The Approach to Classification in Trump’s Stolen Document Case

The government has submitted materials in support of a requested continuance until December in Trump’s stolen documents case:

The Motion to Implement Special Conditions is basically a bid to get a list of 84 witnesses submitted, via sealed filing, to docket, and so subject to Judge Aileen Cannon’s discipline. Under the order issued by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman, both Trump and Walt Nauta will be prohibited from speaking about the facts of the case with any of the 84 witnesses — a great many of whom are Trump employees — except through counsel.

Even at the arraignment, Todd Blanche balked at this condition, which Goodman imposed without DOJ requesting it. In particular, I think Blanche wants people to be able to discuss the case without counsel present so long as counsel has advised about that.

But per the filing, defense attorneys may yet object to the condition itself.

2 The government has conferred with counsel for Defendant Trump and Defendant Nauta about this motion. They have authorized government counsel to represent the following: “Defense counsel takes no position on the government’s motion to seal the list of witnesses, but the defense reserves the right to object to the special condition and the manner in which it was implemented by the government by providing a list of 84 witnesses in purported compliance with the court’s order.” Counsel for defendant Nauta, Stanley Woodward, has not yet been admitted pro hac vice or entered an appearance, but the government is providing him a courtesy copy of this pleading.

I would love to see briefing on this, because I think Blanche has specific concerns about preserving the nesting gatekeeping that has existed from the start of this. But this condition, if upheld, will also stymie Trump’s efforts to fundraise by lying about this case.

The other request is a motion to delay the trial — which Aileen Cannon initially scheduled for August — until December, largely for CIPA to play out. This is totally normal, and given Cannon’s past history in criminal cases — which Kyle Cheney reviewed here — there’s no reason to expect she would object (indeed, legally, CIPA requires her to work through this process).

The proposed schedule would envision a trial before the first primary, but it triggers everything to Trump (and Nauta’s) responsiveness. I suspect it was crafted to undermine any claims from Trump that DOJ is responsible for a trial as people are voting, but some of these deadlines are really aggressive.

Most interesting, though, is DOJ’s treatment of clearances. According to Jay Bratt’s declaration, once defense attorneys get their SF-86 filing in, the Litigation Security Group has committed to turning around their initial clearances unbelievably quickly: two days. And it has likewise committed to sharing SIGINT documents based just off that interim clearance.

To be granted an interim security clearance, defense counsel must submit a Standard Form 86 – Questionnaire for National Security (“SF-86”) and supporting documentation. To date, not all of the defense counsel have submitted their SF-86s. Once an SF-86 and supporting documentation are submitted, absent complicating circumstances, an interim clearance may be granted within a matter of days. In this case, LSG has committed to reaching an eligibility determination within 24-48 hours of the completed submission. Once defense counsel are granted interim security clearances, the government will be able to provide the vast majority of classified discovery, consisting of documents marked CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET, including documents within the following Sensitive Compartmented Information Compartments: SI, SI-G, and TK. [my emphasis]

You can see from the list of charged documents, that would encompass many of the charged documents (some of the redacted classifications are probably SI-G).

But there are others that require further read-in.

However, interim security clearances are not sufficient for the government to provide in classified discovery a small number of documents-including some documents whose unauthorized retention is charged in the indictment-that contain restricted compartments for which a final security clearance and additional read-ins are required. LSG estimates that final clearances may be granted within 45 to 60 days of submission of the SF-86 and related documentation, depending upon the content of the applicant’s SF-86. The additional read-ins can be conducted promptly upon access approval. [my emphasis]

Among the unredacted classification marks not included among those Bratt listed are FR (Formerly Restricted, a nuclear designation under the Atomic Energy Act and one Presidents can’t declassify alone) and HCS-P (HUMINT product). The bolded language suggests that DOJ is planning to share all classified documents Trump stole; based on the redaction marks in the May 11 subpoena, I would be unsurprised if there were HCS-C, HUMINT collection, documents included as well.

This is an incredibly aggressive approach. As I’ve said, I think DOJ would prefer to find a way to get Trump to plead out, however unlikely that would be. The sooner they share documents with Trump and Nauta’s lawyers, the sooner they might be in a position to persuade Trump how bad this will look if he goes to trial.

But note the two caveats: At least one of three known defense attorneys has not yet submitted his SF-86, the list of foreign contacts needed to obtain clearance. At least one of them — Chris Kise, who worked for Venezuela’s government — may not be eligible.

So one other underlying context to this is that until Trump can find cleared attorneys, he may be responsible for delays that would result in a trial during the primary season.

image_print
114 replies
  1. Barringer says:

    Thanks Marcy for the clarity you provide. The need for interim clearances seems obvious, but to what extent will the content of the classified documents be relevant at trial?

    • Spank Flaps says:

      The jury has to be shown how sensitive the documents are, how dangerous it is to national (and international) security.
      Not the type of mundane content you might find in say a presidential library.

      • GlennDexter says:

        And what about the jury? Will the jury members also need to provide information to obtain Security Clearances to hear and see the documents obtained from the Mar a Lago search?

        • taluslope says:

          In the most recent podcast “Prosecuting Donald Trump,” Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord discuss the security issues involved. Very interesting episode. In answer to your question, apparently the jury is not required to have a clearance (someone please double check me on that).

          They also raised the question, does Trump himself need a clearance? Obviously on the merit he would never be cleared and didn’t need one as president (strange fact and I guess even true). But the Biden administration took away his access to any classified but what about now? Really interesting question and it looks like the answer is it hasn’t been tested in court but that the defendant needs access so DJT will soon have access to his precious documents again!

  2. drhester says:

    Related but slightly OT, yesterday DOJ asked for Dec. 11 trial date.

    Also there are 84 witness on the DOJ list. Separate filing by Bratt yesterday

    “The trial had initially been scheduled for Aug. 14, but a prosecutor for Special Counsel Jack Smith said in a Friday evening filing that it could take up to 60 days before defense attorneys obtain the necessary security clearances to view certain evidence in the case. The office suggested the judge order a Dec. 11 trial.”
    “””
    “Bratt wrote in a separate filing Friday that a list of those witnesses — described during the arraignment as a subset of the overall list — had been delivered to Trump. A footnote in the filing indicates 84 names are on the list.”

    Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-classified-documents-case-special-counsel-requests-december-trial/

  3. MyraBoByra says:

    So….I’m not an attorney, but If I’m reading this right, all Trump really has to do to delay his trial is to slow walk his search for attorneys? Is there anything the prosecution or court can do if they come to believe Trump and/or his attorneys are not making a good faith effort with regard to the clearance process? Seems a hugely exploitable loophole for him, given his 2 obvious strategies: Delay until after the election; Use the time to flood the zone with BS to enhance his chances of getting a hung jury.

    • greenhouse says:

      again, not to over stress the caveat: “(Trump) may be responsible for delays that would result in a trial during the primary season”.

  4. Amicus12 says:

    Making the heroic assumption that this schedule holds, or anything like it, I think one date that bears noting is September 19, 2023, the proposed deadline for the government’s initial Rule 16 expert disclosures. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 was amended and modified as of December 1, 2022, to comport more closely with the scope of expert disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16 (see notes to 2022 amendment). When I see the other side’s expert disclosures in a civil case, I pretty much know what they have.

    Unlike the prior rule’s provision of a summary of opinions, the new Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 states that “[t]he disclosure for each expert witness must contain:
    • a complete statement of all opinions that the government will elicit from the witness in its case- in-chief, [and]
    • the bases and reasons for them.”
    Assuming it is not very greatly redacted, the USG’s September 19 expert disclosure will lay out publicly, among other things, the USG’s assessment of the harm done by Trump’s alleged wrongdoing, and the “reasons” for those assessments.

    • bmaz says:

      Agree that will be interesting. But do you really need a Rule 16 expert as to “damage”, as opposed to just adducing it through IC fact witnesses?

      • Amicus12 says:

        A good observation but I think using expert opinion testimony is one way the USG limits unwelcome factual disclosures in these kind of cases. Here is what the DOJ Manual says:

        “Espionage and other national security-related prosecutions frequently require expert witnesses for the government to testify concerning highly sensitive intelligence gathering projects and sources affecting the national security. Often, such witnesses are essential in establishing one or more elements of the charge and in explaining to the jury the damage suffered by the United States as a consequence of the defendant’s actions.”

        https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2056-preparation-witnesses-whose-testimony-may-involve-classified

        • bmaz says:

          Yeah, maybe. But the concerns evinced below the main initial portion of that guidance would still be there with an “expert”, as is noted in the guidance. And who will serve as such experts … current members of the IC? If not them, then who? Though maybe it would be useful to qualify IC fact witnesses as “expert” just so you can refer to them as that to the jury.

          Adding I am just as interested to see who the defense identifies, if they do, as experts. The problem is, as has always been, how do you really pull off a defense without Trump taking the stand? Have thought a lot about that, and have never found a good answer. And you can’t put that guy on the stand.

        • Robot17 says:

          Haha that’s what I’ve heard. Would any damage assessments be admissible or is that an open question? I would imagine the assessments they could possibly consider releasing would be few but I’m not familiar with past prosecutions and whether those were used. That process is ongoing I’m sure but that sort of expert testimony would be particularly effective I’d imagine.

        • bmaz says:

          Open question. Still need CIPA determinations and motions in limine. Time will tell, although that tell may not be totally public.

        • Rayne says:

          Damned near choked to death just now reading that. Jeebus, I have iced tea spewed all over my screen.

        • Rayne says:

          Not the right term if you’re choking at the same time. I probably shouldn’t have inhaled. LOL

    • emptywheel says:

      The past ISOO (the person in charge of classification in the Federal govt), Bill Leonard was great on the stand, but of late has been expert witness FOR defendants (he was going to testify had Reality Winner gone to trial). The current ISOO was really unimpressive at the Schulte trial.

      But as I keep suggesting, the agencies may have had to burn programs in response to some of this. So that’s the kind of expert we might see.

  5. Georgia Girl says:

    With the understanding that the trial delay was inevitable because of CIPA, I see two possible PR advantages to the Special Counsel’s request: 1) Fani Willis has time to bring anticipated indictments in Georgia, which the media would relish for several news cycles. 2) The Special Counsel could wrap up the Jan. 6 investigation and bring indictments there, which is likely to see footage from the attack on the Capitol on repeat through the primary season while the documents trial proceeds. Political independents are not fans of Jan. 6 or of avoidable threats to national security.

    • bmaz says:

      Fani Willis is a two bit ethically dubious hack, her “investigation” a bloated joke, and her bullshit is detrimental to Smith and the Special Counsel’s effort NOT helpful.

      • EricMariposa says:

        How hard will it be to find evidence that DJT attempted “to influence the administration of the 2020 Georgia General Election” in a “multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump campaign to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere,” given that “her grand jury heard from 75 witnesses. Some of the more notable figures were Gov. Brian Kemp; Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr; Raffensperger; former lieutenant governor Geoff Duncan; former White House official Mark Meadows; former U.S. House speaker and Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich; and Republican South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham”?

        https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/06/22/fani-willis-trumps-august-federal-trial-wont-impact-my-investigation/

        • bmaz says:

          I don’t know, but isn’t that a question for the federal government and not a two bit hack local DA in Atlanta? Willis is not just way out over her skis, she is of a cliff. What she is doing is just ludicrous.

        • Peterr says:

          States are charged with running elections, and have laws governing how those elections happen. Seems to me that Georgia has a very strong obligation to investigate violations of their state laws. To a certain degree, this has been tested in federal courts, as the district court, appeals court, and SCOTUS all ruled that Lindsey Graham had to respect a subpoena issued for his testimony before Willis’ grand jury. (To be fair, Graham didn’t argue that Georgia couldn’t subpoena him because this is more properly a federal, not state, issue. Still, SCOTUS told Georgia they could continue their investigation)

          Are there federal issues involved? Yes, but until someone at the federal level makes a compelling argument for superceding the state investigation, Georgia is going to continue to enforce their laws.

        • bmaz says:

          Willis and her “investigation” is still garbage. People cheering this garbage are idiots. It is absolute legal insanity. What a fucking joke. If Georgia wanted to get involved, it should have been a statewide thing by the AG, not a pissant local DA. Don’t cite that idiotic Graham thing to me, that is simply lame.

        • bmaz says:

          What a load of bunk. Do you think I don’t know who Chris Carr is? He testified because he was subpoenaed by Willis. So, because he complied with a subpoena his office is automatically disqualified? Seriously? Did Carr ever self recuse, assign and appoint Fani Willis to do this? No. Of course not. She is off on her own self serving pogrom against Trump, and has been from the start. It is a pathetic joke.

          The Trump centric actions were arguably worse here in Maricopa County, but you don’t see the local DA abrogating federal issues and powers for herself, do you? How about Michigan, you see any local DA in Michigan strutting around trying to make public posture by pulling this bunk? No. How about Nevada, there was an investigation there too. Did you see some pissant local DA charging anything in Nevada? No, of course not. Nor did you in New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Only Fani Willis self selected herself. Her investigation is a pathetic joke.

        • Unabogie says:

          I really try to see your side in this but I’m having a hard time seeing what your problem with her is on this issue.

          First, if she’s arrogating power from the state AG, then where is his investigation? I tried Googling it and as far as I can tell, he hasn’t even began any investigation and certainly has not empaneled a Grand Jury for it.

          So is it your contention that no laws were broken when Trump tried to strong-arm the state into inventing votes for him? If not, and the offense happened in her county, and the state GOP refuses to do anything about it, then why is she doing the wrong thing here?

          From my vantage point, she’s fighting for the law, not against it. If you have a detailed critique that doesn’t just impugn her personally, I’d like to hear it. Especially if you see a better way to hold Trump accountable for what he did in Georgia.

        • bmaz says:

          First, if she’s arrogating power from the state AG, then where is his investigation? I tried Googling it and as far as I can tell, he hasn’t even began any investigation and certainly has not empaneled a Grand Jury for it.

          No, of course you don’t see that, but don’t buy into the bullshit that means Willis is appropriate in taking on this sprawling idiocy.

          So is it your contention that no laws were broken when Trump tried to strong-arm the state into inventing votes for him? If not, and the offense happened in her county, and the state GOP refuses to do anything about it, then why is she doing the wrong thing here?

          I think I have fully explained myself on this, repeatedly. If laws were broken, they are the province of the federal government, not a pissant local DA in 1 out of 67 counties in Georgia.

          From my vantage point, she’s fighting for the law, not against it. If you have a detailed critique that doesn’t just impugn her personally, I’d like to hear it. Especially if you see a better way to hold Trump accountable for what he did in Georgia.

          Willis is NOT “fighting for the law”, she is fighting for personal aggrandizement. Also, Trump acted in DC not Georgia. This Willis stuff is such total bullshit it is mind numbing.

        • GlennDexter says:

          Well actually,
          after Garland’s feet dragged on her referral to The Office of the Attorney General;
          “Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has re-opened her criminal investigation into fake electors who signed a certificate claiming former President Donald Trump won the state in the 2020 election when he did not, she said on Friday.”

        • bmaz says:

          Nessel is an actual AG, right? And no charges were brought, much less publicly flogged, right? Not a pissant local DA, right? Thanks for proving my point. Michigan has 83 counties. Did you see any of those locals acting like they were the federal government as the high holy Fani Willis has? No? Why do you think that is?

      • Donnieinthe pokie says:

        Bmaz,

        Your bias and whataboutism on this issue is pretty glaring. A crime is a crime, and with Donnie it’s multiple crimes in multiple jurisdictions! Manhattan and Stormy Daniels, Florida and Mara Largo, to Georgia and Washington DC with the January 6th case. By October, Trump will likely have two more indictments under his belt and thus will be the only Ex-POTUS under multiple indictments and twice impeached. While that might make him stronger with the MAGA nuts in his own party it will turn off any other voters. He’s toast, I don’t think Biden should pardon him but perhaps a mercy clemency after he’s convicted and facing 40+ years behind bars (at 77, essentially a life sentence) It’s sad for our country, but we must allow the convictions to stand. there’s a slim chance that he takes a plea deal when he realizes the walls are closing in on him and there’s no way out. Trump will always do what’s best for himself and once he realizes that a plea deal is the only way to minimize a lengthy prison term, he may come around.

        • Rayne says:

          You expended 185 words to dump an opinion which is neither new to this site in terms of content nor educational. Please do better.

