Saturday Legal Round Up

MAGA Libs with Pete. https://t.co/ARVo3ExJDP

— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) August 27, 2022

I’m not sure Alina Hanna knows better, but anyone who conducts a basic internet search can confirm that her claims are false. https://t.co/tG8OcayAuH

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) August 27, 2022

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.

An FBI employee was literally charged under the exact same provision LAST MAY https://t.co/9vooQ1daWd https://t.co/4Z69EiOoVq pic.twitter.com/cIgL04hyE5

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) August 27, 2022

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:

They ready served Trump with a subpoena and he did not produce all of the classified documents.

Also, “urgency” is not required for a search warrant. It’s pretty common for law enforcement to take its time to investigate before obtaining one. https://t.co/wAuvG10ro8

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) August 26, 2022

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.

Trump did not have a security clearance as of 01/20/21 so there would be no reason for there to be an operational SCIF at MAL; the basement and other areas were not SCIFs in any case; and if they existed Trump would be barred from entering them. Next. https://t.co/DOrS3xuBln

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) August 27, 2022

And it turns out:

Everyone’s going to read into this order more than they should. But the special master is not relitigating the warrant or the search; he or she would simply be making sure that the seized materials that the government is holding on to are materials that it has a right to possess.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) August 27, 2022

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:

I think a lot of people are catastrophising over this issue without adequate cause but I can’t summon the energy to talk people out of it. https://t.co/06PEBLmMyi

— MostlyRedactedHat (@Popehat) August 27, 2022

Judge Cannon is going out of her way to accommodate Trump’s legal team here, and in the end my money is still on her denying relief.

— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) August 27, 2022

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.”