Kash Patel Also Lied about Trump’s Personalization of US Intelligence

/17 Comments/in , , , /by

First Mother Jones and then NYT had stories this week laying out a bunch of false claims that Kash Patel made about his experience at DOJ.

The headline lie in both is that, in his Government Gangsters book and interviews since, Kash lied about how significant a role he played in the Benghazi investigation, as MoJo lays out here.

“I was leading the prosecution’s efforts at Main Justice in Washington, DC,” Patel writes.

Several FBI and Justice Department officials who worked the Benghazi case say this description is an exaggeration. Asked about Patel’s characterization, a former FBI special agent who was on that investigation for years exclaimed, “Oh my god, no. Not on that case. Not on Benghazi.”

[snip]

This former agent said that the counterterrorism section had a small role in the Benghazi probe. Primarily, the FBI and the US attorney’s office in Washington, DC, handled the case. “I don’t recall Patel having any influence on it,” he said. He recounted one meeting during the investigation that Patel attended in which Patel was not taken seriously by the main attorneys on the investigation. “The issue was whether or not we had the information needed to make a charge,” the former agent said. “He wasn’t a very experienced attorney and was dismissed by some of the attorneys at the table. The message was, we’re not paying attention to you.”

NYT adds a second, perhaps more important reason why Kash’s lies matter: Because he lied in an attempt to claim Democrats went soft on terrorism.

“Despite the fact that we had reams of evidence against dozens of terrorists in the Benghazi attack, Eric Holder’s Justice Department decided to only prosecute one of the attackers.”
— “Government Gangsters”

“I remember this meeting with then-A.G. Holder. And we had a deck of like 19 guys we wanted to prosecute. You know, JSOC had them rolled up and we wanted to get them all. They killed four Americans. You know, it’s a legit terrorist attack. And the basic general response from the F.B.I. and D.O.J. leadership was ‘it’s only politically convenient to get one guy.’”
— “The Shawn Ryan Show”

Mr. Patel’s statements suggest that the Justice Department under the Obama administration decided to initiate criminal proceedings against only one of the attackers, Mr. Khattala.

But as early as late 2013, the department had already filed sealed complaints against about a dozen militants, officials said at the time. Criminal complaints initiate prosecutions, but are often kept under seal if the charged person remains at large.

And prosecutors filed more secret complaints as the investigation identified additional suspects. A complaint filed against a Libyan man, Mustafa al-Imam, in May 2015, for example, became public only after his capture in 2017. (He was convicted in 2019 and sentenced to more than 19 years in prison.)

Other Benghazi suspects have since died.

Mr. Patel’s statement that the military had already “rolled up” as many as 19 attackers implied that they were already in American custody, raising the seemingly inexplicable question of why they did not get sent to trial.

In fact, to date, only Mr. Khatalla and Mr. al-Imam have been tried because the military has not captured any others — including on Mr. Patel’s watch as the Trump White House’s senior director for counterterrorism.

Capturing a specific person in a war-torn country where the military has scant ground presence is costly, risky and difficult. The operation to find and grab Mr. Khatalla required months of complex planning, including recruiting an informant to befriend and then lure Mr. Khattala to an oceanside villa, where an F.B.I. agent and American commandoes captured him and took him to an American warship waiting off the coast.

These fact checks will make for some interesting questions at Kash’s confirmation hearing. With some unspecified exceptions, these stories are primarily sourced to former officials:

  • Former agent
  • Former official in counterterrorism section
  • Andy McCabe
  • A former FBI agent who worked for years on the Uganda investigation
  • Robert D’Amico, a former F.B.I. agent
  • Public documents and interviews with several current and former law enforcement officials

That has the upside of allowing people to talk without fear. It means these people are no longer inside the bureaucracy, able to push back from within.

In any case, none of this will prevent Kash from being confirmed. Like Kash, John Ratcliffe fluffed his counterterrorism experience, in Ratcliffe’s case, to get elected. That led Trump to ditch his nomination a first time, but not in 2020 when he was confirmed on a largely partyline vote; the second vote was successful in significant part because then Acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, who was being babysat by Kash, was such a shitshow that Ratcliffe was a less-awful alternative.

But Kash has lied about more than his own inexperience. As NYT noted, he also likes to lie for partisan gain. That’s how he has convinced Republicans to support his nomination.

It’s a third kind of lie that hasn’t factored much in discussions of his tenure at FBI. Kash Patel has been absolutely central to Trump’s efforts to personalize intelligence obtained by US officials. And there is abundant reason to believe he lied about that, at least publicly, when he claimed, in May 2022, that Trump had declassified all the documents found at Mar-a-Lago. There’s a bunch about Kash’s role in the classified documents investigation — for example, why Kash and John Solomon suddenly got status as Trump’s representatives to the archives when prosecutors asked for surveillance video, or what Kash told prosecutors in November 2022 when he sat for immunized testimony — that is not yet public.

But it may become public, possibly as early as this week and presumably well before his confirmation hearing. Indeed, if (for example) one of the things the FBI found during the August 8, 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago but did not charge was some version of the Crossfire Hurricane binder, that may show up in Jack Smith’s closing report.

Another thing that might show up in Jack Smith’s report is what someone whose potty mouth resembles that of Eric Herschmann (person 16 here) had to say, in an interview days before Kash testified, about the claims that Trump “declassified everything” made by some “unhinged” person who exactly matches Kash (person 24).

As MoJo and NYT lay out, Kash Patel has lied to inflate his own resumé. He has lied to attack Democrats. According to Olivia Troye (whom Kash did not sue after threatening to do so).

But he was also a key player in Trump’s effort to take home classified documents and put them to his own personal use.

That, too, is unlikely to give Republican Senators pause before putting him in charge of FBI’s signals collection (often with NSA involvement) and informant programs. But it is likely to be far more important than fluffing his resumé going forward.

In Advance of the KashTastrophe, DOJ IG Raises the Stakes on Investigations of Congress

/12 Comments/in , /by

Yesterday, DOJ’s Inspector General released its long-awaited report on some subpoenas DOJ used in 2017, 2018, and 2020 to target, first, people in Congress, and then in the later round, journalists, including WaPo’s Ellen Nakashima, Greg Miller, Adam Entous, NYT’s Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eric Lichtblau, Michael Schmidt, and CNN’s Barbara Starr. The purported goal was to solve some leak investigations; with the exception of convicting James Wolfe for false statements to the FBI (the investigation into him arose out of the first congressional subpoenas discussed here), none were solved via these subpoenas.

Little of the narrative on the subpoenas targeting journalists is entirely new. It was covered in these stories in real time:

May 7, 2021: Trump Justice Department secretly obtained Post reporters’ phone records

May 7, 2021: Justice Dept. Seized Washington Post’s Phone Records

May 20, 2021: Trump Justice Dept. Seized CNN Reporter’s Email and Phone Records

June 2, 2021: Trump Administration Secretly Seized Phone Records of Times Reporters

June 4, 2021: U.S. Waged Secret Legal Battle to Obtain Emails of 4 Times Reporters

June 10, 2021: Hunting Leaks, Trump Officials Focused on Democrats in Congress

June 11, 2021: Justice Dept. Watchdog to Investigate Seizure of Democrats’ Data

June 11, 2021: In Leak Investigation, Tech Giants Are Caught Between Courts and Customers

The findings on the journalist side of the report were that Bill Barr properly approved the subpoenas, but didn’t do a mandated review from a committee on media first (though Kerri Kupec bought off on the subpoenas), and didn’t fully comply with a DNI statement saying the spooks still wanted to solve the leak for a few. The biggest controversy was how DOJ approved Non-Disclosure Orders to prevent journalists from learning of the investigation, but with the exception of the leak to Barbara Starr, those too followed the approach at the time, which was to issue knee-jerk NDOs.

One of the few new details is that Barr brought an AUSA from some field office into Main DOJ for a six month temporary assignment to renew focus on the leak, but the IG concluded that person wasn’t brought in for partisan purposes.

The findings on the Congressional side of the report are somewhat more interesting, not least because the policy on third party subpoenas to phone companies, Google, and Apple implicating people (including staffers and Members, throughout this discussion) in Congress were nowhere as formalized as the media guidelines were.

Particularly given that House Intelligence Chair, Republican Mike Turner, issued the loudest response to this report, it could have interesting repercussions in a second Trump term.

The report actually describes that the congressional subpoenas were an interim step between investigating the Executive Branch people who had access to the classified information (in 2017) and the journalists (in 2020, for the WaPo and NYT). The reason it appeared that there were more Democrats targeted — including Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell — was because a Democratic HPSCI staffer had suggested they had leaked (and also implicated a senior staffers whose actual emails were collected).

The IG Report found that, aside from Schiff and Swalwell and a top Dem staffer, there was a fairly even balance of Democrats and Republicans targeted (including Kash Patel, though it doesn’t name him); it does say that FBI was preparing to serve legal process on a Republican Member of Congress until the James Wolfe investigation proceeded to the point where they had one and only one perpetrator for the Carter Page FISA leak, so that person was not subpoenaed.

It’s the recommendations where this report, issued after Patel already sued and lost over being subpoenaed, and in advance of Patel’s likely confirmation as FBI Director whose activities will be overseen by whatever trash heap Trump makes of DOJ IG by then, that are of interest.

The Report reasons that since Congress is a co-equal branch of government protected by Speech and Debate privileges enshrined in the Constitution, it should have a similar kind of protocol that journalists benefit from (a protocol which has since been strengthened, but which Patel and Pam Bondi are sure to torch).

It made three recommendations to that effect.

Currently, DOJ’s policy requires that a US Attorney and Public Integrity approve a third party subpoena implicating someone from Congress, with an Urgent notice (the kind of warning they have to give before indicting someone prominent) provided to top DOJ leadership. The current practice would allow a US Attorney’s Office to rely primarily on the advice of career officials before investigating someone (whether a staffer or a Member) in Congress.

DOJ IG recommends instead more formal notice from the AG.

First, in order for senior leadership to be able to consider and decide matters potentially raising constitutional separation of powers issues, we recommend that the Department evaluate when advance notification to a senior Department official, such as the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General, should be required before compulsory process is issued, and any corresponding NDOs are sought, for records of a Member of Congress or congressional staffer and establish, as necessary, implementing policies and guidance.

In a Pam Bondi DOJ, this would virtually guarantee that no Republicans would be investigated, because she would have advance veto.

DOJ IG also recommended that when DOJ requests Non-Disclosure Orders implicating people from Congress, they tell the judge approving the NDO that it is someone from Congress.

Second, we recommend that the Department consider the circumstances in which NDO applications and renewals should identify for the reviewing judge that the records covered by a proposed NDO are records of Members of Congress or congressional staffers.

This is uncontroversial and would stop the kind of knee-jerk NDO requests that hid these subpoenas for five years.

The last entirely justified recommendation that nevertheless could have the most intriguing implications is that DOJ adopt the same kind of exhaustion requirement that the media policy has. That is, you can only start getting legal process on people in Congress after you’ve exhausted other investigative approaches.

Third, we recommend that the Department consider whether there are circumstances in which an exhaustion requirement should be a prerequisite for issuing compulsory process to obtain records of Members of Congress and congressional staffers.

That is, in principle, what happened here: DOJ first checked Executive branch personnel and only then started investigating in Congress after stories started closely following Congressional briefings on the topics. But taken to its logical outcome, it would get interesting.

On the one hand, it would make it much harder to get even subpoenas on people in Congress than it already is (the one Democratic staffer and Wolfe were the only Congressional staffers whose content was collected).

This would make it easier for whistleblowers to leak to members of Congress and for them to leak to the press.

Such leaks might be one of the last failsafes going forward.

Except by rooting the notion of exhaustion in the constitutional protections afforded Congress, it might actually flip the current structure on its head. The reason why you would investigate a member of Congress before a journalist is because under the current approach, the congressional staffer with clearance is the only one who would be prosecuted (the of Wolfe example notwithstanding, that is exceedingly rare in any case; in the Jeffrey Sterling case the Senate protected a key Republican staffer who was suspected).

But if you decide Congress should have more protection, then an FBI Director who has already threatened to go after journalists might first choose to exhaust investigative remedies against journalists before turning to Congress.

That is, there’s a chance these policy recommendations would be used as an excuse to prosecute journalists but not their sources.

None of this may matter anyway, because there’s a high likelihood that Kash and Bondi will simply torch all the guidelines discussed as it is. They’re not statutorily mandated. And if Trump does start firing Inspectors General as he has promised to do, then it’s not clear we’d ever find out about all this. It took over three years to get this report.

Mike Turner says he wants to codify some of this. That might protect leaks about Republican adversaries as much as anything (the leaks investigated here mostly pertained to Carter Page and other Trump associates). But it might be one of the few means of transparency left.

Special Counsel Reports Include Declination Decisions

/48 Comments/in , , , , /by

In this appearance on BradCast last week, I scoffed a bit at this Devlin Barrett/Glenn Thrush piece. The headline news — that Jack Smith will step down before Trump comes in — was fairly obvious from Smith’s request for three weeks to figure out what to do. The focus on Smith’s obligatory report is something I made clear a week earlier. To be sure, the piece relies on interviews to confirm that Smith (and his staff) will resign, that only outside decisions could thwart their effort to finish up, that Smith has encouraged those who don’t have to stick around to move on.

It’s this section, which aside from the assertion that most of the classification vetting has already been done, is not attributed to the anonymous sources for the story (but which could rely on background sources), that I find odd.

Justice Department regulations require a special counsel’s report to explain why the prosecutor decided to file the charges they did, and why they decided not to file any other charges they considered.

But like much of Mr. Smith’s work involving Mr. Trump, this step is fraught with both technical and practical challenges that could make the report significantly different — and shorter — from the lengthy tomes produced by other recent special counsels. It also unlikely to contain much in the way of new or revelatory disclosures.

Mr. Smith, who has been the subject of round-the-clock protection after receiving death threats since taking over, has already described much of the evidence and legal theories behind the election obstruction indictment. Since he filed two separate and lengthy indictments last year against Mr. Trump, he has supplemented that record with scores of court filings elaborating on the allegations.

One potential wrinkle for the filing and release of Mr. Smith’s report is that it may have to undergo a careful review by U.S. intelligence agencies for any classified information. That can be a lengthy process. Intelligence agencies took weeks to review Mr. Hur’s report.

But in the case of Mr. Smith’s final report, most of that vetting has already been done, so officials expect that step to take little time.

It correctly describes that Special Counsel regulations require them to report on why they filed particular charges … but also why they didn’t file other charges, their declination decisions, but then suggests we’ve already seen what there is to see.

Jack Smith’s declination decisions are one place where a report might get interesting. Just as one example, the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago listed three suspected crimes: 18 USC 793(e) (retaining national defense information) and 18 USC 1519 (concealing a document to obstruct an investigation), both of which were charged. But it also listed 18 USC 2071 (removal of documents). That crime was not charged, even though the indictment describes that Trump personally oversaw the process of packing up boxes (that a witness described Trump knew) containing classified documents to send to Mar-a-Lago.

In January 2021, as he was preparing to leave the White House, TRUMP and his White House staff, including NAUTA, packed items, including some of TRUMP’s boxes. TRUMP was personally involved in this process. TRUMP caused his boxes, containing hundreds of classified documents, to be transported from the White House to The Mar-a-Lago Club.

Since the warrant was made public, there has been a pretty heated discussion about 2071, not least because Republicans claimed that Smith had considered charging it, which carries a light three year maximum sentence but also disqualifies someone from holding office again, as a way to disqualify Trump from running for President.

There are at least two obvious explanations for why Smith didn’t charge 2071. Perhaps it would be impossible to charge a President under 2071, given that until noon on January 20, 2021, he had authority to do whatever he wanted with those classified documents, sending them off while he was still President. Or perhaps Smith thought he could have charged it, but first needed the testimony of one of the key people involved in the packing process: Walt Nauta.

The reasons behind that prosecutorial decision not to charge Trump for intentionally taking classified documents with him are interesting for another reason. Among the classified documents discovered at Mar-a-Lago that weren’t charged is a “compilation” that mixed communications with “a book author, a religious leader, and a pollster” with some kind of classified information.

This document is a compilation that includes three documents that post-date Plaintiff’s term in office and two classified cover sheets, one SECRET and the other CONFIDENTIAL. Because Plaintiff can only have received the documents bearing classification markings in his capacity as President, the entire mixed document is a Presidential record.

Besides the classified cover sheets, which were inserted by the FBI in lieu of the actual documents, none of the remaining communications in the document are confidential presidential communications that might be subject to a claim of executive privilege. Three communications are from a book author, a religious leader, and a pollster. The first two cannot be characterized as presidential advisers and all three are either dated or by content occurred after Plaintiff’s administration ended. [my emphasis]

These documents are nowhere near as sensitive as the ones actually charged against Trump; prosecutors probably prioritized documents that it would be easy to convince a jury they were “national defense information” for the indictment, an explanation that also may appear in the report. But the compilation of classified information with a pollster’s message also suggest that Trump not only took classified documents home, but he used them as part of his campaign to get elected again (it would be particularly interesting if this document pertained to something like Israel).