        • bmaz says:

          Lol, thank you for your continued support! There is no bias or whataboutism whatsoever. My only bias is concern for the health of criminal law and propriety in prosecutions, which has pretty much been my wheelhouse for decades.

        • John Panzer says:

          Not disputing your expertise, but a few things: There are state-level laws here (https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2021/title-21/chapter-2/article-15/section-21-2-566/) so isn’t a dual state/federal investigation the better way to go, rather than simply referring things to the Feds? They can’t enforce Georgia election law, right?

          Willis represents 1 of 60-odd counties, but one with 10% of the total population — and one of just a handful that Trump was targeting with his attempts to get votes invalidated. So it seems weird to say she’s just a random local DA. It’s the people she represents who were some of the primary targets.

          Should the Georgia AG be the one driving this? Heck yeah! Where is he? He seems AWOL. He hasn’t even been visibly investigating the exfiltration of data by Team Trump from Coffee County, GA. But isn’t that on him, not on Willis?

        • Cargill2 says:

          You seem to be ignoring the fact that elections are run by the states, and not by the federal government – even for the election of federal government members (president, vice president, senate, and house).

          While I agree that the Georgia State Attorney-General should be running the case, in the absence of that then the case by Fani Willis is quite appropriate, it seems to me – courageous even. Your demonising her as a “pissant local DA” is both demeaning and inappropriate. She has every good reason (even a legal duty) to prosecute this case – it was (and remains) a serious crime, and she has jurisdiction.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          A crime is a crime? Only statistically. Personalities, facts and circumstances, and sometimes legal ambiguities affect each one. That’s why there are judges and a need for fairness and consistency.

          Mr. Trump has amply demonstrated that neither pardon nor clemency would be appropriate for him. As with his penchant for committing defamation, he would quickly return to whatever behavior put him in the pokey.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          A crime is a crime? Only statistically. Personalities, facts and circumstances, and sometimes legal ambiguities affect each one. That’s why there are judges and a need for fairness and consistency.

          Mr. Trump has amply demonstrated that neither pardon nor clemency would be appropriate for him. Recidivism is his middle name. As with his penchant for committing defamation, he would quickly return to whatever behavior put him in the pokey.

          [Note: Comment resubmitted to correct name error.]

      • RobertaM says:

        I don’t think you have (my apologies if so and I missed it) but I personally would be really interested to read a whole article about your critiques of the whole Willis situation. I haven’t seen any other pieces criticizing her in the way you’ve been doing on here. Seems like a big gap in analysis (that other lawyers/journalists have neglected, not you).

  6. boatgeek says:

    Does the relatively immediate release of most of the classified documents indicate that they have already been compromised so far that they hold little current value? To me that indicates that we’re more likely to see them at trial, along with a defense nightmare scenario of a parade of IC witnesses saying how many agents were compromised and killed or withdrawn from their posts.

    • Tech Support says:

      Based on Marcy’s previous posts it seems more likely than ever that even if specific sources and methods weren’t verifiably compromised that they’ve burned down everything tied to those documents.

      I think there is a very persuasive argument (supported by easy to understand, visual evidence) that it is simply impossible to confirm the safety of these programs between the traffic at Mar-a-Lago and the sloppy storage and handling.

      • emptywheel says:

        I don’t rule out some of the surveillance video showing someone accessing the storage closet.

  7. David F. Snyder says:

    Unless there’s some professional norm that can be pointed to, I object to labeling this schedule by the SC team as “aggressive”, even though the filings and their timings are no doubt assertive, planting a flag so to speak. Given the to-now combative behaviors of at least one of the defendants in this investigation, such assertive actions are called for and strategically necessary. “Aggression” implies an intent to harm or the threat of causing harm; that is not nor should be something that can be laid at the feet of SC Smith or his team based on anything we know.

    If anyone is aggressive in this case, it’s Trump. His damage to the intel community has been extensive and costly, careless and intentional. The only person harming Trump is himself, not Smith or any of his team. So don’t feed the GOP propaganda line that DOJ has been weaponized against Trump, as that what using the term “aggressive” does here. They can easily cherry-pick Marcie’s line.

    I think it’s been shown clearly in this blog that Durham was aggressive; but until there is some real data, let’s not ascribe the same to Smith.

    • bmaz says:

      Naw it is indeed aggressive as to the norm for a federal criminal case, but entirely appropriate for this case.

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s aggressive because to meet these deadlines the defense attorneys would need to be ready to respond immediately. Thus far, there’s no one with remotely sufficient expertise to do so.

      Thus my suggestion that this is a means to make it clear that any delays are Trump’s.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        Would that onus factor in during the appeal process, especially if it is about speedy trials?

  8. Oldtulsadude says:

    It is slowly dawning on me that Fani Willis bringing charges against Trump, who was president at the time of the possibly-charged incident, is fraught with bad consequences even if initially she won. The case would no doubt be appealed and even if the appellate court upheld the conviction it would still reach the now far-right SCOTUS who might then establish the precedent that a sitting president as head of the Executive cannot commit a crime. Shudder.

    Or am I both stupid and paranoid?

    • bmaz says:

      No, not stupid, there are oh so many problems with the local thing in Atlanta. And I would not blame SCOTUS one bit for slamming Willis. In fact, they should if it gets to that point.

    • Rayne says:

      How about we wait for the indictment and see who is charged and with what, keeping in mind these are not federal charges.

      Do also keep in mind under Article I, Section 4:

      Section 4: Elections
      The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

      If there’s no law but that of state law applicable, how does SCOTUS fit into this picture at all? Further, Trump may have been a sitting president but any role he played in this case was as a candidate; his actions were not within the scope of his job as the executive.

