The Tiny Scandals and Trials

[ti-amie]

There's some kind of bond hearing going on in Florida (I think) in regards to modifying TFG's bail. Ever since Elmo took over it's very hard find the beginning of a thread. I'm starting in the middle here but if I find the beginning I'll edit this.

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
·
51m
Todd Blanche then argued for Trump against the bond modification.

Blanche: There is no actual connection between Trump's posts/statements and a danger to law enforcement.

Blanche: There is no threat to FBI agents. No incitement to violence. The attacks are clearly against Pres. Biden. Trump is just upset that the Biden Administration raided his home with agents authorized by Biden's DOJ.

Blanche: There is no significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement here. It is dangerous precedent to allow a bond revocation based on what someone else says on a podcast, like Steve Bannon, for example.

Harbach's Rebuttal: Trump didn't just complain. He was way out of bounds. And the things he said the week of May 21, 2024, was not protected speech.

Harbach: You don't have to wait for something terrible to happen, for a tragedy to strike to modify a defendant's bond.

Harbach: Trump has a "peculiarly potent tool" of his followers that follow him on social media. Trump knows the power of that tool.

You don't get to manifestly lie about the FBI coming to do violence to you and your family. That's over the line.

[ti-amie]

There's some kind of bond hearing going on in Florida (I think) in regards to modifying TFG's bail. Ever since Elmo took over it's very hard find the beginning of a thread. I'm starting in the middle here but if I find the beginning I'll edit this.

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
·
51m
Todd Blanche then argued for Trump against the bond modification.

Blanche: There is no actual connection between Trump's posts/statements and a danger to law enforcement.

Blanche: There is no threat to FBI agents. No incitement to violence. The attacks are clearly against Pres. Biden. Trump is just upset that the Biden Administration raided his home with agents authorized by Biden's DOJ.

Blanche: There is no significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement here. It is dangerous precedent to allow a bond revocation based on what someone else says on a podcast, like Steve Bannon, for example.

Harbach's Rebuttal: Trump didn't just complain. He was way out of bounds. And the things he said the week of May 21, 2024, was not protected speech.

Harbach: You don't have to wait for something terrible to happen, for a tragedy to strike to modify a defendant's bond.

Harbach: Trump has a "peculiarly potent tool" of his followers that follow him on social media. Trump knows the power of that tool.

You don't get to manifestly lie about the FBI coming to do violence to you and your family. That's over the line.

The beginning of the thread appeared in my TL just before I went to bed. The thread in its entirety is below.

[ti-amie]

The complete thread re modification to TFG's bond status.

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
For this afternoon's bond modification hearing, Special Counsel Jack Smith was back in court along with his team. For this motion, David Harbach argued on behalf of SCO. And Todd Blanche argued on behalf of Donald Trump.

Harbach: The one purpose for this motion to modify is to protect law enforcement witnesses involved in this case. The Court can modify based on the Bail Reform Act, as well as the Court's inherent authority to ensure the integrity of the proceedings.

Harbach: We are not seeking to restrict Trump's free speech. This new bail condition is reasonably necessary to assure the safety of persons in the community and can be done in a narrowly tailored, specific fashion. First Amendment concerns are eliminated if the Court finds that the conditions of the BRA (Bail Reform Act) are met.

Harbach: Defendants in criminal cases are not permitted to make statements that pose a danger to witnesses in a case. Several courts have recognized documented threats and social media comments made by Trump and his supporters.

Cannon: But, all names of law enforcement have been redacted already and shielded from public view so isn't that a factor for my consideration when considering harm to them?
Harbach: There are a small number of agents whose names are already public and who have been doxxed multiple times.

Cannon: Some statements were made by Trump in May of 2024. How far back in time do I need to go to determine the evidentiary showing that is being made?
Cannon: What's the correlation between the conduct and the names of the law enforcement officers being out there?
Cannon: How did the names get released?
Harbach: Not by the defendants or their counsel. But we know the identity of the person.
Cannon: But there are legal means to deal with doxxing. So why does there have to be a connection to Trump?
Harbach: Redactions alone are not sufficient.
Cannon: I don't appreciate your tone. I expect decorum at all times. If you can't, I'm sure one of your colleagues can take over. Let's reset.

Harbach: At trial, the names of the officers/witnesses will come out, from those that will testify and from those who will not.
Cannon: Why not wait until that time? Why proactively restrict his speech?
Harbach: B/c the die has already been cast by Trump's lies and false statements about the Mar-a-lago search warrant.
Cannon: To be clear, the evidentiary record is just these 11 exhibits?
Harbach: We also refer to various cases in our submissions and the underlying facts from those cases.
Cannon: Are you suggesting that I cull facts from other cases? That's not gonna happen.
Cannon: What in these exhibits create an imminent threat of violence?
Harbach: Trump's Truth Social post from 5/21/24 about "lethal force" and his email alleging a "locked and loaded" FBI to "take me out and my family." He's inviting retributive violence.
Cannon: Where in the attachments do you see a call for violence?
Harbach: Context is important. He knows what happens when he puts these things out in social media.
Harbach: What Trump did was beyond irresponsible. It is dangerous. And that is why we filed this motion the way we did and when we did.

[ti-amie]

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
Dispatch from Ft. Pierce/MAL Classified Documents case:

(Captain’s Log Stardate It’s-too-hot-and-humid-to-be-here-this-long)

Today at 11 am ET Judge Cannon begins with all counsel present in sealed proceedings “to protect materials as to which grand jury secrecy applies and/or as to which Defendant Trump asserts attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection.”

[ti-amie]

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
At approximately 1:00 pm ET, the public hearing on the defense’s motion for relief relating to the Mar-a-Lago “raid” and “unlawful piercing of the attorney-client privilege” will begin.

The defense is seeking suppression of evidence obtained during the execution of the search warrant at MAL in 2022.

The defense also claims that it was improper for the attorney-client privilege to have been pierced by the crime-fraud exception. As a result, the court should bar the prosecution from using notes from Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran as evidence in this case.

[ti-amie]

Sealed notes shed light on Trump's alleged efforts to hide classified documents
Judge Aileen Cannon is considering tossing out the notes as evidence.

By Katherine Faulders and Peter Charalambous ABCNews logo
Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:34PM

Donald Trump privately expressed concerns that turning over potentially classified documents in his possession after a May 2022 subpoena could result in criminal charges while repeatedly engaging in what prosecutors have described as an effort to enlist his lawyers to lie and destroy documents for his benefit, according to transcripts of audio notes reviewed by ABC News.

Prosecutors allege that rather than comply with the subpoena, Trump opted to hide dozens of classified documents from his own lawyers, and federal agents eventually seized 102 classified documents -- including 17 top secret documents -- after they executed a search warrant at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022.

The notes, which ABC News first reported on last year, are at the center of an ongoing legal battle in the former president's federal classified documents case, where prosecutors have used the detailed notes about Trump's behavior and statements as key evidence to demonstrate that the former president attempted to obstruct justice by hiding documents from investigators.

Aileen Cannon, the judge overseeing the case, is hearing arguments today on Trump's effort to limit prosecutors' use of the notes and to have the entire case dismissed based on the role of the notes in the government's case.

Two months before agents searched Mar-a-Lago, Trump's former lead attorney Evan Corcoran's notes -- which prosecutors have used to bolster their case against the former president -- describe that Trump repeatedly blamed his legal troubles on his "political enemies," was reluctant to allow the review of boxes that prosecutors say contained dozens of classified documents, and engaged in conduct that prosecutors believe was an effort to "corrupt" his attorneys by concealing Trump's alleged retention of classified documents.

