Posted on 09/29/2022 4:50:21 PM PDT by JoSixChip
A federal judge overseeing a dispute over documents the FBI seized from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and resort has partially rejected a special master’s plan for a review of the material, including one that would have forced the former president to prove suggestions agents planted documents.U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Trump appointee, on Thursday afternoon ruled that a plan by Special Master Raymond Dearie cannot require Trump’s attorneys to immediately attest to the validity of a revised list of items the FBI says it seized from the former president’s palatial Palm Beach, Florida compound.
Come on Aileen
Oh, I swear, well, he means
At this moment, you mean everything
How dare she exempt a defendant from having to labor to prove his innocence.
Trump’s advisors, in many cases, work overtime to try and destroy Trump. It’s pretty amazing.
On another note, I’ve seen some Leftwing commentary which is now expressing complete disgust with the US justice system based largely on this most recent development. It seems that the Left thinks that the deck is ALWAYS stacked in Trump’s favor, that ALL the judges are corrupt and out to destroy Democrats, and that a fair trial is impossible because Trump controls the government.
Sessions, Bolton, Kelly, Haley, Wray, Barr, etc., etc., etc.
Trump seems to not have the best nose for sniffing out Deep State.
Even in the Mar-a-Lago raid, the feds staged pics of “classified documents” to give the false impression been found tossed on the floor. The burden is has to be on the FBI to prove the chain of custody of any document they claim Trump had improperly. Since they carted items off by the bxload without inventorying them at the site, they could add in anything.
P
Trump would have had only the FBI’s list of documents provided (9/26), not the electronic hosting of the documents themselves, which was set to be provided only by October 15th.
Theoretically, the FBI could have clandestinely altered the text of many a page within the list of documents without the Trump team’s awareness or ability to compare against their own electronic images (it’s my unsubstantiated assertion that they even have such images).
Dearie’s Plan would have allowed no PDJT objections after the 9/30 deadline. This clearly would have robbed PDJT of his rights to consider possible further FBI malfeasance with regard to the body of documents stolen from the residence.
That the FBI only belatedly added scores of documents to their list once again affirms the FBI’s poor care and stewardship of the documents with which they absconded.
The Special Master wanted Trump to list the documents that were taken. WGY? Isn’t there an inventory list from the DOJ? Isn’t that the Gov’t’s obligation.
The Special Master wats to close the door on future wrangling. Trump has made comments that the government was planting documents. That causes the judge to forestall that by forcing Trump to state what was taken, so it can be compared to the list of what the government claims it has.
Twenty+ FBI agents ransacked his home and storage rooms for hours, chunked 11,000 items into boxes, and carted them off wholesale, yet Trump is supposed magically be aware of every single item that is missing, then pinpoint which items out of the 11,000 the FBI has were NOT taken from M-a-L. The judge’s purpose works if we were talking about 10 pieces of jewelry. The scale of this makes it ridiculous.
Yes, it’s the government’s obligation to PROVE Trump had any particular documents they consider problematic for him to have possessed. I wonder if part of this exercise is to force trump to admit he did not have a tight grip on what documents he had, or any sort of inventory. Then the FBI can ask, well how would you know if any sensitive docs went missing? You obviously were not securing them well enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.