Trump’s Defense: He Intended to Steal Boxes and Boxes of Classified Documents
As I have been noting for months, in all of Jack Smith’s rebuttals to Trump’s claims that Presidents have absolute immunity, he floated scenarios that are pretty similar to stuff that Trump is known or suspected of doing.
One of those is, “a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.”
As I noted in response to Trump’s claim that that would be treason, Trump has done a whole lot that’s improper with classified information.
The closest thing on that list to treason is selling nuclear secrets to America’s adversaries. Not treason.
But Trump’s lawyers, including two of the lawyers representing him in the stolen documents case, lawyers who had their first good look at the documents Trump is accused of stealing last week, seem to suggest it could be.
To be clear: Trump has never been accused of selling nuclear secrets to America’s adversaries.
He undoubtedly gave Israel’s counterterrorism secrets to Russia — why, and whether there was a quid pro quo involved, we still don’t know.
He is known to have Tweeted out highly sensitive satellite information to dick-wag Iran, with the result that Iran learned about the satellites targeting their country.
To spite Mark Milley, he showed a plan to attack Iran to Mark Meadows’ ghost writers.
Ongoing reporting, first from ABC and then from NYT, reveals that after Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt paid millions for access to Trump, Trump shared details of a conversation he had about a call he had with Iraq’s president after bombing Iraq, described his perfect phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and provided sensitive details of America’s nuclear subs.
And he is accused of leaving nuclear documents — documents that Trump’s lawyers may have reviewed for the first time last week — in unsecure ways at his beach resort, possibly even in his gaudy bathroom.
So, no. Trump has not (yet) been accused of selling nuclear secrets, to adversaries or anyone else. Though he did give away what he claimed to be nuclear secrets to a businessman from an allied nation after the guy paid a lot of money for access to Trump.
But as I noted, we don’t yet know what happened to some of the secret documents that Trump snuck away from Mar-a-Lago after hiding them from Evan Corcoran in June 2022, documents he took with him to host a golf tournament the Saudis paid an undisclosed sum to host at Bedminster.
Those documents have never been located.
Just so long as Trump didn’t sell any of these nuclear documents, but instead gave them away, I’m sure we’re all good.
That’s important background to Trump’s primary defense in his stolen documents case. Between his motion to dismiss because the Presidential Records Act doesn’t say what he claims it says and his motion to dismiss for absolute immunity, he is arguing that he intended to steal boxes and boxes of classified documents.
The latter argument is substantially the same garbage argument Trump has made to the DC Circuit and SCOTUS. The former is a real piece of work, even by Trump’s standards. Here his argument:
- Before the Presidential Records Act was passed, Presidents treated presidential papers — which are different from government classified documents — as their personal property
- Because NARA had no authority, after Bill Clinton left office, to reclassify tapes of personal conversations Clinton made so Tom Fitton could have them, it means NARA has no authority over what counts as a presidential or personal record
- Bill Clinton’s personal tapes are exactly the same as the boxes and boxes of official documents Trump sent to Mar-a-Lago
- Without providing any evidence Trump did classify all those official documents as personal documents, he will nevertheless claim he did so while still in office
- Robert Hur’s report describing seizing all of Joe Biden’s diaries — which are specifically excluded from the PRA — is proof that Presidents control all official documents they stash away
- Cmon, Judge Cannon, you made the ridiculous argument I own these documents once already, only to have the 11th Circuit rip you a new asshole, but why can’t you make precisely that argument again?
- Charging Trump for actions he took after leaving the White House is the same as supervising his actions day-to-day
- Because DOJ declined to second-guess Mark Meadows’ spectacular failure to declassify documents Trump wanted to give to John Solomon, it means DOJ must accept Trump’s vague assertion that he didn’t spectacularly fail to declassify boxes and boxes of documents either
- These boxes and boxes of official documents, which are not excluded from the PRA, are just like Reagans diaries, which are specifically excluded
- Clinton’s conversations about official stuff are just the same as the official documents documenting that kind of stuff
- Because NARA had never made a criminal referral before February 2022, the fact that it has since made two means it couldn’t make any
- Trump didn’t think he’d get busted, so it was improper for FBI to bust him
- DOJ should have dealt with me like they did with Peter Navarro when he also blew off the PRA
- Because DOJ refused to seize unclassified personal Clinton recordings so Tom Fitton could have them, it means DOJ could not seize classified official documents so NARA could have them
Ultimately, though, the two arguments together are very simple. First, from the PRA filing, Trump intended to take those boxes and boxes of classified documents.
The Special Counsel’s Office concedes that the “genesis” of this case dates back to at least “the tail end of the Trump Administration itself.” Compel Oppn. at 3.2 The Office alleges in the Superseding Indictment that President Trump “caused scores of boxes, many of which contained classified documents, to be transported” to Mar-a-Lago. ECF No. 85 ¶ 4 (emphasis added). The Superseding Indictment makes clear that this decision and the related transportation of records occurred while President Trump was still in office. Id. ¶ 25 (alleging that President Trump caused boxes of records to be packed and shipped “[i]n January 2021, as he was preparing to leave the White House” (emphasis added)). President Trump departed the White House prior to “12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2021,” and as such he is alleged to have made these decisions concerning the documents at issue while he was the Commander-in-Chief. Id. ¶ 4.
And, from the immunity filing, because Trump stole those boxes and boxes of classified documents while he was still Commander-in-Chief, he has immunity from prosecution for doing so.
Specifically, President Trump is immune from prosecution on Counts 1 through 32 because the charges turn on his alleged decision to designate records as personal under the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”) and to cause the records to be moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, President Trump made this decision while he was still in office. The alleged decision was an official act, and as such is subject to presidential immunity.
[snip]
Even if the Special Counsel’s Office could establish that President Trump’s designation decision under the PRA was illegal or otherwise improper—and they cannot—“the President’s actions do not fall beyond the outer perimeter of official responsibility merely because they are unlawful or taken for a forbidden purpose.” Blassingame, 87 F.4th at 14. The Supreme Court has so held, repeatedly. After all, every claim of immunity is raised against charges of allegedly improper motive or purpose. See, e.g., Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 756 (rejecting a rule that would permit “an inquiry into the President’s motives” as “highly intrusive”); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967); Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 575 (1959) (“The claim of an unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege.” (citation omitted)); Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 498 (1896) (holding that immunity does not turn on “any personal motive that might be alleged to have prompted his action”); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 354 (1871) (holding that immunity “cannot be affected by any consideration of the motives with which the acts are done”); see also, e.g., Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (2d Cir. 1949) (Hand, J.). In short, in assessing whether immunity applies, courts must look to the “nature of the act itself.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978). The allegedly improper manner or purpose of the alleged acts is not relevant. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 756. Therefore, President Trump is entitled to immunity for this official act and that must include immunity from criminal prosecution.
This is, quite literally, an argument that it was totally legal for Trump to choose to steal boxes and boxes of classified documents.
A reminder to all new and existing community members participating in comments:
— We have been moving to a new minimum standard to support community security over the last year. Usernames should be unique and a minimum of 8 letters.
— We do not require a valid, working email, but you must use the same email address each time you publish a comment here. **Single use disposable email addresses do not meet this standard.**
— If you have been commenting here but have less than 1000 comments published and been participating less than 10 years as of October 2022, you must update your username to match the new standard.
Thank you.
Thank you. Wow. Super-useful close reading of the Trump filing. Also wow, over-the-top arguments from the defense here.
I like this format, both because it lets reader easily focus on areas of interest or areas seen as analytically important and because it so effectively shows off Marcy’s amazing command of the facts and the arguments.
For this particular filing, the format also helps us see the effort to hide the ball of great big sweeping claims under myriad tiny rocks.
Thanks for this post!
Minor point: the ninth bullet point in your list ends with “which are”.
That’s intentional and correct as written :)
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too common (there are multiple Chris/Christopher/Cris in the community) it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]
That makes sense in context. EW is distinguishing between two categories. The first, “which are not excluded from the PRA,” are contrasted with the second, “which are.”
Oh I see, thanks!
I clarified it.
The case comes down to not giving them back moving them around obstruction when editing videos inside mar largo and that some are still misding
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security ***as noted in the first comment of this thread.*** /~Rayne]
“This is, quite literally, an argument that it was totally legal for Trump to choose to steal boxes and boxes of classified documents”
Isn’t that always the way?
Dems: “Trump wants to be a dictator.”
GOP: “That’s just ridiculous. No-one seriously thinks that. Dems have TDS.”
Trump: “I totally want to be a dictator. I love dictators. Dictators are cool. Democracy blows.”
GOP: “What the American people truly want is for Donald Trump to be a strong and manly dictator.”
It’s difficult to take a “manly dictator” seriously who wears orange make-up, lies about his weight, is CONSTANTLY whining and being a victim. The GOP has an odd idea of man should be.
Thank you, really good article. Always love your work.
I think in the 4th bullet point, you meant declassified not “did classify.”
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security ***as noted in the first comment of this thread.*** Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
I had the same question about bullet point 4.
Without providing any evidence Trump did classify all those official documents as personal documents, he will nevertheless claim he did so while still in office
?? …. did DEclassify all … ???
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME username and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. I’m going to assume you’re using this new username so as not to use your RL name. Stick with it here forward. Thanks. /~Rayne]
Selling nuclear secrets is certainly one scenario that worries Jack Smith (and no doubt many in the IC), but another ought to be more worrisome. It’s Trump receiving a message that begins “We’d like you to do us a favor . . .” and concludes with “Nice place you’ve got here in Mar-a-Lago. It’d be a shame if anything were to happen to it.”
I keep coming back in my head to Tillerson’s outrageous meeting with Turkish leader Erdogan, where the Turkish foreign minister did the translating since there were no other US folks present. As I wrote, back in the day, near the end of the post:
I worry less about Trump selling secrets and more about Trump giving them away.
“We’d like you to do us a favor, though,” is likely to take on even more ominous tones if a foreign actor or govt, directly or indirectly, loans Trump the money he needs to pay his appeals and judgments. (The world, barring the Supreme Court, would call that a bribe.) That would immensely help him win back the White House, which would allow him to repay the loans in kind.
Indeed, given the list of the usual suspects with deep enough pockets (Putin, MBS directly or indirectly through Qatar, China and I think that’s it) there is zero chance that there will be no strings attached to the payout.
What was the pro quo for Jared’s 2 B$ quid? This will be on the same scale, and we already have hints that Defendant-1 would play ball. After all, the loss of the HUMINT assets, Khashoggi’s murder, threats to ditch NATO, etc. were generally considered to be collateral damage by Defendant-1 while in office and not worthy of response.
IANAL, and I may be stating the obvious, but here’s my take as a retired CRE banker: with over $400M in judgments now pending, an asset pool that is heavily leveraged, liquidity that is likely strained, and a judge’s order that prohibits working with any financial institution HQ’d or licensed in NYS, what’s left (in addition to hawking 2M pairs of crappy golden sneakers) may be a White Knight who “would like you to do us a favor though” as you suggest. Existing BSA and similar regs should mean some disclosure of the source of funds, should Trump suddenly show up to the courts with $400 large and/or bonding from First National Bank of Putin, Musk Adelson & Wynn. So although they are long overdue and seem very justified for a serial and unrepentent fraudster like Trump, these large dollar judgments absolutely increase the national security risks imho.
I’ve been wondering about what rules would govern disclosure of the source of funds in the event of a Trump bailout. However, I wasn’t even sure how to frame that question. Is that what the BSA would cover? What does BSa stand for? Would love some elucidation here on how easily he could take money and for the source of those funds ( a la Santos bail) to be kept private.
Trump is not barred from borrowing from any lender doing business in NY, only those that are chartered by or registered with the NY State Dept of Financial Services. That’s the hole in a donut. His problem is that reputable banks have steered clear of him for decades. He’s now a worse credit rating than ever.
He’s going to need a lender that doesn’t care about credit risk. Hence, the possibility of borrowing from a foreign state or oligarch, which raises a host of national security issues. If he tries to sell a major asset or two, he’s likely to trigger a cascade of defaults and the end of his empire.
Given the monitors judge Engoron has imposed on the business entities involved in the case before him, there will presumably also be one or more cutouts to conceal the origin at Putin, Musk Adelson & Wynn.
Some monitors should be full-time on this one case.
Doesn’t need to be much of a cutout. See the funding that Premier/Champions League teams owned by foreign investment funds receive from their backing countries, in the forms of “advertising” and “sponsorships”. MBS could easily pony up $20MM for each of 20 LIV golf tour events to be held at Trump properties in the future, which could pass a sniff test, even if it is obviously rancid. Then, if Trump gets back in office, the events could be cancelled for other consideration, if Trump hasn’t run through the money in other expenditures.
That collapses important steps. Trump needs payments to himself or another defendant that is jointly and severally liable with him on one of the damage awards. If the payments go to another Trump entity, it has to generate sufficient profit for it to loan or declare dividends to its owner in order to get the money in the right hands.
Trump would ordinarily ignore such steps, as he treats each of his once 500 plus companies as his personal piggy bank. He can’t do that with the independent monitor in place. Lenders to his companies will also be on heightened alert for movements of cash that might put their loans in default or otherwise make them reasonably insecure.
That’s a really good point.
It’s also tangentially linked to the immunity claim because that is the ticket allowing him to make the intent claim. I suspect SCOTUS will rule against Defendant-1 in the DC case which would then apply nationwide (can’t give Joe Biden these powers) but the dissents might be very interesting.
If immunity is denied, then I think SC Smith can easily leverage that to crush these arguments as well.
Judge Aileen Cannon will use these latest Trump motions to delay the start of the Trump trial for as long as she can for multiple reasons, including but not limited to, waiting for additional information about the US case against the alleged spy for Cuba, Victor Manuel Rocha.
Rocha was a prominent fixture in the right wing politics of the Cuban exile community in Miami. That was part of his alleged cover.
Judge Cannon grew up in that Cuban exile community. Her mother and her late maternal grandfather, Jose Manuel Cubas, were and are prominent members of that exile community. Trump is heavily supported by that same community. Trump’s anti-socialist/anti-communist rhetoric originates from that exile community. Trump is their president—their guy. That’s why it’s always appeared that Judge Cannon’s rulings favor Trump.
The Rocha case has the potential to expose a lot of secrets about Cuba, the US and also prominent members of the Cuban exile community, including Trump and his supporters.
Could you link to the CourtListener docket for the Rocha case? Is Cannon the assigned judge in that case?
Judge Bloom https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68062757/united-states-v-rocha/
Many thanks; though I don’t have a PACER subscription, so I will have to wait until more PDFs show up.
During Trump’s CPAC speech today, he called Melania “Mercedes.”
Mercedes is Judge Aileen Cannon’s middle name and the first name of Judge Cannon’s mother, Mercedes Cubas.
It’s obvious Trump has Mercedes Cubas at the tip of his tongue. They probably talk weekly about Trump’s campaign to delay the Docs trial.
The more likely explanation is that he was thinking of Mercedes Schlapp, who worked in the Trump administration and the 2020 campaign, and is a prominent political strategist. Her husband, Matt Schlapp, chairs the ACU and runs CPAC; she would almost certainly also be at CPAC.
Whenever I meet a Miami originated Cuban of a certain age, I gradually work in the question – Do you remember Elian Gonzalez?
Stand back when it is asked because it generates a volatile response.
Thanks for the further background on a connection I already suspected.
Dave Chappelle does!!
https://youtu.be/2z3wUD3AZg4
Ugh. Why are we relying on that bigot for opinion?
I had not seen that bit. There is a lot to unpack in that skit as it was done in 2004 in NYC. I would like to know how that Elian bit was put in to the show? If it was being shot today, I would suspect the Indians would have a draft pick.
I was not much of a comedy guy but Dave was and is still part of Dayton Ohio. When I do watch his shows I find he parses most things so well he gets unfairly labeled as a bigot. IMHO.
FYI – The actual character that Dave used for crack head Phil was a fixture in the Oregon district (Dayton) in the late 80s to early 1990s and was still alive in 2019. He was also called out by Nikole Hannah Jones (1619) over his opposing a “low income” housing project that was being built near his home in Yellow Springs, OH. She ended up deleting those Tweets when the people that actually knew how corrupt development is in Dayton berated her uninformed take.
Can we PLEASE get back on topic, which is Trump’s ongoing attempt to defend theft of government property including classified materials?
One wonders why, if Trump is so convinced that these are his personal property under the PRA, no attempt was made to argue that to the FBI/DOJ at the time the subpoena was initially served to him, and why he would go through all of the bother of hiding those documents from both federal agents and his own legal counsel if that were the case.
I mean, none of it makes any sense.
All the pasta flinging reinforces the non-linear aspect. I’m not tempted to investigate “non-linearity, magical thinking, and legal defense.”
It doesn’t have to make sense; for (proto-) fascists, all the arguments they throw up are meant to distract, delay, and confuse while they work on getting their hands on the levers of power. Trying to present it like it makes sense, like the courtier press, just enables them. Deconstructing their arguments and showing the pretense, like happens here, is balm for the soul, and whatever parts of our democracy still function, albeit hesitantly at times.
They are not looking for, you know, RESULTS. They are looking for SPECTACLE. This seems to be the MO for a lot of what is going on these days.
[Richard Gere in the background singing “Razzle-Dazzle”]
Maybe we have to imagine a story where the known facts DO “make sense”.
Does that make any sense??? LOL!
