Open Thread: Last Batch of SCOTUS Decisions

/42 Comments/in , /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

The last batch of decisions will drop shortly — I think. Last week the Supreme Court didn’t deliver all of the remaining decisions it had on its plate and pushed them into a new month.

I hope these outstanding cases will be decided today:

NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (these are both about social media and may come as one or two decisions)

Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors Of The Federal Rsrv. Sys.

Trump v. United States

Decisions released today follow in an update at the bottom of this post.

~ ~ ~

First decision: Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors Of The Federal Rsrv. Sys.

Justice Barrett wrote the 6-3 decision; Justice Brown Jackson wrote the dissent joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.

This one could cause a lot of problems forcing reassessment of past rules and decisions by the Fed Reserve’s Board based on the dates used — the date an injury occurred due to a new Fed rule versus the date the new rule was first in force.

Second decision: NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC

Justice Kagan wrote the unanimous decision on these consolidated cases, though there are concurrences:

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J.,
and SOTOMAYOR, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined in full, and in
which JACKSON, J., joined as to Parts I, II and III–A. BARRETT, J., filed a
concurring opinion. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in
the judgment. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in
which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.

Whew. I don’t see the word “dissent” in this, do you? It’s another smackdown of the Fifth Circuit as well.

Third decision: Trump v. United States

Justice Roberts wrote the 6-3 court decision; Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent joined by Kagan and Brown Jackson. Justice Brown Jackson also wrote a dissent.

From SCOTUSBlog’s thread:

The court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.

Former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.

There is no immunity, the court holds, for unofficial acts.

The core constitutional powers are things like appointing ambassadors and foreign governments.

This is not all of the decision – Roberts was still reading his decision at 10:37 a.m. ET. It looks like this is being handed back to lower courts because of the lack of distinction between official and unofficial acts. It also looks like the rightwing of SCOTUS has extended immunity to Trump for his discussions with Department of Justice, which I assume means if he made any false statements to FBI or other DOJ personnel, those charges will be dropped.

~ ~ ~

This is an open thread. Any further updates related to these cases will appear at the bottom of this post.

Don’t Let a Biden Succession Crisis Create a Succession Crisis

/93 Comments/in /by

It took no time for the pundits calling for Joe Biden to drop out of the race to reveal their fundamental childishness by asking for someone — Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, JB Pritzker, Josh Shapiro — whose selection would create as many problems as they might, hypothetically, solve.

Nicholas Kristof, pulling a paycheck from the same people who demanded Biden step down because he didn’t do their job — “hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans” — well enough, even suggested the 71-year old guy running for a must-win Senate seat should take Joe’s place.

Biden can resolve this by withdrawing from the race. There isn’t time to hold new primaries, but he could throw the choice of a successor to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The Democratic Party has some prominent figures who I think would be in a good position to defeat Trump in November, among them Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce. And there are many others. [my emphasis]

These are not serious people, or even very smart about politics.

For both political and legal reasons, it would be doable to swap Biden for Kamala Harris, and for the same political and legal reasons, swapping Biden for anyone else is highly likely to do at least as much harm as good.

There are a number of people making this point succinctly. Jamelle Bouie has said it in a lot of ways worth following. Dan Drezner says it here.

But even these guys are making what I view to be a potentially catastrophic mistake. They think Biden should both step down from the race and resign the presidency, as Drezner lays out this way.

Here’s the thing, though: if Biden were to decide to step aside in the wake of a poor debate performance, the inevitable question would be whether he should step aside immediately. As previously noted, he is only going to keep aging, and the federal government cannot function well with a 10-4 presidency.

Biden resigning this summer would generate three political advantages. First, Kamala Harris being sworn in as the first lady president would be, to quote Biden, a big fucking deal. It would be a suitable final act in Biden’s distinguished political biography. Second, it would make the November election a choice between former president Trump and President Harris. The move would put Harris at Trump’s level and eliminate experience as a Trump argument during the campaign. Finally, Harris being president would remove the inherent awkwardness that sitting vice presidents have faced when running for the top job: being unable to disagree or disavow the sitting president’s policies. Anything that makes it easier for Kamala Harris to not resemble Al Gore is a good thing.

I think these calls for Biden to resign are as facile as the calls for Gretchen Whitmer to march into the convention and take over (much as I might like that to happen).

That’s true for one big reason: It turns out with a House packed with rabid supporters of Trump and led by a better-spoken but equally rabid supporter of this fascist project, having a Vice President is an important failsafe for democracy.

That’s true for two reasons. First, remember what happened on January 6, 2021? Big mob, chants of “hang the VP,” tweets encouraging the mob to do so? The VP may not have a big portfolio on most days. But she does on the day that, recent history warns us, is a fragile moment of our democracy. Certainly, it’s possible Democrats could convince Republicans to let Patty Murray do that job, as Chuck Grassley was prepared to do back in 2021.

But the bigger problem is the target you would put on Kamala Harris’ back if she became a President, running for re-election, without a Vice President as her designated successor. Trump has already made it clear he plans to return to power by any means necessary. Trump has already spent years frothing up his followers to a frenzy that could (and has) tipped into violence with little notice. Indeed, more than a handful of Trump’s supporters have embraced violence, some after getting riled up on Truth Social, others after little more than an incendiary Fox News rant.

The Secret Service did a piss poor job of protecting Kamala Harris on January 6. Let’s not tempt fate or Trump’s rabid brown shirts to make Mike Johnson President.

Besides, very few of the pundits screaming to replace Biden are focused on governance. This Franklin Foer piece, for example, engages in paragraph after paragraph of projection about the motives of Biden’s top aides, argues that it’s not enough to be a good President, Biden also has to campaign competently.

When I talk with aides on the inside, they never question Biden’s governing capacity. Perhaps this is their own wishful thinking. Perhaps they are better able to see how the benefits of experience overwhelm his inability to recall a name. But it’s also the product of a delusion among the Democratic elite about what constitutes effective leadership. Governing competently is different from campaigning competently. The ability to think strategically about China, or to negotiate a complicated piece of bipartisan legislation, is not the limit of politics. It’s not enough to deliver technocratic accomplishments or to prudently manage a chaotic global scene—a politician must also connect with the voters, and convince them that they’re in good hands. And the Biden presidency has always required explaining away the fact that the public wasn’t buying what he was selling, even when the goods seemed particularly attractive. [my emphasis]

The noxious NYT op-ed calling on Biden to step down because he doesn’t do their job well enough is likewise focused on Biden as campaigner.

