Quote:
Originally Posted by HDGristle
The DOJ's response to the special master request is compelling.
Those dots are starting to connect themselves and it's looking bad for El Trumperino.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacuzzme
Gee, I’ve never heard that one before.
|
LOL Spot on Jacuzzme. Ahh the delusional hopes and dreams of libtards. I don't know about you, but I would take the legal opinion of a well respected non partisan constitutional lawyer like Jonathon Turley over some crazy lib shitposting on here
Jonathon Turley excerpts - The arguments raised by the Justice Department are not just familiar but transparently weak. The government argues that Trump lacks standing because the records belong to the United States, not him. However, that is the point. The court is trying to determine who has a right to these documents. The Justice Department itself recognizes that it may have gathered some attorney-client privileged documents in this ridiculously broad search. . . .
Moreover, the court itself has ample authority to appoint a special master to help sort through such material.
The Justice Department also makes the same type of arguments used to oppose the release of a single line of the affidavit in redacted form. It claims that both its investigation and national security would be harmed. That is even less compelling here. A special master would be reviewing documents in a secure facility and would presumably have a clearance. Many of us who have handled national security cases have been cleared for TS/SCI material.
The use of such arguments after the release of the redacted affidavit only undermines the arguments further. The Justice Department insisted that the court should not release a single line of the affidavit and that any substantive disclosure would unleash a parade of horribles, from damaging national security to sacrificing witnesses.
For those of us who have litigated cases against the Justice Department, it was an all-too-familiar claim by a department notorious for over-classification and over-redaction arguments. For a week, media pundits mouthed the same exaggerated claims and challenged those of us who argued that it was clearly possible to release a redacted affidavit; liberals suddenly shuddered at the thought of doubting the Justice Department.
The Department also claims that it does not need to return personal material to the former president because the evidence of “commingling personal effects with documents bearing classification markings is relevant evidence of the statutory offenses under investigation.” That is again transparency weak.
The Department also makes other incomplete or dubious arguments.
The court should reject the arguments against the appointment of a special master and allow for an independent review of these documents.
