Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

Defendant Trump 'Has No Reputation To Protect'
by Lawrence O’Donnell
MSNBC
Sep 6, 2022

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell analyzes a new legal filing from Judge Aileen Cannon that appoints a special master to review the government documents seized from Donald Trump’s Florida home in order to prevent “reputational harm” to the former president.



Transcript

>> [LAWRENCE O'DONNELL] WELL, THANKS TO DONALD TRUMP, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, ADOPTING TRUMPIAN METHODS, WE NOW TONIGHT KNOW THE NAME OF THE NEXT REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. IF DONALD TRUMP IS THE NEXT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, THEN HIS SHORT LIST FOR THE SUPREME COURT WILL ONLY INCLUDE ONE NAME. THAT IS PROBABLY ALSO THE CASE FOR FLORIDA'S GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS, IF HE IS THE NEXT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT NAME COMES FROM FLORIDA. THIS FUTURE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS YOUNG ENOUGH TO REMAIN AT THE TOP OF THE REPUBLICAN SHORTLIST FOR THE SUPREME COURT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES FOR ANOTHER REPUBLICAN TO WIN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. THIS FUTURE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS ABOUT 20 YEARS AWAY FROM TURNING 60.

AILEEN MERCEDES CANNON PUBLICLY APPLIED FOR THE JOB OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, IN WRITING, YESTERDAY, IN A 24-PAGE OPINION, ORDERING A SO-CALLED SPECIAL MASTER TO EXAMINE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SEIZED BY THE FBI FROM DONALD TRUMP'S HOME IN FLORIDA. AILEEN MERCEDES CANNON, WHO WAS APPOINTED TO A FEDERAL JUDGESHIP IN THE LAST MONTHS OF DONALD TRUMP'S PRESIDENCY, IS NOW ONLY IN HER SECOND YEAR AS A FEDERAL JUDGE, AND HAS SUFFERED A GREAT DEAL OF WHAT SHE WOULD CALL REPUTATIONAL HARM IN THE LAST 24 HOURS, SINCE SHE ISSUED HER 24-PAGE OPINION WHICH HAS NO CONNECTIVE TISSUE TO PRE-EXISTING LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP IN AMERICA.

THERE IS NO KNOWN LEGAL REASON FOR ANYTHING IN THE JUDGE'S ORDER, AND SO JUDGE AILEEN MERCEDES CANNON DID WHAT DONALD TRUMP WOULD'VE DONE IF HE WERE A FEDERAL JUDGE: SHE JUST MADE IT UP.

ONE OF THE MOST ABSURD NOTIONS IN HER ORDER, GIVING DONALD TRUMP EVERYTHING HE ASKED FOR, IS THE IDEA THAT A FUTURE INDICTMENT OF DONALD TRUMP, BASED ON THIS EVIDENCE, QUOTE, "WOULD RESULT IN REPUTATION HARM." THE ONLY WAY DONALD TRUMP COULD SUFFER REPUTATIONAL HARM IS IF THE EVIDENCE CONTAINED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, WHICH IT MOST ASSUREDLY DOES NOT. YOU CANNOT SUFFER REPUTATIONAL HARM IF YOU HAVE ALREADY DESTROYED YOUR REPUTATION. IF YOU ALREADY GOT CAUGHT, AS DONALD TRUMP DID, PAYING $130,000 TO PORN STAR STORMY DANIELS TO BUY HER SILENCE ABOUT HAVING SEX WITH YOU, SHORTLY AFTER YOUR CURRENT WIFE GAVE BIRTH. YOU CANNOT SUFFER REPUTATIONAL HARM NOW -- YOU CANNOT SUFFER REPUTATIONAL HARM NOW, AFTER GETTING CAUGHT IN 2016 SAYING THIS:

>> [DONALD TRUMP] YEAH, THAT'S HER WITH THE GOLD. I BETTER USE SOME TIC TACS JUST IN CASE I START KISSING HER. YOU KNOW, I'M AUTOMATICALLY ATTRACTED TO BEAUTIFUL ... I JUST START KISSING THEM. IT'S LIKE A MAGNET. JUST KISS. I DON'T EVEN WAIT. AND WHEN YOU'RE A STAR, THEY LET YOU DO IT. YOU CAN DO ANYTHING.

>> [BILLY BUSH] WHATEVER YOU WANT.



>> [DONALD TRUMP] GRAB THEM BY THE PUSSY -- YOU CAN DO ANYTHING.

>> [LAWRENCE O'DONNELL] DONALD TRUMP HAS ALREADY TOLD THIS JUDGE, AND THE WORLD, THAT HE PERSONALLY BELIEVES IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO EVER SUFFER REPUTATIONAL HARM.

>> [DONALD TRUMP] I COULD STAND IN THE MIDDLE OF FIFTH AVENUE AND SHOOT SOMEBODY, AND I WOULDN'T LOSE ANY VOTERS, OKAY? IT'S LIKE, INCREDIBLE!

>> [LAWRENCE O'DONNELL] DONALD TRUMP'S REPUTATION COULD NOT BE WORSE AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO VOTE FOR HIM, AND HIS REPUTATION CAN NEVER BE HARMED WITH THE PEOPLE WHO DO VOTE FOR HIM. BUT JUDGE AILEEN MERCEDES CANNON WROTE AN ORDER TO SAVE DONALD TRUMP FROM REPUTATIONAL HARM. THAT WAS HER PHRASE: "REPUTATIONAL HARM." YOU ARE GONNA HEAR FROM SOME LAWYERS IN A MOMENT WHO WILL GIVE YOU THEIR PROFESSIONAL VIEW OF WHAT JUDGE CANNON DID. BUT FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DIDN'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL, YOU NEED ONLY KNOW THAT SHE CLAIMS SHE IS ISSUING AN ORDER TO PROTECT DONALD TRUMP'S REPUTATION -- PROTECT HIS REPUTATION FROM THE HARM OF A POSSIBLE FUTURE INDICTMENT. AND NEVER MIND THAT EVERY INDICTMENT THAT EVER ISSUED IN THIS COUNTRY HAS HURT THE REPUTATION OF THE PERSON NAMED IN THE INDICTMENT. SOMETIMES THOSE CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE DISMISSED, SOMETIMES THE INDICTED PERSON IS FOUND NOT GUILTY IN COURT. AND THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS, THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN PROTECT THE DEFENDANT'S REPUTATION OTHER THAN THE STRENGTH OF THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENSE. AND WE HAVE NOT HEARD ONE WORD OF DONALD TRUMP'S DEFENSE OF WHY HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, INCLUDING NUCLEAR SECRETS. NOT ONE WORD OF EXPLANATION, OR DEFENSE, FROM DONALD TRUMP ABOUT THAT. NOT ONE WORD FROM DONALD TRUMP TRYING TO SAVE HIMSELF, RIGHT NOW, FROM REPUTATIONAL HARM.

BUT A FEDERAL JUDGE APPOINTED BY DONALD TRUMP HAS TAKEN ON THE JOB OF PROTECTING DONALD TRUMP FROM REPUTATIONAL HARM. THAT IS SOMETHING DONALD TRUMP COULDN'T DO FOR HIMSELF, WHEN HE SETTLED THE TRUMP UNIVERSITY FRAUD CASE FOR $25 MILLION THAT HE HAD TO PAY TO THE VICTIMS OF HIS FRAUD. WE COULD FILL THIS HOUR WITH ONE LINERS OF DONALD TRUMP'S POISONOUS REPUTATION, FROM HIS DAYS AS A YOUNG NIGHT-CLUBBING LANDLORD, ACCUSED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ALONG WITH HIS FATHER, OF USING RACIST PRACTICES IN RENTING APARTMENTS, VIOLATING CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, TO STANDING ACCUSED TONIGHT IN A LAWSUIT BY E. JEAN CARROLL OF RAPE, AND STANDING ACCUSED TONIGHT AS A DEFENDANT IN A LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY CAPITOL POLICE OFFICERS AGAINST DONALD TRUMP FOR HIS INCITEMENT OF A VIOLENT INSURRECTION ON JANUARY 6TH, AND THE PHYSICAL ATTACK AND BRUTALITY AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS AT THE CAPITOL THAT DAY.

CAPITOL POLICE SAY DONALD TRUMP DID IT. CAPITOL POLICE SAY DONALD TRUMP ATTACKED THEM, EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS THE PEOPLE WHO WERE HITTING THEM WITH BASEBALL BATS, AND HITTING THEM WITH BEARSPRAY, AND THE SPEAR-END OF TRUMP FLAGS. AND AMERICAN FLAGS.

THAT MAN WHO IS ALREADY DEFENDANT TRUMP IN THOSE CASES HAS NO REPUTATION TO PROTECT. AND A FEDERAL JUDGE, HE APPOINTED, DECIDED TO DO THAT.

SOMETIMES A JUDICIAL OPINION IS ABOUT THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION, AND NOT ABOUT THE AUTHOR OF THE OPINION. THAT IS TRUE OF SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS [DECISIONS] IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY: "BROWN VERSUS THE BOARD OF EDUCATION" WAS A UNANIMOUS OPINION BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, IN 1954, DESEGREGATING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS. THE SUPREME COURT'S ORDER TO PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, ORDERING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO HAND OVER EVIDENCE TO A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING THAT PRESIDENT. THAT CASE WAS DECIDED ON THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION, NOT POLITICS, AND CERTAINLY NOT BECAUSE OF WHO APPOINTED THOSE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. THREE OF THOSE JUSTICES WHO ORDERED RICHARD NIXON TO HAND OVER EVIDENCE TO A PROSECUTOR WERE APPOINTED BY RICHARD NIXON.

AND THAT IS WHAT MADE US BELIEVE IN THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SUPREME COURT, AND SOMETIMES EVEN THE NOBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT. AND NOW THOSE DAYS ARE GONE. BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP WON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. AND WON THE POWER TO APPOINT FEDERAL JUDGES. AND USING HIS APPOINTMENT POWER, DONALD TRUMP WAS NOT GUIDED BY QUALIFICATIONS, OR THE CONSTITUTION. HE WAS GUIDED BY THE GODFATHER.

>> [GODFATHER MOVIE] SOMEDAY, AND THAT DAY MAY NEVER COME, I'LL CALL UPON YOU TO DO A SERVICE FOR ME.

>> [LAWRENCE O'DONNELL] "SOMEDAY, AND THAT DAY MAY NEVER COME, I WILL CALL UPON YOU TO DO A SERVICE FOR ME." THE DAY CAME THAT DONALD TRUMP NEEDED A SERVICE FROM JUDGE AILEEN MERCEDES CANNON. AND SHE DID IT.

THAT'S THE STORY. THAT'S THE STORY. ALL THE LEGAL-ISMS ASIDE, IT IS A STORY AS SIMPLE, AND CLEAR, AND DARK, AND SINISTER AS THE STORY TOLD BY FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA AND MARIO PUZO 50 YEARS AGO IN THEIR OSCAR-WINNING SCREENPLAY, "THE GODFATHER."

IN HER 24-PAGE QUESTIONNAIRE, FILED WITH THE SENATE JUDIDICARY COMMITTEE BEFORE HER CONFIRMATION FOR HER FEDERAL JUDGESHIP, SHE WAS ASKED HOW SHE WOULD HANDLE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. AND JUDGE CANNON SAID IN WRITING, "I WILL EVALUATE ANY OTHER REAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT, OR RELATIONSHIP THAT COULD GIVE RISE TO AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS." SHE SAID SHE WOULD CONSIDER "RECUSAL WHERE NECESSARY." SHE SAID, IN WRITING, TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, "SIMPLY THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT COULD BE A REASON FOR HER TO RECUSE HERSELF FROM A CASE."

BUT INSTEAD OF A RECUSAL, SHE HAS PUBLICLY EMBRACED THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT, IN GIVING THE PERSON WHO APPOINTED HER TO HER JUDGESHIP EVERYTHING -- EVERYTHING HE ASKED FOR. AND IN THE PROCESS, JUDGE AILEEN MERCEDES CANNON HAS SUFFERED MASSIVE REPUTATIONAL HARM AMONG FAIR-MINDED LEGAL ANALYSTS AND SCHOLARS, AND OTHER JUDGES. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HAS SURELY SECURED FOR HERSELF THE POSITION AT THE VERY TOP OF A LIST FOR THE NEXT REPUBLICAN APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT.

[admin]

Learning To Trust Your Women's Intuition: If I had a dollar for every time I was told I was being too emotional, that I needed to lead with my head and not my heart, well, let's just say that my Starbucks habit would be fully funded.
by Dr. Michelle Martin, Contributor
Educator and Author
Huffington Post
Jun 6, 2016, 06:32 AM EDT
Updated Jun 7, 2017

Un mapa para ayudar a entender y seguir los instintos (English translation: A Map to Help Understand and Follow One's Instincts), EI Nuevo Herald, Aug. 6, 2002, at C3. Copy supplied.

-- UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES, PUBLIC [AILEEN MERCEDES CANNON]

If I had a dollar for every time I was told I was being too emotional, that I needed to lead with my head and not my heart, well, let's just say that my Starbucks habit would be fully funded. It's taken me years to recognize that what I was often criticized for -- in relationships, at work, in my academic studies -- was actually one of my greatest strengths: my inner voice, my gut instinct, my intuition.

Intuition is defined by researchers as our brain's ability to draw on internal and external cues in making rapid, in-the-moment decisions -- an important skill, particularly in high stress situations. Often occurring outside of our conscious awareness, intuition relies on our brain's ability to instantaneously evaluate both internal and external cues, and make a decision based on what appears to be pure instinct. When people make decisions based on their intuition, they often have difficulty explaining why they did what they did. They just knew what to do, as if a voice was telling them to do something, and they heeded its call.

Women are commonly believed to have stronger intuition than men (which is why we call it women's intuition, and not men's intuition), but this inclination is often undervalued in our logic-based society. As women, we are taught at an early age to ignore our intuition, and trust in the wisdom of others instead. We're also likely to be criticized for being too sensitive, too emotional, too dramatic, and too illogical when we're operating off of our intuition. This constant barrage of criticism can cloud our judgment and make us doubt ourselves, and our instincts.

Because I became tired of doubting my intuition, and of never knowing quite how to respond when accused of being "too emotional," and because I'm a researcher by profession, I decided to do some digging to learn more about the nature of intuition, including whether it was a real thing (it is), and whether women have it more (they do). What I found shouldn't have surprised me (it did), because it was all very consistent with my inner voice, my gut instinct, my intuition.

Basically, researchers have found that although both men and women have the capacity for intuition, women have stronger intuition because our brains are hardwired for it. For instance, one study I found used MRI scans to compare male and female brain connectivity and discovered that the typical male brain is neurologically wired to be more logical, and thus is more effective at linking perception with action.

The female brain, on the other hand, has more neural connections and is more efficient, which makes women better at interpreting social phenomena, including social cues. In other words, men are hardwired to be more logical and women are hardwired to be more intuitive. Men also have higher spatial intelligence and women are better at big picture thinking (also, for what it's worth, men really are better at reading maps, but women are better at multitasking).

Perhaps this is why for years, intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, have known that women make better spies because their heightened intuition allows them to recognize personal and social patterns that are not as visible to men. Female spies are often lauded for having an "extra antenna," for having better people skills, for being better at reading body language and for more easily picking up on social cues.

DCI Tenet created his own National Security Advisory Panel, chaired by Adm. Jeremiah, which helped him prepare in 2000 for the advent of a new administration. Talking points prepared for Tenet's use in meeting with them provide a telling story of the lack of real substance in his relationship with top DOD leaders at that juncture: "Not at war with DOD, but no one there at home. No meetings. DOD needs to step up. SecDef needs 'top cop' to ensure the Services do the right thing." The panel encouraged Tenet to follow his instincts to emphasize the building of personal and institutional relationships in engaging a new administration, but it also told him that he lacked the statutory and regulatory authorities necessary to meet his responsibilities.

-- Directors of Central Intelligence as Leaders of the U.S. Intelligence Community, 1946-2005, by Douglas F. Garthoff

Women are every bit as capable of logical reasoning as men, and men are capable of having good intuition. But male and female brains are wired differently, and that is not a bad thing. What is bad though is that for years women's natural inclinations have been consistently devalued by society, favoring instead a more logical (i.e., more male) approach to decision-making. We've been taught from an early age that intuition is a weaker form of reasoning than its 'more reliable' cousin, logic. And as a result, women tend to undervalue their natural inclinations--their more intuitive natures, their emotional intelligence, and their more holistic approach to problem-solving.

I used to flounder about whenever my inner being sensed that something was amiss in my world and sent out a message that I could not decipher. Was it unfounded fear I was experiencing? Anxiety? Perhaps personal bias, or wishful thinking? I often had no idea. When my heart sent me in one direction, and my brain in another, I panicked and allowed self-doubt to flood my senses. When I had a strong sense of something, a thing I just knew, and someone accused me of being too emotional, I cringed with embarrassment, willing myself to be more logical and less passionate in my thinking. Call a woman too emotional, and you'll likely silence her immediately.

Years ago, I shared my plight with a therapist I was seeing. I wanted to work on being less emotional and more logical in my thinking. I wanted to silence my inner voice, the one I was so certain I could not trust because far too often, its tuggings made no sense to me. But my therapist cautioned against it, telling me that our bodies often discerned truth a few weeks ahead of our brains. Sometimes our intuition causes us to act quickly, she shared, and other times we needed to be patient and let our intuition slowly guide us through choppy waters.

But I didn't like having feelings of unknown origins, I told her. I couldn't stand the uncertainty of not knowing what the feeling in my heart was trying to tell me. I was impatient for its message, leading me to sometimes jump to incorrect conclusions, which supported the (incorrect) notion that I was too emotional and my instincts could not be trusted. Picture someone thrashing about in water, on the verge of drowning. That was me when my instincts were in high gear, and I didn't trust or understand what the voice was trying to tell me.

Fast forward a few decades, and at 55 I've finally learned to trust my inner voice, learning how to integrate my intuition with my logical reasoning -- heart and brain working in synchronicity. And now, rather than thrashing about when I'm in choppy water, I roll onto my back and float, trusting that my intuition will carry me down the river to the place I'm intended to go.

I am proud of my intuition now, and of my ability to pick up on social cues. And even though I know my intuition is not full-proof, and at times I may need to subject it to the scrutiny of my more logical side, I will never again be silenced when someone tells me I am being too emotional. I am emotional. I bring emotion into my personal relationships and my work, every single day. Being emotional is what allows me to read people, to empathize with them, to see the world through numerous prisms, and that makes me more effective in everything I do-that makes me more me.

*****************************

Former CIA Chief: Carson’s Instincts the Foreign-Policy Class of the GOP Presidential Field: Michael Hayden says Ben Carson is the most impressive GOP candidate when it comes to foreign policy.
by David Francis
Foreign Policy
NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:34 PM

Republican presidential front-runner Ben Carson has a lot of foreign-policy critics. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden isn’t one of them.

On Friday morning, a day after the White House dismissed Carson’s claim that Chinese military forces are fighting in Syria, Hayden was asked on MSNBC if he was concerned with Carson’s knowledge of foreign affairs. The retired Air Force four-star general and former National Security Agency director said he was impressed with Carson.

“I must admit I had one lengthy phone call with Dr. Carson about two months ago,” Hayden said.

“His instincts are all right,” he added. “He asked the right questions…. he had good follow-on questions.”

The former CIA chief also defended Carson’s assertion that China is in Syria.

“I think he was trying to say when we’re absent from the playing field, we leave a vacuum in which other powers may enter,” Hayden said.

Hayden’s endorsement of Carson’s foreign-policy instincts could prove useful if the former surgeon’s rivals, including businessman Donald Trump, continue to attack him on that front. Even so, Carson’s China claim continues to be a dubious one, given that Chinese officials have denied they’re involved and said they have no intention of doing so.

*****************************
"Instinct"
by WJHL
March 17, 2018




Dr. Dylan Reinhart, a former CIA operative, is lured back into the field from his life of quiet academia when a certain serial killer makes things personal. Don't miss the series premiere of Instinct this Sunday at 8pm on #WJHL.



*****************************

CIA Jobs
Silent Professionals Private Security Job Market
silentprofessionals.org/cia-jobs/
Accessed: 9/7/22
https://silentprofessionals.org/cia-jobs/



CIA Jobs

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent agency of the US Federal Government, tasked with gathering, processing, and analyzing national security information from around the world, primarily through the use of human intelligence (HUMINT). The CIA is the only US agency authorized by law to carry out and oversee covert action at the behest of the President of the United States. It exerts foreign political influence through its tactical divisions, such as the Special Activities Division.

After 9/11, the CIA increasingly expanded its role, including covert paramilitary operations. Recently, one of its largest divisions, the Information Operations Center (IOC), has shifted focus from counter-terrorism to offensive cyber-operations.

The CIA offers direct-hire jobs through its career portal; however, the agency frequently works with vetted US private security companies. These strategic partnerships are necessary because of the varying degrees and depths of skills, training and experience necessary to be able to successfully execute certain types of jobs.

CIA Job Requirements



The first thing to know is that working for the CIA requires a person to be a United States citizen and have a relatively clean criminal background. Usually, a bachelor’s degree is also required with a grade point average of at least a 3.0 and above – but a degree is not always required, depending upon the job. Besides these general requirements, recruiters from the CIA will look for people who are fluent in different languages and understand foreign cultures as this makes gathering information abroad more efficient. The CIA also tends to hire those who have a high level of experience in the military, as well as business, economics and biological, chemical and nuclear engineering.

That said, there are many valuable skills that the CIA will look for that don’t necessarily have anything to do with your degree or what’s on your resume. These skills have more to do with a person’s inherent disposition and natural instincts. To exemplify this, the CIA will look for people who demonstrate a profound ability to handle stress, multi-task, problem solve, and manipulate. Also, as with any type of job that requires people to work as a team, the CIA will look for natural born leaders and team players.

Furthermore, you must have a skill set which makes you useful in accomplishing complex and asymmetrical tasks. This can be a bit tricky because there are lots of different skills that can be used to gather the information the CIA needs to operate successfully.

Entry-Level Positions with the CIA



If you don’t possess an extensive military background or possess much in terms of high-level skills, there are generally four “entry-level” positions that individuals can apply for after they have met and passed the initial screening and training process.

The first is called Core Collectors and Operations Officers. The people who perform this CIA job work abroad finding, recruiting, and sometimes protecting foreigners who are providing the CIA with useful intelligence.

The next job is Collection Management Officers who evaluate and assign the Core Collectors and Operations Officers their workloads. These higher-ups will then take the information gathered, determine its usefulness and validity and then forward it to the appropriate foreign policy and intelligence communities for further analysis.

Next up are Staff Operations Officers who work as liaisons between the CIA’s home office and the agents in the field overseas. They basically make sure that whatever the President and others high up want done is communicated to those working as agents in a foreign land. This involves covertly traveling to wherever the agents are located and providing them with whatever information they need.

Finally, there are Specialized Skills Officers and they are the agents who are sent wherever their unique skill set is going to be most useful. This can be an area where an agent’s specific language, technical, media relations or combat skills are going to be best served in accomplishing the mission’s goals.

Other Specialized Jobs

There are many various specialized jobs within the CIA and recruiting for these positions takes extensive and careful vetting. Often times, these operators / agents operate independently or in very small teams. Finding uniquely-skilled and capable operators is a challenge in itself; however, there are even greater challenges in identifying candidates with the right personality and demonstrated maturity. For this reason, the recruitment and vetting process for these roles is complex and involved.

Although field agents may be operating in small teams, there are much larger support teams that exist for those operations. Large support teams also require infrastructure, so there are many jobs with the CIA that exist that range from installation security guards all the way to cooks and cleaners. Even the most mundane job typically requires candidates with a Top Secret clearance. Additionally, Agency jobs almost always require successful completion of a Polygraph examination.

Tough clearance and background check requirements like these present a challenge to the CIA’s overall recruitment process. For this reason, candidates who already possess an active TS/SCI clearance can get their foot in the door much easier than most other candidates.

*****************************

Cerraduras de seguridad, topes de puertas y desvíos: la CIA comparte cómo viajar como un espía
POR MICHAEL WILNER
El Nuevo Herald
27 DE MAYO DE 2022 2:51 PM


Logotipo de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia en el vestíbulo del edificio de la sede original en McLean, Virginia. ALEX WONG Getty Images

¿Se alojará en un hotel de gran altura este verano? Pida una habitación por debajo de los pisos superiores, pero por encima del primero. Familiarícese con las salidas. Y lleve su propio sistema de bloqueo de puertas.

La CIA ofrece estos y otros consejos antes del fin de semana del Memorial Day, basándose en las mejores prácticas de los oficiales de la CIA ubicados en capitales mundiales, puestos remotos y zonas de conflicto activo, a medida que aumenta la temporada de viajes de verano y se reducen las restricciones por coronavirus.

Llámelo “estrategia de viaje”, dijo la agencia, publicando los nuevos consejos en su portal digital. “Tanto si va a una ciudad bulliciosa como a una escapada aislada este verano, esperamos que estos “consejos de viaje” de la CIA lo ayuden a viajar con más confianza y seguridad”.

Algunas de las orientaciones son prácticas habituales para los viajeros experimentados. La agencia de espionaje recomienda llegar al aeropuerto con antelación, llevar una fotocopia del pasaporte y registrarse en la embajada de Estados Unidos cuando se viaja al extranjero.

Pero algunos de sus consejos son más inteligentes que los de los espías.

"No sea un blanco fácil”, dice la guía. “Háganos caso, no debe llamar la atención pareciendo perdido o distraído”.

Al llegar a un lugar, la agencia recomienda preguntar a los funcionarios del aeropuerto cuánto debe costar un taxi hasta su hotel —no confiar en el taxista— y usar solo los taxis oficiales del aeropuerto.

Recomiendan aprender algunas palabras básicas en el idioma local, como “hola”, “adiós” y “policía”.

Y sugieren mantener al mínimo los tragos que se tome.

“Los espías pueden beber martinis en las películas, pero el alcohol disminuye el estado de alerta y el juicio”, dice la guía. “Hay que estar alerta y mantenerse al tanto de la situación que lo rodea, especialmente en un país desconocido”.

Una vez que haya llegado a su destino, la CIA sugiere que se familiarice con las vías de escape de emergencia del hotel y que evite las escaleras— donde es más probable que se ocurran delitos que en los ascensores— salvo en caso de emergencia.

Y dicen que hay que solicitar una habitación de hotel en el piso de en medio de un rascacielos. “Estar en la planta baja puede dejarte más vulnerable a los robos, pero el personal de respuesta a emergencias de muchos países no está equipado para llegar más arriba de unos pocos pisos del suelo”, se lee. “Considere la posibilidad de solicitar una habitación en un lugar intermedio”.

Use cerraduras de seguridad en su habitación de hotel, porque “las cerraduras automáticas de las puertas de las habitaciones de hotel a menudo pueden forzarse y las cadenas cortadas”, dice la guía.

No abra la puerta si el servicio de habitaciones, la limpieza o el mantenimiento llaman a la puerta de forma inesperada.

Y añada a su lista de equipaje un dispositivo de seguridad barato y sencillo. “¿Sabe qué más puede ayudar a mantener una puerta cerrada? Un tope de puerta”, dice. “Considere la posibilidad de invertir en una cerradura de puerta portátil para viajeros o en una alarma para ayudar a asegurar aún más su habitación de hotel”.

La nueva guía forma parte de la serie Ask Molly de la agencia de inteligencia, un foro en línea de la CIA que responde a las preguntas del público.

La agencia también sugiere trazar desvíos en sus excursiones de viaje para evitar las partes peligrosas de la ciudad y los barrios mal iluminados por la noche.

Y, sobre todo, sugiere confiar en sus instintos.

Un mapa para ayudar a entender y seguir los instintos (English translation: A Map to Help Understand and Follow One's Instincts), EI Nuevo Herald, Aug. 6, 2002, at C3. Copy supplied.

-- UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES, PUBLIC [AILEEN MERCEDES CANNON]

“Sabemos por experiencia que cuando algo no parece bien, muchas veces no lo está”, dice la guía. “Alguien que está demasiado cerca de usted, que lo sigue por varios lugares, que merodea afuera de su habitación: si una situación ;p hace sospechar, aléjese o busca ayuda”.

“La forma más rápida de salir de una crisis es evitar los problemas en primer lugar”, añade. “Si escucha que está ocurriendo un disturbio cuando está fuera, aléjese y deje la recopilación de información en nuestras manos. La conmoción podría ser un peligro creciente o una distracción creada para ayudar a alguien a robarle. Su misión es llegar a casa sano y salvo”.

Read more at: https://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/ ... rylink=cpy

[GOOGLE TRANSLATE:

Security locks, doorstops and bypasses: CIA shares how to travel like a spy
by Michael Wilner
El Nuevo Herald
[The Miami Herald]
MAY 27, 2022 2:51 PM


Central Intelligence Agency logo in the lobby of the original headquarters building in McLean, Virginia. ALEX WONG Getty Images

Will you be staying in a high-rise hotel this summer? Ask for a room below the upper floors, but above the first. Familiarize yourself with the exits. And bring your own door lock system.

The CIA offers these and other tips ahead of Memorial Day weekend, drawing on best practices from CIA officers stationed in world capitals, remote outposts and active conflict zones, as the summer travel season ramps up and coronavirus restrictions are reduced.

Call it "travel strategy," the agency said, posting the new advice on its website. "Whether you're heading to a bustling city or a secluded getaway this summer, we hope these CIA 'travel tips' will help you travel more confidently and safely."

Some of the guidance is standard practice for seasoned travelers. The spy agency recommends arriving at the airport early, carrying a photocopy of your passport, and registering at the US embassy when traveling abroad.

But some of his advice is smarter than that of the spies.

"Don't be an easy target," says the guide. "Trust us, you shouldn't draw attention to yourself by looking lost or distracted."

When arriving somewhere, the agency recommends asking airport officials how much a taxi should cost to your hotel—don't trust the driver—and use only official airport taxis.

They recommend learning some basic words in the local language, such as “hello”, “goodbye” and “police”.

And they suggest keeping your drinks to a minimum.

"Spies can drink martinis in the movies, but alcohol impairs alertness and judgment," the guide says. “You have to be alert and stay aware of the situation around you, especially in an unknown country.”

Once you've reached your destination, the CIA suggests familiarizing yourself with the hotel's emergency escape routes and avoiding the stairs—where crimes are more likely to occur than the elevators—except in an emergency.

And they say you have to request a hotel room on the floor in the middle of a skyscraper. “Being on the ground floor can leave you more vulnerable to break-ins, but emergency response personnel in many countries are not equipped to reach higher than a few floors off the ground,” it reads. "Consider requesting a room somewhere in between."

Use security locks in your hotel room, because “automatic hotel room door locks can often be picked and chains cut,” the guide says.

Do not open the door if room service, housekeeping, or maintenance knocks on the door unexpectedly.

And add a cheap and simple security device to your packing list. “You know what else can help keep a door closed? A doorstop,” he says. “Consider investing in a portable traveler door lock or alarm to help further secure your hotel room.”

The new guide is part of the intelligence agency's Ask Molly series, an online CIA forum that answers questions from the public.

The agency also suggests planning detours on your travel excursions to avoid dangerous parts of the city and poorly lit neighborhoods at night.

And, above all, it suggests trusting your instincts.

Un mapa para ayudar a entender y seguir los instintos (English translation: A Map to Help Understand and Follow One's Instincts), EI Nuevo Herald, Aug. 6, 2002, at C3. Copy supplied.

-- UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES, PUBLIC [AILEEN MERCEDES CANNON]

“We know from experience that when something doesn't look right, it often isn't,” says the guide. "Someone who is too close to you, following you around, lurking outside your room: If a situation is suspicious, walk away or get help."

“The fastest way out of a crisis is to avoid the problems in the first place,” he adds. “If you hear there's a disturbance going on when you're away, walk away and leave the intelligence gathering to us. The commotion could be a growing danger or a distraction created to help someone steal from you. His mission is to get home safe and sound.”]

[admin]

Trump Went Judge Shopping and It Paid Off in Mar-a-Lago Case: Trump got the judge he wanted in the Mar-a-Lago case: One he appointed. And she just gave him the first decision he wanted.
by Jose Pagliery
Political Investigations Reporter
Updated Sep. 06, 2022 11:07AM ET Published Sep. 06, 2022 4:44AM ET

When former President Donald Trump summoned up years of bubbling resentment and sued Hillary Clinton and everyone else involved in Russiagate earlier this year, he naturally filed his lawsuit in South Florida—home to his oceanside estate.

And yet, when his attorneys formally filed the paperwork, they selected a tiny courthouse in the sprawling federal court district’s furthest northeast corner—a satellite location that’s 70 miles from Mar-a-Lago. They ignored the West Palm Beach federal courthouse that’s a 12-minute drive away.

Trump’s legal team, it seemed, was specifically seeking out a particular federal judge: one he appointed as president.

The tactic failed, and Trump instead got a Clinton-era judge whom he promptly tried to disqualify for alleged bias. U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks called him out in a snarky footnote.

“I note that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the Fort Pierce division of this District, where only one federal judge sits: Judge Aileen Cannon, who Plaintiff appointed in 2020. Despite the odds, this case landed with me instead. And when Plaintiff is a litigant before a judge that he himself appointed, he does not tend to advance these same sorts of bias concerns,” Middlebrooks wrote in April.

Months later, Trump is once again suing in the Southern District of Florida, this time seeking to hamper the FBI investigation into the way he kept hundreds of classified records at Mar-a-Lago. Except this time, he got Cannon.

The strategy is already paying off.

On Monday afternoon, Cannon single-handedly hit the brakes on the most politically sensitive and consequential FBI investigation ever undertaken. Convinced by Team Trump’s legal arguments that the routine Justice Department methods for carefully handling seized documents aren’t good enough when investigating this particular former president, she ordered that a “special master” be tasked with playing referee to dictate what happens with classified documents that are evidence of a crime.

“The investigation and treatment of a former president is of unique interest to the general public, and the country is served best by an orderly process that promotes the interest and perception of fairness,” she wrote in her order.

As they did last month at Mar-a-Lago, the feds typically rely on a so-called “filter team” to separate constitutionally protected communications between a suspect and their lawyer from evidence that goes to the actual investigators working on the criminal case. But Cannon ordered the appointment of a “special master”—from a list of candidates who are amenable to both the DOJ and Trump—to further oversee the handling of those documents. The fact that Trump may have a say is a notable victory rarely granted to someone accused of crimes as serious as violations of the Espionage Act.

Cannon held back on deciding whether the FBI should return Trump’s personal items—like accounting documents, medical records, and tax-related correspondence—even though the DOJ has indicated that their placement next to some of the nation’s most highly classified secrets officially makes them evidence of Trump’s criminal recklessness that could be shown at a future trial.

Her ruling was widely criticized by former prosecutors and legal scholars on Monday over the way it awkwardly lent credence to the idea that an ex-president can somehow assert “executive privilege” over government documents, even if federal law enforcement agencies operating with the tacit approval of a current president are acting in their capacity as the current executive branch.

“This special master opinion is so bad it’s hard to know where to begin… her analysis of standing is terrible. Trump wouldn’t own these docs anyway, so why does he get a Master over them?” tweeted Neal Katyal, a national security law professor who was previously the nation’s top lawyer as the federal government’s solicitor general.

Katyal also criticized the way Cannon didn’t do what was largely considered the right move: sending Trump’s lawsuit back to U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart, who approved the search warrant of Mar-a-Lago and already oversaw key elements of this matter.

“She let Trump forum shop for a judge, instead of letting the magistrate judge evaluate these claims. The appearances here are tragic,” Katyal wrote.

Cannon’s order was chock-full of innuendo, including odd swipes at the Biden administration and jabs at investigative journalists for their role in uncovering what exactly Trump did with these classified records at Mar-a-Lago.

“The Court takes into account the undeniably unprecedented nature of the search of a former President’s residence,” she wrote, citing a potential lack of “customary cooperation between former and incumbent administrations regarding the ownership and exchange of documents” and stressing “the interest in ensuring the integrity of an orderly process amidst swirling allegations of bias and media leaks.”

She went even further, noting the importance of having an independent referee oversee the handling of seized materials to ensure that Trump wouldn’t suffer “irreparable injury” from “exposure to either the Investigative Team or the media.”

Her comments notably come at a time when investigative journalists have frequently led the charge on documenting evidence of Trump administration corruption.

Cannon telegraphed much of her decision-making process during the case’s very first public hearing on Thursday, when she entertained the idea of blocking FBI special agents from reviewing the documents they’ve already had for nearly a month—while still allowing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to continue using them to assess the potential damage of having so many national security secrets housed in desk drawers and boxes at a ritzy beach club.

“So would your position change,” Cannon asked a reluctant federal prosecutor on Thursday, “if the special master were permitted to proceed without affecting the ODNI's ongoing review for intelligence purposes but pausing temporarily any use of the documents in criminal investigation?”

According to a transcript, the Justice Department’s top counterintelligence prosecutor, Jay I. Bratt, later summed up why it’s bonkers to have a former president assert executive privilege against a current president to slow down the FBI—and put some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets right back into the hands of a former president who no longer has no authority to have them.

“We have no idea where they would be stored; and again, this would be giving access to people things that they do not have the right to have access,” Bratt said, criticizing what he called “a fanciful view that somehow they would… prohibit the Executive Branch from reviewing the Executive Branch materials for a core Executive Branch function.”

Her comments bewildered legal scholars and raised alarms at the time.

“Truly nonsensical what Judge Cannon may do here. Executive privilege does not work this way,” tweeted New York University law school professor Ryan Goodman, who runs the blog Just Security.

And yet on Monday, Cannon did just that, stopping the FBI while still allowing the nation’s spy chief to keep using these seized documents to conduct her damage assessment.

This isn’t the first time Trump has waved around his expired credentials and claimed what some have called “leftover executive privilege.” When he tried to stop the Jan. 6 Committee from obtaining his administration’s records at the National Archives, the argument was shot down by a federal judge who proclaimed that “presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president.” The legal argument was also resoundingly rejected by an appellate panel, and the Supreme Court gave him the cold shoulder.

In Cannon, Team Trump will find a conservative-leaning lawyer who spent more than a year waiting in line for a judicial appointment and who, despite being a foreign-born Hispanic woman, wasn’t willing to openly disagree with Trump’s racist remarks about a U.S. judge of Mexican descent.

Cannon was born in Cali, Colombia, in 1981, just as Pablo Escobar’s cocaine-trafficking Medellín Cartel started taking hold of the country, with sicario assassins killing prosecutors and forcing scared judges to hold court behind curtains. She grew up hearing stories about how her Cuban grandmother had to flee Fidel Castro’s communist regime, and how her mother had to leave the tropical island when she was only 7 years old. While attending Duke University at the turn of the century, Cannon did a short stint as a journalist at The Miami Herald’s Spanish-speaking sister newspaper, El Nuevo Herald, which closely covers the overwhelmingly conservative expatriate community in South Florida.[???]

Duke University
2080 Duke University Road, Durham, NC 27708
(919) 684-8111

According to government disclosure forms, she joined the Federalist Society in 2005 just as she started law school. She went on to do a clerkship with a federal appeals court judge, Steven Colloton, who is known for conservative opinions, including one that favored Christian objections to Obamacare’s mandate forcing insurance companies to cover birth control and another that upheld a South Dakota law requiring doctors to inform abortion-seeking patients that women who have abortions are more likely to kill themselves.

After a few years at the private law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in the nation’s capital, she returned to South Florida to become a federal prosecutor in 2013. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) reached out to her in June 2019 to recommend her to the federal bench. By September of that year, she was already in touch with Trump’s White House lawyers about the nomination.

Democrats in the Senate mostly either opposed her nomination or withheld voting. Cannon asserted to Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) in writing that she did not have any discussions about loyalty to President Trump. But Cannon would not even address Trump’s hateful rhetoric and damning comments about the judiciary. She dodged the topic when Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) brought up how then-candidate Trump in 2016 bashed the federal judge presiding over the civil fraud case against the scammy Trump University with the claim that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” because “of Mexican heritage.”

“Do you agree with President Trump’s view that a judge’s race or ethnicity can be a basis for recusal or disqualification?” Booker asked in writing.

“As a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the political statements of elected officials, including President Trump,” Cannon responded.

She was confirmed by the Senate and started on the bench a week after Trump lost his re-election bid in November 2020. Fast-forward two years, and Cannon’s first major case involves the very president who appointed her.

Cannon has shown her willingness to turn legal precedent that would normally be expected to harm Trump into a tool that will help him. During the Thursday hearing that led to this recent order, DOJ national security lawyer Julie Edelstein cited a post-Watergate scandal Supreme Court decision that cemented the idea that a former president’s official papers belong to the American people. That case, referred to as Nixon v. GSA, says that executive privilege shouldn’t be cited to keep them private simply because it’s convenient for the person who left office.

In her decision Monday, Cannon managed to cite the lone independent “statement” in a recent Supreme Court opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote that a former president like Trump does retain some executive privilege. She repeated what he wrote then, that “a former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim.”

The only opposition vote favoring Trump in that Supreme Court decision in January came from Justice Clarence Thomas, who remained silent. But he might have something to say on the matter soon enough. If the DOJ appeals this ruling, it could quickly make its way up to the appellate courts, possibly in the form of an emergency request. If it does, legal scholars have noted, the case could end up with the Supreme Court judge assigned to hear extremely time-sensitive matters out of Eleventh Circuit’s three southern states: Thomas.

[admin]

Trump Ruling Lifts Profile of Judge and Raises Legal Eyebrows: Judge Aileen M. Cannon has issued the first highly scrutinized ruling of her short judicial career, involving the person who put her on the bench: former President Donald J. Trump.
by Patricia Mazzei, Maggie Haberman and Alan Feuer
Sept. 7, 2022

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

MIAMI — In her just over 20 months as a federal judge, Aileen M. Cannon worked mostly in obscurity, becoming nominated and appointed to her position during the height of the coronavirus pandemic and at the end of a turbulent presidency.

Then, last month, she was assigned the most prominent case of her short judicial career, involving the very person who put her on the bench: former President Donald J. Trump.

On Monday, Judge Cannon granted Mr. Trump’s request to appoint an independent arbiter known as a special master to review materials seized last month from his private Florida club. The extraordinary and unusually broad decision, which could delay the criminal investigation into Mr. Trump, drew scrutiny from experts who questioned her legal reasoning and criticized some of the language in her opinion about what rights a former president is entitled to.

William P. Barr, who was attorney general under Mr. Trump, took exception to her ruling, saying that the judge did not adequately address a key issue in dispute: whether a former president may invoke executive privilege to keep the executive branch itself from reviewing documents while investigating a potential crime. He said the answer is no.

“The opinion, I think, was wrong,” Mr. Barr said on Fox News on Tuesday. “And I think the government should appeal it. It’s deeply flawed in a number of ways.”

Little is publicly known about Judge Cannon, 41, whose name quickly became familiar after her ruling during the holiday weekend. She joined the conservative Federalist Society as a law student in 2005 and maintained her ties to the group as her career unfolded, a fact that she made public during her Senate confirmation hearings in 2020. But according to people involved in the group’s activities, she was not an especially visible presence.

At the time of her nomination, Ms. Cannon had been a lawyer for 12 years, the minimum threshold to meet the American Bar Association’s qualification standard. Most of her career was spent as a federal prosecutor, though she had limited trial experience because she focused on appellate work.

As a judge, she had not overseen cases that attracted much attention before she was assigned Mr. Trump’s high-profile lawsuit. She got the case after Mr. Trump avoided visiting the issue with the magistrate who approved the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Many of her hearings in the Southern District of Florida were at first handled via Zoom. And she works out of a courthouse in Fort Pierce, which has its share of routine drug and immigration cases but is generally a far quieter part of the region than bustling Miami.

“It’s usually like walking into a mausoleum up there,” Donnie Murrell, a criminal defense lawyer in West Palm Beach, said of the federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, an imposing structure that opened in 2011. “You hear footsteps echoing when you walk.”