The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence.

Mr. Biden has been an admirable president. Under his leadership, the nation has prospered and begun to address a range of long-term challenges, and the wounds ripped open by Mr. Trump have begun to heal. But the greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election.

As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden.

[snip]

[T]he United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.

And it makes sense. As I argued, when Biden responded to a focus on his age in January, he correctly said he was doing one amazingly taxing job well, that of being President. But in recent weeks, he has also been in the thick of an equally taxing job, flying around the country and glad-handing potential voters, many of whom carry germs that don’t normally make their way into the Oval Office. He has also had the stress of his son getting convicted in a trial that would never have happened if he weren’t the son of President Joe Biden. This is best understood, in my mind, as a question about whether Biden can do the two jobs required of him.

Aside from his Israeli policy, Biden is, most Democratic voters (and even NYT’s editorial board) will concede, a remarkably successful President. Via whatever means, he has managed to do that job well, even at the ripe age of 81.

If he’s doing his day job well but there are questions about whether he has the stamina to do a second full-time job on top of the first one, the answer is not to send him out to pasture on both.

This is a perceived or real stamina problem, not — at least thus far — a competence problem.

Which means there’s no reason to create another succession crisis in an attempt to save democracy.

The goal here is not just to prevent Trump from winning the election. The goal is to prevent Trump from attaining the Presidency again, via whatever means he plans to pursue. And for that reason, it is highly unwise to add points of potential failure he can exploit where, thus far, there are none.

NYT 2016: “But Her Emails” NYT 2024: “But His Debate”

/99 Comments/in , , /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

Remember back in 2016 when Hillary Clinton’s emails were all The New York Times could write about? Flooding its front page instilled FUD – fear, uncertainty, and doubt, a well-known and frequently used tactic to undermine opposition.

(source: Vox, Study: Hillary Clinton’s emails got as much front-page coverage in 6 days as policy did in 69)

That. We’re watching a reprise of a FUD flood right now, this time with NYT’s uppermost management in on the effort.

In 2016 it was so bad it became a joke memorialized as a meme.

That was then, this is now. Welcome to NYT’s 2024 election FUD operation: “But His Debate.”

~ ~ ~

LOLGOP pointed out how bad the NYT’s front page was in a Mastodon post:

It’s far worse than LOLGOP shared, because the editorials also hammer on Biden’s debate performance:

Recall how the media bleated on for months about Clinton’s emails and how later after investigation her emails were a nothing burger. All that NYT energy trying to make fetch happen; but fetch wasn’t Clinton being prosecuted but losing her race to Trump

You can expect the same thing from here on forward, the entire NYT once again focused on making fetch happen.

Meanwhile, the one man crime spree goes on. Former Assistant AG for New York State and MSNBC commentator Tristan Snell nailed it:

This is what the NYT’s front page looked like the day after a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on felony charges:

Two stories. That’s it. Nothing the day before about the trial.

NYT’s Editorial Board published an op-ed – Donald Trump, Felon – in which the NYT made no call for Trump to step down as the GOP candidate.

This is the last graf from that op-ed which summarizes the trial and the editorial board’s opinion:

In the end, the jury heard the evidence, deliberated for more than nine hours and came to a decision, which is how the system is designed to work. In the same way, elections allow voters to consider the choices before them with full information, then freely cast their ballots. Mr. Trump tried to sabotage elections and the criminal justice system — both of which are fundamental to American democracy — when he thought they might not produce the outcome he wanted. So far, they have proved resilient enough to withstand his attacks. The jurors have delivered their verdict, as the voters will in November. If the Republic is to survive, all of us — including Mr. Trump — should abide by both, regardless of the outcome.

That’s it. It’s on us, the voters. Don’t expect the NYT to sully itself with informing voters about candidate’s policy positions, they’ll be too busy trying to tank Biden’s candidacy for re-election.

~ ~ ~

It’s nearly impossible at this point to come to any conclusion except that the NYT has been and remains in the tank for Trump based on its history of coverage of Trump and his opponents Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024.

This POS from October 2016 is still incredibly offensive:

We already lost a far better POTUS in 2016 with NYT’s help, resulting in the loss of many American lives thanks to Trump’s corruption and incompetence.

Now we may lose a candidate for re-election who’s managed to fix many of the fuck-ups Trump generated, who’s ensured the U.S. economy has thrived in spite of pandemic pressures.

It’d be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high.

Trump’s engaged in criminal behavior which included not only trying to overthrow an election but the willful unlawful retention of classified materials including national defense information?

NYT: *yawn*

Trump says he wants to be a dictator on Day One, ordering a concentration camp for undocumented immigrants?

NYT: *bigger yawn*

Biden, suffering from a cold, has a poor showing at the first debate?

NYT: Oh we can’t have that! Biden must step aside!

I really thought it was the Washington Post which was racing to the basement with its hiring of Will Lewis and abortive hiring of Robert Winnett.

Nope. WaPo has nothing on the NYT.

Joe Biden: Three Weeks and Four Months

/178 Comments/in /by

I didn’t watch the full debate, yet, though I’ve seen a few clips. In the clips I’ve seen, Biden responded to Trump’s false claims by simply observing he lied, rather than explaining why and how he does.

I may not watch much more — it’s clear no pundit thinks Biden did well, and his performance overshadowed Trump’s own terrible performance. That may not be how all viewers see it: in the Univision focus group, for example, undecided voters said that Biden, though he spoke slowly, appeared presidential. But pundits are going to drown out what actual voters think and focus on what they think.

I don’t know whether this will affect the race. I don’t know whether Biden will heed calls to drop out. Biden is doing great at a rally in North Carolina, but both Hakeem Jeffries and Nancy Pelosi have made comments that make it clear serious discussions are going on. I keep coming back to this: Biden flubbed the abortion answer last night. That’s the minimum necessary required for any Democrat this year, as every Democrat in the House knows well.

I wanted to lay out two thoughts that may be a useful way of discussing the issue: about three weeks and four months.

When Biden was asked whether he would drop out earlier in the year, he responded by saying he believed he had the best shot of beating Trump. He also responded that his age was not hindering his ability to do the job. Even given his low poll numbers, those claims were nevertheless true, in part because everyone’s poll numbers suck and he has had surprising success, as measured against recent Presidents, in his presidency.