They tried that argument with the 11th Appellate, didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
But it might work with the SCOTUS. And give trump more delay which is his goal. Trump is working full on to cut deals with the religious right that he will support their melding of laws based on religion if he is elected. Alito definitely is on his side.
BTW does anyone know why it is taking so long for the SCOTUS to take Trump’s immunity claim? Or does it just seem long.
According to Steve Vladeck on Xitter:
It won’t work there either. For the simple reason that he’s not charged for anything related to the PRA. He’s charged with illegally withholding classified information which is an entirely different statute, and the 11th dealt with that by refuting the ‘I declassified them therefore they’re mine’ argument as a “red herring” stating that even then it does not change the document’s status.
“ the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal.”
No one knows. Personally, I think they want to release the decision (deny/accept cert) the same time they release the CO ballot case ruling.
IIRC, He’s not charged with holding classified information, but merely “national defense” information (presumably to make it easier for the charges to stick).
As far as the immunity appeal release, one theory I’ve heard is that the decision to deny is going to be a sentence or two, but Thomas & Alito (maybe and Gorsuch) are cooking up one or two dissents that are much longer, and the delay is for them to finish.
This argument tendered by Trump’s lawyers for Judge Cannon’s consideration brings to my mind the adage: “Owe the bank a thousand dollars, and you’re in trouble. Owe the bank a million dollars, and the bank’s in trouble.” Trump thought that having sheafs of classified documents would make it impossible for any entity to bring him to account. He could always spill another secret or two (or threaten to), and the issue that was causing agitation would pale in consideration, and everyone would back off. Cripes!
Trump is claiming that he took the documents while President so that would not be a crime. That’s not what he is charged with. He is charged with keeping them and refusing to return them. He couldn’t have taken them from the White House after he was President, so charging him with that would be absurd. When I worked at a movie theatre I used to take thousands of dollars of cash to the bank. If I didn’t bring the money to the bank, the crime would not be that I took the money from the theatre, the crime would be what I did with it after that, particularly if when told the money hadn’t arrived at the bank, I didn’t just say, oops, sorry, here it is.
Thank you for making sense. I read through all the pundits ravings and reader comments that conveniently ignored that simple fact before coming finally across your post, Is it really that difficult to understand?.Masters of deflection,denial and obfuscation all of them.
[Moderator’s note: The username on this comment cannot be validated. There are comments in history which have been published by community member(s) with similar name(s) and different email addresses. Please either change your username to something unique or use an email address you have used on previous comments assuming some of the comments in history were made by you. This username check process is for the purposes of site and community members’ security. /~Rayne]
OT (I think the prior post on this topic is closed out): Meidas Touch has a video out on the sleight of hand Defendant-1 tried to dodge the Engoron $355M fraud judgement. In short, the idea was to sneak in address changes from NY to FL which would then require further hearings to untangle the mess. Engoron saw through it, apparently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD5Crb5zPsA
For some reason, this whole affair reminds me of the Steve Martin / Rick Moranis movie “My Blue Heaven”, all the excuses Steve Martin makes when he gets caught doing various things, like when he’s asked by the DA why he has 25 copies of a book in his trunk, “In case I want to read it more than once,” delivered with a “my you must be stupid not to understand that!” tone of voice.
My favorite ridiculous part is the bottom of page 5/top of page 6 of the vagueness motion: “the special counsel’s office is seeking to prosecute president trump based in part on protected speech relating to the documents at issue”. Freedom of speech covers sharing classified national defense information with any rando out there? Thats ridiculous even on trump standards.
The Hur cite seems particularly inapt to support a claim that a president has an unreviewable right to declare something personal. Or maybe only NARA can’t review it? I’m not getting quite what their point is.
How gracious of you to assume there’s a point.
Trump’s assertion that the president has “unreviewable discretion” to characterize any documentary material as “personal records” is hogwash. It’s a frivolous claim. 44 USC 2201 (3) defines what may be deemed a personal record. It does not include documentary material related to the conduct of govt business.
Trump misstates the remedies available to the archivist under the PRA. The bigger point is that the govt’s criminal allegations allege violations of other statutes.
The PRA is quite clear, all the records the President receives or produces for the purposes of carrying out the duties of the office, except those records that are “or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character”. There are a few other exceptions such as exact duplicates, any documents produced by government agencies that are covered under the Federal Records Act, etc.
I suggest this filing be called the Rameses Argument : so shall it be written, so shall it be done.
Why do I feel like she’s going to dismiss this case? I mean it will be wrong, but I seriously doubt she cares at this point.
Plus, really looks like the GA case is about to become dead. Trump’s atty managed to get cell phone data from Wade’s provider. He may have lied under oath. bmaz, as usual, you were right.
That will only leave the DC case, if we ever get back to it. I think SCOTUS almost certainly will grant cert now, using the pretext that the same issue will be coming up in the 11th circuit and they will want to weigh in on it.
If she dismisses it, Jack Smith will be at the 11th Circuit before the echo from Cannon’s gavel fades away. In addition to asking the appeals court to overturn Cannon’s ruling and reinstate the case, Smith will also ask to have Cannon removed as the judge — and they will grant both.
Except it’s not “the same issue,” because Trump was not president at the time that he committed the alleged acts in the documents indictment, and therefore any putative presidential immunity cannot possibly apply.
We know it’s not the same issue. That doesn’t mean that Alito and Thomas see it that way. And there’s just enough obfuscation for Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh to decide that SCOTUS must weigh in to “settle this once and for all.”
Good to know that a dismissal is appealable, I wasn’t sure. Nonetheless, it would still create delay which is really the ultimate goal here.
Possibly I am simply insufficiently cynical, but I just don’t see that happening. There’s not remotely enough overlap between the FL and DC immunity claims for anything you could reasonably characterize as a “circuit split” to arise, even in the unlikely case that the Fifth was willing to back Trump’s play. (I take no position on what Judge Cannon will do with this, because I don’t have a good sense of where her limits are yet.)
“Trump’s atty managed to get cell phone data from Wade’s provider. [Wade] may have lied under oath.”
You have reached a premature conclusion based on less-than-reliable data (cell phone tower pings that appear to not be triangulated), which actually has a more accurate, and more reliable-conclusion-drawing cousin (actual GPS data from phone, car, or phone+car; or, at minimum, TRIANGULATED, cell tower data)– that just so happens to not be used in Trump’s Georgia filing…. Hmmmm.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24439808-corrected-supplemental-exhibit-38-1pdf
Note, the term “GPS” appears nowhere in the filing and “geofence” and “approximate location” appear multiple times. Trump’s report of Wade’s phone pinging to one of the two nearest cell towers to Willis’ address are not proof of his location, especially in densely populated residential+commercial districts. And if there are any nearby tall buildings or terrain-blocking features (hills, dams, etc.), this makes Trump’s assertions even more problematic. And Trump’s attorneys know this.
Because lesser-quality evidence was used, it should also cause one to hesitate to reach conclusions.
Trump’s point here, on a Friday, appears to be to spread weekend gossip and hope it goes really far before more reliable data can be reported next week. Damage done.
This slight of hand can happen in many cases, and we are all susceptible. I list 3 examples below where, as a general rule, it’s best to exercise skepticism about conclusions drawn from “evidence” sourced from ONLY the “a” item I list, when offered alone to “prove” an accusation, but omits any reference to or examination of the “b” evidence, which is much, much more trustworthy and reliable.
1) TO PROVE LOCATION, reliance on: a) cell tower ping data vs. b) GPS actual location
2) TO PROVE IDENTITY, of a suspect, reliance on: a) Highly transferrable touch (skin) DNA vs. b) actual (blood, semen, saliva, hair) DNA collected immediately and actually from the suspect.
3) TO PROVE MURDER WEAPON, reliance on: a) Shell casings “traced” to the suspected gun used (not a thing) vs. b) the actual bullet lodged in the victim’s body traced to the gun suspected to be used in the crime.
And, of course, you need other corroborating evidence in addition to my “b”s above, in criminal cases that are not relevant here. I just don’t want one attorney’s snow-blowing — in this small civil dispute of a much larger criminal case — to cause us to slip on the ice.
Your good examples show how great is Toulmin analytical framework. In Toulmin, what he called “the warrant” is what links the evidence to claim. Cell tower pings and GPS are both evidence. The warrant explains why the evidence supports the claim. Cell tower pings are a poorer form of evidence than GPS. It’s in warrant where there is the difference. Cell tower pings can’t show that a person was at a specific location as a valid claim.
Strange how there seems to be some kind of norm where the prosecutors of Donald Trump are location tracked. I have never heard of that with prosecutors. Evidence is gathered and presented to attack them in open court, while the prosecutors of Hunter Biden cannot even be asked how it happened their investigation came to warrant Russian disinformation. We have to imagine some kind of acrobatics to get to court or hearings like an alternative universe.
