified can't be covered by any privilege.

3/
The strategy: Just go after what matters most, and what will be hardest for the courts to wiggle out of.

I think this was pretty smart. Go for what you need. Be reasonable and limit the request to what is essential. Don't annoy (even bad) judges.

Okay, on to Reason #2. . .

4/
Start out with a little flattery. The court was correct that a national security risk assessment was essential.

The problem: The national security risk assessment can't really be segregated from the FBI's ongoing investigation into what happened with these docs.

5/
Finally, because Trump doesn't own them, and because they have already been reviewed by the FBI, and because the court was going to allow the security review to continue, Trump can't claim harm.

He still gets his special master (for the stuff that doesn't matter😉)

6/
The point the DOJ kept trying to make at the hearing was that Trump doesn't own government documents.

Trump said but they took my personal stuff.

Okay, says the DOJ. You can't possibly claim personal ownership of national security documents. . . .

7/
. . . and possession of national security documents are what matters for charges brought under the Espionage Act.

The strategy in writing this was to give the court a way out, let Trump feel like he won something, and get what's important.

8/
Agree. (Peter is a law professor emeritus with expertise and experience in criminal defense⤵️)


It's hard to see how the court wiggles out of granting this.

That said, I've seen courts make some very bad rulings (they tended not to like my clients🤷‍♀️).
9/
The government confirms its plan to make available copies of all personal and not classified government records, and return the personal items that were not comingled with classified documents. (Those have evidentiary value)

10/
From the discussion center: Plaintiff hasn't shown that he has standing to seek relief, or that the court properly exercised jurisdiction with regard to the classified records.

This is the part they're digging in on.

11/
They run through the analysis that allows for equitable jurisdiction, but focusing on the documents marked classified. (#1)

It's obviously an easy argument to make if the focus is just the classified documents. (#2)

12/
The DOJ still thinks the whole special master thing was unnecessary, but even by Judge Cannon's own reasoning, there is no justification for including documents marked classified in her opinion.

(This isn't an appeal, but if she denies their request, they'll appeal).

13/
Basically, the DOJ is redoing its argument. Instead of talking about "seized material" they're talking about "documents marked classified."

Because good luck trying to say that Trump, not Biden, controls access to classified documents.

14/
Here's where they say that handing over highly classified national security docs to a special master is a terrible idea.

IOW, Trump should not share in the decision making of who gets to see the classified documents (the order was for a meet and confer to suggest a SM)

15/
Here's where they cite law about irreparable harm to Trump. Of course, Trump think that being investigated is an irreprable harm.

But nope, according to the Supreme Court, that doesn't count as "irreparable harm."

Although defense lawyers everywhere would like if it was.

16/
Yes ⤵️ and this sets them up for an easier argument to make on appeal if she insists on including the classified docs in her order.

It's much cleaner to make the argument regarding the documents marked classified.



17/
AND I have a silly mistake in the very first Tweet.

But don't worry. I won't delete and start over 😁

Should have been PARTIAL STAY PENDING APPEAL, which makes sense.

When I make a really silly mistake, it's always in the first tweet.
A bit more into the weeds, we get some hints about the empty folders and the importance of the ongoing investigation.

This was from the section on why the government can't segregate the national security investigation from the criminal investigation.

17/
There are hints throughout that there may be more they don't know yet about what Trump has done with these (and other) classified documents, which explains why they are not yet ready to indict.

18/
I just read this thread, and I was sort of unclear about the procedures.

They are asking for a stay pending appeal.

If she doesn't grant it, they'll probably ask the appellate court to offer a stay pending appeal.

If they get that, it's really all that matters.

19/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Teri_Kanefield

Apr 29
Everyone will have a different opinion of the strength of the Manhattan criminal case against Trump.

I am offering no opinions on the strength or who will prevail.

I am saying that people are working too hard to explain the case and figure out the legal theory.

1/
The prosecution has everyone confused because they are framing the case as "election fraud" and "election interference" so everyone is trying to connect the crimes we know about to "election fraud."

2/

terikanefield.com/wheres-the-bee…
The legal theory of the case should be clear.

This would be clear: "It is election fraud. Here is how the evidence will support a charge of election fraud." Then show how the behavior supports election fraud.

Does this mean the prosecution will lose? No.

3/
Read 10 tweets
Mar 11
Finished. (Whew)

As promised, all about Legal pundits and the Outrage Industry, with a few cherished conspiracy theories carefully debunked.

Click here to start:

For years, I was perplexed by what I saw on Twitter. . .

1/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
It seemed to me that the dynamics of social media were making people more authoritarian.

Then I started reading experts in political communication and it all started making sense.


2/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
I wrote parts 1 - 5 in November. I thought I was finished, but I wasn't.

There were still things I didn't understand.

Writers often write to understand, so I kept reading, thinking, and writing.



3/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 9
Whew! I finished.



Everything I promised: How to listen (or not listen) to legal pundits.

It's also about what is dangerous about the entire industry of punditry, speculation, and cable talk shows.

1/terikanefield.com/invented-narra…

For years I was perplexed by what I was seeing on left-leaning Twitter, political blogs, and partisan reporting.

I had the feeling that, in its way, what I was seeing was comparable to Fox: Lots of bad information and even unhinged conspiracy theories.
2terikanefield.com/invented-narra…
Of course, if I suggested that, I was blasted for "both-sidesing."

Then I discovered an area of scholarship: Communications and the overlap between communications and political science.

I read these books and light bulbs went on.

3/ Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 2
If Trump can win with everything we know about him, what make people think a finding of guilt would change that?

It makes no sense.
Also what if the jury acquits? It can happen.

I do recall the same people thought impeachment and indictment would cause Trump to crumble.
Another contradiction: when people demanded indictments RIGHT NOW (in 2021 and early 2022) the reason was, "Everyone knows he's guilty! Look at all the evidence!"

We saw the J6 committee findings.

Trump isn't saying "I didn't do it." He's saying, "I had the right to do it."

2
We all know what he did. The question is, "Do people want a president who acts like Trump?"

A lot of people do.

People show me polls that a guilty finding would change minds.

I say rubbish. Use common sense. He lost in 2020 and he lost the popular vote in 2016. . .

3/
Read 6 tweets
Feb 29
The news takes 2 minutes to convey.

"Here is what the court did." That is news.

Listening to people speculate about why the court did it and what it means is not news.

It is entertainment.

But it is a special kind of entertainment.

1/
. . . because it is designed to keep people hooked. People need to stay glued to the screen for hour after hour.

But to hook people, you need to scare them. The Facebook whistleblower testified that content that produces strong emotions like anger gets more engagement.

2/
Fox does the same thing. There is a few minutes of news, but the facts get lost as commentators and TV personalities speculate and scare their audiences.

Before you yell at me for comparing MSNBC to FOX, read all of this:

3/terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Read 5 tweets
Feb 29
If I write another blog post addressing the outrage cycle here on Twitter and in the MSNBC ecosystem, it will be to explore why so many people who believe they are liberal or progressive actually want a police state.

1/
Today alone, a handful of people who consider themselves liberal or progressive told me that the "traitors need to be arrested and prosecuted."

In 2019, back when I wore myself out tamping down misinformation, I explained the legal meaning of treason.

2/
Back then, I now realize, people asked politely: "Can Trump be prosecuted for treason (over the Russia election stuff).

I explained that wouldn't happen.

Now it's different. It's more like fascist chants.

3/
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(