But at that point — in the weeks leading up to the State of the Union, for example — he was largely doing one job, that of President.

In the past three weeks, during a period that (Republicans have gloated) he was largely holed up at Camp David, Biden has been engaged with four really stressful efforts:

  • At the G7 he had to play leader of the liberal world at a time when US power (and democracy generally) is waning, in large part because Americans are abandoning it, for good and ill
  • He had to be President at a time when state and Congressional Republicans and SCOTUS MAGAts have pursued US failure rather than permitting any Biden success
  • He did a lot more retail campaigning than he had been doing, adding not just to his physical stress, but exposing him to a far greater soup of germs than he normally is
  • His kid was convicted in a trial that not only laid bare what a cost Joe’s political career has been on his family, but that would, without question, never have happened if his son were not the son of President Joe Biden

I raise this not to offer excuses. Biden had the stamina to fulfill what the Presidency required of him leading up to the SOTU. But the last three weeks have added a number of additional stresses. I would be unsurprised if, in ten days or ten years, we learned the cold offered as an excuse last night by some Biden supporters was revealed to be something more.

Still, such a haystack of stresses is the job of being US president. The extremism of Republicans is different, in degree, than in the past, but they’ve been hyper-partisan since Reagan. And only the decades-long effort to target the Clintons the campaign rivals the unrelenting campaign against his son. But it’s a stressful job and the last three weeks have been particularly stressful, politically, physically, and personally.

Whether or not Biden stays in the race, he will likely to make that decision based on the same question he did earlier in the year: Does he believe he has the best shot at beating Trump? Does he have the stamina to do the job?

Maybe the last three weeks have or will change Biden’s mind about those questions. Maybe they won’t. The question that will determine whether he stays in the race remains the same, but the circumstances could change the answer.

Now consider that this happens more than four months before the election.

Did you know that civilized countries (and nascent fascist countries led by megalomaniacs) run entire elections in a fraction of that time?

As noted above, at least one focus group of undecided Latinos said the debate will lead them to vote Biden, not Trump. Short of catastrophic medical event, there is no chance Trump will be replaced. There is no chance that Trump will become anymore likeable, honest, or coherent. If someone besides Biden had four months to capitalize on his negatives, it might flip the table. It would eliminate the double haters election. If someone named Biden found a way to make Trump’s malice matter more than his stammer, it might well matter.

Joe Biden has a choice to make about whether he remains the best shot to beat Donald Trump. And one way or another, Republicans will be stuck with a candidate who vigorously acts unpresidential.

Aileen Cannon Confesses She’s Unable to Distinguish between Golf Balls and Nuclear Weapons

/23 Comments/in , , /by

Depending on how you count, Aileen Cannon issued three or four decisions yesterday.

The most telling is an order letting Trump have a mulligan on whether his false attacks on the FBI pose a danger to society.

As Jack Smith’s team described in a filing, after a hearing on the matter on June 24, Judge Cannon permitted more evidence of what a menace Trump is, but ordered no additional briefing would be permitted.

During the hearing on June 24, 2024, the Court discussed with the parties (Hearing Transcript 6/24/2024 at 27) the potential need to supplement the evidentiary record regarding the Government’s Motion to Modify Conditions of Release, ECF No. 592. After the conclusion of the hearing, the Court issued a minute order setting the schedule and resolving the issue that the Court and the parties had discussed regarding the need for additional briefing. The minute order states: “Consistent with the instructions provided in open court, the evidentiary record on this Motion will be open until June 26, 2024, for the parties to file any additional evidentiary attachments/exhibits in support of, or in opposition to, the Motion 592. Any attachments/exhibits shall be docketed as a “Notice of Filing” (separated by exhibits) and limited to specific evidentiary submissions only. No additional briefing will be permitted.”

But then on Wednesday, Smith’s team brought out a bazooka, providing all the records showing Trump poses a threat to society (which I’ve linked below).

In advance of that, when Trump submitted a bunch of exhibits that seem totally off point, they requested leave — in two weeks — to say more.

President Trump respectfully requests leave to file a response to the expected Notice to be filed tonight by the Special Counsel’s Office. See 6/24/2024 Tr. at 27 (“If the defense requests an opportunity to file additional briefing, then you should make that very clear in — in any response that you file to the motion for additional evidence.”). The defense conferred with the Special Counsel’s Office today and understands that the Special Counsel intends to file numerous exhibits not previously relied upon in seeking its Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release. President Trump respectfully requests two weeks to file a response to the newly submitted evidence.

So Judge Cannon pinky swore, invented a reason to retract one of the only definitive orders she issued against Trump, and created another five weeks of delay over the question of whether Trump is a menace.

PAPERLESS ORDER: In light of the extensive, newly submitted materials filed by the Special Counsel and Defendant Trump in support of and/or in opposition to the Special Counsel’s Motion to Modify Conditions of Release 592, the Court will permit the parties to file one final supplemental brief in response to those newly submitted materials, not to exceed 10 double-spaced pages, on or before July 5, 2024. The Court takes note of the additional court orders included in composite exhibit 11 to the Special Counsel’s recently filed Notice 652 . Consistent with the Court’s statements during the July 25, 2024, afternoon hearing 649, the Court will consider such orders as cited legal authority on the Motion, not as part of the developed evidentiary record in this proceeding, and not for the factual findings set forth in those separate proceedings. The evidentiary record on the Motion is closed. Absent leave of Court, no further exhibits shall be attached to the authorized final supplemental briefs.

Cmon Aileen. You just gave this man five weeks to declare that his own texts aren’t what his own texts say.

At this point, journalists covering Judge Cannon need to put aside all pretense of normality, all pretense that one or another decision will doom Jack Smith’s case (never mind that what they often say misunderstands the evidence). That’s a category error.

That’s true because, the way things are going, this thing will never go to trial. And it’s also true because puff coverage of the actual substantive filings does nothing to rebut the very intentional propaganda that this effort is designed to generate, but only serves the cause of using this case to discredit rule of law and reality.

Which brings me to the other quasi-decisions Judge Cannon made yesterday.

On paper, she denied Trump a Franks hearing for his claim that the warrant to search his beach resort in any way lacked probable cause, dismissing one after another thing that Trump argued should have been included in the affidavit (and debunking that several were, as Trump claimed, misrepresentations).