“A thief is a thief whether he steals oranges or diamonds.”
“There is no difference between the man who steals and the person who watches for him while he steals.”
African Proverbs
Outstanding quote!
Thank you!
His Orange MAGAsty just can’t stop himself.
1. Changed NY business addresses to FL.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-tries-to-change-ny-business-addresses-to-fl-in-fraud-judgment
2. Laundering PAC donations in Wisconsin.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-pac-facing-felony-charges-for-illegal-scheme-in-wisconsin
Dr. Wheeler has superhuman coping skills to wade through this MAGA sewage day after day for which we are so fortunate and grateful. I get infuriated after just a few minutes and need to go for a walk or split some wood.
I noted item 1 earlier in the thread. However, this is good and it does make me wonder why Defendant-1 doesn’t just offshore this. The only reason I think he wouldn’t is the limit on unreportable transactions but I’m sure he’s also got access to cryptocurrency to hide those moves.
Trump’s pattern is to troll and cite cases for cute quotes, but then ignore the law, facts, and holdings of those cases. These motions fit that pattern.
In the MTD for Vagueness, for example, Trump (p. 8) cites US v. Nat’l Dairy Products for a simple definition of void for vagueness. In Nat’l Dairy, the Sup.Ct. interpreted an anti-trust statute, the Robinson-Patman Act. It held that the statute was NOT void for vagueness, and remanded the case to the trial court, where the defendant was tried for violating it. But you wouldn’t know that from Trump’s motion.
On page 9, he cites US v. Duran for its equally simple definition of void for vagueness. But in Duran, the 11th Cir. held that FARA and the conspiracy to defraud the US statutes were NOT void for vagueness, and affirmed Duran’s conviction for violating both statutes. Again, Trump ignores the holdings, facts, and law of the cases he cites. He uses them to create the false impression that he’s done his homework, that it supports his arguments, and that agreeing with him is the simple, easy, right thing to do. It’s smoke and mirrors, and deception by omission.
I practiced only civilly, but in Federal court the threat of Rule 11 sanctions was enough to deter antics like that.
Trump might get around sanctions because he only cites cases for the quotes he was looking for. He doesn’t use them for the things lawyers usually do: their holdings, reasoning, and interpretations of law. He can’t because they don’t support his legal arguments. But as I said, his usage creates a false impression.
Ah, good old quote-mining, beloved of creationists and other magical thinkers:
‘the intentional misquoting of supporters of evolutionary theory by removing particular passages of their writings from their original context to make it seem they were stating something different from their original intent’
Quoted from this article at the National Centre for Science Education:
https://ncse.ngo/quote-mining-old-anti-evolutionist-strategy
Apparently an admission against interest that they were intentionally stolen from another person, to whom they belonged, as souvenirs or for sale.
Eagerly expecting the next DC grand jury indictment for theft. They might as well add the documents that were ripped up and left on the floor, and others that were burned, as destruction of government property. DC is where the actions happened.
Trump should await trial in the Chelsea Manning brig as a threat to national security. Manning was also found guilty of merely five thefts. This is much much worse than Manning.
“I mean, none of it makes any sense.”
Excellent. But maybe that’s par for the course with Trump lawyers. Here’s an example of what I would consider to be the correct response to such lawyering.
Per Law360, “a Florida federal judge has sanctioned an attorney who said he could “just know” if a product infringed his client’s patents, rather than conducting a factual investigation — a move that the attorney claimed was backlash for representing former President Donald Trump elsewhere.”
To quote the judge, “Not one explanation offered by Ticktin rises to the level of what the law requires before a competent attorney files a patent infringement lawsuit.”
The case is Global Glass Technologies, Inc. v. Research Frontiers, Inc. et al., case number 8:20-cv-02517, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Gotcha.
Way OT, but what the heck?:
Judge dismisses charges against white nationalists who brawled in Berkeley
.
“ Defendants have established selective prosecution. There is no doubt that the government did not prosecute similarly situated individuals. ”
Who says selective prosecution args don’t work? The ruling is being appealed.
Hi. Welcome to Cormac Carney, he has been there a long time.
He played in the USFL. CTE?
bmaz where have you been!
I need your input more than ever
There’s no doubt that that judge is coddling fascist racists at the expense of our democracy. Bonus if they’re gun nuts too.
With the motions argument as it is, should we await a motion to compel the government to give back his documents? Being his, give them back.