And note NYT’s description that “most of that vetting has already been done”? In discovery communications, prosecutors have described that some of the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago have since been declassified; for others, prosecutors would have been working on substitutions they might use in case of trial. So for less sensitive documents, prosecutors may be able to describe precisely what Trump took.

Another classified document, classified Secret, found at Mar-a-Lago but not charged is the very first classified document the FBI found, something pertaining to Emmanuel Macron and associated, in some way, with an Executive Grant of Clemency for Roger Stone stashed (unlike all the other pardon packages found in the search) in Trump’s own desk drawer. I’ll admit that, given my understanding of the Stone investigation, I’m particularly interested in this file, but here’s to hoping that prosecutors will satisfy my curiosity about the document.

There are similarly important declination decisions on the January 6 side of the investigation.

The most obvious of those is why Jack Smith never indicted any of the eight people variously treated as co-conspirators: Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark (who was removed in the superseding indictment pursuant to SCOTUS’ immunity ruling), Ken Chesebro, Boris Ephsteyn, and — treated as co-conspirators in the immunity brief but not the superseding indictment — Steve Bannon and Mike Roman. It might be as simple as a decision, given the course of the Mueller investigation, to ensure that Trump couldn’t pardon these co-conspirators before charging any of them.

But prosecutors might also explain why Bannon and Roman only belatedly got included as co-conspirators. I have speculated that it may have to do with delays in exploiting the phones of Roman and Epshteyn. If that’s true in the case of Ephsteyn, those delays would likely have arisen from post-hoc privilege claims tied to Epshteyn’s claim to be Trump’s lawyer. And if that is true, it would mean Trump’s nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, was the one who fought for the delay.

In any case, any discussion of Trump’s co-conspirators may prove useful to the extent that state prosecutors are able to sustain their cases against the co-conspirators.

Finally, though, there is perhaps the most important declination decision: the decision — after Congress impeached Trump and the January 6 Committee referred for prosecution — not to charge 18 USC 2383, inciting insurrection, the single charge that (per SCOTUS’ decision in the Colorado case) could have disqualified Trump from the Presidency under the Fourteenth Amendment. The reasoning here might be fairly prosaic: Perhaps Smith feared precisely the immunity challenge, tied to impeachment acquittal, that Trump launched anyway. Perhaps Smith was not able to substantiate that case until he received evidence and testimony that post-dated the delay John Roberts caused, and so could charge insurrection now, but could not have done so in August 2023, when he first indicted Trump.

If Smith were to explain why he declined that charge, however, he would — as Robert Hur did in his 388-declination report — describe the evidence that would have supported such a charge.

NYT suggests Smith’s report will be short; again, it’s not clear whether that reflects information received on background, or just speculation. Smith has had an eternity to consider the possibility Trump would be elected, and he managed to write up the 165-page immunity brief in the same three weeks he gave himself in asking for an extension until December 2.

Even assuming we’ve already seen the evidence Smith has — Smith’s decision to exclude mention of the Proud Boys and Trump’s January 6 fundraising from the immunity brief suggests there may be stuff we have not seen — the declination decisions, themselves, may provide important answers to questions about whether it ever was possible to disqualify Trump from becoming president again.

And it’s a marker in the sand. The report presumably will, at least, lay out some of the consequences of what John Roberts has wreaked. Republicans won’t care. But that lays out what they own going forward.

The Trump Hack Could Extend Far Beyond a Hack-and-Leak

/127 Comments/in , , , /by

When news first broke that Donald Trump’s campaign says it has been hacked, I started drafting a post on applying the lessons of past ratfucks.

The alleged hack was first reported by Politico, which says some person using an AOL account reached out and shared documents, including the vetting materials pertaining to JD Vance and Marco Rubio.

On July 22, POLITICO began receiving emails from an anonymous account. Over the course of the past few weeks, the person — who used an AOL email account and identified themselves only as “Robert” — relayed what appeared to be internal communications from a senior Trump campaign official. A research dossier the campaign had apparently done on Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, which was dated Feb. 23, was included in the documents. The documents are authentic, according to two people familiar with them and granted anonymity to describe internal communications. One of the people described the dossier as a preliminary version of Vance’s vetting file.

The research dossier was a 271-page document based on publicly available information about Vance’s past record and statements, with some — such as his past criticisms of Trump — identified in the document as “POTENTIAL VULNERABILITIES.” The person also sent part of a research document about Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who was also a finalist for the vice presidential nomination.

Trump’s bouncer-spox, Steven Cheung, claims the hack was done by Iran, citing a Microsoft report released Friday describing the compromise by Iran of the email account of a “former senior advisor,” which the IRGC then used to attempt to compromise a current high-level official.

Yet another Iranian group, this one connected with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, sent a spear phishing email in June to a high-ranking official on a presidential campaign from the compromised email account of a former senior advisor. The email contained a link that would direct traffic through a domain controlled by the group before routing to the website of the provided link. Within days of this activity, the same group unsuccessfully attempted to log into an account belonging to a former presidential candidate. We’ve since notified those targeted.

A pity for the Trump campaign that Cheung is a habitual liar, so we can’t trust anything he says, and Politico’s authentication appears to rely exclusively on word of mouth from those who have the documents, not digital authentication.

Still, it’s distinctly possible. The FBI certainly seems to believe the IRGC is trying to assassinate Trump.

The lessons I was going to propose in my draft post were the following:

  • Vice President Harris should eschew assigning her senior-most staff to exploiting these emails like Trump did in 2016.
  • But only after Trump, Don Jr, and Mike Pompeo apologize for their enthusiastic use of hacked emails in 2016.
  • The same 51 former spooks who warned that the Hunter Biden laptop had the earmarks of a foreign influence operation should write a similar letter here, emphasizing (as they did in their Hunter Biden letter) the import of resisting foreign efforts to influence a presidential election. Maybe Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe could join in. Chris Krebs, who already has weighed in validating the seriousness of the threat, but who was fired for telling the truth about the 2020 election, can join too. They should send it to Politico, which first reported this story, but CC Jim Jordan, who says even writing such a letter is an abuse of First Amendment protected free speech.
  • Donald Trump must provide all the affected servers to the FBI, stat.

It’s the last one that was going to be my punch line. Partly because of misleading (arguably inaccurate) Jim Comey testimony, and partly because a wide swath of people had an incentive to do Russia’s bidding, for eight years people, including many in Congress, have been suggesting that a hacking victim must give all the servers that were hacked to law enforcement — the actual servers, not forensic images — otherwise the FBI’s investigation would be suspect.

They were wrong on several counts. But they were loud and insistent.

Fine. Based on that precedent, Trump must hand over his campaign servers to the same FBI that has criminally investigated him, including his campaign finance shenanigans, immediately.

That’s what I was going to write when Politico’s Alex Isenstadt, who is not a journalist competent to report a hack-and-leak story, was the only one who had written this up.

But then WaPo wrote it up, with Trump-whisperer Josh Dawsey and horserace journo Isaac Arnsdorf bylined, but also Ellen Nakashima and Shane Harris, the latter two of whom are exceptional reporters for a story about hacking.

That story had two additional details that made me rethink the potential impact of this. First, it revealed that Trump didn’t tell the FBI about the hack.

People familiar with the matter said the campaign separately concluded earlier this summer its email system had been breached but did not disclose it publicly or to law enforcement. The people said some officials were told to take more protective measures on their email accounts. At the time, campaign officials communicated to others that they weren’t sure who hacked the emails.

It’s not even clear whether Trump got an outside contractor — and if so, if it was someone more competent than Rudy Giuliani, whom Trump once pitched as a cybersecurity expert — to help clean up this mess. It took Crowdstrike and the DNC over a month to attribute the Russian hack, but they never fully cleaned it up. And persistent attacks continued through the election. That is, even with a respected outside contractor, the Democrats were wasting energy on whack-a-mole defense efforts for the remainder of the election.

Against that background, WaPo’s description of what the persona shared becomes more alarming.

On Thursday, The Washington Post was also sent a 271-page document about Vance from a sender who called himself Robert and used an AOL email account. Dated Feb. 23 and labeled “privileged & confidential,” the document highlighted potential political vulnerabilities for the first-term senator. Two people familiar with the document confirmed it was authentic and was commissioned by the campaign from Brand Woodward, a law firm that represents a number of prominent Trump advisers in investigations by state and federal authorities.

The document drew from publicly available information, including past news reports and interviews with the senator. The campaign commissioned several reports of other candidates, too, the advisers said.

The sender would not speak on the telephone with a Post reporter but indicated they had access to additional information, including internal campaign emails and documents related to Trump’s court cases. [my emphasis]

First, Brand Woodward did the campaign’s vetting.

Stan Woodward represents, along with others, Walt Nauta, Kash Patel, and Peter Navarro in various Trump-related criminal investigations, as well as some seditionists. He’s a great fit for Trump insofar as he’s good at generating outrage over manufactured slights — though in front of regular judges, those complaints usually collapse. Multiple filings in the documents case suggest that Woodward has a tenuous relationship with digital technology.

The role of Stan Brand, Woodward’s partner, has been assiduously hidden, except insofar as he has made claims about cases to the press on-the-record without disclosing the tie to Woodward.

Now, WaPo has confirmed that the Microsoft description — of a former advisor pwned and using that person’s email account, an attempt to hack “a high-official” still on the campaign — pertained to the Trump campaign. Given that description, there’s no reason to believe that Woodward or Brand were affected.

But there’s nevertheless a problem with hiring Brand Woodward to do your candidate vetting. To be clear: Brand is absolutely qualified to do that kind of thing. He’s got a long record of doing so in congress. But even Trump appears to have concerns about major issues the vetting process missed, to say nothing of his donors.

Over the past two weeks, Mr. Trump has fielded complaints from donors about his running mate, JD Vance, as news coverage exploring Mr. Vance’s past statements unearthed — and then exhaustively critiqued — remarks including a lament that America was run by “childless cat ladies.”

Mr. Trump dismissed out of hand donors’ suggestions that he replace Mr. Vance on the ticket. But Mr. Trump privately asked his advisers whether they had known about Mr. Vance’s comments about childless women before Mr. Trump chose him.

There were better choices to vet candidates, but if Trump wants to let a thin team vet the surly troll he picked to be his running mate, that’s his own business.

My alarm about the news that Brand Woodward starts, however, by the way that the Trump campaign has muddled various functions, criminal and civil defense with campaign finance and, now, candidate vetting. It creates a legal morass, one that — if Trump loses this election — could lead to more legal trouble down the road.

Maybe that’s why Trump didn’t call the FBI.

But it also means that some people — most notably, Susie Wiles and Boris Epshteyn, along with Woodward and Brand — are playing multiple functions. Wiles is the one who decides who gets their criminal defense bills paid, she’s also the one who decides how to spend campaign cash, and she was a big backer of the JD pick.

When people play overlapping functions like that, it means that a hack targeted at them for one function — say, candidate vetting — may strike a gold mine of documents pertaining to another function — say, criminal defense.

WaPo’s reference to “documents related to Trump’s court cases” — Politico quoted the persona offering a “variety of documents from [Trump’s] legal and court documents to internal campaign discussions” — may ultimately pertain exclusively to Trump’s electoral court cases. If it does, those could be some of the most newsworthy out there, since Trump’s electoral court cases pose a direct threat to democracy.

But what if they don’t? What if these documents pertain to what those overlap people — people like Wiles or Epshteyn, and they’re only two of the most obvious –know about Trump’s criminal cases? What if they pertain to claims that witnesses have made to the FBI about where documents got moved or what was included in them? What if they pertain to the actual documents Trump stole, starting with the US strategic plan against Iran that Trump shared with Mark Meadows’ ghost writers?

Trump has not firewalled his campaign from a criminal case involving the most sensitive documents of the US government, meaning a well-executed hack targeted at his campaign may turn into an intelligence bonanza.

If Iran plans to make things difficult for Trump, the problems may extend well beyond what documents get leaked. As they did in 2016, this could mean that Trump wastes resources having to serially defend against hacking attempts via a range of different platforms. It could mean that Iran does what Russia did, hack key strategic models to optimize other kinds of fuckery later in the election. Because — unlike Russia — Iran is actively trying to kill Trump, not just defeat him, hacked documents may also facilitate efforts like those charged against Asif Merchant, manufacturing fake protests to create distractions to facilitate an assassination attempt.

The question of how to approach this news, if it is further confirmed, goes well beyond the question of whether to publish the documents allegedly stolen by Iran. In significant part because Trump refuses to maintain boundaries between his political life and his criminal life, hacks from Iran could create real damage to the United States beyond what they do to Trump’s campaign.

So by all means, let’s pause for a moment of schadenfreude. Let’s review all the things Trump said and did in 2016 and 2020 (including with the Hunter Biden laptop) that invite his opponents to fully exploit stolen documents this time.

But as you do that, consider that this ratfuck may be far more dangerous to the US than those targeting Hillary and Hunter.

How to Fact Check Trump’s Lies about His Document Case

/87 Comments/in , , , , /by

I just won the case in Florida. Everyone said that was the biggest case, that was the most difficult case. And I just won it.

Biden has a similar case, except much worse. I was protected under the Presidential Records Act. Biden wasn’t, because he wasn’t President at the time. And he had 50 years worth of documents, and they ruled that he was incompetent, and therefore he shouldn’t stand trial.

And I said, isn’t that something? He’s incompetent and he can’t stand trial — and yet, he can be President. Isn’t that nice? But they released him on the basis that–

[Goba attempts to interrupt]

— that he was incompetent. They said he had no memory, nice old guy, but he had no memory. Therefore we’re not gonna prosecute him.

I won the case. It got very little publicity. I didn’t notice ABC doing any publicity on it, George Slopodopoulos. I didn’t notice you do any publicity on it at all.

[Scott tries to interrupt]

I won the case, the biggest case. This is an attack on a political opponent. I have another one where I have a hostile judge

Scott: Sir, if you don’t mine, we have you for a limited time. I’d love to move onto a different topic.

Trump: No excuse me, you’re the one that held me up for 35 minutes.

The three women who attempted to interview Trump yesterday had an uneven performance. At times, their questioning flummoxed Trump. But in several cases, when he took over the interview, they just sat there silently as he lied at length.

A particularly egregious moment came in his false claims about the parallel investigations into his and President Biden’s retention of classified information. Trump told several lies without (successful) interruption. It was an unfortunate missed opportunity for correction, because Trump repeats these lies in his stump speech all the time, and it may be some time before someone competent has the ability to correct them in real time again.

Since Trump is going to keep telling the lie, I’d like to talk about how to fact check it.

Elements of the Offense

It starts with the elements of the offense — the things that prosecutors would have to prove if presenting this case to a jury. While Aileen Cannon has entertained doing fairly novel things with jury instructions, a model jury instruction for 18 USC 793(e), the statute considered with both men, includes the following five elements:

Did the defendant have possession of documents without authorization? The investigations into both Trump and Biden started when the Archives became aware that they had classified documents at their home. Contrary to what Trump said, the Presidential Records Act applies to both him and Biden, insofar as both were required to turn over any document that was a Presidential record when the Administration in which they served ended. That’s the basis of the proof that they had unauthorized possession of the documents that happened to be classified. That said, the PRA has an exception, however, for, “diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary,” which is relevant to why Biden wasn’t charged in two of four items Robert Hur considered charging seriously.

Trump has claimed that he had the ability to convert Presidential Records — even highly classified ones — into personal records, and thereby to take them home. But if this ever goes to trial, prosecutors would show that Trump first espoused that theory, which he got from non-lawyer Tom Fitton, in February 2022, long after the time he would have had to convert the documents to personal records.

Did the document in question relate to the national defense? The question of whether a document is National Defense Information or not is left to the jury to decide. That’s likely one reason why Jack Smith’s team included a bunch of highly classified documents among those charged. Generally, juries are asked to decide whether the government continues to take measures to keep a charged document secret, and whether it has to do with protecting the United States. A number of the documents charged against Trump pertain to either the US or other countries (like Iran’s) nuclear weapons programs.

Did the defendant have reason to believe the information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation? Generally, prosecutors prove this by pointing to training materials cleared personnel get on classified information, and that’s one reason Jack Smith obtained the letters Trump’s White House sent out about classified information. With both Trump and Biden, however, prosecutors would also rely on their public comments talking about how important it is to protect classified information. In Trump’s case, prosecutors would or will use both the things he said to Mark Meadows’ ghost writer and Susie Wiles when he shared classified information, but also the things he said during the 2016 campaign — targeted at Hillary — about the import of protecting classified information.

Did he keep this document willfully? For both men, prosecutors would need to show that they realized they had classified documents, and then retained them. Given the extended effort to recover documents from Trump, it would be far easier to do for Trump than for Biden.

Did the defendant retain the above material and fail to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it? This is an element of the offense that Robert Hur misstated in his report (as I wrote here). It’s not enough to prove that someone willfully retained classified documents he wasn’t authorized to have, you also have to prove he failed to give them back. Normally, this is done (in part) by pointing to someone’s exit interview, when they are read out of their compartments and asked to give everything back. Because Presidents and Vice Presidents don’t have clearance and so aren’t read out of them, it is normally harder to prove that someone affirmatively refused to give documents back. But not in Trump’s case, which is what really distinguishes him from Biden, because the Archives and DOJ kept asking for the documents, including via subpoena, and Trump kept playing games to withhold them.

Theories of Biden Crime

There were four main documents or sets of documents for which Robert Hur considered charging Biden. They don’t include the 50 years of documents Trump described. Those were included in boxes of documents sent to universities; most were barely classified still if at all, and since Biden had given them away, it would be hard to prove he intentionally kept them.

Iran documents: The most sensitive documents found in the Biden investigation were some documents pertaining to Iran found in a box in a closet in Penn Center. Hur determined they had been sent to the Naval Observatory for a meeting Biden had with a bunch of Senators to suss out where they were on Obama’s Iran deal. They may never have gotten moved back to the White House, and were likely stuck in a box and moved to Penn Center by staffers when Biden moved out of the Naval Observatory. These documents were unquestionably Presidential records and National Defense information, but Hur had no evidence Biden knew they were there.

Afghan documents: Hur spent a lot of time trying to prove that, when Biden told his ghost writer during a meeting in his Virginia house on February 16, 2017 that, “I just found all this classified stuff downstairs,” he was referring to several dated folders pertaining to Afghanistan that were found in a ratty box in Biden’s garage in a consensual search. There were many problems with this theory: Hur couldn’t prove that the documents had ever been in the Virginia house (and so could have been downstairs when Biden made the comment); he couldn’t prove that Biden had personally put them in the box where they were found; he couldn’t come up with a compelling argument for why he would have retained them. When Hur included his language about what a forgetful old fogey Biden was, he did so to cover the possibility that Biden forgot he had the documents he hypothetically discovered in 2017 and so didn’t return them at that point, in 2017. But Hur would never have gotten close to where Biden would be relying on faulty memory, because Hur didn’t have very compelling evidence to prove his hypothesis about how the documents got into the garage in the first place, much less that Biden was involved in that process.

Afghan memo: Hur’s extended effort to make a case out of the Afghan documents was particularly difficult given that the best explanation for what Biden was referring to when mentioning classified documents was a 40-page handwritten memo Biden sent Obama in Thanksgiving 2009 to try to dissuade him from surging troops in Afghanistan. (The second best explanation for what Biden was referring to was a set of documents he had recently returned in 2017 when he made the comment.) That memo was found in a drawer in Biden’s office. Biden ultimately admitted to keeping it for posterity, meaning it might fall under the PRA exception for diaries. Because it was handwritten, it had no classification marks and couldn’t be proven to have obviously classified information, much less information still classified in 2023, when it was found.

Diaries: The FBI also found a bunch of notebooks that Biden called diaries and Hur called notebooks. When reading them to his ghost writer, Biden exhibited awareness they included sensitive information, which Hur argued was proof he knew they had classified information. Biden had a very good case to make that these fell under the PRA exception for diaries, as well as decades of precedent, including Ronald Reagan, that DOJ would not charge someone for classified information in his diaries. It would have been impossible to prove that Biden willfully retained something he knew he couldn’t retain, because Biden knew other Presidents and Vice Presidents hadn’t been prosecuted for doing the same exact thing.

There simply was no document or set of documents for which Hur could prove all the elements of offense.

Why You Can Charge Trump

As noted above, the thing that distinguishes Trump from Biden is that Biden found classified documents and invited the FBI to come look for more, making it virtually impossible to prove the final element of offense (the one Hur botched), that Biden refused to give them back.

Trump, by contrast, spent a full year refusing to give documents back, including after DOJ specifically subpoenaed him for documents with classification marks.

There were 32 documents charged against Trump. They include:

  • The document that Trump showed to Meadows’ ghost writers in 2021 and acknowledged was classified; that was returned to NARA in January 2022. You can charge this because prosecutors have a recording of Trump acknowledging it was classified months before he ultimately returned it.
  • Ten documents among those returned in response to a subpoena in June 2022. It’s unclear how Smith intends to prove that Trump knew he had these after he returned the first set of documents in 2021. But most if not all of them date to fall 2019, so he may know why Trump would have retained them. Matt Tait has argued at least some of them pertain to the US withdrawal from Turkey.
  • Ten documents found, in the August 2022 search, in the same box also containing bubble wrap and a Christmas pillow. Among the ten documents was one classified Formerly Restricted, meaning that, under the Atomic Energy Act, Trump could not have declassified it by himself.
  • Five more documents, also found in August 2022, that had been stored in boxes in the storage closet, including the one captured in a picture Walt Nauta took of documents that had spilled out of the boxes.
  • Three documents found during the Mar-a-Lago search in the blue leather bound box found in the closet in Trump’s office. At least a few of these likely pertain to Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal. These are likely documents that Trump referred to.

For every charged document besides the Iran one, then, prosecutors can show that Trump withheld the documents after he first returned documents in January 2021. Trump will certainly argue that he may not have known he had those specific documents. But Trump’s decision to end his sorting process in January 2021 and his efforts to thwart Evan Corcoran’s June 2022 search will go a long way to prove intent.

How Trump’s Case Got Dismissed

Trump falsely claimed he “won” his classified documents case. That’s false: Aileen Cannon dismissed it, just in time for the RNC. Her argument that Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed isn’t even the primary one that Trump’s attorneys were making: that Smith required Senate approval and that his funding was improper. Rather, she argued that Merrick Garland simply didn’t have the authority to appoint Smith in the way he did.

There are several reasons the distinction is important.

First, if SCOTUS upholds Cannon’s theory, then it will hold for all similar appointments. That extends unquestionably to Hur’s appointment, because like Smith he was a non-DOJ employee when appointed. It likely also extends to Alexander Smirnov, into whom most investigative steps occurred after David Weiss was appointed as a Special Counsel under the same terms as Smith and Hur, and whose alleged crimes happened somewhere besides Delaware. Whether it applies to Hunter Biden is a closer question: Judge Mark Scarsi seems poised to argue that since Weiss had already charged Hunter, his appointment is different (and given the way Scarsi has worked so far, I don’t rule out him trying to find a way to make this unappealable).

In other words, if the steps Jack Smith took after November 2022 were unconstitutional, then it means everything Hur did after January 2023 was also unconstitutional. If Trump “won,” then he needs to stop making any claims about Hur’s interview with Biden, because it was unconstitutional.

More importantly, not even Aileen Cannon has ruled that Trump didn’t knowingly and intentionally retain classified documents. All she has ruled is that if DOJ wants to charge him for it, they need to recreate the investigative steps completed since November 2022, under the review of US Attorney for Southern Florida Markenzy Lapointe.

Aileen Cannon Makes Clarence Thomas’ Calvinball Newly Significant

/56 Comments/in , , , /by

Aileen Cannon’s order throwing out the stolen documents prosecution may make some Calvinball Justice Thomas engaged in more important in days ahead.

Cannon actually didn’t give Trump his preferred outcome: a ruling that Jack Smith would have had to be senate-confirmed and also that he was funded improperly. Aside from the timing, neither is this outcome one (I imagine) that Trump would prefer over a referral of Jack Smith for investigation or a dismissal on Selective Prosecution or spoilation or some other claim that would allow Trump to claim he was victimized.

Rather, she adopted a second part of Trump’s argument, that Merrick Garland didn’t have the legal authority to appoint a Special Counsel, of any sort, whether someone from outside the Department or someone (like David Weiss) who was already part of it. She punted on most of the question on whether a Special Counsel is a superior officer requiring Senate confirmation or an inferior one not requiring it.

Cannon’s argument lifts directly from Clarence Thomas’ concurrence, which she cites three times (though that is, in my opinion, by no means her most interesting citation). Thomas argues that the four statutes that Garland cited in his appointment of Jack Smith are insufficient to authorize the appointment of a Special Counsel.

We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office. To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be “established by Law.” As James Madison cautioned, “[i]f there is any point in which the separation of the Legislative and Executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.” 1 Annals of Cong. 581. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord.

It is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office “established by Law,” as required by the Constitution. When the Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel, he did not identify any statute that clearly creates such an office. See Dept. of Justice Order No. 5559–2022 (Nov. 18, 2022). Nor did he rely on a statute granting him the authority to appoint officers as he deems fit, as the heads of some other agencies have.3 See supra, at 5. Instead, the Attorney General relied upon several statutes of a general nature. See Order No. 5559–2022 (citing 28 U. S. C. §§509, 510, 515, 533).

None of the statutes cited by the Attorney General appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose. See, e.g., 43 Stat. 6 (“[T]he President is further authorized and directed to appoint . . . special counsel who shall have charge and control of the prosecution of such litigation”). Sections 509 and 510 are generic provisions concerning the functions of the Attorney General and his ability to delegate authority to “any other officer, employee, or agency.” Section 515 contemplates an “attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law,” thereby suggesting that such an attorney’s office must have already been created by some other law. (Emphasis added.) As for §533, it provides that “[t]he Attorney General may appoint officials . . . to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.” (Emphasis added.) It is unclear whether an “official” is equivalent to an “officer” as used by the Constitution. See Lucia, 585 U. S., at 254–255 (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (considering the meaning of “officer”). Regardless, this provision would be a curious place for Congress to hide the creation of an office for a Special Counsel. It is placed in a chapter concerning the Federal Bureau of Investigation (§§531–540d), not the separate chapters concerning U. S. Attorneys (§§541–550) or the now-lapsed Independent Counsel (§§591–599).4

To be sure, the Court gave passing reference to the cited statutes as supporting the appointment of the Special Prosecutor in United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 694 (1974), but it provided no analysis of those provisions’ text. Perhaps there is an answer for why these statutes create an office for the Special Counsel. But, before this consequential prosecution proceeds, we should at least provide a fulsome explanation of why that is so.

4Regulations remain on the books that contemplate an “outside” Special Counsel, 28 CFR §600.1 (2023), but I doubt a regulation can create a federal office without underlying statutory authority to do so.

Cannon takes Thomas’ treatment of Nixon as a “passing reference” as invitation to make truly audacious analysis of it as dicta.

D. As dictum, Nixon’s statement is unpersuasive.

Having determined that the disputed passage from Nixon is dictum, the Court considers the appropriate weight to accord it. In this circuit, Supreme Court dictum which is “well thought out, thoroughly reasoned, and carefully articulated” is due near-precedential weight. Schwab, 451 F.3d at 1325–26 (collecting cases); Peterson, 124 F.3d at 1392 n.4. Additionally, courts are bound by Supreme Court dictum where it “is of recent vintage and not enfeebled by any subsequent statement.” Id. at 1326 (quoting McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 1991)). The Nixon dictum is neither “thoroughly reasoned” nor “of recent vintage.” Id. at 1325–26. For these reasons, the Court concludes it is not entitled to considerable weight.

She then reviews the cited statutes one by one and deems them all insufficient to authorize a Special Counsel, with special focus on 28 USC 515 and (because Garland cited it for the first time) 533.

The Court now proceeds to evaluate the four statutes cited by the Special Counsel as purported authorization for his appointment—28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533. The Court concludes that none vests the Attorney General with authority to appoint a Special Counsel like Smith, who does not assist a United States Attorney but who replaces the role of United States Attorney within his jurisdiction.

[snip]

Section 515(b), read plainly, is a logistics-oriented statute that gives technical and procedural content to the position of already-“retained” “special attorneys” or “special assistants” within DOJ. It specifies that those attorneys—again already retained in the past sense—shall be “commissioned,” that is, designated, or entrusted/tasked, to assist in litigation (more on “commissioned” below). Section 515(b) then provides that those already-retained special attorneys or special assistants (if not foreign counsel) must take an oath; and then it directs the Attorney General to fix their annual salary. Nowhere in this sequence does Section 515(b) give the Attorney General independent power to appoint officers like Special Counsel Smith—or anyone else, for that matter.

Cannon twice notes her order applies only to the indictment before her (perhaps the only moment of judicial modesty in an otherwise hubristic opinion).

The instant Superseding Indictment—and the only indictment at issue in this Order—arises from the latter investigation.

[snip]

The effect of this Order is confined to this proceeding.

This is obvious — but it is also a way of saying that if the Eleventh backs this ruling, it would set up a circuit split with the DC rulings that she dismisses in cursory fashion.

Effectively, this represents one Leonard Leo darling, Cannon, dropping all her other means of stalling the prosecution for Trump, to act on seeming instructions from a more senior Leonard Leo darling.

A bunch of lawyers will dispute Cannon’s recitation of Thomas’ reading of the law. Indeed, Neal Katyal has already done so in an op-ed for the NYT.

Judge Cannon asserts that no law of Congress authorizes the special counsel. That is palpably false. The special counsel regulations were drafted under specific congressional laws authorizing them.

Since 1966, Congress has had a specific law, Section 515, giving the attorney general the power to commission attorneys “specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice” as “special assistant[s] to the attorney general or special attorney[s].” Another provision in that law said that a lawyer appointed by the attorney general under the law may “conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal,” that other U.S. attorneys are “authorized by law to conduct.”

Yet another part of that law, Section 533, says the attorney general can appoint officials “to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.” These sections were specifically cited when Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Mr. Smith as a special counsel. If Congress doesn’t like these laws, it can repeal them. But until then, the law is the law.

I drafted the special counsel regulations for the Justice Department to replace the Independent Counsel Act in 1999 when I worked at the department. Janet Reno, the attorney general at the time, and I then went to Capitol Hill to brief Congress on the proposed rules over a period of weeks. We met with House and Senate leaders, along with their legal staffs, as well as the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. We walked them extensively through each provision. Not one person raised a legal concern in those meetings. Indeed, Ken Starr, who was then serving as an independent counsel, told Congress that the special counsel regulations were exactly the way to go.

This legal dispute will be aired in the Eleventh in Jack Smith’s promised appeal.

Katyal’s more salient point is in describing where this leads if Trump’s Supreme Court gets to review Special Counsel appointments at some time after the November election will determine whether the rule applies to Trump or to a normal president.

Imagine a future president suspected of serious wrongdoing. Do we really want his appointee to be the one investigating the wrongdoing? The potential for a coverup, or at least the perception of one, is immense, which would do enormous damage to the fabric of our law.

That’s the kind of explanation, after all, why Cannon would drop all her other obstruction and pursue this angle: to ensure that a second Donald Trump administration could not be threatened with even the possibility of a Special Counsel.

But I’m interested in the way Thomas ended his concurrence, to an opinion about a prosecution involving official acts of a then-president. It is not dissimilar to the way John Roberts closed his majority opinion, by claiming this was all about separation of powers.

Whether the Special Counsel’s office was “established by Law” is not a trifling technicality. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office. Given that the Special Counsel purports to wield the Executive Branch’s power to prosecute, the consequences are weighty. Our Constitution’s separation of powers, including its separation of the powers to create and fill offices, is “the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government” and the liberty that it secures for us all. Morrison, 487 U. S., at 697 (Scalia, J., dissenting). There is no prosecution that can justify imperiling it.

In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President “is not above the law.” But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. The Constitution provides for “an energetic executive,” because such an Executive is “essential to . . . the security of liberty.” Ante, at 10 (internal quotation marks omitted). Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. We must respect the Constitution’s separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee.

Here, the Executive is sharply constrained, even in its prosecutorial function, by guardrails Congress has given it.

I’m not sure this is consistent with this language from Roberts’ opinion, which reads maximalist authority for presidents to conduct criminal investigations (and cites to Nixon, with its assertion of great deference on Article II issues).

The Government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the Justice Department involve Trump’s “use of official power.” Brief for United States 46; see id., at 10–11; Tr. of Oral Arg. 125. The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. “[I]nvestigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function.” Brief for United States 19 (quoting Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 706 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting)). And the Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693; see United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670, 678–679 (2023) (“Under Article II, the Executive Branch possesses authority to decide ‘how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.’” (quoting TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 429 (2021))). The President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Art. II, §3. And the Attorney General, as head of the Justice Department, acts as the President’s “chief law enforcement officer” who “provides vital assistance to [him] in the performance of [his] constitutional duty to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.’” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 520 (1985) (quoting Art. II, §1, cl. 8).

Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 832 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, §1. For that reason, Trump’s threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General likewise implicates “conclusive and preclusive” Presidential authority. As we have explained, the President’s power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed” may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts. Myers, 272 U. S., at 106, 176; see supra, at 8. The President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186–187, Indictment ¶10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials. [my emphasis]

That is, Roberts has to read presidential authority to intervene in DOJ’s prosecutorial functions in order to sanction Trump’s plan to demand DOJ’s participation in his fraud. But then Thomas argues that the president can only do so if Congress has given him authority.

Which is it?

Aileen Cannon Unwound the Stolen Documents Prosecution Back to November 2022

/46 Comments/in , , /by

There’s a detail of Judge Cannon’s order throwing out the stolen documents case that people seem to be missing.

She unwound the prosecution back to the time when Jack Smith took it over from when Jay Bratt had the lead.

Here, as in Lucia, the appropriate remedy is invalidation of the officer’s ultra vires acts. Since November 2022, Special Counsel Smith has been exercising “power that [he] did not lawfully possess.” Collins, 594 U.S. at 258. All actions that flowed from his defective appointment—including his seeking of the Superseding Indictment on which this proceeding currently hinges [ECF No. 85]—were unlawful exercises of executive power. Because Special Counsel Smith “cannot wield executive power except as Article II provides,” his “[a]ttempts to do so are void” and must be unwound. Id. at 283 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Defendants advance this very argument: “any actions taken by Smith are ultra vires and the Superseding Indictment must be dismissed” [ECF No. 326 p. 9]. And the Court sees no alternative course to cure the unconstitutional problem.

There are a lot of people saying that DOJ can just charge the 18 USC 793 charges in SDFL or charge obstruction in either DC or SDFL.

But they can only do so relying on evidence obtained prior to Smith’s appointment. Some key things they got after that?

  • Evan Corcoran’s testimony
  • Yuscil Taveras’ cooperation
  • Some, but not all, of the surveillance footage
  • Testimony from Mark Meadows’ ghost writers, reflecting Trump’s knowledge that he had not declassified the Iran document

Probably, a simple obstruction charge limited to Trump’s refusal to respond to the subpoena might survive (though such a case would be stronger with Corcoran’s testimony). But there is no way they could charge the stolen documents case without recreating some of this investigation.

Update: Jack Smith has announced he will appeal.

Aileen Cannon Dismisses Stolen Documents Case Based on Special Counsel Appointment

/157 Comments/in , /by

Here’s the 93-page opinion, which I’m still reading.

Procedurally, this may actually not help Trump in the way he’d like (because DOJ has the option of appealing it or having a US Attorney charge Trump).

But it’s also hilarious, since Aileen Cannon has been treating herself like an Appellate Judge that she hasn’t been confirmed to be.

Update: One thing Cannon appears upset about is Merrick Garland’s invocation of Section 533, which appoints FBI-like figures.

Special Counsel Smith argues that Section 533(1) confers on the Attorney General the authority to appoint special counsels, specifically, constitutional officers wielding the “full power and independent authority . . . of any United States Attorney.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.6. After careful review, the Court is convinced that it does not. Congress “does not . . . hide elephants in mouseholes.” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). Special Counsel  Smith’s interpretation would shoehorn appointment authority for United States Attorney-equivalents into a statute that permits the hiring of FBI law enforcement personnel. Such a reading is unsupported by Section 533’s plain language and statutory context; inconsistent with Congress’s usual legislative practice; and threatens to undermine the “basic separation-of-powers principles” that “give life and content” to the Appointments Clause. Morrison, 487 U.S. at 715 (Scalia, J., dissenting). The Court explains below.

33 Order No. 5730-2023 (appointing David C. Weiss); Order No. 5588-2023 (appointing Robert K. Hur).

That is her only mention of Robert Hur, whose appointment would be unconstitutional under her theory as well. (I’m still trying to figure out whether Cannon will help Hunter Biden go free, too.)

Update: Okay, I’ve read the thing.

It’s hilarious.

It’s hilarious, because it doesn’t create any delay that Cannon was not pursuing anyway. Indeed, Jack Smith could immediately appeal this and try to get her tossed, so it may hasten things (unless Trump wins!).

It’s hilarious because it is unbelievably hubristic. The only credible future for Judge Cannon now is Trump’s first SCOTUS appointment in a second term.

It’s hilarious because the way she did this, if it were upheld (not an impossibility given how nutty SCOTUS has gotten), it would be even more useful for Hunter Biden than Donald Trump (especially if Trump didn’t win reelection), because the statutes of limitation on Hunter’s alleged crimes have started to expire.

Update: Jack Smith has announced he will appeal.

The “Wow, Pictures!” Tabloid Coverage of Trump’s Stolen Documents Is as Bad as Conspiracy Mongering

/44 Comments/in , , /by

The other day, I mined the documents and photographs released in the government’s response to Trump’s bid to throw out his indictment based on a complaint that the FBI failed to preserve the order of documents in boxes.

Doing so, I showed that Trump had stored ten of the documents charged against him — including one classified under the Atomic Energy Act — under bubble wrap and a Christmas pillow.

 

I had to do a fair amount of work to figure that out, building on work I did years ago. I had to cross-reference the item number (28, as shown in the picture) with the box number (A-73, which you can find on the warrant return) to determine which box this was. I then cross referenced that with the table of charged documents in the filing.

Then I annotated the picture to describe which charged documents were found in the box myself. You can cross reference that with the indictment to learn what kind of documents are included in the stack in the picture.

All that under the bubble wrap and the Christmas pillow!

But that’s not why DOJ included the picture in its filing. DOJ included this picture, along with the two other pictures in that exhibit and the two in this exhibit, “to provide a sense of the variety of items in the boxes.” And Jack Smith’s team did that to show that FBI agents who conducted the search had no way of knowing that Trump knew (according to the interview of a former White House aide of his) precisely what was stored in which box, and therefore no way of knowing he might cite document order in his own defense.

Furthermore, this is not a case where reams of identically-sized documents were stacked neatly in file folders or redwelds, arrayed perfectly within a box. To anyone other than Trump, the boxes had no apparent organization whatsoever. The boxes contained all manner of items, including, for example, papers of varying sizes, from folded large-format items to tiny notes; clothing; picture frames; shoes; magazines; newspapers; newspaper clippings; correspondence; greeting cards; binders; and Christmas ornaments. The photographs attached as Exhibits 3, 8, and 16 provide a sense of the variety of items in the boxes. The notion that the precise ordering of materials within these boxes possessed any exculpatory value that would be apparent to the Filter Team when they opened the boxes is absurd.

These pictures also corroborate what filter team agents said about their efforts to retain the order of items in these boxes as they searched them for any potentially privileged documents, such as Agent 5’s description that it was impossible to retain the order because of the “[loafers], newspapers, post-it notes, golf balls, etc” she found in the boxes. For the most part, these were not boxes of file folders (like the one found in Joe Biden’s garage, the order of which FBI also disrupted; they were boxes of Christmas pillows and bubble wrap, and that’s one of several reasons why the document order within boxes was not maintained in all boxes.

There was a purpose to these photos, and it went well beyond slob-shaming the former President or just showing how DOJ released these pictures to portray Trump as chaotic. The photos and other exhibits make a specific rebuttal to an argument Trump is making: that FBI willfully mixed up document order to undermine a foreseeable future defense that was radically different to the one — that he knew the documents were there, but had declassified everything — he had been making before the August 8, 2022 search.

There was a purpose to these photos: To rebut a range of conspiracy theories designed to undermine rule of law and truth itself.

The coverage from most mainstream journalists (I excuse those who were stuck in Aileen Cannon’s courtroom who just threw up a post after that tedium) consisted of little more than “ooh, pictures!” which quickly turned into slob-shaming that failed to provide any context about the legal significance of the exhibits or the chain of custody they depicted.

There were several other things the filing and pictures were meant to explain: notably, what and how cover sheets got put into boxes, and — because Julie Kelly is a shameless propagandist — whether the FBI brought cover sheets for the sole purpose of framing Donald Trump.

This conspiracy theory started when Stan Woodward spent 1:50 examining physical document boxes. He took this picture, of Box A-14, which has only around 35 documents in it, all stacked up neatly, but otherwise spent little time examining this box — just 6 minutes.

This box was originally segregated because it had potentially privileged documents in it. Days later, an FBI agent discovered a single document marked with Top Secret markings. That document, dated May 6, 2019 and describing a White House intelligence briefing, is charged in Count 4 of the indictment.

Woodward made no claim that the cover sheet in this box, wherever it is, was out of place.

Woodward spent more time reviewing box A-15: 18 minutes. He didn’t take a picture (but the FBI did). Box A-15 was found with a binder in it, containing 21 Secret documents and 11 Confidential documents.

