News Trump: Mar-a-Lago just raided by FBI

Page 129 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
32,903
22,824
136
The problem with this, of course, is that if then President Trump can wave his magic wand and declassify documents, then that same wand passed to now President Biden can be waved to reclassify them. Leaving Trump holding classified documents that he refused to turn over....
You're forgetting that Biden isn't actually the President. Trump is, behind the scenes.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,970
5,734
136
I fail to understand the notion that the documents have been declassified by Trump. The documents belong to the US government whether they are classified or not. Trump stole them and refused to give them back. Any judge who sides with the Trump team has little or no understanding of the law.
Interesting argument along those lines here (I'm not entirely sure what I think of it, but does seem like there are likely better ways to hold Trump to account)

 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
6,916
2,099
136
To quote Sideshow Bob, “attempted chemistry?”

Like I get what that writer doesn’t want to convict any whistleblowers, but really ignore what the orange monkey did at the same time? It’s plain treasonous what he did.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,811
6,753
136
To quote Sideshow Bob, “attempted chemistry?”

Like I get what that writer doesn’t want to convict any whistleblowers, but really ignore what the orange monkey did at the same time? It’s plain treasonous what he did.
I need to listen to that clip now!
 
Mar 11, 2004
22,057
4,344
136
To quote Sideshow Bob, “attempted chemistry?”

Like I get what that writer doesn’t want to convict any whistleblowers, but really ignore what the orange monkey did at the same time? It’s plain treasonous what he did.
This is exactly the type of situation that it should be used for, not for targeting whistleblowers so their base argument is just baffling.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,586
1,253
126
The decision is a good read. Basically took apart the district court judge's rational.
One section:
The remaining potential injury identified by the district court is “the threat of future prosecution and the serious, often indelible stigma associated therewith.” Doc. No. 64 at 10. No doubt the threat of prosecution can weigh heavily on the mind of someone under investigation. But without diminishing the seriousness of that burden, “if the mere threat of prosecution were allowed to constitute irreparable harm . . . every potential defendant could point to the same harm and invoke the equitable powers of the district court.” United States v. Search of Law Office, Residence, and Storage Unit Alan Brown, 341 F.3d 404, 415 (5th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). If this concern were sufficient to constitute irreparable harm, courts’ “exercise of [their] equitable jurisdiction would not be extraordinary, but instead quite ordinary.” Id.

Also argues what most have. Trump doesn't own the 100 documents. Even it they were not classified they would be owned by the government. He has no personal interest in the documents.
Plaintiff has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents. Nor has he established that the current administration has waived that requirement for these documents. And even if he had, that, in and of itself, would not explain why Plaintiff has an individual interest in the classified documents. Plaintiff suggests that he may have declassified these documents when he was President. But the record contains no evidence that any of these records were declassified. And before the special master, Plaintiff resisted providing any evidence that he had declassified any of these documents. See Doc. No. 97 at 2–3., Sept. 19, 2022, letter from James M. Trusty, et al., to Special Master Raymond J. Dearie, at 2–3. In any event, at least for these purposes, the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal. So even if we assumed that Plaintiff did declassify some or all of the documents, that would not explain why he has a personal interest in them.

 

Dave_5k

Senior member
May 23, 2017
916
1,812
136
The decision is a good read. Basically took apart the district court judge's rational.

Very good read - in regards to the classified documents, reversed on every single point that Trump's Cannon had invented to issue the injunction - highlighting a wide range of flat-out errors as well as "substantially likely" abuse of discretion by Cannon, although they did refrain from calling her an idiot directly.

But in appeals court language, this is about as close as they get to reprimanding a federal district judge.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
8,742
2,728
136
Well that's a good turn. Not what I expected honestly given the recent topsy-turvy kind of legal decisions that seem to be spitting out one after the other, but welcomed indeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Dave_5k

Senior member
May 23, 2017
916
1,812
136
Give it 24 hours.
Trump will appeal. Heading for the supreme court.
Unfortunately Clarence Thomas has the first shot at 11th Circuit sourced appeals, and can screw with the case via shadow docket. The 11th Circuit opinion leaves Supremes very little wiggle room - outside of hiding behind shadow docket.

Honestly, I don't see the Supreme Court actually taking up the case at this point, it is just too far-fetched even for them with their Calvinball rules. They'll save screwing with justice for during any subsequent criminal prosecution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
10,768
2,535
136
Adding in, hopefully this is the start of the "finding out" phase after all of the "fucking around".
I think we already know what is to find out in the finding out phase.
The fucking around phase is typically called the cover-up phase.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
5,800
6,337
136
This may be one of the most important parts of the ruling:

For our part, we cannot discern why Plaintiff would have an individual interest in or need for any of the one-hundred documents with classification markings. Classified documents are marked to show they are classified, for instance, with their classification level. Classified National Security Information, Exec. Order No. 13,526, § 1.6, 3 C.F.R. 298, 301 (2009 Comp.), reprinted in 50
U.S.C. § 3161 app. at 290–301. They are “owned by, produced by or for, or . . . under the control of the United States Government.” Id. § 1.1. And they include information the “unauthorized disclosure [of which] could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security.” Id. § 1.4. For this reason, a person may have access to classified information only if, among other requirements, he “has a need-to-know the information.” Id. § 4.1(a)(3). This requirement pertains equally to former Presidents, unless the current administration, in its discretion, chooses to waive that requirement. Id. § 4.4(3).

In other words, they declined to grant Trump ANY claim to executive privilege – which (at least for now) will continue to rest exclusively with the current Executive. Not some wannabe King.
 

Stopsignhank

Platinum Member
Mar 1, 2014
2,049
941
136
I like this part.

As to executive privilege, the United States noted, Plaintiff
had not asserted executive privilege in response to the May sub-
poena; instead, he had produced documents and his custodian had
certified that he had produced all responsive documents, which
meant that he could not assert executive privilege over documents
that he was supposed to have already produced (but did not).

In other words, the government asked for the documents back. You gave back some of them. They asked again, you gave some more back and said you did not have anymore. Now that they found more documents you said you did not have, you can't claim executive privilege of documents you said you don't have (dickhead).

The "dickhead" is my editorial addition.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,072
126
I like this part.

As to executive privilege, the United States noted, Plaintiff
had not asserted executive privilege in response to the May sub-
poena; instead, he had produced documents and his custodian had
certified that he had produced all responsive documents, which
meant that he could not assert executive privilege over documents
that he was supposed to have already produced (but did not).

In other words, the government asked for the documents back. You gave back some of them. They asked again, you gave some more back and said you did not have anymore. Now that they found more documents you said you did not have, you can't claim executive privilege of documents you said you don't have (dickhead).

The "dickhead" is my editorial addition.
One thing I haven't been clear on is how they knew there were more? Did they ever state that they knew what was 'missing'? I didn't see where that got called out. I would have thought the subpoena, but for that to hold water, there had to be some very good probable cause and something to back it up besides 'he gave us some already'.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY