Former Top Republican Officials File Brief In Support Of DOJ Classified Docs Appeal

[LetMyPeopleVote]

This is a well done brief

Link to tweet

Top former Republican officials spanning every Republican presidency back to Ronald Reagan have filed a brief in support of the DOJ’s appeal on the Trump classified docs case......

Democracy 21 summarized the amicus brief to the 11th Circuit Court:

,,,,,,Third, a former President is entitled to no greater protection under the law than any other citizen.

The District Court’s analysis, the brief points out, “which gave greater weight to the reputation of a former President than to the reputation of any other citizen, and greater weight to that personal reputation than to national security concerns, is fundamentally inconsistent with the basic tenets of U.S. law.”

In addition, the brief states, concern for reputational harm that the District Court noted in its decision is not a valid basis for enjoining a criminal investigation, “especially one that is inexorably intertwined with a national security damage assessment.”

There is no basis, according to the brief, for applying a different rule to former President Trump, “effectively endowing him with greater procedural rights than those afforded to other citizens.”

To do so, the brief continues, would belie the fundamental principal established in United States v. Lee (1882), that “[a]ll the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.”

[FakeNoose]

1. K & R

[triron]

2. This is great. Telling judge Cannon to stick her decision up her butt

Where it belongs.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. This is a well done brief

Link to tweet

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. Got a link to the brief?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Here's a link to the full Amicus Brief filed with the 11th circuit

Link to tweet

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

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. Thanks!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

7. It's missing page 3 of the brief, giving background of the case.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

8. I have looked at a couple of other posts and they are all missing page 3

I will keep my eye out for a better copy

[Hermit-The-Prog]

11. May not be a better copy and this one's fine -- it allows copy & paste of the text, too.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

9. Loose Qannon has been publicly taken to the woodshed, regardless of what the 11th does.

I wonder how it feels to show up on a national stage wearing a clown suit when you're supposed to be in judicial robes.

The district court’s order does not grapple with the law. Instead, it simply
asserts that there is a “dispute” about whether the records are actually classified
and whether the former President has a possessory interest in classified records.4


4 Even after recognizing that a movant under Rule 41(g) must allege “a colorable
ownership, possessory or security interest” in the property at issue, the court
refused to engage with caselaw that clearly forecloses any argument that
President Trump has a possessory interest in any of the classified materials.
ECF No. 89 at 4–5. Rather, the court justified its refusal to evaluate the parties’
arguments on the merits on the fact that the parties disputed some of the issues.
But there is no contested legal or factual issue that casts doubt on the merits of
the former President’s motion, at least as to the 100 documents that are the
subject of this appeal. It is the court’s most fundamental responsibility to
resolve the parties’ disputes based on the applicable legal principles. That
responsibility cannot be avoided (or delayed) through the appointment of a
special master where precedent does not otherwise permit that appointment.

The district court did not address any of this well-established law, or the
former President’s concession. In fact, the district court’s order denying the
Government’s motion for a partial stay does not even contain the words
“Presidential records” or a citation to the PRA. Instead, the court referred vaguely
to “important and disputed issues” related to privilege that needed to be resolved
by a special master. ECF No. 89 at 4. But the issue as to whether a former
President has a possessory interest in Presidential records was “disputed” only to
the extent the former President refused to concede the legally obvious, not because
there is actually a legitimate legal dispute to be had.

To allow a former president to assert executive
privilege here would turn the privilege on its head by impeding the effective
operation of the Executive, and it would be an especially bizarre perversion of the
privilege to allow a former president to use it to thwart a core executive function
like a criminal investigation into mishandling of classified information.

In short, the district court declined to address in any meaningful way the
Government’s argument that the former President has no colorable claim of executive privilege in this case. Instead, without making any finding that former
President Trump’s assertion of executive privilege against the current Executive
Branch has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the district court—in its
initial order and again in its subsequent order denying the Government’s motion
for a partial stay pending appeal—declined to assess at all whether a likely
successful claim of executive privilege exists, instead enjoining the Government
and essentially leaving it to the special master to sort out.10 In so doing, the district
court not only put the cart before the horse, it essentially abdicated its
responsibility to make any finding of a strong likelihood of success on the merits
on this critical issue. But that was a determination that the district court: (1) was
required to make before it could grant the extraordinary equitable relief of
enjoining a criminal investigation; and (2) should also have made in connection
with its ruling on the Government’s motion for a partial stay pending appeal.

The district court repeated its error of privileging the former President when
it denied the Government’s motion for a stay. In a final section called “Relevant
Principles,” the court asserted that “the principles of equity require” it to consider
“the position formerly held by Plaintiff.” ECF No. 89 at 9–10. The court did not
explain what that statement meant, but whatever the court intended to imply, the
assertion is wrong.

[Hekate]

10. KnR

[Hermit-The-Prog]

12. Where are the lawyers dissecting and praising this filing? Am I reading more into it than is there?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. This was a very strong brief

I thought that is was well done. It will be interesting to see if the 11TH Circuit accepts this amicus brief