      And United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) pretty much acknowledged the possibility a president could commit a criminal act in its decision holding a president is not immune from providing evidence in criminal investigations related to the president’s acts.

      • bmaz says:

        Lol, the Willis mess is pure shit. No reason to wait on that. SCOTUS stating Graham must appear is ludicrous to justify Willis. It did not mean, in any way, the perverted logic that the scope and breadth of her investigation was appropriate. But, hey Trump Derangement Syndrome never gives a shit about pernicious effects longterm on the criminal justice system, both state and federal.

        But, hey, nobody ever listened to the slippery slope arguments as to Miranda, the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments writ larger, torture, the war in Iraq etc. Press on with the TDS and fuck up all forms of criminal law. Booyah!

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Trump Derangement Syndrome? That term got coined by Trump sycophants to label anyone insufficiently supportive of him as crazy. I saw it frequently and rather mindlessly used on the right-wing message boards I followed, off and on, before the 2020 election.

          I didn’t expect to see it here, much less wielded by one of our respected moderators. bmaz, what do you mean by it? Why use it at all?

        • bmaz says:

          Because it has turned out appropriate. A LOT of people that frequent this site have been relentlessly yakking and clamoring for more, more and more cases, willy nilly against Trump. The stale and stupid Manhattan DA case is great! The bogus self serving antics of Fani Willis are fanitastic! Why are charges not being filed in New Jersey! The government should serially string out charges and improperly up the ante to put a rock on the plea scale!

          It is endless. And very tiring. Yes that borders, if not constitutes, Trump Derangement Syndrome. People that have no concept, nor care, for the health of the criminal justice system as a whole, but willing to fuck it up because Trump.

          By the way, I am one of two people that have been here since day one, and am a contributor, not just a “moderator”. I have authored likely well over 1,000 posts. Rayne has too. Referring to us as simple ancillary moderators is insulting.

        • Unabogie says:

          It’s also insulting to accuse people of being deranged, to being only interested in trumped up charges (pun intended), and to lacking sufficient fidelity to the law.

          In none of the cases you cited did you find a place or circumstance in which Trump did not break laws or do things that other people would be charged for. He cheated on his taxes and broke NYC laws in a pattern of wanton disregard for rules that govern the rest of us. That pisses me off since I have to follow the laws and pay a shit ton in taxes. So he doesn’t? And any attempt to hold him to account is bad because reasons?

          He tried to strongarm the SOS in Georgia into forging votes so he could stay in power. And any attempt to hold him to account is bad because reasons?

          He flew top secret documents to his New Jersey golf club and waved them around like trophies. And any attempt to hold him to account is bad because reasons?

          So do I want him charged for all of those acts? You’re damn right I do. That doesn’t make me “deranged” or a person disregarding the law, and it’s complete bullshit to say I am.

          Look, I’m not a lawyer. But the law is just a framework. It’s not my religion. It’s valuable if it works. If it’s just a broken system that allows scofflaws to flaunt it, then I have zero respect or reverence for it.

        • bmaz says:

          I’m sorry, go blow.

          “If it’s just a broken system that allows scofflaws to flaunt it, then I have zero respect or reverence for it.”

          I’m also sorry, exactly how many criminal courtrooms have you been in? So, fuck your “zero respect”. And, obviously, you are not a lawyer, but just another internet blowhard.

        • Unabogie says:

          I have to be a lawyer to have an opinion on the law?

          Nope, I reject that nonsense. I live in this country and the system affects me and people I care about. If this system is more important than the people it serves, then you’re describing a religion, not a system of laws.

          However, since you asked, I’ve been a juror twice in two criminal cases, and greatly valued the experience. I respected the defense attorneys and voted to acquit in both cases. And calling me just another “internet blowhard” and saying “go fuck yourself” is a really nice touch and adds a lot of gravitas to your comment here.

        • GlennDexter says:

          I’m not simply deranged about Trump. I’m actually looking to see the conspirators exposed.
          Trump didn’t do this alone.
          He’s not that smart.
          This was a Conspiracy on a grand scale by people in power, with influence and money.

        • Cargill2 says:

          “It is endless. And very tiring. Yes that borders, if not constitutes, Trump Derangement Syndrome. People that have no concept, nor care, for the health of the criminal justice system as a whole, but willing to fuck it up because Trump.”

          This is utter nonsense, bordering on GOP and MAGA talking points, and Gym Jordan rants. By calling the Georgia SoS seeking the votes to flip Georgia is a serious crime – and an unprecedented one.

          And while I agree that no rogue state (or even rogue DA or AG) should have unfettered ability to persecute a sitting or former president, in this case the crime is on tape, and pretty-much totally uncomplicated.

          It would be a total dereliction of duty for Georgia NOT to prosecute this case; Trump should not be above the law. The fact that it is Fani Willis is not the issue here, and your continuing demonising of her and her role is very disturbing.

        • bmaz says:

          Lol, how nice of an Australian to help us understand how the law should work in the US. And to opine that someone who has critiques is magically a GOP and MAGA talking bot. I am not, and never have been, either of those.

          Since you are oh so concerned, why have you not bitched about local county attorneys in other states not arrogating the power to criminally prosecute Trump? And, no, I am not ignoring anything, as you blithely stated in your previous comment. I understand it all just fine. I actually have spent a career working in state and federal law in the US. You have done neither. Thanks for all your legal help from down under in Australia though!

  9. David Brooks says:

    I’m thinking of the 4-month delay now apparently baked in, and probably more to come, but still had some purely theoreticals to ask:
    1. If somehow the initial trial gets done by, say, late summer, and there is a guilty verdict, do the rules require the judge to move on to sentencing, or could that be deferred pending appeals?
    2. If she has to sentence some time in the fall (although as a series of appeals is inevitable, it would be just a formality), and decides on a custodial sentence, might she set it to not start until Jan 7 2025 or Jan 21 2029 depending on the result of Jan 6? A custodial sentence for a prospective President would set some interesting precedents.
    I know, I’m probably spitballing too many hypotheticals.

      • David Brooks says:

        I apologize for overstepping into fantasy, but my procedural question remains. Postulating we get as far as a trial, a guilty verdict, and a notice of appeal, what are the rules concerning a judge moving on to the sentencing process at that point? Must, may, or may not?

        • harpie says:

          Hi bmaz, someone who commented below at June 25, 2023 at 9:57 am [last comment on this post, for now] needs help with their “name” space.

          [Fixed — thanks, harpie! /~Rayne]

  10. HGillette says:

    A couple of questions about the release of the witness list and the classified documents:

    Some commentators claimed that once Trump and his legal team received the witness list, he would be able to discern if anyone had flipped on him. Is this true?

    I would have thought that if this was the case, he would be screeching about it on his social media site. As far as I know, this has not happened.

    Secondly, how would the jurors in the trial be made aware of the damage done by the compromising (or potential compromising) of the documents Trump retained? Will the jurors be shown the documents? Does that mean that they will have to be cleared, or will the DOJ declassify the documents to allow the jury to see them? I can’t imagine that the DOJ would just say, “Take our word for it, the possible exposure of these documents is bad.”

    If the DOJ intends to declassify the documents they are charging Trump with, why are the lawyers being required to get security clearances?

    • Peterr says:

      The lawyers have to have a clearance to even see the documents as part of their pre-trial preparation.

      As for the documents being declassified, that’s not going to happen. What WILL happen are various work-arounds via the CIPA process where the parties and the court will hash out ways of talking about the documents in ways that will not compromise the ability of the accused to mount a defense.

      For instance, a document that details the military readiness of another nation would be important in this legal case as to the national security implications, but the identity of the specific nation and the details of the readiness do not matter from a legal perspective. From the POV of the prosecutors, it doesn’t matter if the country is Russia, China, Iran, etc. — all that matters is that the document is National Defense Information — and so disclosing the identity of the nation would likely be kept from the jury (and the broader public).

      For more on CIPA, see here.

      • HGillette says:

        If I am reading the information about CIPA correctly, it seems that the court (which means the judge?) can examine the documents in question and make a determination as to whether the government’s summary of the classified information allows the defendant the ability to make his defense to the same degree that disclosure of the classified information would.

        Does this mean that Judge Cannon will be allowed to access the documents? If so, will she have to be cleared?

        There is also the statement that the court can order the defendant not to reveal the contents but then says that the court can then dismiss the indictment, except when “the court determines that the interests of justice would not be served by dismissal of the indictment…”.

        That would seem to give the court the ability to blow the government’s case out of the water, should the judge be so inclined, although the government is allowed to appeal.

        Am I reading this correctly?

        • bmaz says:

          Jeebus, quit being paranoid. Of course courts can deal with this, they have forever. How any judge will rule is unknowable.

    • emptywheel says:

      He’d know the degree to which people told the truth from the interview transcripts shared, and would have known anyway because most at least started out with their lawyers paid by Trump (as Nauta still has).

      Witnesses will explain how the IC responded to learning these docs had been left on a stage in Florida. For example, in the Schulte case, the witnesses described having to shut down all CIA’s cyber-enhanced spying immediately.

      • Sue 'em Queequeg says:

        I am Nauta lawyer (yes, will see myself out momentarily) but curious how it’s not witness tampering if a) you pay for counsel for an employee who can’t afford it themselves, b) the employee almost certainly has the power to provide highly damaging testimony against you, c) you have daily private unmonitored in-person contact with the employee such that you could talk freely with them on any topic, and d) this person has already been caught lying in order to protect you.

        From the lack of discussion about this I get that this it’s not considered an issue, but curious why. Isn’t it at least de facto tampering, even if not legally recognized as such?

        • RipNoLonger says:

          Nauta lawyer but Walt still trusts you?

          You had me going for a bit. Valid questions, at least in this I Anal’s mind also.

        • theartistvvv says:

          No.

          You ask at a) about the act of paying a witness/co-def atty. First, it’s my understanding that a PAC (not tfg, directly) is paying for Nauta, but that aside, it is not illegal and/or tampering for a person/entity not the party to pay for the party’s atty so as long as no control is asserted over the represented, and the paid-for atty has loyalty to and serves only the best interest of the client.

          Your b) is a description or status or condition as is d) and so are not an act (of tampering), merely facts.

          Re your c) there was much discussion about this here and in court, and the judge, I believe, ruled that the contact between Nauta as an employee and his employer is OK, with a direct instruction of the Court that the legal issues not be discussed.

          After all that, I admit that the situation does look odd, seems rather unique due to those facts.

  11. Peterr says:

    From the post: “According to Jay Bratt’s declaration, once defense attorneys get their SF-86 filing in, the Litigation Security Group has committed to turning around their initial clearances unbelievably quickly: two days.”

    The word “unbelievably” is a serious understatement. LSG, knowing how big a deal this trial will be, is obviously going to throw a lot of people on this, with lots of overtime factored in as well. I’m curious, though, about what goes into an “initial clearance” and what happens further for a full clearance.