"He raised a question as to, if we gave them additional documents now, would they, would they, the Department of Justice, come back and say well, why did you withhold them and try to use that as a basis for criminal liability or to make him look bad in the press," according to Corcoran's notes about what Trump asked his attorneys in May 2022 after prosecutors subpoenaed the former president to turn over any classified documents in his possession, records reviewed by ABC News say.

"Well look isn't it better if there are no documents?" Trump also asked his attorneys after raising concerns about prosecutors "opening up new fronts against him," according to Corcoran's notes.

A spokesperson for the special counsel's office declined to comment to ABC News. A spokesperson with The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Prosecutors alleged in a recent court filing that Trump attempted to "enlist (Corcoran) in the corrupt endeavor" by suggesting he falsely tell the FBI that Trump did not have classified documents or that he hide or destroy them rather than turn them over.

"Trump tried to enlist his attorney in his criminal endeavor, tested his attorney's receptiveness, and then manipulated his attorney to achieve his criminal ends when the attorney did not accept his overtures," prosecutors wrote in a recent filing.

Trump pleaded not guilty last year to a 40-count indictment related to his handling of classified materials, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information and took steps to thwart the government's efforts to get the documents back. Trump has denied all charges and denounced the probe as a political witch hunt.

Defense lawyers have repeatedly argued that the notes from Trump's lawyer are protected by attorney-client privilege, but a federal judge in Washington D.C. last year determined that notes could be used as evidence after prosecutors demonstrated that Trump deliberately misled his attorneys in furtherance of a crime, piercing attorney-client privileges invoked by two of his lawyers.

'I don't want anybody looking through my boxes'
Corcoran made multiple audio recordings to memorialize his interactions with the former president, including meeting with Trump on May 23, 2022 to discuss his response to a subpoena for any classified documents stored at Mar-a-Lago.

During an approximately one-and-a-half-hour meeting with both Trump and attorney Jennifer Little, Trump brought a box to their first meeting to demonstrate its contents, showing the attorneys his newspaper clippings, Post-it notes, and photos, and other materials.

"I don't want anybody looking, I don't want anybody looking through my boxes, I really don't, I don't want you looking through my boxes," Trump said, according to a portion of the notes included in the indictment against Trump. "Look I just don't want anybody going through these things."

Corcoran wrote that he attempted to focus on Trump's response to the subpoena, though the former president frequently returned to the topic that he was being targeted by political opponents.

"He repeated many times that he felt he was really being targeted," Corcoran noted.

"Look, you know, I have ten different actions against me. They are trying to get me. They're going after me. These people are ruthless," Trump remarked while boasting about his own administration. "I've done all these great things for the country. I improved the economy, I lowered taxes, I did this, I did that, built the wall."

Corcoran recalled that he tried to steer the conversation back to the boxes and warned the former president about the legal consequences of not complying with the subpoena.

"Well what if we, what happens if we just don't respond at all or don't play ball with them?" Trump asked, according to a portion of the notes included in the indictment.

"Well, there's a prospect that they could go to a judge and get a search warrant and that they could arrive here and get a search warrant," Corcoran responded.

According to Corcoran, Trump repeatedly asked during their meeting if it would be "better if we just told them we don't have anything here."

During an interview with Smith's team, Little largely corroborated Corcoran's recollection of the meeting, telling investigators that she "very clearly" warned Trump about the seriousness of the subpoena and told him "it's going to be a crime" if he failed to comply but swore otherwise.

After speaking about the subpoena for more than an hour, Trump concluded the meeting to attend a series of interviews before reconvening with the attorneys in the afternoon. According to Corcoran, Trump suggested that the attorneys -- who he noted were both single -- "take a walk along the beach" and that "maybe ... sparks will fly."

But while waiting poolside at Mar-a-Lago for their next meeting with Trump, Corcoran said Little warned -- based on her conversation with two other Trump attorneys -- that if they pushed Trump to comply with the subpoena, "he's just going to go ballistic," Corcoran noted.

Little added that "there's no way he's going to agree to anything and that, that he was going to deny that there were any more boxes at all," according to Corcoran's notes.

'Isn't it better if there are no documents?'
Later in the afternoon on May 23, 2022, Corcoran and Little met with Trump in a small library at Mar-a-Lago, ditching their phones outside the room at the direction of the former president, according to Corcoran.

Sitting feet from Trump across a small table, Corcoran said Trump asked about the legal consequences for complying with the subpoena while cautioning that prosecutors "really wanted to get him anyway they could."

Trump blamed the investigation on his "political enemies" who wanted to "weaken him and get him not to run" for president." Trump said he was "just trying to understand what the best way" was to respond to the investigations and claimed that prosecutors would "keep opening up new fronts against him."

According to Corcoran's notes, Trump expressed concerns that returning "additional documents" following the subpoena could become the "basis for criminal liability.

"He asked again, he said -- Well look, isn't it better if there are no documents?" Corcoran noted.

Corcoran added that during their meeting, Trump repeatedly recounted that a lawyer for Hillary Clinton "deleted all of her emails" so "she didn't get into any trouble."

"He was great, he did a great job," Trump told the lawyers, according to the notes.

Prosecutors allege that during the meetings with his attorneys, Trump attempted to test Corcoran's receptiveness to evading the subpoena, though the meeting concluded with the two setting a plan for Corcoran to return to Mar-a-Lago to search through the boxes for documents responsive to the subpoena.

"Look, so you're -- so if I'm hearing you right, what you want is to come back and have me or somebody go through and find some, get any classified documents if there are any. That, that, sounds like that's the plan you want, is it?" Trump said, repeating the plan multiple times, according to the notes.

"We will figure this out. Go through the documents, if we've got any classified stuff, get it to DOJ," Trump said, according to the notes.

Prosecutors allege that Corcoran's rebuff to Trump's suggestions resulted in the former president adopting a different plan -- deceiving his attorney by having his "trusted body man" and co-defendant Walt Nauta move the boxes from the storage room in Mar-a-Lago to prevent Corcoran from conducting a complete search.

In the days between the May 23 meeting with Trump and Corcoran's June 2 review of the boxes at Mar-a-Lago, prosecutors allege that Trump coordinated for Nauta to remove 64 boxes out of the storage room to Trump's personal residence, where Trump planned to "pick from them," according to text messages between Nauta and a Trump family member. By the time Corcoran returned to Mar-a-Lago to review the boxes, only about 30 of the 64 boxes moved by Nauta were returned for the search.

'Don't call me with any bad news'
Corcoran described the process of searching through the boxes in the cramped storage room during a humid June day as a "laborious" and unpleasant task, though Corcoran noted that contents of the boxes -- "thousands" of Post-it notes, magazines, emails with senators and heads of state, books, notebooks, and briefing materials -- offered a unique window into Trump's state of mind as president.

"If Robert Caro or some other presidential biographer had been in my position, they would have been absolutely in heaven," Corcoran said in his notes.

Corcoran also noted that the boxes included an odd variety of contents, including presidential memorabilia, Make America Great Again hats, gifts from foreign leaders, clothing -- including underwear and socks -- and toiletries like mouthwash, toothpaste, and razors. Some of the boxes were sealed with white duct tape and many included a typed note about the destination for the box, such as "W-H to M-A-L."

According to Corcoran, Trump's description of the boxes' contents suggested they became "catch-all depositories for what he'd gone through day after day" when he reviewed materials in the White House residence.

"I had to read these things at night so that I could be ready, that's the only time I could read something, and I had to read them so I could be ready for calls or meetings the next day," Trump told Corcoran about how briefing memos, notes, and emails ended up in the boxes. "I just had boxes in the, in my bedroom, you know, a lot of boxes and I'd just, you know, read these things and then throw them in there."

While Trump told Corcoran he instructed others to declassify any of the documents that entered his residence, the former president appeared to acknowledge in his conversation with Corcoran that simply bringing the documents into his residence did not result in declassifying the documents.

"I told people to declassify -- anything that comes into the residence should be declassified. And I told people. I told lawyers that. I don't know what was done, I don't know how they were marked. But that was my position," Trump said, according to Corcoran.

Corcoran's search of the room ultimately resulted in a half-inch stack of classified documents, which he sealed in a redweld envelope using duct tape.

"Did you find anything?" Trump asked Corcoran after he concluded his search. "Is it bad? Good?"

According to Corcoran, Trump asked Corcoran about how he planned to store the documents, particularly "anything really bad in there."

"He made a funny motion as though -- well okay why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out. And that was the motion that he made. He didn't say that," Corcoran noted.

The following day, Corcoran coordinated for Jay Bratt, then the deputy chief of the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and FBI agents to visit Mar-a-Lago to take custody of the responsive documents.

Corcoran received a panicked call from Trump about the visit from federal officials on the morning of their visit, according to Corcoran's notes.

"Oh that's very bad. What, you know, what do they want? What are they trying to, why are they trying to get something on me again?" Trump said, according to the notes.

While Corcoran emphasized that the meeting was a routine step that he coordinated, Trump still expressed concern that "this is very bad" and was particularly interested in Bratt's attendance at the meeting.

"Why is the top guy coming? It's very unusual, very unusual, you know?" Trump remarked, though Corcoran noted that Trump's tone about the meeting appeared to change over the day.

According to Corcoran, Trump personally encouraged showing Bratt and the FBI agents the storage room where the documents were stored, over the advice of Corcoran. According to prosecutors, despite Corcoran's search resulting in return of 38 documents bearing classification markings, Trump still possessed 102 classified documents in Mar-a-Lago -- in part due to his effort to hide documents from Corcoran when he attempted to comply with the subpoena -- which would be discovered when federal agents returned to Mar-a-Lago two months later with a search warrant.

"I've got nothing to hide. I've got nothing to hide. If they ask. I want you to show them," Trump told Corcoran in June.

Later that day, Trump walked into the meeting where Corcoran handed over the classified documents to federal officials, personally shaking the hands of Bratt and the FBI agents.

"I'm glad you're here. I -- I appreciate what you're doing. If you need anything at all just ask Evan," Trump said, according to Corcoran.

After Trump left the meeting, Corcoran escorted the federal officials to the storage room where Trump's boxes were stored, allowing them to look at the room but not touch any of the boxes.

Later that day, Corcoran noted that he received a phone call from Trump, who was onboard his plane en route to New Jersey for the summer.

"Well we're taking off. But look, Evan, don't call me with any bad news, okay? Don't call me with any bad news," Trump said, according to the notes.

https://abc7chicago.com/post/donald-tru ... /14998623/

[ti-amie]

Trump now claims that "the precise order of the items within the boxes when they left the White House was critical to his defense, and, what’s more, that FBI agents executing the search warrant in August 2022 should have known that."

However, as SC asserts: "...at every stage the agents have maintained the integrity of each container in which the evidence was found, that is, box-to-box integrity."

Trump also "suggests (for the first time) that he may wish to argue that the classified documents were buried in the boxes and hard to see, or that the placement of classified documents near dated items shows that they were placed in the box long ago and may have been forgotten. But because the overall contents of each box have not changed, Trump can argue both of those things and has everything he needs to do so. Nothing has been lost, much less destroyed, and there has been no bad faith."

Trump's "defenses" have evolved and changed over time: "Over many months, Trump has claimed, among other things, that he deliberately declassified the documents, that the FBI planted them, and that he intentionally selected and sent the documents to Mar-a-Lago as his “personal records.”

But in the entire time since the indictment was returned against Trump, "Trump’s counsel have not once asked to review the boxes themselves" and Trump never asserted "any argument stemming from the precise order of the documents until filing this motion in 2024..."

Per SC: "the warrant and the protocol contemplated two scenarios in which an entire box would be seized. First, if the Filter Team encountered potentially privileged material in a box, the Filter Team would seize and segregate the box for later inspection. Second, if the Filter Team cleared a box—that is, reviewed it and found no privileged materials—it would pass the box to the Case Team, who would review the box for documents with classification markings and seize any box containing such material."

The Response then proceeds to describe in great and methodical detail how the search warrant was executed at MAL. It also sets forth the chain of custody.

Trump’s motion fails to assert "what the order of documents actually showed, instead relying entirely on speculation of what it might have shown." So, the legal analysis then requires bad faith to be shown for Trump to obtain dismissal or suppression.

The legal analysis also requires that Trump "show that the evidence was likely to significantly contribute to his defense."

“To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.”

In this case, "no physical evidence has been destroyed, and Trump does not and could not contend that the precise ordering of documents within boxes that he unquestionably possessed and were filled with his belongings could exonerate him."

Trump claims that he may have just "overlooked" classified documents because of where they were positioned in the boxes and that he may have put classified materials into boxes "years before" and forgotten they were in there before they went to MAL.

And HERE is where, once again, Trump's prior legal filings come to bite him:

"Trump’s filings in the Special Master litigation also undermine the position he takes here. There, Trump argued that 'personal documents, photographs, and items such as clothing are by definition not ‘contraband’ and thus may not be lawfully seized, and that any such items that were seized must be returned.'"

"His position there—that the Constitution prohibited agents from seizing or retaining any documents not marked classified—cannot be reconciled with his current claim that the Constitution required the agents not only to seize all non-classified documents in proximity to the classified documents, but to retain them in precisely the intra-box order in which they were found."

Trump cannot cite to any case that supports his position: "Trump is unable to cite a single case suggesting that a selective seizure or one in which the order of files or documents was to some extent not preserved constituted 'spoliation.'"

Throughout this litigation Trump has claimed that "he is entitled to dismissal because he made a conscious decision as president to designate classified documents as personal records and transfer them from the White House to Mar-a-Lago."

And HERE is where Trump's Truth Social posts come back to bite him:

"And before he latched onto the PRA as a defense, Trump made public statements that he had made a decision to declassify the documents, further casting doubt on the viability or predictability of a defense that he was ignorant of the boxes’ contents."

And here SCO explains that "There is no question that these were Trump’s boxes, and no one else’s. He collected their contents over time, he decided what was to be included, he kept them in his bedroom at the White House, he controlled their whereabouts, he helped pack some of them for Mar-a-Lago, he had them delivered to Mar-a-Lago, he directed Mar-a-Lago employees in mid-2021 to fix up the storage room so his boxes could be moved there, and agents searched them in the basement of his residence. And it is not as though agents discovered items in the boxes plainly belonging to someone else. To the contrary, the agents found boxes full of keepsakes valuable only to Trump."

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
[My apologies for the delay...traffic and life happened.]

Once again, Jack Smith appeared in court. David Harbach handled the oral arguments on behalf of the SCO. Emil Bove argued on behalf of Trump.

Cannon began the hearing by announcing that the parties had previously been in a sealed session in the morning.

Bove alleged defects in the search warrant used at MAL. He argued that the SW lacked particularity in the things to be seized and the places to be searched. He argued that Trump's medical records, tax documents, accounting records, and passports were seized and that is proof that the warrant didn't give sufficient particularity as to what could be seized by the FBI agents.

Cannon asked Bove what language should have been used in the search warrant and Bove replied that the warrant needed what the statutes actually prohibit because telling agents that they can make decisions "on the fly" isn't right. Bove also complained that terms like "government records" and "records" and "NDI" were overly broad and failed to provide sufficient guidance to the agents so they knew what they could seize.

Bove also argued that "presidential records" in the context of the PRA is too complex for the FBI agents executing the search warrant and that they were in no position to decide during the search at MAL what constitutes a presidential record.

Bove: Melania and Barron's rooms were searched at MAL, as well as the gym and the kitchen.
Cannon: Were any items recovered from those locations?
Bove: No.
Cannon: So, what's the prejudice to Trump?
Bove: The search was impermissibly broad and that violated Trump's rights.

Bove: A series of omissions and misrepresentations that were made to the Magistrate Judge (when presented with the application for the search warrant) necessitate a Franks hearing, where the Court will make an inquiry into the omissions and misrepresentations made by the agent who swore out the search warrant affidavit.

Bove: The Court has to conduct a fact-finding hearing as to what instructions were given to the FBI agents prior to executing the SW at MAL; there were attorneys on site during the search, what questions were asked of them by the agents?...The Court has to inquire as to whether the good faith exception applies here, as well, because the warrant was so facially deficient it could not be relied upon.

Bove: The agent who swore out the affidavit in support of the SW has a superior who claimed that a consensual search of MAL was better than getting a SW.
Cannon: Why does that matter as to the validity of the SW? Can't reasonable minds disagree where one agent thinks one avenue is better?
Bove: The SW affiant made false claims about the risks involved in executing the search warrant in terms of possible destruction of evidence at MAL, etc.

Bove: The government has the obligation to conduct a reasonable search. The agents needed the right knowledge and experience to conduct the search.
Cannon: You're making policy arguments here about training and experience. You're far afield from the legal arguments.
Bove: From a good faith perspective, though, more guidance to the agents was required. There are disputes about the good faith in this case.

Bove: The government has the obligation to conduct a reasonable search. The agents needed the right knowledge and experience to conduct the search.
Cannon: You're making policy arguments here about training and experience. You're far afield from the legal arguments.
Bove: From a good faith perspective, though, more guidance to the agents was required. There are disputes about the good faith in this case.

[ti-amie]

Parent ventures into teenagers room to pick up dirty clothing from off the floor. While doing this drugs and other contraband are found. There's enough that if the cops came he'd be jailed for trafficking.
When teenager comes home they're confronted by parents demanding to know what they're doing with this stuff. Teenager becomes irate and starts screaming that his room is his private space and that parents had no right to go in and start picking up their clothing without telling him first. When parents point out that they're paying for the roof over his head and the food they consume teenager throws an epic tantrum and threatens to leave and move in with whoever the neighborhood undesirable is.

ETA: The parents drag their offspring into his bastion of freedom (his bedroom), lock the door and call the police.

This is a legal argument?

Also the 11th circuit made it public that they did not want her to hear this case and are said to have begged her to let another judge be assigned. That put her on notice that not only Jack Smith is looking to appeal and take the case away from her her own circuit is waiting for her to mess up so they can do whatever they have to do to take it away from her. I think that's why she's been sounding coherent.

[ti-amie]

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
David Harbach then argued on behalf of the Special Counsel.

Harbach: For purposes of a Franks hearing, the defense has to make a substantial, preliminary showing that false statements were made by the affiant with an intentional or reckless disregard for the truth. The defense bears the burden of showing that absent those omissions and misrepresentations being made, there was no probable cause.

Harbach: The defense must show that there were deliberate falsehoods made or a reckless disregard for the truth accompanied by an offer of proof. It cannot be just conclusory and it has to be more than a desire to cross-examine the agent.

The defense has not shown any of that here.

Harbach: Even if the affiant agent's superior said that a consensual search was better, that was not part of the probable cause that the Magistrate Judge considered. It's not relevant here.

Harbach: Unlike any other criminal defendant, Trump was allowed to have a letter from his counsel that set forth his defense theories of declassification, etc. included in any application to any judicial officer. In this case, that letter was included in the submission to the Magistrate Judge.

Trump got the rare, unprecedented chance to say whatever he wanted to say in the presentation to the Magistrate Judge by way of his lawyers' letter.

Harbach: Re. Trump's complaints about the lack of particularity in terms of places to be searched: these are papers/documents that are small and MAL is a large location. The agents didn't go everywhere on the property. They didn't go to places Trump didn't have access to.

These documents could be located anywhere on the premises where Trump had access. So there was probable cause to search Barron's bedroom. There was evidence that the boxes had been moved at Trump's direction.

Cannon: Please clarify where the classified documents were found.
Harbach: The storage room and the President's office area (2 places). But, the question is if the place to be searched was adequately described in the search warrant and that is all that's needed.

[ti-amie]

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
·
46s
Harbach: There may not be direct evidence that boxes were moved into Barron's room, but at some point, boxes were located in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago!

Cannon: Why were medical records seized?
Harbach: The SW authorized seizure of containers and boxes and if those containers and boxes contained other materials not targeted, that doesn't render the seizure less appropriate. The boxes contained all sorts of things. Nothing inappropriate in seizing them. The filter team did a review and those items were returned to Trump after the search, including his passports. (I think he has three)

Harbach; There was nothing egregious about how the search was conducted. The agents carried firearms as a matter of course and as a part of standard protocol. Nothing wrong with them being armed.

Bove was given a brief rebuttal by Cannon.

Bove: You don't have a clear record, here. You need a hearing.
Cannon: I've looked at the face of the affidavit and it seems like it is valid and sufficient. I have a hard time seeing what more was needed to be included.

[At the conclusion of the hearing, Harbach got up and argued that the defense keeps hijacking court hearings with repeated attempts to import allegations that are not before the court about the Special Counsel's Office/Government. "It's not fair!" ]

Cannon: The Motion will be taken under consideration.

[ti-amie]

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
As I warned, this issue of Evan Corcoran’s memos/notes is one that a lot of people were sleeping on, but could end up being a big issue for Trump’s obstruction count.

Judge Cannon wants to make her own factual findings, even after a more senior judge, Beryl Howell, already found that the crime-fraud exception applies AND a federal appeals court agreed with Howell.

[ti-amie]

She got her instructions from Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society people. Guess what?

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
·
3h
JUST IN: Judge Cannon entering an Order denying Trump's motion for a Franks hearing, but reserving ruling on the balance of his "Motion for Relief Relating to the Mar-a-lago Raid and Unlawful Piercing of Attorney-Client Privilege."

Cannon finds that Trump has not made the requisite showing that the search warrant affidavit contains "any material false statements or omissions." As such, he doesn't get a Franks hearing.

However, Cannon claims that the rest of Trump's motion cannot be resolved based "on the current record" and so she is ordering an "evidentiary suppression hearing to be scheduled by separate order."

Trump requested an evidentiary hearing to challenge whether the piercing of the attorney-client privilege by the crime-fraud exception was appropriate. At that hearing, the SCO would have to show "that the attorney's assistance was obtained in furtherance of the criminal or fraudulent activity or was closely related to it."

Trump "disputes important factual findings reached by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the grand jury proceeding" and Cannon rules that she must "make factual findings afresh on the crime-fraud issue."

To do so, Cannon says she must have an evidentiary hearing at which time both sides present evidence (documentary and testimonial).

Cannon finds that no party has offered any caselaw that would prevent her from exercising her discretion to permit Trump from "factually testing a government's proffer on the applicability of the crime-fraud exception."

She further notes that there is no law that prevents Trump from "simply developing a factual record on essential questions underlying the privilege assertion."

Cannon then rules that Trump's Motion to Suppress as it pertains to "Attachment B," which was the places to be searched, requires further factual development.

Cannon writes that some of the terms in Attachment B, like "national defense information" and "Presidential Records", do not carry "generally understood meaning, such that a law enforcement agent, without further clarification, would have known to identify such material as 'seizable' property."

[ti-amie]

Phang's correction: