Former GOP officials file friend of the court (amicus) brief with the 11th Circuit

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Unrolled thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1571761168208826375.html

1/ BOOM - Former GOP officials file friend of the court brief with the 11th Circuit saying Judge Cannon got it wrong. The TOC reflects the core arguments, including that an ex-President is entitled to no greater protection under the law than any other citizen.
Image

2/ A friend of the court brief is an 'amicus' brief. It's filed by people who are not a party to the case - not the DOJ, not Trump - who believe they have an interest in the court's decision. So they ask a court - here the 11th Circuit - to also consider their legal arguments.

3/ The 'friends of the court' or 'Amici' here are: Ex-federal & state officials Donald Ayer, John Bellinger III, Gregory Brower, John Farmer Jr., Stuart Gerson,Peter Keisler, Alan Charles Raul, Olivia Troye, William F. Weld, and Christine Todd Whitman. Short bios below.
Image
Image

4/ The filing says: 'Amici all served in Republican administrations and collectively have decades of experience prosecuting cases involving sensitive or classified materials or advising on matters regarding the proper scope of executive power and executive
privilege...

5/ ...They have substantial experience with the structure and process of law enforcement investigations, including investigations involving public officials. Given their decades of public service, familiarity with the law enforcement and constitutional matters at issue here...

6/ ....and commitment to the rule of law, Amici maintain an active interest in the proper resolution of the important questions raised by the Government’s motion.'

7/ Below is the 'proposed' brief. It is 'proposed' because they 11th Circuit must accept the filing. A friend of the court (amicus) brief was also filed w/ Judge Cannon but she rejected it - meaning she did not consider it. Here's the link...

Proposed Amicus Brief to 11th Circuit Appealing Judge Cannon's Special Master Order.pdf
USCA11 Case: 22-13005. Date Filed: 09/16/2022. Page: 1 of 32. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 22-13005 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERI…
https://docdro.id/xaR0rDa

8/ The brief also eviscerates Cannon for ignoring the law about the classified documents and instead injecting the notion that there is a dispute over whether the documents are classified. Excerpts....
Image
Image

9/ And in the footnote that gets cut off in the last screenshot, the amicus brief calls Trump out for not saying in his court filings that he declassified any documents but rather playing games and just suggesting he could have. Read footnote 6 in the two screenshots here:
Image
Image

10/ And in a strong closing the brief says a former president should be treated no different than a 'school teacher, police officer or veteran' who'd taken classified info to their home and that an ex-president's reputation is not more important than national security.
Image
• • •


Link to amicus brief

https://www.docdroid.net/xaR0rDa/proposed-amicus-brief-to-11th-circuit-appealing-judge-cannons-special-master-order-pdf

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. This brief is well done

Link to tweet

Here is a link to the full brief

Link to tweet

https://www.docdroid.net/xaR0rDa/proposed-amicus-brief-to-11th-circuit-appealing-judge-cannons-special-master-order-pdf

[Me.]

2. Brilliant

[Wounded Bear]

3. I hope it helps, but with the judiciary being flooded with trump appointees...

it's a harder row to hoe than it should be. The Heritage Foundation is well on the way to disassembling our democracy.

[Poiuyt]

32. I like to think that Cannon is an aberration, and that the 11th Circuit

will uphold the law.

[Scrivener7]

4. I hope they accept it.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Judge Loose Cannon rejected a similar brief

That lady is not suited or fit to be a judge

[Scrivener7]

6. Yep.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

8. This brief is from mostly the same people as the brief rejected by Loose Cannon

Link to tweet

[inthewind21]

25. I wonder

Does anyone really think the DOJ is going to just turn over classified docs to anyone? What happens if they simply say , yeah no? Cannon going to issue a bench warrant for the USAG?

[Maraya1969]

27. That is a really good point. It is exactly what tfg would do but our DOJ will hold on to following

the rules. I don't know whether that is good or bad at this point.

[TigressDem]

30. Or turn to Biden to grab them back, put them in secure space so the investigation is not impeded.

It's a Hail Mary play, and he wants to stay out of it because he wants to avoid appearing partisan against a potential candidate facing him on an election.

BUT if they run out of options, it could be a choice.

HE IS THE EXECUTIVE with privilege over these papers, not tRump.

[MagickMuffin]

7. This appears promising, yes?

I certainly hope so. Nail that bastard down!

[fightforfreedom]

9. Commonsense has become shocking in America.

An ex-president stole top secret documents and the obstructed a federal grand jury subpoena who ordered them returned.

I wonder if he is guilty? Should we charge him? There is a reason I call Judge Cannon a fucking idiot. She thinks commonsense is tyranny. She thinks the DOJ is out to get Republicans, some evil plot to get Trump.

Judge Cannon should have done one thing and one thing only. She should have told Trump to lawyer up because you broke the law. No special master, no special treatment.

[ancianita]

10. Just because an amicus brief says what we like, doesn't change the lobbying process at work here.

Last edited Mon Sep 19, 2022, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

And, we shouldn't want such lobbying efforts used to sway judges, no matter how much we disagree, or even agree, with their rulings.

The amicus brief door is just a couple of clicks away from the dark money door, imo.

[triron]

11. What 'lobbying process '? Wtf are you talking about?

Whatever.

[ancianita]

12. Wtf? Whatever?

I could say the same thing.

This amicus filing hasn't even been accepted by the court, has it. No, it hasn't.

If you've read anything about amicus briefs, you'd know how they are a form of legal argument lobbying.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/we-read-all-the-amicus-briefs-in-dobbs-so-you-dont-have-to/


Thanks for your constructive post.

[Tadpole Raisin]

13. Added this to my reading list. I sure didn't know how voluminous and detailed it can be

or that it was considered legal lobbying.

Thx

[stopdiggin]

16. an amicus brief is a perfectly respectable

and long standing instrument in the judicial process. With all sorts of interested/concerned/impacted entities, including the government itself, employing to good end - as would be the case here. Likening this to 'dark money' or influence peddling - is way out there in left field.

It strains credibility, but is it you position that the court should not hear - or should be shielded from - interested third party opinion? Like if for instance NASA thinks it has something relevant to say on an environmental/global warming issue? Or a union might have some input on whether health and safety measures should be enforced?

[Scrivener7]

17. This exchange is completely bizarre. When did the poster liken ANYTHING to

dark money or influence peddling?

And where did you get the idea that the poster is saying the court should not hear the brief?

[stopdiggin]

20. perhaps from the poster's original post (#10)

"Just because an amicus brief says what we like, doesn't change the lobbying process at work here."

"And, we shouldn't want such lobbying efforts used to sway judges, no matter how much we disagree, or even agree, with their rulings."

"The amicus brief door is just a couple of clicks away from the dark money door, imo."

[Scrivener7]

15. Did you think it was a given that the court would accept this brief? This

is, indeed, a lobbying process.

Why that should anger you is puzzling, but... whatever.

[TigressDem]

31. I think the main point is that there is Republican support for the actual law.

An amicus that is merely a lobbying tool would be trying to obtain something FOR someone specific.

In this case they are trying to obtain justice for America.

I truly think they just want to be on record as seeing the facts as they are and being judges who won't bow and scrape to tRump.

[ancianita]

36. I can appreciate your good faith position about this amicus. Maybe they support the law & want

justice. We are learning, hopefully not too late, however, another thing about amicus briefs.

It's that when you open that door for orgs with sound legal opinions, you have a crowd of ideologues rush through that door.

Lobbying for legislation is one thing. But when judges accept opinions from outside organizations, there will be lobbying within the judicial branch. The latest removal of rights and settled law through Dobbs is not the last illiberal outcome that serves those who have previously disallowed the equal rights and protections under the Constitution for over half the U.S. population.

[TigressDem]

39. Or just distance themselves from the train wreck that is tRump/MAGA.

At any rate, the judicial branch is stacked with tRump's misfits and you can bet their side WILL do whatever circus act they think will get them in power.

So avoiding the route because others might misuse it, isn't an option. They will use it even if we don't.

ONE THING about this brief is that it simply states THE LAWS APPLY TO EVERYONE, even TFG.

I believe that gives support to applying the law equally and that is not a bad thing.

Courts can reject amicus briefs that don't present sound legal arguments as being spurious.

They can even reject those that are sound, but make decisions that still follow the law. Basically, we will take that under advisement. Thank you for playing. Good bye now.

[ancianita]

40. Yes, make decisions that still follow the law. Except for SCOTUS.

Courts can reject amicus briefs that don't present sound legal arguments as being spurious.

They can even reject those that are sound, but make decisions that still follow the law. Basically, we will take that under advisement. Thank you for playing. Good bye now.

Yes, they can. But given the unprecedented example of SCOTUS, they also cannot.

Goodbye.

[Martin68]

14. Country before party. That's what we like to see.

[Cha]

19. Indeed Boom!

:

[Novara]

21. System is totally fucked if a judge in a lower court can fuck up national security in this manner

This is bigger than the executive. Way bigger. Yes, the courts need to have the ability to rein in the executive when they overstep but this is not that AT ALL. This is national security. This is international security. How can national security possibly be unimportant to this idiot judge?

[NJCher]

23. DOJ is adamant

that these papers contain information that is vital to national and international security. I heard a news report today which detailed their concerns a little more in detail.

Not only is it effed up that a judge in a lower court can hijack national security like this, it is appaling that she is so ignorant that just about every legal expert in the country has called her ruling a joke. This person is making a fool out of herself on the national stage. Which is fine, I could care less about her, but the fact of the matter is these power-hungry republicans have placed what--103?-- possible incompetents just like her in judgeship positions for LIFE.

[Novara]

24. Right. She is a perfect example ...

... not to let republicans ever rule again. They appoint completely unqualified people to such important positions. Fuck help us all.

She is absolutely hijacking national security. And for what? Is she getting paid off to rule so stupidly? Because I sure can't see an endgame for her.

I wish to hell the DOJ had the authority to remove such utter incompetence from the bench forever.

[lindysalsagal]

22. It's called "Peer Pressure" and it usually works. Halleluia. We have to save ourselves.

This should happen on a wider scale, more often with these bad decisions.

[FuzzyRabbit]

26. Judge Cannon is a Trumper.

To her the law and the facts of the case are not relevant. The only thing relevant (to Cannon) is how she can help Trump get away with his crimes.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

28. K&R! Always good to see some sanity!

All too scarce in TrumpMerica.

[TigressDem]

29. WOW! Look who wants to be on the historical record as valuing justice more than Party Line.

Hats off to:

Donald Ayer,
John Bellinger III,
Gregory Brower,
John Farmer Jr.,
Stuart Gerson,
Peter Keisler,
Alan Charles Raul,
Olivia Troye,
William F. Weld, and
Christine Todd Whitman.

[DENVERPOPS]

34. Sorry,

I will never respect or trust Christine Todd Whitman. She was head of the EPA when 9/11 happened and she kept saying for days after, and weeks after that there was no problem with the dust given off by the collapse, even when her people were telling her it was horrific and no one should be allowed near there without air packs, not just dust masks.......Now we see the aftermath of her lies, many NYFD firefighters and construction workers dying of all kinds of cancers due to her lying...........

There was concrete dust, gasses in fluorescent tubes, computer screens, asbestos that was used to coat all the concrete substructure of both towers......etc etc etc And she knew it.............

Sorry, lest we not forget.........

[TigressDem]

37. Solid Point.

But, if at this time she is actually going to do the right thing, it is what it is.

When people do crappy things they need to cut that out and change their ways and earn trust.

Possibly seeing that the end of the road she started on in the W years led to tRump has been enough to freak her completely out of her stupidity.

We will see.

Crazy at the level of MAGA and tRump creates strange alliances.

[Takket]

33. everyone knows Cannon got this wrong, including Cannon. She knows damn well

she tossed the law out the window in favor of wordsmithing an excuse for her hero.

[Old Crank]

35. How many are worried thst

Cannons ruling will make it hard to prosecute any Democratic office holder?

[calimary]

38. Well. there's that old saying about turnabout being fair play...