    • P J Evans says:

      I think it’s the basic verification: name, age, location, that you’re a bar member in good standing and have no easily-found outstanding charges against you.

        • bmaz says:

          No, I will stick by what I said. And if it is that fucking easy, I have some Guantanamo, Al Haramain, and drug conspiacy lawyers you ought to speak to. But it would be a waste of time for you it appears. So Run Tell Dat.

        • Peterr says:

          For crying out loud, bmaz, I’m agreeing with you. I’m sure that the initial clearance is more than a simple “credit check” kind of thing, but would love to know the difference between that and a full check. If you can elaborate on the difference, I’m all ears.

        • bmaz says:

          Well I would not know, I never went through the process (I hired cleared attys when necessary, which was only a couple of times), nor would be likely to have “cleared” it had I applied. So keep your ears attuned.

        • cmarlowe says:

          For me interim secret a few months, secret about 1 year, TS about another year. The TS involved neighbor interviews and the like. My understanding was this took so long because there were so many people in the queue at that time and post-Snowden they were being more careful. There is nothing that I know about that could not have been done quickly if I was the only one.

        • blueedredcounty says:

          Peterr, I had to go through a background check/security process for a Public Trust Position for my job. It’s not the same thing as a security clearance, but the process is similar.

          Basically, I had an initial approval and was allowed access to the systems and information once that was granted. That was very fast, I think it happened within a month of my getting all the online forms submitted. I don’t know how deep that check was.

          Getting the final approval took far longer. There was an FBI interview which had three points I thought were hilarious. They didn’t know I had siblings, because they had me apply using an online form version J or something, instead of version K or something. The version I filled out only asked for info about parents and grandparents (a bit of a problem for me because 3 of my 4 grandparents died years before I was born).

          Also, so much time had passed since I filled out the forms and got the interview that I had to update the agent on the fly because it had been over 10 years since I’d travelled out of the country, which was what was on the forms. However, 3 months before the interview, I did a trip to Prague, followed by a river cruise down the Danube. (Great trip, I highly recommend it). Agent kind of freaked out over that.

          There was also a question about if I’d had to pay any government fines over $150. I’d had a traffic ticket for a CA rolling stop through a stop sign, and I was pretty sure the fine was $250 or so. Plus I’d done online traffic school to keep it off my record, and I had to pay a larger gov’t fee for that. The FBI agent was following up with me by email (I was on biz trip outside the country), and he was freaked out because they couldn’t find a record of charge with the DMV. The reason this was hilarious is he let me know they had complete credit records, and they included the charges for the online traffic school and the payment of the fines/fees. I was kind of appalled they didn’t make the connection on their own.

          After the FBI encounters, I can’t remember exactly how long I waited, but my government sponsoring agency finally contacted me to get an appointment with a person in their local office to do a final interview, take my photo, and take almost full handprints. The appointments were only available a couple of days a week because I think the person was retired CIA or military intelligence, and was only working part time doing this final interview work for the sponsoring agency.

        • Peterr says:

          Oh, yeah. It doesn’t take much to trip some of the “we gotta look into this further” wires, and you seem to have hit several of them.

          It’s a whole lot easier to go through a security clearance in your 20s, when you have only a couple of residences, a couple of employers, and your international travel is minimal. I pity the folks applying for their first security clearance in their 50s.

        • posaune says:

          My brother got a white-house level security clearance at age 18. (white house marine band). The FBI goes back 10 years, so they interviewed his 3rd grade teacher, who provided them with his report card: all A’s in deportment, so he passed the clearance, LOL.

        • zeke di leo says:

          It also helps if your references keep in mind that FBI agents have little to no sense of humor. Years ago my former roommate was interviewed for a rather low-level security clearance that was necessary for me to work in a conflict zone. Along with the basic questions about whether I was trustworthy or heavily in debt was a question about my emotional maturity and how I might react “in a crisis that may include violence and even death.” My friend responded that he thought I would “thrive” in such a situation, and that he would be surprised if I wasn’t responsible for it. He said that the agent didn’t so much as smile or even look up from her notebook.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          When my FBI friend first applied to the Bureau, I got a long interview by phone. They asked deeply intimate questions about addictions (we shared a history, about which I was completely frank), relationships (ours was a close friendship with many prongs), and many other things.

          But they also asked what he was like as a person. And seemed especially interested when I said his sly wit (never mean, just subtle and long-acting) was unmatched in our group. So sense of humor? The FBI I interfaced with seemed at least interested in acquiring one–they hired my friend.

        • GlennDexter says:

          You are correct. I worked for Homeland Security and the process was on-going. Learned quickly to not use my name on any social media. Matter of fact i stopped using the internet completely, purchased different phones for different circumstances. But they wanted a High School transcript of a rural school I attended way back when that had sent me the only copy when the school district closed which was a red flag to them. They absolutely would not accept my old transcript from me and I had to find others from my high school days for interviews. I only had a year book to choose contacts from.
          My birth certificate was on microfiche and hardly legible – it was never returned.
          I too volunteered an infraction with police where the Judge ordered dismissal and record impingement. Mistake. They had to dig through old records and found it and now it’s entered into a database showing up every time I have to update my record, many times because of an international phone call i’ve made.
          I wondered how young immigrants had all this documentation readily available to get hired. Yes, it’s good to be young with limited, but sometimes unverifiable information but they do get hired.

        • JohnJJSchmidt says:

          Thank you for reminding me why I left the DC life and never worked on anything above “confidential” for the next 40 years.

        • P J Evans says:

          I was describing the two-day version. I know the real thing is much much more thorough.
          (I had a secret clearance one year. My father had one that was into compartments at times. The thought of those boxes stacked in accessible areas gives me the cold grues.)

    • taluslope says:

      Regarding the two day turnaround: “In this case, LSG has committed to reaching an eligibility determination within 24-48 hours of the completed submission.”

      Eligibility determination means they will have looked over the document to see if anything stated is disqualifying. For example, if you admit to not having filed your taxes in the last 5 years, that would be disqualifying.

      Regarding the final clearance: “LSG estimates that final clearances may be granted within 45 to 60 days of submission of the SF-86 and related documentation, depending upon the content of the applicant’s SF-86.”

      “Depending upon the content” is the significant factor. People have mentioned age; I hadn’t thought of that but I met a recent college grad who was cleared in 4 months. I was impressed by how fast that was. So 45-60 days doesn’t seem too unreasonable.

      I don’t know (INAL, good), are Florida lawyers known for jetting around the world frequently? If so, we are in for the long haul.

      Regarding being interviewed by the FBI: At least for the DOE, the interviews are most frequently done by contractors, not actual FBI agents. Anyone know who actually signs off on the clearances? I’ve long wanted to know.

  12. Bobster33 says:

    Since Trump is know to cheat, I would expect him to cheat in this case. So far my thoughts drift towards witness tampering. I can imagine Nauta saying one thing to DOJ and another thing when staring at Trump on the witness stand. So how much of the testimony is based on direct witnesses and how much is based on documents, video, audio, etc.? Who is the least credible witness?

    • ExRacerX says:

      “Who is the least credible witness?”

      erm…

      Starts with a T?

      [Moderator’s note: Please note Name space has been edited to remove your email address and replace it with your username. Please double check your entries before hitting publish. /~Rayne]

      • Bobster33 says:

        Trump’s Testimony is like Schrodinger’s Cat, in that his testimony is both the most and least credible simultaneously. And you cant’ tell which is true until you look at the other evidence.

  13. Savage Librarian says:

    When There’s 84

    Now that I’m older, lost most my hair,
    Many fears, and how!
    Will they still be calling me asinine,
    Squeeze play meetings,
    throttle a whine?

    If witnesses spout reports of me,
    Boxes on my floor,
    Will they repeat me,
    Will they all beat me,
    When there’s eighty-four?

    They’ll be bolder too,
    Who will fall on their sword,
    No more tried and true?

    Can I withstand heat, bend a few rules,
    And highlight a con,
    Persuade an abettor I’m on their side,
    Buffet morning, say we’re allied,
    Mention a pardon, plant a few seeds,
    Who could ask for more?

    Will they repeat me,
    Will they all beat me,
    When there’s eighty-four?

    Just this summer I notice my wattage
    & my pilot light, need an engineer,
    Who will flip and cave?
    Handwritten notes you see,
    Mere dumb luck be brave!

    Lend me a blowhard, adopt me a line,
    Grating point or two,
    Indicate precisely
    what they mean to say,
    Yours sincerely, berating away!

    It’s still my answer: we’ll misinform,
    Mine for evermore,
    Will they repeat me,
    Will they all beat me,
    When there’s eighty-four?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3qBzk1SArk

    “When I’m Sixty-Four” for Violin and Piano

  14. ChipOffTheOldBlock says:

    (Only submitted one previous comment months ago; making sure I have compliant name…)

    To what extent can Trump use his reply to this to gum up the whole works, e.g. by submitting a response that basically says “We object to the motion on the grounds that CIPA is irrelevant, as all of the documents in question had been declassified as a result of a standing order regarding documents taken to the residence and/or by the defendant thinking happy thoughts while still in office.”?

    His lawyers avoided going there during the prior suit (and I am aware this claim is irrelevant with regard to the Atomic Energy Act-related classification). Could he use the response to this motion to force what would undoubtedly be a lengthy process of resolving that claim through the court system?

    Even if he doesn’t do that, to what extent do his lawyers have to insert language into their response to avoid foreclosing his making that defense (i.e., something like “While not conceding that any of the documents at issue remained classified at the time they were seized…”)?

  15. Allagashed says:

    Can I ask a couple of questions? Being a farmer and not a lawyer I struggle with much of the nuance that is being discussed here; if my questions have been addressed elsewhere I apologize for the redundancy. How are the classified documents to be presented to a jury? Are the jurors themselves going to be subjected to a particular type of vetting? And secondly, I struggle to think how any prosecutor could find 12 people who didn’t have some form of hard and fast opinion of Trump. How hard will it be to seat a jury?

    • bmaz says:

      1) Yet to be determined as to any specific document, but there is a long utilized process for that. 2) No, jurors need not be particularly cleared. 3) It will be interesting, but not that hard to seat a jury.

  16. CovariantTensor says:

    A couple of observations: 1. Unlike other states where election interference is alleged to have taken place, the “perfect call” to Raffensberger was made public, and looks pretty bad. And 2. Violation of state election laws is not subject to presidential pardons.

  17. 1cracker says:

    To clear up the matter of the number of jurisdictions in GA, there are 159 counties, second only to TX, down from a high of 161. Two went broke in the Depression and merged with Fulton, accounting for some of its size in area, less in population. There are 50 judicial circuits, some in single larger counties, others combining several smaller counties. A fact of possible interest is that the 50 DA’s and Solicitors are assisted by a body called the Prosecuting Attorney’s Council. The DA’s are funded by the General Assembly in FY 2024 at $106.4M, mostly state funds. The Law Dept. under the Attorney General is funded at $97.7M, About $57M of that is from other state agencies paying Law Dept. counsel.

Comments are closed.