free counter

Trump asks judge to block DOJ from viewing classified records seized from Mar-a-Lago

WASHINGTON Lawyers for former President Donald Trump on Monday asked a judge to keep blocking the Justice Department from reviewing classified documents seized from Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon the other day temporarily blocked the DOJ from utilizing the records seized once the FBI searched Trump’s home on Aug. 8 until a particular master has the capacity to review them. The DOJ challenged her order later in the week.

In a court filing Monday that called the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump “unprecedented and misguided,” Trump’s lawyers claimed that “there still remains a disagreement regarding the classification status of the documents” that bore classified markings. While Trump and his associates have claimed to the media that Trump, while president, declassified various documents, his lawyers didn’t make that claim explicitly.

The legal battle has ended the government’s investigation into how a huge selection of pages of classified government records stayed held at Mar-a-Lago, even with a Trump lawyer had certified in June that there have been forget about classified records at the estate. Cannon, a Trump appointee, granted Trump’s request for a particular master on Sept. 5 and temporarily blocked the federal government from utilizing the classified files within its investigation.

Cannon did say a national security overview of the records could continue, however the Justice Department said that has been complicated as the FBI is area of the intelligence community and “classification review and assessment are closely interconnected with and can’t be readily separated from regions of inquiry of DOJs and the FBIs ongoing criminal investigation.”

Legal experts have called Cannon’s ruling deeply flawed, and the Justice Department argued that banning the executive branch from examining classified records that participate in the executive branch would causeimmediate and serious harms to the federal government and the general public.

The Justice Department the other day notified the court it could appeal her ruling and asked Cannon to remain section of her ruling pertaining to the classified documents, meaning the federal government could progress with functioning on the classified records before a particular master weighed in.

But Trump’s lawyers said this type of stay would “presuppose the results, at least with reference to what it deems are ‘classified records,'” and wrote there “is not any indication any purported ‘classified records’ were disclosed to anyone.” The filing also said that, beneath the Presidential Records Act, the former president “comes with an unfettered right of usage of his Presidential records despite the fact that he might not ‘own’ them.” They chalked the dispute over Trump’s retention of at the very least 11,000 pages of government documents up to “civil matter” that has been governed by the records act.

The federal government, Trumps team argued, was attempting to block an acceptable first rung on the ladder towards restoring order from chaos and increasing public confidence in the integrity of the procedure. They said that, unlike most criminal investigations, this investigation demanded public transparency at every step.

As this Court correctly observed, a criminal investigation of the importan investigation of a former President of america by the administration of his political rivalrequires enhanced vigilance to make sure fairness, transparency, and maintenance of the general public trust, the filing signed by lawyer Christopher Kise read. Given the importance of the investigation, the Court recognizes, as does President Trump, that it should be conducted in the general public view.

Both Justice Department and Trump team have each proposed two candidates to serve as special master. The Trump team said in another filing Monday that it opposed both of the DOJ’s candidates, but didn’t want to explain the reasons because of its opposition on the general public record.

Many legal industry experts agree there is a quite strong case to be produced against Trump, although they state the question of whether to really charge the former president is really a difficult one.

John Yoo, a former George W. Bush-era Justice Department employee who helped write the “torture memos” on interrogation techniques following the Sept. 11 attacks, and whose views of executive power held that the president can order a village slaughtered, said that Trump’s actions were clearly illegal.

“Trump isn’t permitted to have the records and keep them. He could easily get copies. But he cant keep them from the Archives. Thats settled,” Yoo told NBC News within an interview at the National Conservatism Conference. “It isn’t whether Trump violated regulations. He did. Its not if the government had legal grounds for the search warrant. It can. The question is actually whether he could possibly be charged.”

“The true issue, and I believe both people on both sides should recognize this, is, could it be a good usage of prosecutorial discretion of judgment to charge him?” Yoo said. “So my view has been if youre likely to follow a president for the very first time in American history for violating a law, I believe it must be for something a lot more important than this. Like, for instance, being associated with the Jan. 6 conspiracy.”

Trumps newest filing for the very first time identifies what has been called the Clinton sock drawer case, a 2012 ruling concerning a former presidents power in this instance, Bill Clinton to unilaterally decide exactly what is a private record and exactly what is a Presidential Records Act document in his post-presidency.

The case was brought by the conservative group Judicial Watch which sought to force Clinton to show over tapes made during his presidency and were, in accordance with a 2007 CBS report, stored at one point in a sock drawer. Judge Amy Berman Jackson, appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled that Clinton didn’t need to turn them over since they were personal records.

However, unmentioned by Trumps defenders who beganraising the problem of the sock drawer case last month is that Jacksons ruling explicitly states that the Presidential Records Act distinguishes presidential records from personal records, thought as documents which are purely private or nonpublic character.

Another filing from the Justice Department in the event arrives Monday evening.

Read More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker