Trump’s Reneges on Promised Significant Fourth Amendment Filing

As you no doubt know, Trump filed a document that purports to be a request for a Special Master last night, over a week after discussing privilege issues with DOJ and three days after promising a significant Fourth Amendment filing.

This document is a lot of things:

One thing it is not is a significant Fourth Amendment filing. Trump couldn’t even manage that competently.

My thread on it is here.

I’m going to go update my “known and likely affidavit contents” post with more basis for probable cause with claims from this and the NARA letter to Trump (PDF via NARA) John Solomon released.

emptywheel Trump Espionage coverage

Trump’s Reneges on Promised Significant Fourth Amendment Filing

Next Steps in the Trump Stolen Documents Investigation

Maggie Haberman: Heads It’s Only Obstruction, Tails It’s Not Obstruction

The French President May Be Contained Inside the Roger Stone Clemency

Which of the Many Investigations Trump Has Obstructed Is DOJ Investigating?

The Known and Likely Content of Trump’s Search Warrant

The ABCs (and Provisions e, f, and g) of the Espionage Act

Trump’s Latest Tirade Proves Any Temporary Restraining Order May Come Too Late

How Trump’s Search Worked, with Nifty Graphic

Pat Philbin Knows Why the Bodies Are Buried

Trump’s Timid (Non-Legal) Complaints about Attorney-Client Privilege

18 USC 793e in the Time of Shadow Brokers and Donald Trump

[from Rayne] Other Possible Classified Materials in Trump’s Safe

Trump’s Stolen Documents

John Solomon and Kash Patel May Be Implicated in the FBI’s Trump-Related Espionage Act Investigation

[from Peterr] Merrick Garland Preaches to an Overseas Audience

Three Ways Merrick Garland and DOJ Spoke of Trump as if He Might Be Indicted

The Legal and Political Significance of Nuclear Document[s] Trump Is Suspected to Have Stolen

Merrick Garland Calls Trump’s Bluff

Trump Keeps Using the Word “Cooperate.” I Do Not Think That Word Means What Trump Wants the Press To Think It Means

[from Rayne] Expected Response is Expected: Trump and Right-Wing DARVO

DOJ’s June Mar-a-Lago Trip Helps Prove 18 USC 793e

The Likely Content of a Trump Search Affidavit

All Republican Gang of Eight Members Condone Large-Scale Theft of Classified Information, Press Yawns

Some Likely Exacerbating Factors that Would Contribute to a Trump Search

FBI Executes a Search Warrant at 1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480


33 replies
    • bmaz says:

      You can read for free on Twitter, you do not have to participate. If you purposefully choose not to, don’t whinge about it.

      • d4v1d says:

        Actually, i deleted this post during the edit period – I’m surprised it’s still here. I knew all I would get is an ad hominem response and decided I could find the information elsewhere without patronizing twitter.

      • Bruce S says:

        You may not have heard, Twitter recently imposed severe limits on what can be read by those who choose not to have a Twitter account. I can now read only the most recent few posts on any feed, then get blocked and have to switch to another. There is apparently an exception for lists (I can read as much as I want on Josh Marshall’s Ukraine Military Analysts list), and any link to a thread will show we the whole thread. But for an abundant Tweeter such as EW I either spend my life watching the feed or I miss a lot.

        (Note to moderation: It’s been a while since I commented, I honestly don’t remember the handle I used, feel free to edit as you see fit.)

        [Welcome back to emptywheel. You’ve published 20 previous comments as “Bruce Stewart”; let me know by reply below if you wish to change to “Bruce S” here forward since it’s more general yet not duplicative of another commenter’s name. /~Rayne]

        • Just Some Guy says:

          The way to work around this is that when the Twitter pop up appears that states something like “See more tweets from emptywheel,” hit the LOG IN button, then when the “Sign In to Twitter” pop up appears, just X out of it. Then you should be able to scroll any user’s timeline for a bit, though occasionally you’ll have to pull the same trick.

        • FiestyBlueBird says:

          When it blocks you, hit either the login or sign-up button. Then cancel out of it — the ‘X’ in upper left. It returns you to an unblocked free-flow Twitter right where you were before being blocked.

          I am not sure if it eventually blocks again within that same scrolling session, but I’ve not had that happen. It will block you on a different feed, but just unblock again as described above.

          It’s a minor inconvenience only.

          I thoroughly enjoyed Marcy’s Twitter yesterday. She was on a roll!

        • Ruthie says:

          I’ve run into the new Twitter limits myself. When reading on my tablet, however, I can keep scrolling, but the screen is grayed/filtered and therefore harder to read. Plus there’s the big pop up window that you have to read around.

    • arbusto says:

      I use ( is slower) in lieu of twitter. Works well as a reader and no ads or pop ups, though thread reader doesn’t work.

  1. Robot 17 says:

    And so clearly the Donald is going to try and ward off indictments by announcing his candidacy. At least that would give the flying monkees ammo on Fox.

    Me wonders if MG will use this opportunity to explain the potential charges in court filings in response to this lunatic filing. Good one. No small bungle on their part.

  2. Bad Boris says:

    In RE to the classification of all these docs, how can the erstwhile president* make any claims against them as — as far as I know — he never had, nor now does have, a security clearance, much less one high enough to read what he’s requesting be ‘returned’ to him?

  3. PeterS says:

    Although you say this isn’t a significant Fourth Amendment filing, the fact is that the document mentions the Fourth Amendment lots of times. Any fair-minded person should concede that this makes it a tremendous Fourth Amendment filing, probably the best ever. And it mentions a camel.

  4. HW3 says:

    What privilege does he want a special master to protect? He’s not a lawyer. He’s no longer the executive. If there is a warrant for stolen goods, can you get a special master to sort out what was taken to verify the police only keep stolen stuff?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      A special master’s review would cover only A/C privilege, not executive privilege or other matters.

      Virtually none of these materials would be covered by A/C privilege, although naming Christina Bobb as a “custodian of records” suggests a desire to make it appear as if they were. Any documents between Trump and WH Counsel, for example, might be covered by executive privilege, but that’s now Biden’s to assert, not Trump’s, and he hasn’t done so.

      The request seems designed to be a distraction, throwing more shit at the wall and flooding the zone with it. It helps create the impression that Trump is a victim, which his base eats up like hot dogs and ice cream on the Fourth of July.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Trump asking for a special master is an attempt to create one more in a series of delays to keep the DoJ from reviewing these documents.

      It also makes it appear as if Trump is concerned with process and transparency. Nothing could be further from the truth: Trump hates both, except when he can use them as a defense to his wrongdoing.

  5. Yargelsnogger says:

    I’ve been wondering about that threat to the AG thing since I first heard about it. Apart from the lack of judgement involved in sending it in the first place, it also seems to be a bit of a confession that Trump understands that his words will be used by his supporters to justify threats and violent acts against the targets of his diatribes.

    If I were the DoJ, my first thought would have been to give him some more rope by following up and asking him what he was able to “offer” to turn down the temperature. Is this totally off-base, or is this something that could be used as evidence in other cases – either of intent, or awareness of the consequences of his words?

    • Tom-1812 says:

      I think it would be a mistake for the DoJ to have any such discussions with Trump. It seems uncomfortably close to negotiating with terrorists.

  6. Nick Barnes says:

    I see that Trump’s lawyers have fouled up their PHV forms, which may indicate something about their competence.

      • Nick Barnes says:

        Just an interested bystander, enjoying my popcorn. Does it matter?
        I enjoy the privilege of being free to comment under my own name. If you Google it you will find various people including me. I’m not the footballer, the magician, or the crime boss.

  7. nord dakota says:

    True story:
    IANAL but used to have a friend who was an interesting shitshow all by himself. He was a race-conscious RWNJ African American who would vent about his (all too real) experiences of discrimination by law enforcement while cultivating a pro-military and pro-LE reputation on social media (one day he is picketing an outdoor policy academy training, next day he’s posting Blue Lives Matter on Twitter, also had a radio show for awhile and frequent guest on local RW talk radio). Hated Trump before the 2016 nomination (“make conservatives look like idiots”) but completely pro-Trump afterwards (he blocked me when I revealed that on his FB once, plus he owes me $300 because who does a RWNJ borrow money from if not his lib friends?). Anyway, he and his wife had same family problems (she’s white, her family is extremely racist, she’s not, she leaned liberal for years but now he and she are all evangelical Christian conservatives, the racist in-laws just drink and barbecue a lot). Her mom talked her into getting a restraining order via local DV advocate who a lot of people at the court thought was a lawyer because she presented that way in the courthouse and in public. He appealed it (in the end, wife had no objection). I helped with his brief (you can tell what I wrote and what he wrote, because is part is where the raving and use of “we” occurs) using court rules and alleging unauthorized practice of law by the DV. State supreme court agreed and remanded, but wife did not pursue further (I hope the DV got in some trouble).

    He also tried to file a lawsuit with “We, the XXXX (surname) family” as the plaintiff. It was very long when I saw it, I said no, you can’t use the “XXXX family” (he being the head of said family) as a plaintiff. He argued but never got around to filing it.

    This motion reads a lot like the stuff he wrote.

  8. nord dakota says:

    “the clear frontrunner for the 2024 nomination” and since “most Americans” are “distressed” by this search of his home, guess we don’t need elections anymore.

  9. FLwolverine says:

    If this “motion” survives the judge’s request for clarification/revision, could it be consolidated with the case in West Palm Beach, since they both concern the same event? Both cases are in the Southern District of Florida.

    • FLwolverine says:

      After further reading I’ve decided this is a unnecessary (and somewhat dumb) question, so please ignore. Sorry.

  10. Fancy Chicken says:

    Trump would do better hiring Josh Schulte to write his legal submissions than these cranks. Sure Schulte’s got plenty of free time on his hands.

Comments are closed.