Except for the last one. Judge Cannon ruled that a warrant searching a home for documents with classification markings and Presidential Records Act documents didn’t have anything to do with probable cause.

The final cited omission concerns the absence of a definition of “personal records” under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and related caselaw on a former President’s authority to designate records as “personal” under that Act [ECF No. 566 p. 9 (citing Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Archives & Recs. Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 300–304 (D.D.C. 2012))]. According to Defendant Trump, the affidavit offered the reviewing magistrate some guidance on the relevant legal statutes and definitions, including the definition of “Presidential records” under the PRA, but it did not include a definition for “personal records” under the Act, which is “significant” in light of the affiant’s decision “to include caselaw regarding the NDI [national defense information] element [in 18 U.S.C. § 793(e)]” [ECF No. 566 p. 9 (referencing ECF No. 566-2 p. 27 ¶ 60 & n.2)]. As with the earlier items in the Franks request, the Motion fails to explain how inclusion of more legal provisions or supporting caselaw on a contested legal question such as the applicability of the Presidential Records Act would have defeated probable cause given the content of the affidavit. Nor does the Motion offer legal authority to suggest that inclusion of further discussion in the affidavit of a potential affirmative defense was legally required to be included as a matter of the Fourth Amendment.

But it did have to do with whether the particularity of Attachment B of the warrant was sufficient, which question she will hold — you guessed it — a hearing on!

To be sure, the Special Counsel raises compelling arguments that Attachment B satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement given its reference to “classification markings” and “classified material” in certain subparagraphs of that document [see ECF No. 567]. But the Court determines that some of the terms in that document (e.g., “national defense information” and “Presidential Records”), do not carry “generally understood meaning[s]” such that a law enforcement agent, without further clarification, would have known to identify such material as “seizable” property pursuant to Attachment B. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d at 1350; [see ECF Nos. 325, 377, 398, 402, 444 (briefing and argument on the term “national defense information”)].6 This argument also relates to Defendant Trump’s claim that searching agents had impermissible discretion in executing the search because of the ambiguity of “certain terms on the illustrative list in the warrant’s subparagraphs” [ECF No. 566 p. 13]. Under these circumstances, even accepting the need for practical flexibility in weighing particularity challenges, the Court is satisfied that further factual development is warranted related to Defendant Trump’s particularity challenge as to Attachment B. 7

This is yet another attempt, by Cannon, to undermine what really are accepted definitions, because it hurts her feelings that she ruled differently in September 2022 and the 11th Circuit reversed her, soundly.

Put another way, though, Judge Cannon is making the argument that FBI agents can’t distinguish between golf balls and documents about nuclear weapons — a distinction that agents who conducted the search seem to have had no problem with. To prove that this is a problem, you would need to prove that any single box was seized with nothing that was obviously covered by the Presidential Records Act.

The part of this order that got far more attention than it merits, however, is that Judge Cannon also granted Trump another hearing on whether Beryl Howell ruled that Trump’s efforts to get Evan Corcoran to conduct an inadequate search merited a crime-fraud exception.

Much of that part of the decision is whiny insistence from Judge Cannon has the authority to revisit Judge Howell’s decision. She does!

Where it gets hysterical is where, almost a year of time-wasting after the indictment, Cannon tries to deny this is not about resource and time wasting.

This is not to say that the necessary evidentiary suppression hearing will devolve into a “mini trial,” as the Special Counsel suggests. The concern about crime-fraud “mini-trials” has been expressed by courts in the grand jury context, e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation, 842 F.2d at 1226, and it makes sense that such a concern reasonably would apply in the post-indictment context, too, at least in a general way. But there is a difference between a resource-wasting and delay-producing “mini-trial,” on the one hand, and an evidentiary hearing geared to adjudicating the contested factual and legal issues on a given pre-trial motion to suppress, on the other. More practically, the parties can meaningfully confer beforehand on the scope and timing of the hearing, raising appropriate objections with the Court as necessary; the parties can (and will) file exhibit and witness lists as is customary in federal criminal suppression litigation; and the Special Counsel can request the Court to impose reasonable limitations on the evidence produced to ensure efficiency and control. So too, for example, would it be appropriate to submit as an exhibit to the hearing the transcript of the District of Columbia grand jury proceeding (not yet received by this Court); any attachments already filed in connection with the Motion in this Court or in the grand jury proceeding; and any evidence submitted for review by the court that oversaw the grand jury proceeding (it appears no such exhibits were presented, although the matter is unclear).5 But it is an evidentiary hearing nonetheless, and it is before this Court—in this post-indictment context— to make factual findings on contested questions pertinent to the second prong of the crime-fraud exception.

Again, treating this as a serious legal opinion is a category error.

Aileen Cannon is sitting in her little court room in Fort Pierce denying the danger of Donald Trump — whether it involves storing nuclear documents under a Christmas pillow or whether it involves disseminating false claims about the FBI to people bound to respond with violence — all the while whining that her time-wasting is valuable.

Catalog of all the reasons Donald Trump is a menace

Exhibit No. 1: The Statements Giving Rise to the Motion to Modify Release Conditions— Trump’s Statements Alleging a Plan by the FBI to Kill Him and His Family in Connection with the August 8, 2022 Search of Mar-a-Lago

[link]

A. Trump Truth Social Post (May 21, 2024) [ECF No. 592-1]

B. Trump Fundraising Email (May 23, 2024) [ECF No. 592-2]

C. Trump Truth Social Post (May 23, 2024) [ECF No. 592-3]

D. Trump Truth Social Repost (May 24, 2024) [cited in ECF No. 592 at 7 n.3]

E. Trump Truth Social Post (May 25, 2024) [ECF No. 592-5]

Exhibit No. 2: Examples of Trump’s Surrogates Amplifying His Statements Alleging an FBI Plan to Kill Him

[link]

A. @patriottakes X Post Embedding Stephen Bannon Podcast Excerpt (May 21, 2024) [ECF No. 592-4]

B. @MZHemingway X Post (May 21, 2024)

Exhibit No. 3: Examples of Trump’s Statements Regarding the FBI

[link]

A. Trump Statement Regarding the Execution of the Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant (Aug. 8, 2022) [ECF No. 638-3]

B. Select Trump Truth Social Posts Regarding the FBI (Aug. 9, 2022 to June 9, 2023)

Exhibit No. 4: Examples of Threats Against the FBI Following Trump’s Statements

[link]

A. Select Ricky Shiffer Truth Social Posts (Aug. 9 to Aug. 11, 2022) [ECF No. 638-4]

B. In re: Search of Information Associated with Truth Social Profile with Username @rickywshiffer or Ricky Shiffer That is Stored at Premises Controlled by Truth Social, No. 1:22-mj-481 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 12, 2022; unsealed June 20, 2024) (Search Warrant Application) [ECF No. 638-1]

C. FBI Cincinnati Statement (Aug. 11, 2022; updated Aug. 12, 2022)

D. In re: Sealed Search Warrant, No. 9:22-mj-08332-BER (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2022) (Order on Motions to Unseal) (highlighting added at 8-9)

E. United States v. Timothy Muller, No. 4:24-mj-479 (N.D. Tex. June 14, 2024) (Criminal Complaint) [ECF No. 638-2]

Exhibit No. 5: Examples of Trump’s Statements Regarding Judges and Court Staff

[snip]

A. Trump Truth Social Post (Aug. 4, 2023) [ECF No. 638-5] 1

B. Select Trump Truth Social Posts Regarding a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia Presiding Over a Criminal Case in Which Trump is the Defendant (Aug. 6 to Dec. 8, 2023)

C. Select Trump Truth Social Posts Regarding a New York State Supreme Court Justice Presiding Over a Civil Case Involving Trump (Oct. 28, 2022 to Nov. 29, 2023)

D. Select Trump Truth Social Posts Regarding a New York State Supreme Court Justice Presiding Over a Criminal Case in Which Trump is the Defendant (Mar. 26 to Apr. 30, 2024)

Exhibit No. 6: Examples of Threats Against Judges and Court Staff Following Trump’s Statements

[link]

A. United States v. Abigail Jo Shry, No. 4:23-cr-413 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2023) (Criminal Complaint)

B. Alan Feuer, Apparent ‘Swatting’ Incidents Target Judge and Prosecutor in Trump Election Case, N.Y. Times (Jan. 8, 2024)

C. Trump v. Engoron, No. 2023-05859 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 22, 2023) (Affirmation in Opposition)

1. Ex. A: State v. Trump, Index No. 452564/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 26, 2023) (10/3/23 Trial Transcript)

2. Ex. B: State v. Trump, Index No. 452564/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 20, 2023) (Other Order—Non-Motion)

3. Ex. C: State v. Trump, Index No. 452564/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 26, 2023) (Other Order—Non-Motion)

4. Ex. D: State v. Trump, Index No. 452564/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 3, 2023) (Supplemental Limited Gag Order)

5. Ex. E: Trump v. Engoron, No. 2023-05859 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 22, 2023) (11/21/23 Affidavit of Charles Hollon)

D. Peter Eisler, et al., Trump Blasts His Trial Judges. Then His Fans Call for Violence, Reuters (May 14, 2024)

Exhibit No. 7: Examples of Trump’s Statements Regarding Prosecutors

[link]

A. Select Trump Truth Social Posts Regarding the New York District Attorney (Jan. 31 to Mar. 24, 2023)

B. Select Trump Truth Social Posts Regarding the Fulton County District Attorney (Mar. 23 to Aug. 24, 2023)

Exhibit No. 8: Examples of Threats Against Prosecutors Following Trump’s Statements

[link]

A. People v. Trump, Ind. No. 71543-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 26, 2024) (2/22/24 Affidavit of Nicholas Pistilli)

B. People v. Trump, Ind. No. 71543-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 21, 2024) (6/20/24 Affidavit of Nicholas Pistilli)

C. United States v. Craig Deleeuw Robertson, No. 2:23-mj-722 (D. Utah Aug. 8, 2023) (Criminal Complaint)

D. State v. Trump, No. 23SC188947 (Ga. Sup. Ct. Sep. 6, 2023) (9/5/23 Affidavit of Darin Schierbaum)

E. State v. Trump, No. 23SC188947 (Ga. Sup. Ct. Sep. 6, 2023) (9/5/23 Affidavit of Gerald Walsh)

F. United States v. Arthur Ray Hanson, No. 1:23-cr-343 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2023) (Criminal Indictment) Exhibit

No. 9: Examples of Trump’s Statements Regarding Potential Witnesses in the District of Columbia Case and Threats Following Trump’s Statements

[link]

A. United States v. Trump, No. 1:23-cr-257 (D.D.C. Sept. 15, 2023) (Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice these Proceedings)

B. Trump X Post Regarding a City Election Commissioner (Nov. 20, 2020) and Excerpt of the Commissioner’s Public Testimony Before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (June 13, 2022)2

C. Trump Truth Social Post Regarding a Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Sept. 22, 2023) [ECF No. 638-5]

Exhibit No. 10: Trump’s Awareness of the Link Between His Statements and His Followers’ Responses

[link]

A. Select Trump Truth Social Posts (Apr. 4, 2024) [ECF No. 642, GX1]

B. Excerpt of Transcript of CNN’s Town Hall with Former President Donald Trump, CNN (May 11, 2023)

C. Trump Truth Social Post (Apr. 29, 2023) [ECF No. 642, GX2]

Exhibit No. 11: Relevant Court Orders Not Cited in the Government’s Pleadings

[link]

A. United States v. Trump, No. 1:23-cr-257, ECF No. 124 (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 2023) (Opinion and Order)

B. People v. Trump, Ind. No. 71543-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 26, 2024) (Decision and Order on People’s Motion for an Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements)

C. People v. Trump, Ind. No. 71543-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 1, 2024) (Decision and Order on People’s Motion for Clarification or Confirmation of an Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements)

D. People v. Trump, Ind. No. 71543-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 25, 2024) (Decision and Order on Defendant’s Motion to Terminate Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements)

E. United States v. Taranto, No. 1:23-cr-229, ECF No. 27 (D.D.C. Sep. 12, 2023) (Order of Detention) (highlighting added at 4-6)

The Day After

/139 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

I’m still furious after listening to and reading yesterday’s interview on NPR’s Fresh Air. I’ve already vented about it in the debate post so I’ll spare you a repeat.

But I’ll be candid and disclose that one of the reasons I was so goddamned upset was personal.

You see, yesterday morning when I couldn’t immediately post the SCOTUS decisions, I was caring for a family member who has dementia and Parkinson’s-like symptoms.