When Woodward inspected this box, he discovered that the order of the cover sheets marking classified documents reflected in the scan done for the Special Master review conflicted with the order he discovered them when he reviewed the box itself.

For this box, because it was one originally inspected after the FBI ran out of cover sheets they brought with them (they didn’t expect so many classified documents!), there were three sets of cover sheets used with the document. The generic cover sheet marking the highest level of classification mark found in the box, depicted in the picture above, which the FBI took to document its search; hand-written cover sheets they used to mark individual documents after they ran out of the normal cover sheets the day of the search;

And cover sheets marked with each individual document index ID (the “ccc” in the picture) after they indexed everything.

The documents in this box were indexed as “ccc” through “iii” and then “www” through “tttt.”

For this box, each of those three cover sheets served a different purpose. The first played a role in an evidentiary picture, to document the search, and yes, the FBI put that cover sheet there on purpose to both cover up classified information and to mark how sensitive it was.

The second was a place marker for each document taken from the box and kept more securely, and the third was a cover sheet to track each individual classified document.

But this box, in particular, ended up getting particularly jumbled because there were so many classified documents all appearing in a binder.

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

I don’t excuse that — the FBI flubbed boxes in both the Biden and Trump investigations. But as noted, in this case, it won’t be relevant to any defense Trump will offer because these documents aren’t charged.

The fact that FBI used cover sheets to mark and cover the contents of classified documents when documenting the search (as in the two pictures above) led propagandist Julie Kelly to imagine that the original photo released in an exhibit back in August 2022 must be a set-up, with the FBI using a bunch of classified cover sheets solely to make Donald Trump look worse than he was.

Julie got way over her skis claiming that Jay Bratt lied when he introduced a reference to the picture by saying that, “Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status.”

The photo was a stunt, and one that adds more fuel to this dumpster-fire case.

Jay Bratt, who was the lead DOJ prosecutor on the investigation at the time and now is assigned to Smith’s team, described the photo this way in his August 30, 2022 response to Trump’s special master lawsuit:

“[Thirteen] boxes or containers contained documents with classification markings, and in all, over one hundred unique documents with classification markings…were seized. Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. (Emphasis added.) See, e.g., Attachment F (redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the ‘45 office’).”

The DOJ’s clever wordsmithing, however, did not accurately describe the origin of the cover sheets. In what must be considered not only an act of doctoring evidence but willfully misleading the American people into believing the former president is a criminal and threat to national security, agents involved in the raid attached the cover sheets to at least seven files to stage the photo.

Classified cover sheets were not “recovered” in the container, contrary to Bratt’s declaration to the court.

The frothy right has been trying to claim this photo was a frame job from the start. But Julie’s theory was a particularly stupid version of the conspiracy theory. If the idea was that cover sheets make the documents look worse than, say, visible classification marks like the ones visible if you look more closely, and the more cover sheets the more useful for framing Donald Trump, why not use cover sheets on all of them? In a piece that otherwise struggled with the difference between [Box] Two and [Box] Ten, Julie counted seven cover sheets in the picture. I think there are at least eight (plus another form of cover sheet) but — another data point that undermines her conspiracy theory — a Secret cover sheet is buried in the middle of the stack, useless for the propaganda value Julie’s conspiracy theory has dreamt up.

While last week’s filing didn’t take on Julie’s conspiracy theory head on (notably, Trump has not adopted her conspiracy theory, which should tell you something), it did include the materials to understand how the initial evidentiary picture got put together.

As noted in the Jay Bratt language Julie quotes, the contents in that picture were found in a container in the “45 Office,” what Mar-a-Lago staffers called Trump’s office. The warrant return described the box holding the most sensitive documents, item 2, as a “leatherbound box of documents.”

That’s one of many ways we can be sure that this picture — which the “ooh pictures! people were very excited about mostly on account of the Diet Coke bottles, which I think short-changes the cult Donald Trump picture in the right side — depicts the same box.

The next picture in that exhibit shows how that same box got labeled Box 2, the box that Julie the Propagandist would one day confuse with Item 10.

Another picture shows what the top of the box looked like (since this is post taint search — the unsigned Sandy Hook letter that some “ooh photos” journalists claimed must be a super sensitive document, on account of hiding the name of the child gunned down at Sandy Hook — may not have been on the top of the stack when the FBI first found it).

The filing even includes the photo log showing how the photographer took pictures first of the closet (Room F), then of the box, then of the contents of the box.

Here’s that evidence photo again, which would have been taken in the foregound of the wide view picture above, with the rolled up paper and the seeming book now appearing at the top of the picture, and the tacky dresser on the left.

The picture was misleading when released, but not for the reason Julie the Propagandist suggests. It was misleading because it suggested that Trump put his Top Secret documents in with his Time Magazine covers. He didn’t. He put them in a different box, a few feet away, also in his office closet with the awful carpeting.

The filing that Julie the Propagandist claimed vindicated her conspiracy theory does the opposite. The government filing reiterates the claim — the claim that Julie the Propagandist claims caught Jay Bratt in a lie — that “Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status.”

The 45 Office consisted of the “ante room,” where Trump staff members had desks (Room B); Trump’s office (Room C); a closet attached to Trump’s office (Room F); and two bathrooms (Rooms D and E). Ex. 9. Entry photos were taken of the ante room, Trump’s office, and both bathrooms. Id. Filter Team agents then discovered in the closet a blue, covered, leatherbound box full of various papers, including numerous newspapers, newspaper clippings, magazines, note cards of various sizes, presidential correspondence, empty folders, and loose cover sheets for classified information, as well as documents marked classified. Ex. 10. FBI 13 conducted the privilege review of this box, with some brief assistance from FBI 5. ECF No. 612-11 at USA01291471. FBI 13 was careful to return all items to the box after reviewing them, but did not maintain the order of the items. Id. at USA-01291472; Ex. 11 at USA-01291691. FBI 13 found no potentially privileged materials in the box. ECF No. 612-1 at USA-01291485. After FBI 13 placed all of the contents of the blue box back in the box, an ERT photographer took photos of the blue box with the cover off. Ex. 12. FBI 13 alerted the Case Team that s/he had found documents marked classified, and after s/he completed his/her privilege review, two Case Team agents reviewed the box and found numerous documents with classification markings, some of which had classification cover sheets already attached, as well as loose classification cover sheets. The Case Team agents seized the documents marked classified (as well as any cover sheets already attached) and segregated them. As they extracted the seized documents, they inserted placeholder sheets where they found them. [my emphasis]

To be sure, there’s still a step of this progression that the government didn’t include in its filing (again, this is not the primary focus of the filing because Trump has not adopted Julie the Propagandist’s conspiracy theory, at least not yet, and — one exhibit included last week also made it clear– Trump’s people had turned on CCTV surveillance before the search started, and investigators knew that).

Trump’s initial MTD included notes and last week’s filing includes a follow-up interview with Agent 13. Agent 13 was the primary person who did the filter search of the closet. The original notes describe the agent, “does recall seeing cover sheets inside box[,] don’t know one way or other if cover sheets in photo came from box.” In the follow-up, the agent described that the lid to the leatherbound box was on the box when they found it (meaning the evidence pictures thereafter reflect what happened after the filter search).

That testimony is utterly consistent with the picture: that at least some of the cover sheets in the picture are the ones Agent 13 found when they did the search. But you’d need to add the testimony of the photographer and the two investigative agents to learn whether all of them were, or learn whether any of the loose cover sheets in the box were also used in the photo.

Nevertheless, it’s a pointless conspiracy theory. Julie the Propagandist has made a big deal out of cover sheets used in the way cover sheets are supposed to be used: to convey that something is classified and prevent any incidental exposure. But the picture doesn’t, primarily, show cover sheets. Indeed, it shows at least ten documents without classified cover sheets (covered instead with blank cover sheets), virtually all with classification markings visible.

More importantly, what the filing and the original photo both show the chain of custody of a box that — no amount of squealing about cover sheets disputes — clearly shows at least 22 of the 24 documents alleged to have been found in the box, most with classification markings visible.

Tracking what these exhibits do explicitly and — with more effort — implicitly takes time. But responding to conspiracy theories with facile reporting squealing, “Ooohh pictures” serves nobody, except media outlets looking for free reporting and conspiracy theorists hoping to turn truth into a both-sides dispute.

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

/23 Comments/in , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catalog of all the reasons Donald Trump is a menace

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

[link]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[link]

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

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

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

[link]

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

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

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

[link]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

[link]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[link]

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

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

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

[link]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[link]

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

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

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

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

[link]

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

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

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

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

[link]

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

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

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

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

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