Saturday, August 27, 2022

Saturday Legal Round Up

As almost every schoolchild knows by now, the Presidential Records Act became law in 1978, because Nixon tried to take records with him (probably, like Trump, to destroy evidence of crimes. Yeah, I went there.). That makes it 44 years old, which may be same difference to Ms. Hanna. But the worst part is, nothing in the affidavit or the search warrant mentions the PRA because, as she astutely points out, the PRA has no criminal provisions.

But other applicable statutes do. She’s trying to raise a defense to a claim that isn’t being made against her client. And she thinks this is a good thing to do.

Wait! I’m sorry , my mistake. I thought Hanna was still on her argument about the PRA from yesterday. The PRA still has no application here. My argument still stands on that point. But her new argument is that the Espionage Act has never been used.
That’s the Twitter response. The response in court will see Trump dispatched as handily as Steve Bannon was. Because this isn’t even the semblance of a legal argument. And, again, it isn’t even true. And speaking of not even playing one on TeeVee: Mulvaney really should have quit before he got further behind. And don’t try to be clever on Twitter when you don’t know what you’re talking about. And it turns out: Also to be noted: the judge is not commenting on enjoining the review. But maybe the FBI has to return the famous blue raincoat and the razor blades.

BTW, the court is basically treating Trump’s filing as a pro se matter. Otherwise I think the judge would have thrown it out and said “Do MUCH better.” I know I was harsh on the very concept, but I can see it as a harmless grant that doesn’t interfere with the investigation and is fair to Trump. But doesn’t really give him anything, and will settle the issue of who owns the documents. Well, except maybe the raincoat.

IOW, by giving Trump part of what he wants, the judge takes away Trump’s talking point that the FBI robbed him. It may actually be a good thing to have this formally decided without protracted court hearings. And I still think the judge treated this as a filing by an ignorant lay person the better to finish it off ASAP. I would not call this, by any measure, a victory for Trump. He’s likely to end up getting absolutely nothing for it.

And there’s also this, which ends up at much the same place:
That’s how judges treat pro se parties: treat them as fairly as possible, then say “No.” And just having a master see if anything was Trump’s to keep, if it comes to that, is still saying “No.”

No comments:

Post a Comment