We spent the entire day together. I’m sure the people they ran into briefly while we went about errands thought she was fine. They made small purchases, ordered lunch, managed not to lose any personal belongings.

But they didn’t spend enough time with this person to know how damaged they are.

They have a stooped posture and shuffling gait which is common among Parkinson’s patients; they have difficulty with walking distances and have no grip strength. Forget about doing anything like riding a bike because they don’t have the strength or balance for it in spite of going to the gym to work out three days a week. They frequently need to hang onto to doorframes when there is a change in elevation entering a room.

They repeat themselves; I must have heard a variation of the same story four times inside a half hour, and on several occasions yesterday.

They can’t remember new material longer than fifteen minutes.

They have difficulty explaining concepts in which they were once expert.

They lie or confabulate to make up for gaps in their ability to retain new information or express concepts they once knew well.

They sundown, becoming anxious as the afternoon and evening progresses, losing orientation in time and location, becoming agitated when their unease exceeds their ability to hold themselves together. Rather like a toddler in need of a nap they act out.

After getting through dinner and handing this family member off to their regular caregivers, once out of my sight, they melted down.

This person can’t be left alone any longer; they have been struggling with their activities of daily living like remembering to take medications regularly and at the same time each day. Timers on medication bottles no longer work to this end.

There is no way this person could hold a full-time job let alone a part-time one. They can’t focus for long on any task.

This is stable behavior now after they’ve been put on medications for night-time seizures which affected their sleep and an Alzheimer’s medication which hasn’t improved their condition but leveled it off.

Reality Check

So while some folks panic about Joe Biden’s performance during the debate, I want to tell you to get a fucking clue and check in with reality. Biden was likely unwell and fatigued; imagine how well you’d perform under the same conditions, regardless of your age.

The former guy, however, no matter his performance last night…

This guy has had muscle coordination problems for years now, obvious during his term in office.

(source)

This guy has had problems walking over changes in elevation.

(see video and article at this link)

This guy has had difficulty walking distances, including the 700 yards G7 leaders walked in 2017.

(source)

This guy has experienced phonemic aphasia with increasing frequency.

Over the weekend, Donald delivered two speeches that left viewers shocked about his health. It wasn’t just the content of his speeches — the plethora of lies and the fascistic rhetoric — that made headlines: it was his apparent aphasia (or, to be technically accurate, phonemic paraphasias). That is the type of mental confusion that might leave one saying “Venzwhere” instead of “Venezuela” or “wall mongers” instead of “war mongers.”

“Putin has so little respect for Obama that he’s starting to throw around the nuclear word,” Donald said on Saturday night to a silent audience.

The silence likely stemmed from the fact that Obama hasn’t been president for over seven years.

(source: Mary L. Trump, Losing It)

This guy acts out violently when anxious and agitated.

~ ~ ~

I know which of the two candidates at last night’s debate is and has been suffering from cognitive and other neurological impairment, and whom I wouldn’t and couldn’t trust to tackle the nation’s most sensitive matters.

I also know I would not trust the candidate who during his first week in office ordered a ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

I would not trust the candidate who so carelessly and indifferently failed to respond appropriately in advance of and following a hurricane which eventually took thousands of American lives.

I would not trust the candidate who let his son-in-law deny federal COVID aid to blue states.

I would not trust the candidate who refuses to be pinned down on reproductive rights though his appointments to the Supreme Court have now resulted in the mounting loss of maternal and infant lives.

I would not trust the candidate who appointed so many persons who demonstrated bad faith, lousy judgment, and poor ethics during his term in office, and who removed or forced out so many good federal employees.

I cannot trust the candidate who refused to return presidential records and classified documents including national defense information, storing them improperly and even showing them off to unauthorized persons while in his possession.

Nor can I trust the future of this country, its democracy, and its very sovereignty to the candidate who has said he wants to be a dictator on Day One of his term in office, and who has been compromised by hostile foreign governments.

How you who are panicking after the debate have forgotten all this is beyond me. Has COVID sapped our nation’s collective ability to recall what happened during Trump’s term in office? Did you actually fall for the seasoned con man’s ability to gain your confidence once again because he managed to hold it together for a single carefully-managed appearance on stage?

Save your fucking panic and get to work because for some of us this is personal — our lives depend on it.

2024 Presidential Election: First Presidential Debate

/155 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

Today is 131 days from Election Day 2024; the first presidential debate between President Joe Biden and former POTUS and adjudged business fraudster Donald Trump will be hosted by CNN at the network’s Atlanta GA studios at 9:00 p.m.

Moderators will be Dana Bash and Jake Tapper.

Rules upon which the debate participants have agreed include no use of notes prepared ahead of the debate and microphones muted when the candidates are not speaking during their allotted time to respond.

Based on a coin toss Trump will give the final closing remarks while Biden will take the podium which viewers will see on the righthand side of their screens.

Other networks may carry CNN’s feed, which means you’ll see CNN’s branding no matter which network you choose.

Voters’ perceptions of the debate have already been tampered with by Team Trump:

• Trump and the right-wing media ecosystem have already spread false claims that Biden will be on performance enhancing drugs with Trump using this claim during his campaign rallies.

That’s what this guy, who spent nearly 25% of his first term in office on golf courses and much of it in golf carts:

Former President Donald Trump at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster on July 28, 2022. Jonathan Ferrey/LIV Golf via Getty Images via Business Insider
(source: Business Insider, Former Trump aide said he and other staffers couldn’t imagine Trump marching to the Capitol on January 6 because he’d ‘never seen the man walk across a golf course without a golf cart’)

said about this guy who has a predilection for ice cream and bike riding:

President Joe Biden rides his bike in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, on Aug. 3, 2023. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP via CNN
(source: CNN, Biden spent August trying to escape Washington. But September realities await him)

• CNN’s interview of Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt by Kasie Hunt was intended to seed the idea that CNN’s debate platform was unfair to Trump.

However, Hunt cut Leavitt’s mic when Hunt persisted in attacks on CNN and the assigned moderators Tapper and Bash.

This panel discussion which includes an excerpt of Hunt’s interview with Leavitt is worth watching, even if it’s daytime talk show The View:

Not one of the panel bought what Leavitt was trying to sell — they could all see through her, and through Trump.

Most importantly, The View’s panel could see a complete lack of message from Team Trump.

Which ultimately is the purpose of tonight’s debate: the two candidates should convey their vision of the next four years. How different are those visions? What’s their message to the voters?

This is an open thread. Discuss your perspective of the candidates’ performance and their messages to us.

~ ~ ~

ADDER — 8:55 P.M. —

The other entity which should be watched carefully tonight and immediately following the debate is the goddamned media.

I am so furious with NPR’s Tonya Mosley and NYT’s Shane Goldmacher I could spit nails.

Mosley interviewed Goldmacher for NPR’s Fresh Air today. The last portion of the interview is a perfect example of what’s wrong with media coverage of Biden and Trump.

They expended roughly 785 words on Biden’s age followed by a counter observation of Trump which was roughly 214 words, and those 214 words are only half about Trump:

There are also clips of Donald Trump misspeaking, and you mentioned this earlier, right? He gives long, meandering, hard-to-follow answers. I’ve sat through his rallies and sort of lost track of what he’s talking about for a few minutes at a time. And he is not presenting everything in the most sharp and coherent and cohesive way. That said, voters don’t seem to perceive him in the same way they perceive Joe Biden around the issue of age. And the Biden campaign itself, while that’s been a frustration, that’s not how they’ve attacked Trump either. They’ve attacked Trump on policies – that he snapped after the 2020 election, that his second term would be far more radical than his first term was, that he threatens democracy itself, that he wouldn’t accept the outcome of a future election, that he would be a dictator on day one, which is something that Trump has said about how he would take his approach to the border and some other issues. So the Biden campaign itself has through their actions showed their focus is on what Trump would do should he win election. And I think that the Trump campaign is really focused on who Joe Biden would be and raising questions about the president himself and his capabilities.

OMFG THE PRESIDENCY AGED BIDEN No fucking shit, you two sad sack excuses for journalists. Look at every president — Obama’s hair was grey when he left office and his face had new lines.

OMFG DEMOCRATS ARE WORRIED ABOUT BIDEN No fucking shit, because journalists covering Biden do this egregious lopsided coverage in which they literally blow by the fact Trump has said “that he would be a dictator on day one” as if that’s somehow just a minor inconvenience and not an existential threat to many Americans and U.S. residents.

Journalists like these two twits make Biden tripping over a sandbag equal to or a greater risk than TRUMP WANTS TO BE A DICTATOR ON DAY ONE. What the actual fuck???

The inability to recognize dementia in Trump is also egregiously bad — that meandering speech is a bit of a problem if the military is expecting a cogent order about a crisis, you two stupid dipshits. Trump’s phonemic aphasia has been growing worse since he was in office; he already displayed it then.

And yet the public hasn’t been adequately informed about this likely sign among many that Trump has some form of dementia or Alzheimer’s.

Stuff like this from Cornell University’s Media Office:

Cornell expert says Trump’s frequent phonemic paraphasia ‘are signs of early dementia’

doesn’t garner a fraction of the coverage it needs, because journalists like Mosley and Goldmacher are too busy amplifying rightwing talking points about Biden’s age instead of addressing Trump’s increasing cognitive impairment combined with his desire to BECOME A DICTATOR ON DAY ONE.

Again, this is an open thread. Be sure to discuss what fuckery the media offer about tonight’s debate, using Lakoff’s Truth Sandwich format.

The Nuclear Weapons Document Trump Stashed under Bubble Wrap and a Christmas Pillow

/35 Comments/in , , , /by

As noted, Jack Smith has filed his response to Trump’s bid to throw out his stolen document indictment because the order of certain boxes was not retained.

A key part of Smith’s response argues that document order within boxes hasn’t been central to any of Trump’s defenses to date, but in any case, his complaint about document order is a ruse (though Aileen Cannon likely won’t treat it as such). That’s partly because of the sheer variety of things found in boxes with classified documents, including “newspapers, thank you notes, Christmas ornaments, magazines, clothing, and photographs of himself and others,” making it far more difficult to retain document order.

And that’s partly because Trump kept moving items within boxes and boxes themselves around. The government included a Molly Michael interview, for example, where she described that some of the contents of boxes that she and Walt Nauta brought to Trump for sorting in advance of him returning 15 boxes to NARA in January 2021 got consolidated.

And pictures included as exhibits show that the spill of boxes Nauta discovered in the storage room was more extensive than previously disclosed — involving at least four boxes. Other exhibits show how the classified document exposed as part of that spill was found in the storage closet in box A-35 over a year later.

As the response and previous filings describe, that document — a Five Eyes document dated October 4, 2019 — was charged as Count 8.

A table included in the filing describes where all the charged documents were found.

So three of the charged documents were found in this box, the blue leatherbound box found next to Diet Coke bottles and some weird cult painting of Trump, in a closet off his office.

Those three documents, all classified Top Secret and at least two of which date to May 2018 (Matt Tait speculated after the search that one was a PDB pertaining to Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal), would be among the items included in this evidence picture.

This box is actually one of the only ones where the filter agent didn’t retain document order at all, so if Judge Cannon were to throw out charges because of document order (which would itself be unprecedented), it would implicate as few as three of the charges.

Side note: The narrative on this box confirms that Julie Kelly is a dumbass propagandist. It confirms that some of the documents in the box had cover sheets on them, and there were other loose cover sheets in the box.

After FBI 13 placed all of the contents of the blue box back in the box, an ERT photographer took photos of the blue box with the cover off. Ex. 12. FBI 13 alerted the Case Team that s/he had found documents marked classified, and after s/he completed his/her privilege review, two Case Team agents reviewed the box and found numerous documents with classification markings, some of which had classification cover sheets already attached, as well as loose classification cover sheets. [my emphasis]

Julie the Propagandist is nevertheless reading a different part of the filing — which described cover sheets that are not in this picture — and claiming she was right.

Seven of the documents were found among these boxes in the storage room (the box with the rectangle is where the FVEY document caught in Nauta’s December 2021 picture ended up).

And fully ten of the documents charged were found under some bubble wrap and a Christmas pillow in this box, which would have been found in the storage room, perhaps on the opposing wall to the picture above.

 

That means that one of the documents stashed under the bubble wrap and the Christmas pillow, charged as Count 19, was classified Formerly Restricted under the Atomic Energy Act, meaning it pertains to US nuclear weapons.

Just about the only interesting treatment of document cover sheets happens to pertain to this box, which also happens to be the one that Stan Woodward started this whole stink about.

 

As Smith’s filing explains, the box included 32 documents with classification markings (of which 11 were confidential), all in one binder (could this be the Crossfire Hurricane binder?!?!). Because everything in the binder was related, it was impossible to reconstruct which placeholder went with which document.

11 The initial placeholder sheets that were put in Box A-15, unlike most of the others, included only the classification level and the number of pages. Because of the large number of documents with classification markings (32) in box A-15, which were found in a binder of information and therefore similar in nature, it was not possible for the FBI to determine from the initial placeholder sheets which removed documents corresponded to which classified document. In this instance, therefore, the FBI left the initial handwritten placeholder sheets within the binder to denote the places within the binder where the documents with classification markings were found. The FBI provided this binder for scanning at the top of the box. In addition, the FBI placed in the box 32 new placeholder sheets representing the 32 documents with classification markings in the binder. It placed them where the binder was within the box when the investigative team obtained it. None of the 32 documents is charged.

But as described, none of them are charged.

To sum up, then. Of the boxes from which charged documents were found, only one — the blue leatherbound box found in Trump’s office — clearly lost document order (but partly that would derive from there being so many classified documents found). The one box where document order was a problem — the one that Stan Woodward made a stink out of — has no charged documents.

But thanks for helping us clarifying, Stan, that Trump stored his document about nuclear weapons under a Christmas pillow.

Links

Jack Smith Response

Exhibit 1: Search warrant and affidavit

Exhibit 2: Interview report with person 81 describing how obsessive Trump was about his boxes at the White House

Exhibit 3: Additional copies of 2021 spill of four boxes

Exhibit 4: Evidence photo showing boxes stacked in storage room at beginning of search

Exhibit 5: 230322 interview with Molly Michael describing how Trump consolidated some of the boxes she and Walt Nauta brought Trump in 2021

Exhibit 6: 220817 302 documenting search of Mar-a-Lago

Exhibit 7: Interview transcript with Person 29 (Trump Organization official) describing how they turned off the CCTV server, but then had it turned back on directly at Mar-a-Lago during the search

Exhibit 8: Showing evidence picture of items 14 and 23, with classified docs pulled out

Exhibit 9: Photo log describing photos documenting search, including Trump’s office

Exhibit 10: Evidence photo of item 2

Exhibit 11: 302 from June 20, 2024 phone call with filter agent FBI 13 regarding the search of the leatherbound box

Exhibit 12: Showing how item 2 — the blue leatherbound box in Trump’s office closet with the most sensitive documents — was found next to coke bottles and a cult painting of him

Exhibit 13: Showing where classified documents were found

Exhibit 14: Documenting belated discovery of Top Secret document in box 57

Exhibit 15: Instructions for document handling for Special Master scan

Exhibit 16: Showing what random things were found in boxes 10, 19, and 28

Exhibit 17: 302 describing picking up additional classified documents from Molly Michael on August 9

Trump Motion to Dismiss

Exhibit 1: 220926 After Action Report on search, describing filter teams

Exhibit 2: Version of search warrant return

Exhibit 3: 220809 email documenting meeting with Molly Michael to collect more classified documents, which Trump misrepresented

Exhibit 4: 230605 documentation of scan process

Exhibit 5: 220928 email describing scan process, including replacement of cover sheets

Exhibit 6: 231128 memorialization of 230711 meetings with filter team to discuss search

Exhibit 7: 220806 hand-written notes memorializing planning for search

Exhibit 8: 231009 Todd Blanche discovery request

Exhibit 9: 231016 DOJ response

Exhibit 10: 240521 memorialization of May 2024 meetings between FBI and Special Counsel about search

Exhibit 11: 240324 hand-written notes of interview with privilege team

Exhibit 12: 2405?? hand-written notes of interview with privilege team

Exhibit 13: 240523 discovery letter turning over filter team materials

Exhibit 14: 240305 memorialization of item split

Exhibit 15: Notes showing Stan Woodward looking in Box A-14 (of which he took a picture), A-15, A-16, A-45, A-71, and A-73

Exhibit 16: 220830 documentation of evidence split

 

“Nobody ever slept on that side of the bed usually so he would have it all full of boxes”

/65 Comments/in , , /by

The government has filed their response to Trump’s argument that, because some of the contents of Trump’s boxes have shifted during the investigation, the entire indictment must be dismissed. I’ll do a long post describing what new details it reveals of Trump’s hoarding and of the investigation.

For now, I wanted to point to a fragment of an interview report (302) from someone who might be one of Trump’s White House valets. The witness repeated a point made by other loyal Trump staffers: They joked about Trump’s obsession being akin to that in My Beautiful Mind.

The witness described that one time, after Derek Lyons instructed the witness to go search Trump’s boxes for something, Trump knew things were out of place.

[Person 81]: There were conversations — like, he knew which ones had what in them. We had conversations with the Staff Secretary for us to, quote, go into the boxes and get things out. So he wanted us to go shuffle through the boxes —

Mr. Raskin: He the Staff —

[Person 81]: The Staff Secretary.

Mr. Raskin: [Person 45] or [Derek Lyons].

[Person 81]: [Lyons] was the one that informed me to do it. Go through, shuffle through, see what we could find about schedules, specific documents that they had, which I can’t remember off hte top of my head exactly what those were, but find specific documents and pull those out and then give them to them so that they could have them —

Mr. Raskin: And did you do that?

[Person 81]: — for tracking purposes.

Mr. Raskin: And you said [Lyons] wanted you to do it; did you do it?

[Person 81]: We only did that — I did that one time and the President realized that it happened and I told [Lyons] that I won’t do that again because I don’t want the President to think that I was snooping through his stuff.

But the more interesting detail is that Person 81 described how there was a cluster of boxes right next to Trump’s bed at the White House.

So if you walk into the room, his bed — there’s a nightstand, his bed, and then there’s, like, a — where another nightstand was but nobody ever slept on that side of the bed usually so he would have it all full of boxes.

Now, I get the impetus. Back in the days when most of my reading was still dead tree books, there’d be a stack of them there, next to my side of the bed, maybe two stacks. There are still four or five in-process books on the bookshelf by the bed.

But Trump’s White House aide was describing boxes and boxes of White House documents, including classified documents.

They were right there by the side of the bed because (usually) no one slept on that side of the bed.