Valentin Rodriguez Jr., a defense lawyer based in West Palm Beach who worked opposite Ms. Cannon when she was a prosecutor and has appeared before her as a judge, said she was thorough, meticulous and often willing to rule against the government, as she did in Mr. Trump’s case.

“The general feeling that I’ve gotten from her is, ‘I don’t buy everything the government has to tell me,’” Mr. Rodriguez said. “You can’t expect that if you and the government have some sort of agreement, over sentencing or a plea, that that’s necessarily going to convince. In that sense, you could call her something of a freethinker.”

Judge Cannon went to lengths to allow Mr. Trump’s legal team to clarify its argument after an initial filing that was too vague. During a hearing in the Trump case last week, she also seemed to help one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers remember that his client’s request for a special master included not only to review documents under attorney-client privilege but also to assess any that could be covered under executive privilege.

Footnote 17: Although the Motion asks the Court to enjoin the Government’s review of the seized materials pending the appointment of a special master, it is clear that this request is meant to cover the Government’s temporary use of the seized materials and extend into the special master’s review process as appropriate. Any uncertainty on this point was clarified by Plaintiff’s presentation at the hearing. See United States v. Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 2001) ("In the context of Rule 41[(g)] motions, several circuit courts have remarked on a district court’s authority to fashion an equitable remedy[] when appropriate . . . .").

-- ORDER, by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, 9/5/22

Aileen Mercedes Cannon was born in Cali, Colombia, but grew up in Miami along with an older sister. Her mother, Mercedes Cubas, fled Cuba as a young girl after the 1959 Communist revolution. The family of her father, Michael Cannon, hailed from Indiana.

In cliquish Miami, where high school connections can run deep, she graduated from Ransom Everglades, a private school on the shores of Biscayne Bay in Coconut Grove. She swam, played water polo and was known as popular and studious.

Everglades is an independent, non-profit, co-educational, college-preparatory day school serving grades six to twelve in Coconut Grove in Miami, Florida. It formed with the merger in 1974 of the Everglades School for Girls and the Ransom School for Boys. It's described as a college preparatory school and 100% of Ransom Everglades' students attend a four-year institution after graduation.

Admission to the school is selective and tuition costs $43,420 per year (2021–22). Tuition includes lunch and most fees except for books. A significant, need-based financial aid program is available. Graduating classes each year range between 150 and 160 students. All students matriculate to four year universities; typically, more than 85% of graduating students continue on to out-of-state colleges and universities.

-- Ransom Everglades School, by Wikipedia

“Aileen was always an incredibly dedicated and diligent student,” said Alejandro Miyar, a lawyer who worked for the Obama administration. He was one of 17 Ransom graduates who signed a letter in 2020 supporting Ms. Cannon’s nomination.

The letter described her as “personable and trustworthy, a genuinely caring person who treats others as she would want to be treated herself.”

“What more can we ask of another human being?” it read.

Ms. Cannon graduated from Duke University, spending a semester in Spain and a summer writing short feature articles for El Nuevo Herald, a daily Spanish-language newspaper, then graduated from the University of Michigan Law School.

Duke is ranked among the top universities in the United States and in the world by major publications. The undergraduate admissions are among the most selective in the country, with an overall acceptance rate of 5.7% for the class of 2025. Duke spends more than $1 billion per year on research, making it one of the ten largest research universities in the United States. More than a dozen faculty regularly appear on annual lists of the world's most-cited researchers. As of 2019, 15 Nobel laureates and 3 Turing Award winners have been affiliated with the university. Duke alumni also include 50 Rhodes Scholars, the third highest number of Churchill Scholars of any university (behind Princeton and Harvard), and the fifth-highest number of Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, Goldwater, and Udall Scholars of any American university between 1986 and 2015. Duke is the alma mater of one president of the United States (Richard Nixon) and 14 living billionaires.

-- Duke University, by Wikipedia

In 2008, she married Josh Lorence, who is an executive for Bobby’s Burgers, the celebrity chef Bobby Flay’s fast-casual restaurant chain, according to his LinkedIn profile, which was no longer publicly viewable on Monday. He proposed while they were on vacation in Greece. They have two children and live in Vero Beach, along Florida’s Treasure Coast. Public records show that Ms. Cannon has registered as a Republican. In 2018, she and her husband each contributed $100 to Ron DeSantis’s campaign for governor.

Through his office, Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, reached out to Ms. Cannon in 2019 about filling a judicial vacancy, she said in her questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Howard Srebnick, a Miami lawyer who went to the same high school as Judge Cannon, said she had all the necessary credentials to be a federal judge. She worked as a federal prosecutor, clerked for a conservative federal judge and spent time in a large law firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, in Washington, where she was known as a quiet presence who disliked attention.

“I don’t think anyone could say she’s professionally or intellectually unqualified,” Mr. Srebnick said.

He added that as a prosecutor he found Ms. Cannon to be polite and respectful of defense lawyers — a trait that not all prosecutors share.

“As a judge,” he said, “you may not agree with her decisions, but she is always respectful of the process.”

As a clerk, she worked for Judge Steven M. Colloton, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Iowa and was at one point on Mr. Trump’s list of possible Supreme Court nominees.

At her Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing in July 2020, Ms. Cannon appeared via Zoom, framed by an American flag and her academic degrees. She recounted how her mother fled Cuba at the age of 7 and said her maternal grandparents “were forced to leave everything they had.”

“They taught me always to be thankful for this country and to cherish our constitutional democracy,” she said.

Charlie Savage contributed reporting. Kitty Bennett contributed research.

***********************************

Michael Cannon
Owner, MCOM Corporation
Miami, Florida, United States
Specialties: Company turn around expert, new business launches, Communications Programs, Public & Private sector expert, M&A activities, Business Valuation,

https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/ ... X4ZGPqK0f0
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-cannon-7253b95/

(37) OTHERS WITH SIMILAR FIRST AND LAST NAMES
NAME / POSITION / BUSINESS / CITY
Michael Cannon
President
Michael Cannon Oreilly Corporation
Key Largo, Florida

Michael F. Cannon
Member
Wayward O'MALLEY
Key Largo, Florida

Michael Cannon
Cannon
Wjhg-Tv
Panama City, Florida

Michael Cannon
Owner
Horizon Painting
Palm Harbor, Florida

Michael Cannon
Executive
R B C Ministries
Rockledge, Florida

Michael Cannon
Managing Partner
Grubbs Emergency Services, LLC
Tampa, Florida

Michael Cannon
Principal
Gazolina Media Group LLC
Miami

Michael Cannon
District Manager
American Water Works Company, Inc.
Longwood, Florida

Michael Cannon
Senior Vice President
A W S U I I
Lake Mary, Florida

Michael Cannon
Religious Leader
San Antonio Catholic Church
Port Charlotte, Florida

Michael Cannon
President
Kapoya Energy Drinks
Port St. Lucie, Florida

Michael Cannon
Member
K-Crete Solutions
Tampa, Florida

Michael Cannon
Principal
Mike Cannon
Lake Worth, Florida

Michael Cannon
Chief Executive Officer
4Wall Entertainment
Orlando, Florida

Michael Cannon
Owner Senior Network Consultant
Diligent IT Systems
Titusville, Florida

Michael Cannon
Director
Screen Machine of Brevard Inc
Malabar, Florida

Michael Cannon
Senior Vice-President
Inliner American, Inc.
Lake Mary, Florida

Michael Cannon
President
Cannon Home Services Inc
Palm Coast, Florida

Michael Cannon
President
Cannon Home Service Inc
Palm Coast, Florida

Michael Cannon
Principal
Cannon Home Solutions LLC
Fruit Cove, Florida

Michael Cannon
Manager
Miami Integra Investments, LLC
Coral Gables, Florida

Michael Cannon
Chief Executive Officer
Cannon's Tie-Beam Service Inc.
Fort Pierce, Florida

Michael Cannon
President
Khs & S Contractors Inc
Tampa, Florida

Michael Cannon
Assistant Professor
Pensacola State College
Pensacola, Florida

Michael Cannon
Registered Agent
Ultra Pure Water Company Of America LLC
Miami

Michael R. Cannon
Registered Agent
Westshore Investors LLC
Tampa, Florida

Michael R. Cannon
President
KHS&S Contractors
Tampa, Florida

Michael R. Cannon
director
Atlantic Contractors Inc
Tampa, Florida

Michael Y. Cannon
president
Areea Assessment Consultants, Inc
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Michael Cannon P. E.
District Manager
Reynolds Inliner LLC
Longwood, Florida

Michael C. Cannon
Principal
All Bright Pool And Spa Svcs
Stuart, Florida

Michael D. Cannon
Engineering Technology Professor
Pensacola Junior College
Pensacola, Florida

Michael Ross Cannon
Principal
Khs&S Contractors
Clearwater, Florida

Mike Cannon
Principal
Mike Cannon
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Mike Cannon
Principal
Mike Cannon
Frostproof, Florida

Mike Cannon
Manager
Military Construction Corp
Jacksonville, Florida

Cannon Mike
Owner
Mardi GRAS
Port St. Lucie, Florida

MICHAEL CANNON O'MALLEY CORPORATION has been set up 1/27/1998 in state FL. The current status of the business is Active. The MICHAEL CANNON O'MALLEY CORPORATION principal address is 104500 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY,, SUITE B-401, KEY LARGO, FL, 33037. Meanwhile you can send your letters to 104500 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY,, SUITE B-401, KEY LARGO, FL, 33037. The company`s registered agent is CANNON MICHAEL F 104500 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY,, KEY LARGO, FL, 33037. The company`s management are Chairman, H, A, I - Cannon Michael F, Chairman, E, O - Cannon Michael F. The company annual reports filed on Annual reports – 1/6/2020.

[admin]

Dempsey Calls on Americans to Discuss Civil-Military Relations
by Jim Garamone
Joint Chiefs of Staff
9/6/22
https://www.jcs.mil/Media/News/News-Dis ... relations/

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

WASHINGTON — America's all-volunteer military has been a success, but society at large and service members must ensure a shared understanding exists between them, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a commentary in the Washington Post today.

Dempsey described the all-volunteer force as one of America's finest achievements. The military is so good, he wrote, that many Americans take it for granted.

"The last decade of war has affected the relationship between our society and the military," Dempsey wrote. "We can't allow a sense of separation to grow between us. As the all-volunt
eer force enters its fifth decade, civilians and the military need to maintain the shared understanding necessary for a healthy relationship."

Dempsey wrote that the nation needs to discuss the military-civil relationship, as well as the nation's relationship with its service members.

"As a nation, we've learned to separate the warrior from the war," he wrote. "But we still have much to learn about how to connect the warrior to the citizen."

Since the end of conscription in July 1973, those entering the military have served as volunteers. In his commentary, Dempsey urged America's civilians to establish a dialogue with their fellow citizens who serve in the all-volunteer force.

"As citizens, we must listen to our veterans," the chairman wrote. "If we do, we'll hear stories of pride and courage, anger and pain, laughter and joy. We'll hear of actions that humble and inspire us. We'll also hear of moments that break our hearts. These stories represent the best of our nation."

Service members also bear a responsibility to communicate with their fellow citizens, Dempsey wrote. "We should tell our stories and recognize that those who aren't in uniform might not know what to say or ask," he added. "We also have a duty to listen. Our fellow citizens may have different perspectives that we need to hear and understand."

The services as well as veterans understand the need for fiscal change, the general wrote. Cuts in funding, he added, are not an attack on veterans and their families.

"Modest reforms to pay and compensation will improve readiness and modernization," Dempsey wrote. "They will help keep our all-volunteer force sustainable and strong. Keeping faith also means investing sufficient resources so that we can uphold our sacred obligations to defend the nation and to send our sons and daughters to war with only the best training, leadership and equipment. We can't shrink from our obligations to one another. The stakes are too high."

Service members and veterans must remember that public service takes many forms, Dempsey wrote.

"Across our country, police officers, firefighters, teachers, coaches, pastors, scout masters, business people and many others serve their communities every day," he added. "Military service makes us different, but the desire to contribute permeates every corner of the United States."

The nation cannot afford allowing the military to disconnect from American society, Dempsey wrote.

"We must guard against letting military service become a job for others," he added. "Children of those in the military are far more likely to join than the children of those who are not. And young men and women in some areas never even consider the military as one of many ways to serve our nation."

Some fault for this, Dempsey said, lies with the military. Service members, he added, cannot just stay on bases and remain in their own world.

"But we didn't stop being citizens when we put on the uniform," Dempsey wrote. "We came from small towns and big cities across our country, and we'll go back one day. Civilians aren't an abstraction; they're our parents, grandparents, siblings and friends."

An all-volunteer force is actually the norm for the United States, the chairman wrote, noting that since 1787, the nation used conscription for only 35 years.

"Except in times of great crisis, we have relied on a tradition of selfless service," Dempsey wrote. "The all-volunteer force continues that tradition. It has served our nation well for the past 40 years. To do so for the next 40, we'll have to work at it together."

****************

'I Would Be In Handcuffs' If I Had Taken Documents Out Of Office, Says Fmr. Defense Sec. Former Defense Secretary William Cohen joins Morning Joe to discuss new reporting on the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago.
Sep 7, 2022



Transcript

0:01
SECRETARY WILLIAM COHEN.
0:02
ALSO WITH US MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR,
0:04
MIKE BARNICLE.
0:06
AND POLITICO'S JONATHAN LEMIRE.
0:09
SECRETARY COHEN, LET ME ASK YOU
0:10
A SIMPLE QUESTION, IF YOU HAD
0:12
TUCKED EVEN ONE TOP SECRET
0:14
DOCUMENT IN YOUR BRIEFCASE WHEN
0:15
YOU WERE DEFENSE SECRETARY AND
0:16
TAKEN IT HOME WITH YOU, WHAT
0:18
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE
0:19
CONSEQUENCES?
0:19
>> WELL, IF I HAD STILL BEEN IN
0:22
OFFICE, I THINK THE CONSEQUENCES
0:22
WOULD HAVE BEEN LIMITED, BUT THE
0:25
PRACTICE WAS FOR ME TO NEVER
0:28
TAKE ANYTHING HOME.
0:32
EVERY TIME A TOUCHED A TOP
0:33
SECRET DOCUMENT IN MY OFFICE OR
0:34
IN THE CAR IN THE LIMOUSINE
0:37
TAKING ME TO THE OFFICE.
0:38
IT WAS ALWAYS UNDER WATCH OF
0:39
SOMEONE IN THE CAR.
0:40
AND I HAD TO TURN IT OVER
0:43
IMMEDIATELY UPON GOING INTO THE
0:44
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.
0:45
SO, I MIGHT HAVE HAD A DOCUMENT
0:46
AT MY HOME, PROVIDED THERE WAS
0:49
SOMEONE THERE TO TAKE IT BACK TO
0:50
THE PENTAGON WHERE IT COULD BE
0:52
SAFE PUT.
0:53
ONCE I LEFT THE PENTAGON THERE
0:55
WAS NO TAKING ANYTHING OUT.
0:58
>> AND SO WHAT IS YOUR REACTION
1:01
WHEN YOU JUST HEAR THE DETAIL,
1:02
THE LIST OF HUNDREDS OF
1:06
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, THE LATEST
1:07
REPORTING FROM "THE WASHINGTON
1:08
POST" THAT DONALD TRUMP NOW
1:09
PRIVATE CITIZEN OUT OF OFFICE
1:11
HAD ALL OF THIS AT HIS BEACH
1:14
RESORT IN FLORIDA?
1:15
>> I THINK YOU'VE BEEN ASKING
1:16
IT'S QUESTION WHY.
1:17
I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS WHY.
1:19
THE FACT THAT HE HAD THOSE
1:21
DOCUMENTS IN HIS POSSESSION IS
1:22
OFFENSE ENOUGH, SUBJECT TO
1:24
PERHAPS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
1:26
IF I HAD HAD THOSE IN MY HOUSE
1:28
AFTER LEAVING OFFICE, I WOULD BE
1:29
IN HAND CUFFS BY THIS TIME.
1:31
SO, I THINK THAT THE JUSTICE
1:32
DEPARTMENT HAS GONE OUT OF ITS
1:38
WAY TO SHOW DEFERENCE TO THE
1:41
FORMER PRESIDENT THAT NO OTHER
1:42
PRESIDENT IN HISTORY WOULD HAVE
1:43
BEHAVED IN THIS FASHION.
1:45
OR HAVE BEHAVED IN THIS FASHION.
1:47
I THINK THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
1:48
GOING ABOUT IT VERY METHODICALLY
1:52
AND VERY DEFERENTIALLY.
1:55
I THINK THAT TIME HAS COME TO AN
1:58
END.
1:58
WE GO BACK TO THE JANUARY 6th
2:00
COMMITTEE WHERE A JUDGE, RUDY, A
2:06
VERY CONSERVATIVE JUDGE, HE SAID
2:08
THAT DONALD TRUMP IS A CLEAR AND
2:12
PRESENT THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.
2:15
THAT'S BEEN CONFIRMED OVER AND
2:17
OVER.
2:17
THE NOTION THAT THE FORMER
2:19
PRESIDENT HAD HIGHLY CLASSIFIED
2:21
DOCUMENTS IN UNSAFE
2:22
CIRCUMSTANCES, OR ANY
2:23
CIRCUMSTANCES, PUTS OUR NATION
2:25
AT RISK, POTENTIALLY.
2:27
SO, I THINK THERE'S NO
2:28
JUSTIFICATION.
2:28
THERE'S NO WAY THEY CAN SAY, OH,
2:30
IT WAS A MISTAKE.
2:31
I THINK THAT'S BEEN DISPROVED.
2:34
AND ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT I'D
2:36
LIKE TO FIND OUT WHY.
2:37
>> MR. SECRETARY, YOU'VE HAD
2:39
YEARS OF LONG SERVICE TO THE
2:40
UNITED STATES.
2:41
AND WE THANK YOU FOR THAT.
2:42
AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE, AS
2:44
WELL AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
2:45
AND YOU'VE RECENTLY COSIGNED A
2:47
LETTER WITH SEVERAL OTHER FORMER
2:49
SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE OUTLINING
2:50
THE NEED FOR SOME REALLY STRICT
2:52
CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE
2:55
MILITARY.
2:55
TO KEEP THE MILITARY OUT OF
2:58
POLITICS.
2:58
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WERE YOU
2:59
SURPRISED AT ALL, DURING THE
3:00
PAST FIVE YEARS, THAT MORE
3:03
FORMER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE OR
3:06
MORE FORMER RETIRED GENERALS OR
3:08
WHATEVER RANK THEY HAVE IN THE
3:10
MILITARY SERVICE, DID NOT SPEAK
3:12
OUT DURING THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY
3:14
ABOUT WHAT THEY KNEW AND SAW AND
3:16
HEARD AND WITNESSED A SEVERE,
3:18
SEVERE LACK OF CONTROL OF THE
3:20
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
3:23
>> I WAS NOT SURPRISED BECAUSE
3:25
THOSE IN THE MILITARY,
3:29
ESPECIALLY THOSE DEALING AT THIS
3:34
LEVEL OF SECURITY INFORMATION,
3:35
THEY ARE NOT INCLINED TO SPEAK
3:37
OUT UNTIL IT BECOMES SO
3:40
EGREGIOUS THAT THEY HAVE NO
3:42
CHOICE EITHER TO SPEAK OUT OR TO
3:44
RESIGN.
3:45
WE SAW THAT WITH GENERAL MATTIS,
3:49
HE CAME TO THE POINT WHERE HE
3:51
SAID I CAN NO LONGER SERVE THIS
3:53
PRESIDENT.
3:53
I THINK IT TAKES A LOT ON THE
3:56
REIGN OF JIM MATTIS' RECORD AND
4:00
HEROISM TO SAY I CAN'T CARRY OUT
4:03
THIS MISSION ANY LONGER BECAUSE
4:06
MY WORLD VIEW IS QUITE DIFFERENT
4:09
THAN WHAT THE PRESIDENT DOING.
4:11
THOSE TO FOLLOW THE LEAD AND
4:12
ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
4:13
UNITED STATES, UNLESS THEY DEEM
4:14
THEM TO BE EITHER ILLEGAL OR SO
4:17
EGREGIOUS THAT THEY CAN'T IN
4:20
GOOD CONSCIENCE CARRY OUT THE
4:23
ORDER.
4:23
SO IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME.
4:24
IT SURPRISES ME NOW THAT SO MANY
4:26
ARE STEPPING FORWARD.
4:27
IF YOU GO BACK ON THIS, MIKE,
4:29
RIGHT AFTER THE ELECTION, THERE
4:31
WERE TEN FORMER SECRETARIES OF
4:33
DEFENSE WHO WROTE AN OPEN LETTER
4:35
TO THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SAYING
4:36
DON'T GET INVOLVED IN PARTISAN
4:39
POLITICS, BECAUSE YOU MAY RECALL
4:44
AT THAT TIME THERE WERE RUMORS
4:45
COMING FROM MICHAEL FLYNN AND
4:46
OTHERS THAT THE INSURRECTION ACT
4:48
COULD BE INVOKED.
4:49
SO THAT THE THEN PRESIDENT COULD
4:50
TAKE OVER THE VOTING MACHINES
4:52
AND ALTER THE ELECTION.
4:55
TEN FORMER SECRETARIES OF
4:56
DEFENSE AT THAT TIME WERE IN A
4:58
LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN.
4:59
BECAUSE JUST ABOUT A YEAR AGO,
5:01
ALMOST 100 NATIONAL SECURITY
5:03
OFFICIALS, MILITARY AND
5:05
CIVILIAN, AGAIN, WROTE AN OPEN
5:06
LETTER THAT THE JANUARY 6th
5:08
INSURRECTION CONSTITUTED AN
5:11
UNDERMINING OF DEMOCRACY
5:12
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
5:13
THAT WE WERE BEING UNDERMINED
5:17
OURSELVES, DOING IT TO
5:19
OURSELVES, WHERE OTHER COUNTRIES
5:20
COULD LOOK AND SAY, I GUESS
5:22
DEMOCRACY IS NOT A ROLE MODEL WE
5:24
WANT TO FOLLOW.
5:25
A WEEK OR SO AGO, JUDGE WILLIAM
5:28
WEBSTER, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR,
5:29
FBI DIRECTOR, FORMER APPEAL LET
5:32
JUDGE CONTACTED ME AND SAID CAN
5:34
WE WRITE AN OP-ED TO TALK ABOUT
5:36
WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THIS
5:37
COUNTRY.
5:37
THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
5:38
STATES IS PUTTING A TARGET ON
5:39
THE BACKS OF OUR FBI AGENTS?
5:42
WE NEED TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST
5:44
THAT.
5:44
AND NOW FINALLY COMES THIS
5:47
MONTH'S RECENT LETTER THAT WAS
5:49
INITIATED BY GENERAL MARTIN
5:51
DEMPSEY, BECAUSE HE SAID WE'RE
5:54
IN EXCEPTIONALLY TREACHEROUS
5:55
WATERS.
5:56
AND WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT THE
5:57
NATURE OF THIS RELATIONSHIP IS
5:59
BETWEEN OUR CIVILIAN LEADERS AND
6:00
OUR MILITARY.
6:01
AND IT WAS JUST A 16-POINT
6:06
PRESENTATION THAT YOU WOULD GIVE
6:07
TO A HIGH SCHOOL CLASS.
6:08
IT WAS NECESSARY TO GIVE THAT
6:10
BECAUSE WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP,
6:11
AND AGAIN, THIS IS NOT DIRECTED
6:13
SPECIFICALLY AT HIM, BUT I'M
6:15
SPEAKING FOR MYSELF NOW, IT IS
6:17
CLEAR TO ME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
6:19
IS DOING GRAVE DAMAGE TO THAT
6:21
CIVILIAN MILITARY RELATIONSHIP.
6:23
AND I THINK IT WAS NECESSARY.
6:26
THEY FELT, FIVE FORMER CHAIRMEN
6:30
OF JOINT CHIEFS FELT COMPELLED
6:34
TO JOIN EIGHT FORMER SECRETARIES
6:36
OF DEFENSE.
6:36
I THOUGHT WAS UNPRECEDENTED.
6:39
>> MR. SECRETARY, I WANT TO
6:41
UNDERLINE SOMETHING, AND YOU CAN
6:42
DO IT SO MUCH BETTER THAN I'VE
6:44
BEEN ABLE TO DO.
6:45
I WAS JUST A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
6:48
OF REPRESENTATIVES, ARMED
6:49
SERVICES COMMITTEE, WE WOULD GET
6:52
BRIEFINGS, CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS.
6:56
AND WE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD, AND IT
7:00
WAS MADE VERY CLEAR IF WE
7:03
REVEALED THAT THERE WOULD BE
7:05
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES.
7:06
MY GOD, IF I TOOK A DOCUMENT
7:09
BACK TO MY OFFICE OR HOME, THERE
7:12
WOULD BE EVER REASON TO BELIEVE
7:13
THAT WASHINGTON WOULD BE
7:14
KNOCKING ON MY WASHINGTON
7:16
APARTMENT WITHIN THE DAY.
7:17
AND I WOULD BE QUESTIONED.
7:18
AND SO, YOU'VE REPEATED THE SAME
7:20
THING.
7:20
BUT I JUST -- IT'S IMPORTANT FOR
7:23
ME TO ASK YOU, IN THIS WAY,
7:26
BECAUSE WE DO HAVE PEOPLE THAT
7:29
WATCH THIS SHOW THAT VOTED FOR
7:31
DONALD TRUMP THAT SUPPORT DONALD
7:33
TRUMP.
7:34
THAT STILL THINK THAT SOMEHOW
7:35
THIS IS A DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY
7:38
AGAINST DONALD TRUMP.
7:40
THAT YOUR LETTER, THAT THERE'S
7:42
ALL SOME SORT OF DEEP STATE
7:44
FIGHT AGAINST DONALD TRUMP.
7:46
WHEN IN FACT ALL WE'RE TALKING
7:48
ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT THE LAW
7:51
SHOULD APPLY TO EVERYONE
7:53
EQUALLY.
7:53
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.
7:55
YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE BANGOR
7:57
CITY COUNCIL.
7:59
YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE UNITED
8:01
STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
8:03
YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE UNITED
8:04
STATES SENATE, YOU WERE
8:06
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
8:08
ON ALL LEVELS.
8:10
IF YOU HAD TAKEN A FRACTION OF
8:15
WHAT DONALD TRUMP REMOVED FROM A
8:17
GOVERNMENT BUILDING OF
8:19
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS, SECRET
8:23
DOCUMENTS, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS,
8:24
TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS, COULD YOU
8:27
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU, A FORMER
8:32
CIA DIRECTORS OR FORMER HEADS OF
8:34
THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
8:39
WOULD BE THROWN IN JAIL?
8:40
>> YES.
8:43
I THINK ANYONE OTHER THAN THE
8:45
FORMER PRESIDENT CURRENTLY, AT
8:46
LEAST, WOULD BE BEHIND BARS FOR
8:49
DOING ANY OF WHAT YOU JUST
8:51
OUTLINED.
8:51
I WANT TO GO BACK TO JUST RAISE
8:54
THE ISSUE ABOUT THIS NOTION THAT
8:56
THE FORMER PRESIDENT JUST WAVED
8:58
A WAND, AS IF HE'S A JEDI
9:03
WARRIOR AND DECLASSIFIED ALL
9:05
THIS INFORMATION.
9:06
I WANT EVERYBODY TO THINK ABOUT
9:08
THIS, WE SPEND AND THE NUMBER IS
9:09
PRETTY EASY TO REMEMBER, $777.7
9:14
BILLION ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
9:17
OUR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.
9:18
OF THAT, ALMOST $780 BILLION, A
9:21
GOOD CHUNK OF THAT ALSO IS FOR A
9:24
COLLECTION OF INFORMATION,
9:25
INTELLIGENCE.
9:26
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE FINEST
9:27
FIGHTING FORCE IN THE WORLD.
9:28
BUT AS GOOD AS WE ARE, IF WE ARE
9:31
BLIND OR CAN'T HEAR, THAT
9:37
FIGHTING FORCE I THERE IN GRAVE
9:40
PERIL.
9:40
SO WE NEED ALL-AROUND VISION,
9:43
ALL-AROUND HEARING, TO KNOW
9:45
WHERE WE ARE IN THE WORLD WHAT
9:46
IS COMING AT US IN WHAT
9:48
DIRECTION.
9:49
AND THE NOTION THAT A PRESIDENT
9:50
CAN SAY I'M DECLASSIFYING IT ALL
9:52
AND GIVE THAT INFORMATION TO THE
9:55
NORTH KOREANS TO HIS FRIEND
9:56
PRESIDENT PUTIN, TO THE CHINESE,
9:58
TO IRAN, THAT'S ABSURD THAT HE
10:01
WOULD CARRY -- I TOTALLY
10:03
DECLASSIFIED IT.
10:04
SO, YOU'RE OPENING UP A $777
10:07
BILLION BUDGET TO YOUR
10:09
ADVERSARIES?
10:10
IT'S ABSURD.
10:12
>> MR. SECRETARY, I'M CURIOUS
10:15
JUST CAN THE DOJ WAIT FOR A
10:18
SPECIAL MASTER TO SIFT THROUGH
10:20
ALL OF THIS?
10:21
I MEAN, YOU MENTIONED THE
10:25
EGREGIOUSNESS OF WHAT HAS BEEN
10:27
DISCOVERED SO FAR.
10:28
I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING, CAN
10:31
YOU THINK OF ANYTHING, MORE
10:32
ILLEGAL, EGREGIOUS AND DANGEROUS
10:34
TO OUR COUNTRY THAN A
10:36
LOOSE-LIPPED FORMER PRESIDENT
10:37
HAVING NUCLEAR INFORMATION ON A
10:39
FOREIGN COUNTRY?
10:41
I MEAN, ISN'T THIS SOMETHING
10:43
THAT REQUIRES SWIFT ACTION?
10:48
>> WELL, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE,
10:54
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS GOING
10:55
VERY CAUTIOUSLY ON THIS.
10:56
GIVEN THE POLITICAL WORLD THAT
10:58
WE'RE LIVING IN.
10:59
IN THAT LETTER THAT WAS
11:01
INITIATED BY GENERAL DEMPSEY AND
11:04
OTHERS, HE SAID WE'RE IN
11:07
EXCEPTIONALLY TREACHEROUS
11:08
WATERS.
11:08
AND SO, WE ARE TRYING TO TAKE
11:11
INTO ACCOUNT THE POLITICAL
11:13
ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE'RE NOW
11:14
BEING FORCED TO OPERATE.
11:15
IT'S NEVER HAPPENED LIKE THIS
11:17
BEFORE.
11:17
I THINK YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE
11:20
DAYS OF JOE McCARTHY.
11:22
THIS IS JOE McCARTHY-ISM ON
11:26
STEROIDS.
11:26
NO PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF
11:28
OUR COUNTRY HAS EVER
11:29
DELIBERATELY TRIED TO ATTACK AND
11:31
UNDERMINE THE INSTITUTIONS OF
11:33
LAW ENFORCEMENT.
11:34
CERTAINLY, AT THE FBI, OF THE
11:36
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, OUR
11:37
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
11:38
DON'T FORGET FORMER PRESIDENT
11:40
TRUMP UNDERMINED THE ENTIRE
11:42
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN FAVOR
11:44
OF RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN.
11:46
SO THE DAMAGE IS BEING DONE.
11:49
AND HAS BEEN DONE.
11:50
AND THAT'S WHY I QUOTED FROM JUDGE LUTTIG WHO SAID THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT CONSTITUTES A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO DEMOCRACY AND TO THIS COUNTRY.

[admin]

The Trump ‘special master’ ruling violates the principle that no-one is above the law: Judge Aileen Cannon’s opinion screams out that she applies more lenient rules to Donald Trump
by Laurence H Tribe and Dennis Aftergut
The Guardian
Wed 7 Sep 2022 05.18 EDT

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

The best thing one can say about Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision Monday appointing a special master to review the documents seized from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort is that it’s not the end of the world: the Justice Department can continue its investigation of Donald Trump’s apparent theft and retention of highly sensitive defense-related documents, at least those that weren’t seized in the August 6 search. The Washington Post reported that those documents included nuclear secrets of other nations.

It can also continue to investigate his efforts to overturn the presidential election, culminating in his role in the violent insurrection of January 6, keeping in mind the historic holding of a New Mexico state court this September 6 that the 14th Amendment bars all who played such a role from ever again holding public office in the United States.

That said, Cannon’s ruling has to rank high in the annals of the worst reasoned judicial decisions in American history. Even former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr called it “deeply flawed.” If it signals that judicial Trumpism has spread more broadly than we thought, there may be danger ahead to our entire system of equal justice.

Apart from its abysmal reasoning, her ruling gives the Justice Department no good options. The need to prosecute Trump as soon as possible after this November’s midterm elections points to avoiding the delay an appeal could cause and just moving forward with the special master’s document review.

But with Judge Cannon’s order in place, it’s anyone’s guess when a reasonably neutral special master who can be cleared to review top secret material will emerge from the selection process and how expeditiously any such theoretical paragon might proceed. Moreover, any special master is bound to generate fights over specific documents that the judge will then need to resolve, leading to decisions that in turn could be subject to appeal. So appeal-related delays might be in the offing whatever the Justice Department opts to do.

Moreover, leaving Cannon’s order in place would set an abysmal precedent unless we could be assured it would be politely disregarded as an aberrant capitulation to a would-be tyrant.

But for the extreme stacking of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with right-wing Trump-appointed judges much like Cannon herself, any competent lawyer would take an immediate appeal.

First and foremost, the decision violates the first principle of the rule of law: that no one is above the law.

Cannon’s opinion screams out that she applies more lenient rules to Donald Trump. She writes, for example, that “the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own” due to Trump’s “former position as President of the United States.”

She is acknowledging that none of us would be entitled to a special master or to a special pause in the investigation if we improperly took or held onto sensitive national security materials in our homes, much less a country club with open access to apparent Chinese intelligence agents.

To undermine the rule of law this way requires extending every favor to Trump, including bending facts and breaching fundamental legal rules.

Just take Cannon’s treatment of executive privilege as an example. She excuses Trump’s failure even to assert “executive privilege as to any specific materials” on the bizarre ground that he had been “denied an opportunity to inspect the seized documents” – even though he has possessed them for 19 months at his beachfront resort.

And she blithely concedes that the Presidential Records Act, on which Trump rests his claim to judicial relief, gives the federal courts for the District of Columbia, not Florida, exclusive jurisdiction over executive privilege determinations regarding presidential records like those in this case.

Instead of dismissing the case on that basis, she improperly proceeded to seize jurisdiction and to hold, for the first time ever, that a former president can successfully assert executive privilege not in a dispute with Congress or the Judiciary but with the Executive Branch itself – and over the contrary determination of the current head of that branch, the incumbent president.

To do that, she had to ignore the fact that the executive privilege determination had already been made: the acting National Archivist wrote in a letter to Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran that there was no executive privilege and that it wasn’t even “a close question.” That letter, which the DOJ had submitted to Judge Cannon, made clear that the archivist was writing after consulting with the Justice Department, which speaks in court for the Executive Branch.

Beyond ignoring all that, Cannon took the further unprecedented step of enjoining the Department from using anything seized in the court-approved August 8 search of Mar-a-Lago in its investigation of associated crimes until the Special Master completed review and determined what to do. And she volunteered that any “future indictment, based to any degree on property that ought to be returned, would result in reputational harm” so unique as to justify some further relief – casting a cloud over any future prosecution related to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago crimes!

Remarkably, Trump hadn’t even asked for so sweeping an injunction, much less for a hint about future prosecution; he moved only to bar use of the seized materials pending a special master’s appointment. Courts are not supposed to do more than parties ask. In this case, her doing so likely extended the delay from days to months and opened up questions about whether Trump could ever be held accountable for stealing national secrets!

Even when Congress has authorized federal judicial relief from blatantly unconstitutional police behavior, the Supreme Court has insisted scrupulously that courts not interfere with ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions absent the most extraordinary showing of irreparable harm, including the clear insufficiency of post-conviction relief. But in this case, Judge Cannon casually bypassed any rigorous examination of the supposed harm Mr. Trump would suffer by having to await the result of the Justice Department’s investigation and challenging the use of any improperly seized evidence if and when it is introduced against him.

In this case, all Judge Cannon could cite as supposedly irreparable injury was the former president’s temporary deprivation of access to the seized items. Along with the government records, the FBI apparently seized Time magazine covers, clothing and other materials to show how they were intermingled insecurely with classified documents. Presumably, the irrelevant materials could be returned upon his request, as were his passports.

To appoint a special master to separate the wheat from the chaff is an extraordinary overreach. On that basis, as Berkeley Law School Professor Orin Kerr has pointed out, we can expect every target of a court approved search and seizure to demand a special master to help maintain access to whatever law enforcement agents seized.

And, as Asha Rangappa, the former FBI counterintelligence special agent and current Yale law school assistant dean has stated, the most bizarre thing is that “neither Trump nor his lawyers contest that he illegally possessed government and classified records! This isn’t even a case where they are protesting his innocence.”

So what is going on here? Let’s start by recognizing that Trump’s lawyers apparently went judge-shopping for Aileen Cannon in hopes of her being assigned the case and granting them the stall tactic they sought. Instead of going to the judge already overseeing the search warrant and located close by Mar-a-Lago, they filed the case 70 miles away – where Judge Cannon sits.

They’ve tried the tactic before, with less success, but this time they hit pay dirt.

She could have seen through the maneuver and transferred the case to the judge familiar with it. But she kept it, giving Trump the delay he sought and more. She also gave him a positive political narrative – a court victory – at a time when many Republicans had gone silent defending him because of the toxicity of his holding in an insecure location the nation’s most sensitive secrets.

To have done Trump these favors on the most transparently vacuous legal rationale leaves one with an obvious conclusion: that the same politicization that has infected the Supreme Court has also spread to the lower courts.

Indeed, anyone paying attention to Trump’s nomination process during his term can’t help suspecting an even greater corrupting phenomenon at work. The road to judicial elevation under Trump was paved by the Federalist Society’s recommendation lists. To qualify, judges must demonstrate via decisions their right wing bona fides.

Our constitutional republic requires that judicial decision making stay within the bounds of common sense, reason, precedent and the rule of law and outside the realm of extremist, results-driven irrationality. When it fails to do so, no explanation suffices short of abject political bias or personal ambition.

With Trump having appointed a wide swath of the federal judiciary, time will tell how far the corruption of law extends beyond this latest and most disturbing judicial intervention in the process of criminal justice. After all, we saw Trump-appointed judges perform well in many of his baseless challenges to the 2020 election.

In the end, Judge Cannon’s ruling may prove to be a one-off, another instance of Trump being treated as a class of one. There is every reason to hope that such treatment will end with a jury verdict in Fulton County, Georgia or in Washington, DC, for Donald Trump’s many crimes against the people of one state and the entire nation.

Laurence H Tribe is the Carl M Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School

Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, is of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy

[admin]

Highlights, From ORDER
by Judge Aileen M. Cannon
Donald J. Trump, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant
9/5/22

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief (the "Motion")...

Pursuant to the Court’s equitable jurisdiction and inherent supervisory authority, and mindful of the need to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances presented, Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED IN PART. The Court hereby authorizes the appointment of a special master to review the seized property for personal items and documents and potentially privileged material subject to claims of attorney-client and/or executive privilege. Furthermore, in natural conjunction with that appointment, and consistent with the value and sequence of special master procedures, the Court also temporarily enjoins the Government from reviewing and using the seized materials for investigative purposes pending completion of the special master’s review or further Court order. This Order shall not impede the classification review and/or intelligence assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ("ODNI") as described in the Government’s Notice of Receipt of Preliminary Order ...

the Court finds resolution of the Motion sufficient and prudent on the present record....

On August 8, 2022, pursuant to the search warrant, the Government executed an unannounced search of Plaintiff’s residence. As reflected in the "Detailed Property Inventory" submitted by the Government in this action, agents seized approximately 11,000 documents and 1,800 other items from the office and storage room...

on August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief, seeking (1) the appointment of a special master to oversee the review of seized materials regarding identification of personal property and privilege review; (2) the enjoinment of further review of the seized materials until a special master is appointed; (3) a more detailed receipt for property; and (4) the return of any items seized in excess of the search warrant...

Consistent with Rule 53(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court issued a preliminary order indicating its intent to appoint a special master [ECF No. 29]. Shortly thereafter, the Government appeared in this action...

On August 30, 2022, the Government filed the Response to Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 48], and on August 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Reply [ECF No. 58]....

Plaintiff initiated this action with a hybrid motion that seeks independent review of the property seized from his residence on August 8, 2022, a temporary injunction on any further review by the Government in the meantime, and ultimately the return of the seized property under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.6 Though somewhat convoluted, this filing is procedurally permissible7 ...[Rule 41(g) allows movants, prior to the return of an indictment, to initiate standalone actions "in the district where [their] property was seized."] ...and creates an action in equity. ... In other words, to entertain Plaintiff’s requests, the Court first must decide to exercise its equitable jurisdiction... To the extent the Motion seeks relief totally distinct from the return of property itself, the Motion invokes the Court’s inherent supervisory authority directly. ... In general, Rule 41(g) proceedings are "rooted in equitable principles" and served by "flexibility in procedural approach."...

Importantly, equitable jurisdiction is reserved for "exceptional" circumstances, see Hunsucker, 497 F.2d at 32, and must be "exercised with caution and restraint,"... Mindful of its limited power in this domain, the Court endeavors to fulfill its obligations under the law with due care....

the Court deems the exercise of equitable jurisdiction over this action to be warranted.... the former Fifth Circuit counseled courts to consider, for equitable jurisdiction purposes, whether the government displayed a callous disregard for the movant’s constitutional rights, whether the movant has an individual interest in and need for the seized property, whether the movant would be irreparably injured by denial of the return of the seized property, and whether the movant otherwise has an adequate remedy at law. ... Those factors, although mixed, ultimately counsel in favor of exercising jurisdiction....

The second factor—whether the movant has an individual interest in and need for the seized property—weighs in favor of entertaining Plaintiff’s requests. According to the Privilege Review Team’s Report, the seized materials include medical documents, correspondence related to taxes, and accounting information ... The Government also has acknowledged that it seized some "[p]ersonal effects without evidentiary value" and, by its own estimation, upwards of 500 pages of material potentially subject to attorney-client privilege ... the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has an interest in and need for at least a portion of it, even if the underlying subsidiary detail as to each item cannot reasonably be determined at this time based on the information provided by the Government to date....

deprived of potentially significant personal documents, which alone creates a real harm,... an unquantifiable potential harm by way of improper disclosure of sensitive information to the public.... When asked about the dissemination to the media of information relative to the contents of the seized records, Government’s counsel stated that he had no knowledge of any leaks stemming from his team but candidly acknowledged the unfortunate existence of leaks to the press. ... Plaintiff is at risk of suffering injury from the Government’s retention and potential use of privileged materials... Plaintiff has claimed injury from the threat of future prosecution and the serious, often indelible stigma associated therewith.... although some courts have rejected Richey’s observation as to the harm posed by indictments, Richey remains binding on district courts in the Eleventh Circuit). As a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own.... reputational harm of a decidedly different order of magnitude....

Plaintiff has persuasively argued that there is no alternative adequate remedy at law.... the Government might indefinitely retain the property without any opportunity for the movant to assert . . . his right to possession")..."that the state should not be permitted to deny individuals their property without recourse simply because there is no jurisdiction at law"—applies even when the seizure was lawful)....

these guideposts favor the careful exercise of equitable jurisdiction... the realm of equity "may properly be influenced by considerations of the public interests involved"...the Court takes into account the undeniably unprecedented nature of the search of a former President’s residence; Plaintiff’s inability to examine the seized materials in formulating his arguments to date; Plaintiff’s stated reliance on the customary cooperation between former and incumbent administrations regarding the ownership and exchange of documents; the power imbalance between the parties; the importance of maintaining institutional trust; and the interest in ensuring the integrity of an orderly process amidst swirling allegations of bias and media leaks.... considerations pertinent to a holistic equitable analysis, the scales tip decidedly in favor of exercising jurisdiction.... At the hearing, the Government argued that the equitable concept of "unclean hands" bars Plaintiff from moving under Rule 41(g), citing United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 971, 974 (11th Cir. 2005) ("[ i]n order for a district court to grant a Rule 41(g) motion, the owner of the property must have clean hands."). Howell involved a defendant who pled guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine and then sought the return of $140,000 in government-issued funds that were seized from him following a drug sale to a confidential source. Id. at 972–73. That case is not factually analogous to the circumstances presented and does not provide a basis to decline to exercise equitable jurisdiction here. Plaintiff has not pled guilty to any crimes; the Government has not clearly explained how Plaintiff’s hands are unclean with respect to the personal materials seized; and in any event, this is not a situation in which there is no room to doubt the immediately apparent incriminating nature of the seized material, as in the case of the sale of cocaine. ..

the circumstances surrounding the seizure in this case and the associated need for adequate procedural safeguards are sufficiently compelling to at least get Plaintiff past the courthouse doors.....

The Government posits that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a Rule 41(g) action or even to seek a special master, because the seized property consists of "Presidential records" over which Plaintiff lacks a "possessory interest"...

In Plaintiff’s view, what matters now is his authority to seek the appointment of a special master—not his underlying legal entitlement to possess the records or his definable "possessory interest" under Rule 41(g)... under the Fourth Amendment, settled law permits him, as the owner of the premises searched, to object to the seizure as unreasonable ...

the Court concludes that Plaintiff is not barred as a matter of standing from bringing this Rule 41(g) action or from invoking the Court’s authority to appoint a special master more generally. To have standing to bring a Rule 41(g) motion, a movant must allege "a colorable ownership, possessory or security interest in at least a portion of the [seized] property."... Once that preliminary showing is made, the standing requirement is satisfied, because "[the] owner or possessor of property that has been seized necessarily suffers an injury that can be redressed at least in part by the return of the seized property."... Contrary to the Government’s reading of Howell, Plaintiff need not prove ownership of the property but rather need only allege facts that constitute a colorable showing of a right to possess at least some of the seized property.... the Government concedes that the seized property includes "personal effects," 520 pages of potentially privileged material, and at least some material that is in fact privileged ... This is sufficient to satisfy the standing requirement for the Rule 41(g) request and the request for a special master....

a party has standing to seek review by a special master when at least some of the seized materials are privileged...

the parties’ submissions suggest the existence of genuine disputes as to (1) whether certain seized documents constitute personal or presidential records, and (2) whether certain seized personal effects have evidentiary value. Because those disputes are bound up with Plaintiff’s Rule 41(g) request and involve issues of fact, the Court "must receive evidence" from the parties thereon.... That step calls for comprehensive review of the seized property....

the Government’s position is that another round of screening would be "unnecessary" [ECF No. 48 p. 22]. The Court takes a different view on this record....

the Government’s argument assumes that the Privilege Review Team’s initial screening for potentially privileged material was sufficient, yet there is evidence from which to call that premise into question here.... the Investigative Team already has been exposed to potentially privileged material. Without delving into specifics, the Privilege Review Team’s Report references at least two instances in which members of the Investigative Team were exposed to material that was then delivered to the Privilege Review Team and, following another review, designated as potentially privileged material ... In explaining these incidents at the hearing, counsel from the Privilege Review Team characterized them as examples of the filter process working. The Court is not so sure. These instances certainly are demonstrative of integrity on the part of the Investigative Team members who returned the potentially privileged material. But they also indicate that, on more than one occasion, the Privilege Review Team’s initial screening failed to identify potentially privileged material. The Government’s other explanation—that these instances were the result of adopting an overinclusive view of potentially privileged material out of an abundance of caution—does not satisfy the Court either. Even accepting the Government’s untested premise, the use of a broad standard for potentially privileged material does not explain how qualifying material ended up in the hands of the Investigative Team. Perhaps most concerning, the Filter Review Team’s Report does not indicate that any steps were taken after these instances of exposure to wall off the two tainted members of the Investigation Team [see ECF No. 40]. In sum, without drawing inferences, there is a basis on this record to question how materials passed through the screening process, further underscoring the importance of procedural safeguards and an additional layer of review. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 454 F.3d 511, 523 (6th Cir. 2006) ("In United States v. Noriega, 764 F. Supp. 1480 (S.D. Fla. 1991), for instance, the government’s taint team missed a document obviously protected by attorney-client privilege, by turning over tapes of attorney-client conversations to members of the investigating team. This Noriega incident points to an obvious flaw in the taint team procedure: the government’s fox is left in charge of the appellants’ henhouse, and may err by neglect or malice, as well as by honest differences of opinion.")....

the value added by an outside reviewer in terms of, at a minimum, the appearance of fairness.... DOJ filter review teams... are not always perceived to be as impartial as special masters.... "It is a great leap of faith to expect that members of the general public would believe any [wall between a filter review team and a prosecution team] would be impenetrable... the Privilege Review Team and the Investigation Team contain members from the same section within the same DOJ division, even if separated for direct-reporting purposes on this specific matter. "...A commitment to the appearance of fairness is critical, now more than ever... The Government implies that additional independent review for attorney-client privilege, such as by a special master, is appropriate only when a search of a law firm occurred [ECF No. 48 pp. 30–32]. Whatever the extent of this argument, it fails decisively here. True, special masters ordinarily arise in the more traditional setting of law firms and attorneys’ offices. But the Court does not see why these concerns would not apply, at least to a considerable degree, to the office and home of a former president. Moreover, at least one other court has authorized additional independent review for attorney-client privilege outside of the law firm context, in politicized circumstances. ...

Though the foregoing analysis focuses on attorney-client privilege, the Court is not convinced that similar concerns with respect to executive privilege should be disregarded in the manner suggested by the Government. The Government asserts that executive privilege has no role to play here because Plaintiff—a former head of the Executive Branch—is entirely foreclosed from successfully asserting executive privilege against the current Executive Branch... In the Court’s estimation, this position arguably overstates the law. In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, ... the Supreme Court expressly recognized that (1) former Presidents may assert claims of executive privilege... the incumbent President is "in the best position to assess the present and future needs of the Executive Branch" for purposes of executive privilege, id. at 449. The Supreme Court did not rule out the possibility of a former President overcoming an incumbent President on executive privilege matters. Further, just this year, the Supreme Court noted that, at least in connection with a congressional investigation, "[t]he questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns." Trump v. Thompson,... "A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim. Concluding otherwise would eviscerate the executive privilege for Presidential communications.")... On the current record, having been denied an opportunity to inspect the seized documents, Plaintiff has not formally asserted executive privilege as to any specific materials, nor has the incumbent President upheld or withdrawn such an assertion. ... even if any assertion of executive privilege by Plaintiff ultimately fails in this context, that possibility, even if likely, does not negate a former President’s ability to raise the privilege as an initial matter. Accordingly, because the Privilege Review Team did not screen for material potentially subject to executive privilege, further review is required for that additional purpose.... The Court recognizes that, under the PRA, "[t]he United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any action initiated by the former President asserting that a determination made by the Archivist" to permit public dissemination of presidential records "violates the former President’s [constitutional] rights or privileges." ...

Rule 53(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure empowers courts to appoint a special master to "address pretrial . . . matters that cannot be effectively and timely addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge of the district."... a special master would be better suited than this Court to conduct the review.... Nor is the appointment of a special master unheard of in the context of potentially executive privileged material.... courts recognize that special masters uniquely promote "the interests and appearance of fairness and justice."... ("The Court agrees that the appointment of a special master is warranted here to ensure the perception of fairness."). Special effort must be taken to further those ends here....

the Court determines that a temporary injunction on the Government’s use of the seized materials for investigative purposes—...is appropriate and equitable to uphold the value of the special master review.... Although the Motion asks the Court to enjoin the Government’s review of the seized materials pending the appointment of a special master, it is clear that this request is meant to cover the Government’s temporary use of the seized materials and extend into the special master’s review process as appropriate. Any uncertainty on this point was clarified by Plaintiff’s presentation at the hearing.... several circuit courts have remarked on a district court’s authority to fashion an equitable remedy[] when appropriate . . . .").... a temporary restraint on use naturally furthers and complements the appointment of a special master. See, e.g., Stewart, 2002 WL 1300059, at *10 (instructing the government not to review the seized documents pending further instruction). To appoint a special master to make privilege determinations while simultaneously allowing the Government, in the interim, to continue using potentially privileged material for investigative purposes would be to ignore the pressing concerns and hope for the best.... Even without a temporary injunction as described herein, the Court would exercise its discretion to appoint a special master despite the considerably diminished utility of such an appointment. ...

Rule 65 recognizes the power of courts to issue injunctive relief. Such relief is considered "extraordinary," and to obtain it, a movant must "clearly carr[y] the burden of persuasion" as to the following factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury unless the injunction is issued; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the injunction may cause to the opposing party; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest....

the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has "a likelihood of success on the merits of [his] challenge to the [Privilege Review Team] and its [p]rotocol."... the risk that the Government’s filter review process will not adequately safeguard Plaintiff’s privileged and personal materials in terms of exposure to either the Investigative Team or the media—Plaintiff has sufficiently established irreparable injury....

the Government contends that the timing of the Motion—filed two weeks after the subject seizure occurred—"militates against a finding of irreparable harm"...The Court disagrees.... courts have held that delays of two or three weeks are not sufficiently long to undercut a showing of irreparable harm.... On balance, the Court is not persuaded.... In view of... Plaintiff’s inability to know the extent of what was seized, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff did not "slumber[] on [his] rights."...

the public and private interests at stake support a temporary enjoinment on the use of the seized materials for investigative purposes, without impacting the Government’s ongoing national security review. As Plaintiff articulated at the hearing, the investigation and treatment of a former president is of unique interest to the general public, and the country is served best by an orderly process that promotes the interest and perception of fairness.... circumstances supports the ‘strong public interest’ in the integrity of the judicial system."... The Government’s principal objection is that an injunction pending resolution of the special master’s review would delay the associated criminal investigation and national security risk assessment... with respect to the Government’s ongoing criminal investigation, the Court does not find that a temporary special master review under the present circumstances would cause undue delay.20 "[E]fficient criminal investigations are certainly desirable," In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d at 181, but so too are countervailing considerations of fair process and public trust. "[T]he [G]overnment chose to proceed by securing a search warrant for [the former President’s home and office] and seeking and obtaining [a] magistrate judge’s approval of the [f]ilter [p]rotocol. The [G]overnment should have been fully aware that use of a filter team in these circumstances was ripe for substantial legal challenges, and should have anticipated that those challenges could delay its investigations."...

upon full consideration of the Rule 65 factors, the Court determines that a temporary injunction on the Government’s use of the seized materials for criminal investigative purposes pending resolution of the special master’s review process is warranted. The Court is mindful that restraints on criminal prosecutions are disfavored21 ... See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–44 (1971) ("[C]ourts of equity should not . . . act to restrain a criminal prosecution[] when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief."); Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117, 120 (1951) (explaining that "[t]he maxim that equity will not enjoin a criminal prosecution" applies with greatest force in the context of the federal government interfering with state prosecutions). .... but finds that these unprecedented circumstances call for a brief pause to allow for neutral, third-party review to ensure a just process with adequate safeguards....

it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:...

b. a detailed proposed order of appointment in accordance with Rule 53(b), outlining, inter alia, the special master’s duties and limitations consistent with this Order...,

The Court RESERVES RULING on Plaintiff’s request for return of property pending further review.

[admin]

Trump Appointee Judge Cannon Gives Him Every Little Thing His Heart Desires, And Then Some: Laws are for the little people. And Democrats.
by Liz Dye
AboveTheLaw.com
September 6, 2022 at 2:13 PM

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

The wackassery continued this holiday weekend in Trump’s desperate effort to throw a wrench in the investigation of the mountain of expropriated government documents he was keeping in a storage locker by the pool at his country club. Yesterday, US District Judge Aileen Cannon agreed to appoint a special master to filter out not just attorney-client records, but anything which might be covered by executive privilege, as well as the former president’s personal property. And for good measure, she ordered the Justice Department to stop using the information it already reviewed in its ongoing criminal investigation.

How can a judge in a civil suit enjoin the federal government from conducting a criminal probe, particularly when there’s been exactly zero finding that prosecutors did anything other than strictly by the books?

Good question!

Over the past two weeks, Trump’s lawyers have deposited several indignant piles of word vomit, heavy on innuendo and light on legal reasoning, on the South Florida docket. But Team Trump’s failure to make a coherent legal argument was no deterrent to Judge Cannon, who filled in all the blanks for them, and even spared them the trouble of going through the hassle of filing a Rule 41 motion for the return of personal property, under the guise of ensuring “at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances presented.”

“Settled law permits him, as the owner of the premises searched, to object to the seizure as unreasonable,” she tut-tuts, invoking a Fourth Amendment claim never asserted and ignoring the fact that such an objection should properly have been lodged with US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who approved the original warrant.

The first bit of Trump’s homework that Judge Cannon completes for him is to go through the four-part analysis from Richey v. Smith, 515 F.2d 1239, to justify her own equitable jurisdiction. While conceding that “at least based on the record to date, there has not been a compelling showing of callous disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional rights,” the court invents “an individual interest in and need for the seized property” and “irreparable injury” from deprivation thereof that was never argued in Trump’s motions and is certainly not established by the evidence on the record.

Normal criminal suspects are accorded no such deference — it’s pretty much axiomatic that the government gets to keep your shit, even when the warrant is somehow defective. And here, it wasn’t. Indeed, US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart specifically authorized agents to seize items adjacent to the government documents because they are evidence of improper storage and possession. That’s why Trump’s passports got confiscated in the search when the FBI “seized the contents of a desk drawer that contained classified documents and governmental records commingled with other documents.” It’s pretty hard to blame the General Services Administration, or the coffee boy, or gremlins for stashing government property in your desk drawer commingled with your personal documents.

Nonetheless, Judge Cannon tasked the special master with weeding out the former president’s “personal effects,” treating his lawyers’ gobbledygook filings as a motion for the return of property under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, even though no such motion was ever filed, and anyway, this is civil proceeding.

The court also made much of the fact that the DOJ’s filter team misclassified one document as not attorney-client privileged, only to have prosecutors catch the mistake and give it back. She not only cites the acknowledgement of the error as evidence that the process is fatally flawed, but huffs in a footnote that the government hasn’t removed the agents who caught the goof from the investigatory team.

Even accepting the Government’s untested premise, the use of a broad standard for potentially privileged material does not explain how qualifying material ended up in the hands of the Investigative Team. Perhaps most concerning, the Filter Review Team’s Report does not indicate that any steps were taken after these instances of exposure to wall off the two tainted members of the Investigation Team.

This order invents a set of entirely new judicial standards for the person who appointed her to the bench, and Judge Cannon makes no effort to hide it.

“Plaintiff has claimed injury from the threat of future prosecution and the serious, often indelible stigma associated therewith,” she says, invoking a legally cognizable interest in not getting prosecuted that regular investigatory targets could only dream of.

“As a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own,” she added later. “A future indictment, based to any degree on property that ought to be returned, would result in reputational harm of a decidedly different order of magnitude.”

Why anything other than attorney-client materials collected pursuant to a duly executed warrant “ought to be returned” is not entirely clear, and certainly not based on arguments put forward by Trump’s lawyers. Nevertheless, Judge Cannon appears to be contemplating giving government property back to Trump, tasking the special master with filtering out material subject to a claim of executive privilege.

Any such document would appear to be the property of the executive branch by definition. Nevertheless, the Judge Cannon focuses on the theoretical residual privilege interest acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) in support of the proposition that “arguably” Trump’s invocation of executive privilege might override Biden’s waiver of it. She similarly gestures toward dicta in the denial of cert for Trump’s challenge to the National Archives disclosure of his presidential records to the January 6 Select Committee. But Nixon lost that case, and so did Trump, so it seems highly unlikely that any privilege claim invoked to shield his own criminal activity from investigation by the DOJ, which is a part of the executive branch, is totally doomed. And not for nothing, but the Presidential Records Act sets out a procedure and venue for the invocation of executive privilege, and it doesn’t involve absconding with documents and lucking onto the friendly docket of a 41-year old denizen of the Federalist Society parked in South Florida.

So now the Justice Department is foreclosed from using any of the evidence seized, as the parties are instructed to confer and come up with proposed candidates and procedures for the special master order.

it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:...

b. a detailed proposed order of appointment in accordance with Rule 53(b), outlining, inter alia, the special master’s duties and limitations consistent with this Order...

-- ORDER, by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, 9/5/22

And prosecutors have to decide whether to appeal this batshit order, at least insofar as it enjoins them from doing their jobs. In a normal world, we’d just be looking at a delay of a few weeks, since the subset of documents covered by attorney-client and executive privilege is probably relatively small. But considering Judge Cannon’s gift to her patron, and Trump’s prior efforts to describe virtually every activity undertaken by his administration as presumptively privileged, God only knows what’s going to happen here.

Special Master Sidney Powell? Could be!

[admin]

The Solution to the Trump Judge Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About
by Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern
Slate
SEPT 06, 20225:20 PM

Mark Joseph Stern
@mjs_DC / Se[ 5. 2022

I predicted an outcome like this when the case got assigned to Judge Cannon -- and was assured that no judge would take Trump's absurd filing seriously. The problem, of course, is that Cannon is not a real judge, but a Trump judge, and one of the most corrupt of the bunch.

Legal analysts lit up social media on Monday in response to the broad and potentially devastating order by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Donald Trump appointee to the Southern District of Florida, temporarily halting the criminal investigation of the former president and his alleged pilfering of classified documents. Her order further authorized a special master to identify and return the small fraction of materials seized in last month’s court-approved search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence that may belong to him. One analyst after another meticulously detailed the failings of Cannon’s reasoning: It was “untethered to the law,” “a political conclusion in search of a legal rationale,” “deeply problematic,” “laughably bad.” At some point, one truly runs out of euphemisms for lawless partisan hackery.

It’s possible to agree with every one of these criticisms but still find them less than satisfying. Because at the end of the day, no matter how much withering criticism she faces, Cannon still gets to put on the black robe and run interference for her benefactor. She will still get a standing ovation at some future Federalist Society gathering. She remains in control of this case. But it’s not just Cannon: Many smart lawyers also noted that the Justice Department now faces the unenviable task of having to appeal this decision up to higher courts that are filled with Trump appointees, which takes the sting out of the opprobrium: For all we know, the Trump-stacked 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or five radical justices on the Supreme Court may also greet her outrageous decision with a standing ovation.

So the problem is not just the extreme and heinous flaws in Cannon’s ruling. It’s also the Trump-shaped world in which Cannon operates, with impunity, which we will all have to endure for the foreseeable future. It’s the brutal reality that we may face a steady stream of depraved decisions like Cannon’s for the rest of our lives—and the pain of hearing from every quarter that nothing can be done to remedy it.

Sign Up for the Surge
The most important political nonsense of the week, delivered to your inbox every Saturday.

We watched the same pattern play out at the end of this last Supreme Court term. One case after another blew up decades of existing precedent and tests and doctrine and replaced them with Rorschach exams that transformed contemporary Republican policies into constitutional law. Smart lawyers dutifully digested these opinions and set to work figuring out just how the EPA, or public school districts, or state legislatures that want to stop mass shootings can plausibly work around these new tests. And of course, were we living in a rational regime in which the rule of law governed, that would make perfect sense. But if the last term at the Supreme Court and indeed Cannon’s baffling new order mean anything, they signify that in this new age of legal Calvinball, one side invents new “rules” and then the other scrambles to try to play by them. For every single legal thinker who read the Mar-a-Lago order to mean, quite correctly, that ex-presidents are above the law, furrowing your brow and pointing out its grievous errors only takes you halfway there. The better question is what, if anything, do you propose to do about it? The furrowing is cathartic, but it’s also not a plan.

If there were a principle that best embodies why progressives are losing ground so quickly—even as they are correct on the facts, and the law, and the zeitgeist—it must be this tendency to just keep on lawyering the other side’s bad law in the hopes that the lawyering itself will make all the bad faith and crooked law go away. But for those who are genuinely worried that democracy will rise or fall based on whether a case lands before their judges or others, merely explaining legal flaws in pointillist detail isn’t an answer. And soberly explaining that Cannon was wrong about most stuff but correct about two things is decidedly not an answer, either. You do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to them.

It is not a stand-alone answer to point out that Cannon was a Trump pick—a member of the extremely not-neutral Federalist Society, seated after Trump lost the election—or that the former president’s lawyers forum-shopped in order to get this case in front of her. It also doesn’t help to note that Cannon herself acknowledged the proper venue to adjudicate the executive privilege claims made in this case (which are on their face absurd) is in fact in a different court in D.C., where Cannon has no jurisdiction and where Trump did not make his case. Nor is it an answer to note that federal judges have literally no constitutional authority to stop an ongoing criminal investigation in its tracks, as Cannon purported to do, rendering her decision an imperious assault on the separation of powers. That, too, is an accurate description of the problem. Stating that, too, is not a solution.

Until and unless those of us who are shocked and horrified at lawless rulings by lawless Trump judges are prepared to propose structural solutions, the aggregated effect of criticizing their rulings won’t be to restore the rule of law or even to restore public confidence in the rule of law. The aggregated effect will be just to confirm that we will all be living under the thumb of Donald Trump’s lifetime-appointed hacks for many decades.

There are solutions out there for the problem of Trump’s runaway judges. Expanding the courts—even just the lower courts—is the most bulletproof. Congress has periodically added seats to the federal judiciary from its inception to help judges keep up with ever-ballooning caseloads. Today’s litigants (who are not named Donald Trump) often face yearslong court delays. The Judicial Conference, a nonpartisan government institution that develops administrative policies, has begged Congress to add seats to the lower courts. Some Republicans have supported the idea in recognition of the crisis facing our understaffed judiciary. Letting Joe Biden balance out far-right courts like the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—which will weigh Cannon’s ruling if the government appeals—would go a long way to tame the jurisprudence of Trumpism. When district court judges know their radical decisions will be overturned on appeal, they may be less likely to swing for the fences in the first place.

There are other worthy ideas too. Term limits for justices and lower court judges. Limits on courts’ jurisdiction to strike down democratically enacted laws. Modest reforms that restrict the Supreme Court’s ability to suppress voting rights before an election. Let’s hear them all. (God knows Biden’s court reform commission studied them extensively, to little end.)

But the chorus from the left, the middle, and the sane right that the lawlessness is lawless only affirms that we cannot ever escape this closed loop of Trump’s judges. Being really mad but doing nothing to change things is a terrible strategy for democracy and for public confidence in the courts. It creates the illusion that if we work really hard to debunk corrupt rulings, we can force Trump judges to see the light, or feel shame, or do something different. Meanwhile, the targets of our meticulous takedowns laugh at the pains we take to prove them wrong. They. Do. Not. Care.

We get it. Lawyers are trained to lawyer. But if you are lawyering within a system you believe to be broken, or immoral, or lawless, and you aren’t standing up with meaningful fixes for that system, you are, fundamentally, acceding to that lawlessness. It is a moral victory to point out the errors, but it’s also a tacit concession that the system is, in fact, legitimate, no matter how low it may go. Every one of us is going to need to decide how long we can continue to operate that way.

There are too many things wrong with the Cannon order to litigate. And there are too many things wrong with Trump’s judicial dominion of every part of our lives— for years to come—to litigate. So maybe it’s time to stop litigating them and start fixing them.

[admin]

Trump Appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon Needs To Be Impeached For Political Favors From The Bench (Updated)
by AZ BlueMeanie
Blog for Arizona
September 5th, 2022

Remember that Donald Trump and his corrupt lawyers went forum shopping for a Trump appointed judge – who was not the magistrate judge who issued the search warrant for his home in exile at Mar-a-Lago, the proper venue and jurisdiction for any challenge to the search warrant – whom they were confident would deliver a political favor from the bench, and that she did. Trump has corrupted the federal judiciary to be as corrupt as him. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon needs to be impeached for political favors from the bench. She is unfit to serve a lifetime appointment on the bench.

Norman Ornstein
@NormOrnstein·Follow
A reminder that Judge Cannon never should have taken this case. It was in the hands of the magistrate judge, she was picked by Trump’s lawyers solely because she was a Trumpist, in a jurisdiction nowhere near Mar-a-Lago. She has an effect engaged herself in obstruction of justice
10:04 AM · Sep 5, 2022

NBC News reports, Judge grants Trump’s special master request, delays parts of criminal probe:

In a major blow for the government, a [corrupt] federal judge approved former President Donald Trump’s request for a special master to oversee all the evidence the FBI seized last month from his Mar-a-Lago estate and temporarily blocked parts of the Justice Department’s investigation.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon — a Trump appointee — said in her ruling Monday that the special master should be able to review the seized documents both to address questions of attorney-client privilege and to litigate claims of executive privilege.

Neal Katyal
@neal_katyal·Follow
This special master opinion is so bad it’s hard to know where to begin:
1. She says Biden hasn’t weighed in on whether docs protected by Exec Privilege. Nonsense. The archives letter (which DOJ submitted to the Judge) makes it clear current President thinks none of this is privileged. Archivist says it is “not a close” question.
2. Judge enjoins the entire investigation because some of the material might be subject to Executive Privilege. But Executive Priv isn’t some post-presidential privilege that allows Presidents to keep documents after they leave office. At most, it simply means these are Executive documents that must be returned to the archives. It doesn’t in any way shape or form mean they can’t be used in a criminal prosecution about stolen docs.
3. She says the “reputational” harm to Trump justifies a special master. That’s insane–every crim deft has reputational harm. Are we now going to have special masters in every crim investigation?
4. She says the Special Master should screen materials for exec privilege, without ever once explaining what specific material is subject to exec priv, particularly when the incumbent President rejects the assertion. How is the Master supposed to figure that intricate Q out?
5. She says that because some tiny percentage of materials might be privileged, the entire investigation over all the materials has to stop. That’s a bazooka when one needs at most a scalpel.
6. She tries to enjoin the Exec Branch from using these materials in an investigation, but the govt has already reviewed all the materials. It makes no sense.
7. She says Trump suffers irreparable harm in interim, but the only harm she isolates is he won’t have the docs back during the investig. That’s not irreparable, he can get them back later &if they are improperly used to bring an indictment, he can move to dismiss the indictment.
8. Her analysis of standing is terrible. Trump wouldn’t own these docs anyway, so why does he get a Master over them? If there is some marginal claim to some attorney client docs, that handful of material can be separately dealt with–you don’t enjoin the entire investig for that.
9. Her jurisdictional analysis is similarly awful. She let Trump forum shop for a judge, instead of letting the magistrate judge evaluate these claims. The appearances here are tragic.
That’s just a few of many more problems. Frankly, any of my first year law students would have written a better opinion.
3:48 PM · Sep 5, 2022

https://twitter.com/TheBeatWithAri/stat ... _w5b4rAAAA

Government employees screening the documents had set aside only ones that might have been protected by attorney-client privilege and [correctly] argued that executive privilege was not at play here.

“In addition to being deprived of potentially significant personal documents, which alone creates a real harm, Plaintiff faces an unquantifiable potential harm by way of improper disclosure of sensitive information to the public,” she wrote.

Trump had requested that a special master, a third-party attorney, review the material seized Aug. 8 to assess it for potential attorney-client or executive privilege issues.

Trump’s attorneys argued in a recent court filing that “left unchecked, the DOJ will impugn, leak, and publicize selective aspects of their investigation with no recourse for [Trump] but to somehow trust the self-restraint of currently unchecked investigators.”

The Justice Department had argued against the special master request, saying a special master “is unnecessary and would significantly harm important governmental interests, including national security interests.” Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said in a statement Monday, “The United States is examining the opinion and will consider appropriate next steps in the ongoing litigation.”

Cannon allowed a national security review of the records to continue but temporarily blocked the government from reviewing and using them for its “investigative purposes.” She systematically rejected the Justice Department’s arguments that Trump’s special-master request was filed too late, that it was superfluous and that Trump had no right for review because he didn’t own the documents in question that were seized.

Norman Ornstein
@NormOrnstein·Follow
Judge single-handedly blocks criminal investigation, usurping clear cut executive power. This is a clear-cut impeachable offense.
11:05 AM · Sep 5, 2022

Cannon did not immediately grant Trump’s request to get back more of “his” property more quickly.

These classified documents are NOT his property! They are the property of the National Archives.

In a statement posted on his [QAnon conspiracy mongering] Truth Social website after the ruling, Trump attacked the Justice Department and the FBI as “totally corrupt.”

Psychological projection is a favorite tool of The Authoritarian Playbook: a media guide.

It is Donald Trump, his lawyers, and U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon who are “totally corrupt” – the fix was in with this forum shopped corrupt judge. Our national security is at risk, as are U.S. intelligence assets overseas.

Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck·Follow
This ruling is preposterous—especially the part where it blocks the government from continuing to use materials already in its possession.

At the very least, that last ruling creates an immediately appealable injunctive-like order, which DOJ can now take to the Eleventh Circuit.
Chris “Subscribe to Law Dork!” Geidner

@chrisgeidner
BREAKING: Judge Aileen Cannon grants Trump’s request and orders the appointment of a special master to review questions over the materials seized at Mar-a-Lago. She also halts use of the materials for “criminal investigative purposes” pending the special master’s review.

10:16 AM · Sep 5, 2022

Please support independent journalism on Blog for Arizona!