Good news, bad news and granular news..
First, the good news. The judge assigned to the Trump documents case is U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon. She is the same judge who handled the lawsuit last year after the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Judge Cannon was the judge who appointed the “special master” to review the documents the DOJ was claiming were classified, but Team Trump was contending that definition.
Now the bad news. The DOJ is no longer legally arguing that Donald Trump held any classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The DOJ is arguing that President Trump held documents vital to U.S. defense security. It’s a farce but that’s their position. The classification status of documents is moot, nonexistent, except to create the predicate for the proverbial FBI nose under the tent.
The DOJ-NSD (that’s Lisa Monaco) got a warrant to look for classified documents, but never intended to use classified documents as a case cornerstone because President Trump had full declassification authority. The DOJ got a search warrant by convincing a judge they were looking for something that wasn’t even a violation of law. That’s why the DOJ would not reveal the probable cause affidavit. The search was built upon a fraudulent pretense. “Classified” is a snipe hunt.
You will notice Jack Smith never discussed “classified documents” in his remarks, and the issue of classified documents appears nowhere except in the indictment as a purposeful lawfare description of documents. The DOJ is not legally charging anything relating to the classification status of the documents. That’s the Lawfare and media banter to create a talking point. The term “classified” is all over the indictment, but as a lawfare adjective only; it’s like using the word “stash”.
The special counsel legal framework is centered around documents the DOJ define as vital to “the defense security” of the United States. EVERYTHING is predicated on 31 counts of an 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) violation. The DOJ defines what is considered a defense document, and that intentionally has nothing to do with classification.
The granular news. You might have heard that two of Trump’s lawyers, Jim Trusty and John Rowley, quit today. The media wants to use their exit as a point to indicate Trump is in legal jeopardy; however, that’s not the case.
As soon as Trusty and Rowley saw their forced testimony was used in the indictment, they had no option except to exit the case. Despite the lawyers providing no damaging information against Trump, the DOJ used language in the indictment to turn Trump’s lawyers into material witnesses. Weissmann’s Lawfare tactic create a conflict, forcing the two Trump lawyers to depart.
WASHINGTON DC – Two of Donald Trump’s top lawyers abruptly resigned from his defense team on Friday, just hours after news broke that he and a close aide were indicted on charges related to their handling of classified documents.
Jim Trusty and John Rowley, who helmed Trump’s Washington, D.C.-based legal team for months and were seen frequently at the federal courthouse, indicated they would no longer represent Trump in matters being investigated and prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith, who is probing both the documents matter and efforts by Trump to subvert the 2020 election.
The resignations were shortly followed by an announcement from Trump himself confirming that a close aide, Walt Nauta, had also been indicted by federal prosecutors. Nauta, a Navy veteran, had served as the former president’s personal aide and was a ubiquitous presence during his post White House days.
In their place, Trump indicated that Todd Blanche — an attorney he recently retained to help fight unrelated felony charges brought by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg in April — would lead his legal team, along with a firm to be named later. Trump and his team have liked Blanche, who is expected to play a more elevated, central role. (more)
Weissmann, Eisen and Smith are using lawfare in the indictment to put the interests of Trump and his aide Walt Nauta against each other. Obviously, Nauta would not turn on Trump, so the prosecution made Nauta a target for a federal 1001 charge of lying to investigators and will pressure him throughout the case to take a plea in exchange for testimony against Trump. Nauta is the baseline of the “Conspiracy Elements” which require two or more people. Again, pure Lawfare.
Obviously, Jim Trusty was unaware last night that his forced testimony would be used in the indictment. WATCH:
“The DOJ defines what is considered a defense document”.
The DOJ are the only ones who can review the documents.
The grand jury subpoena did not ask for “Defense Documents,” but for docs with classification markings only. They even provided examples of all the classification markings to aid in the search. To get what one wants, one must ask for that thing, and not something else.
I think this is a problem for them.
I’m wondering what effect having taken the documents will have on their nature. That is to say, when a POTUS leaves office, the documents he takes are divided into two classes, presidential records and personal documents (a POTUS has authority to declare as “personal” nearly any papers he takes from office). Once taken by an outgoing POTUS, does the status of the documents change from “national defense/security” documents to “presidential records” or “personal documents”? If they do, then the law doesn’t apply to an FPOTUS or his documents. And, whether they do or don’t, the charge against Trump is not merely taking them, but failing to surrender them upon demand. However, this presupposes the agency or office making the demand has the authority to do so. The agency was NARA, the National Archives. Did NARA even have the authority to make the demand? Possibly not.
According to Article 2 of the constitution the president holds all powers of the Executive Branch. Documents are classified solely for the benefit of the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief and the head of the Executive Branch, and under Article 2 and PRA, the POTUS has the authority to declassify those documents effective immediately. There is no legal procedure for the president to declassify documents. He gives the order, and NARA has to adhere to it. When an outgoing president intends to take documents with him, he is required to separate personal records from presidential records. Any documents which are not by definition Presidential records are therefore personal records. Personal records are the property of that outgoing President, and are defined as follows: “’personal records’ means all documentary materials of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”
Presidential records, however, are owned by the public and are placed into NARA custody when the President leaves office. The PRA specifically states: “’Presidential records’ means documentary materials created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” The definitions are important, because it means that any document which was not provided to the President for the purpose of fulfilling the duties of his office, or to anyone in his cabinet for the purpose of advising or assisting him in fulfilling those duties, can be declared a personal record, so long as they have no clear bearing on the completion of the duties of the office of President.
Jack Smith is a hitman for Merick Garland. He is as crooked as they get. Violates his code of ethics like it doesn’t exist. A real manipulating crook! Run this POS out of town on a rail!
Ultimately, they are investing in a bankrupt concept.
They are “banking on ” what many of us have long called “the sheeple”.
However, first off the percentage of the population that are “disinterested, disengaged, too focused in raising their families and living their lives to pay attention” has shrunk dramatically since say, 2008.
Secondly, even the ever shrinking percentage that still fit that description can see that the endless, ultimately unsuccessful attacks against PDJT are politically motivated, unwarranted attacks without any merit.
They have lost their second most powerful weopon, the ability to shape public opinion, and are losing their most powerful weopon, the “Uniparty” tactic of controlled opposition.
They got nothing else, so they keep going to these overused, and so discredited weopons, which only further degrades them.
Ultimately, its a battle of credibility, and like Ukraine, they just don’t have the ammunition.
Once again, MSM produces misleading, inaccurate and biased reporting re the departure of Trusty et al. Why anyone would spend one cent for the purchase of a newspaper is beyond me.
Will a jury be able to see these so-called defense documents?
I would imagine they’d have to be handed over I. Discovery as well.
And who’s to say they didn’t plant docs after the raid. These people are beyond devious.
Did the DOJ decide they were “defense documents” after the fact? Defense is not the purview of the Department of JUSTICE! We have a Department of Defense, and a Department of Homeland Security and the POTUS himself to decide that.
Sundance…so the 2 attys can testify for defense for context….defense must challenge their testimony up front since they were attys…they must get the probable cause doc now…and challenge it…meaning docs are fruit of poison tree
This whole administration is a poisonous tree.
I think this statement: “The DOJ defines what is considered a defense document, and that intentionally has nothing to do with classification.” is in error.
The statute 793(e) has an element of the offense “information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation”. The existence of a classification marking on a document implies that the information could be used to the injury of the United States so on that basis is relevant. But then the larger issue becomes who has the final authority to determine that any document could be used to the injury of the United States — an elected President or some unnamed bureaucrat given derivative classification authority? If in fact a bureaucrat, or even an Art III judge has that ultimate authority, then having an elected president is worthless.
That’s how I would argue it — as President I have ultimate authority to determine what information could be used to the injury of the United States. Now the prosecution I assume will argue that even if he had that authority, on Jan 21 he lost that authority. I don’t find that argument persuasive, but I’m not a judge.
That amounts to an ex-post-facto bill of attainder
The Democrats use 1984 as an operating guide, not as a warning.
The organ grinder media took the Trump 24/7 nothingburger bait, while the real criminals hide behind the noise.
That so called “statute/law” is not just un-constitutional, it is anti-constitutional. It literally gives the total control of and absolute power over ALL INFORMATION to the US DOJ… and therefore unlimited, absolute power over every single person in the country.
The very notion is absurd to point of being appalling…. This so called “statute/law” is a farce and a fantasy of cowards, criminals and tyrants.
It’s very substance is “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”….
A bill of attainder is a type of law that declares a person or group guilty of a crime without a trial. This means that the government can punish someone without giving them a fair chance to defend themselves in court. In the United States, bills of attainder are not allowed because they violate the Constitution.