Seeking damages for the substantial time his property was illegally withheld from him? Damages in an amount at least sufficient to satisfy some pesky judgments, since he is Donald John Trump. That much and a bit more, since every artful deal has to turn a profit? And not in a rush for a decision, since every day additional damages accumulate, so, Judge Cannon, take your time to assure you get it right. Delay is acceptable since getting it right is key. You can assign the damages question for mediation to a court appointed special master, where market value of the papers can be argued. Even though they have been declassified, I did that, they likely still have market value.
Given the logic of everything else he’s argued wouldn’t a quasi-bailment argument follow?
o/t
Re: The continued GROOMING of Chrystal CLANTON by
Ginni [SCOTUS Spouse] THOMAS and Clarence [INSURRECTIONIST Spouse] THOMAS
https://bsky.app/profile/jaywillis.bsky.social/post/3km6fsna6m42o
Feb 24, 2024 at 11:12 AM
The screenshots are from:
1] Third Scalia Law Graduate Since 2021 Selected as SCOTUS Clerk
https://www.law.gmu.edu/news/2024/third_scalia_law_graduate_since_2021_selected_as_scotus_clerk
2] The Crystal Clanton case shows a system failure https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/10/clarence-thomas-ginni-thomas-crystal-clanton-judicial-clerkships/ Ruth Marcus November 10, 2023
In addition to all their motions to dismiss, Team Trump has also filed their President Trump’s Response to Motion for Reconsideration.
As usual, it seems a bit unhinged. The second paragraph accuses Trump’s persecuters of both politics and illegality:
IANAL. I usually find it hard to read through their drivel, but I will try to force myself through this one because I’m curious whether anything in it will make sense. (Seems like Trump-lawyers throw a lot of spaghetti at the wall, one wonders whether they actually think any of it might stick, or if its all performance-art for Defendant-1 ?)
Forgot to mention, it was in reply to 294 Government’s Motion for Reconsideration and Stay, in which SCO told Judge Cannon that “reconsideration is warranted to correct clear error”.
That was filed by SCO on Feb 8th in response to Cannon’s orders on the 6th and 7th that would have allowed defendants to make public some discovery information about the identities of likely witnesses at trial. On Feb 9th she temporarily stayed her order and gave defendants until Feb 23 to respond (see my parent post).
Trump is an avatar of projection. Everything to him is about money and personal loyalty. (Politicization is an accusation of disloyalty.) So, he projects those priorities onto others.
He also knows his evidence-free, unsupported accusation is red meat to the base, and perhaps Judge Cannon. Unsupported claims can also be thrown about after a few focus group sessions, without doing real work, and the problem solving about what to do when that work comes up bupkis.
This piece gets a long quote on meidas touch
https://youtu.be/-26Q0V0Ira4
It’s interesting to me, one who finds mass media manipulation intriguing, that as many times as I’ve seen the stacked boxes photos at Mar-a-Lago, mainly here at emptywheel today looking at the photos of in the two articles of currently on I realized how absurdly powerful those images are. Marcy emphasized a while back, that this election is going to need people engaged & energized to win.
The way oligarchs media works nowadays, IMO, a major event like a disaster is, it’s front page a few days, then on to the fluff. It astonishes me how homogeneous it is. How the formula never changes and how Pavlov’ed dogged we all are.
If the Democratic Party had any sense they could send out their memos, framed in a cut out of stacked boxes. An activist could carry a photo sign of the boxes over written with, “Did the hotel maid DUST these?”
An interesting experiment would be to canvas people on the street. My guess would be maybe 15 to 20% would recognize the stolen classified document boxes, although ten minutes later 5% more would proudly remember. Not funny.
“He undoubtedly gave Israel’s counterterrorism secrets to Russia — why, and whether there was a quid pro quo involved, we still don’t know.”
The quid is Trump wants Russia to like him. Plus he wants a Moscow Trump Tower at somepoint, plus Trump did ask Russia for help getting elected Trump wanted more help.
“The bank was “laundering money for wealthy Russians and people connected to Putin and the Kremlin in a variety of ways for almost the exact time period that they were doing business with Donald Trump,” Enrich said. “And all of that money through Deutsche Bank was being channeled through the same exact legal entity in the U.S. that was handling the Donald Trump relationship in the U.S”.
“Deutsche Bank’s private wealth unit loaned Trump $48 million — after he had defaulted on his $640 million loan and the bank’s commercial unit didn’t want to lend him any further fund”
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-deutsche-bank-donald-trump
Coincidence