>>>Cannon's appointment of Dearie came alongside a separate ruling that denied the Department of Justice's request to continue its own review of the documents.
>>>>"The Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion," Cannon wrote in her ruling denying the DOJ further review of the seized documents.<<<<
The DOJ has already appealed that matter to the 11th Circuit. <<<
So permanent employees of the US government are not accountable to the elected executive of that government or the officials appointed by that executive by the advice and consent of the elected officials of the legislative branch of that government. Why are we shocked they’d argue their actions aren’t reviewable by the judicial branch of that government?
Oh, I would have made this argument as a practical matter, wholeheartedly, years ago. It’s just still pretty shocking to read the DEEP STATE itself write it in an UNSEALED LEGAL BRIEF to and Article III Judge deciding a case essentially, “we are the law.” IANAL, but I’ve been told one of the no-no’s to avoid is telling a judge they don’t have the authority to review something even if they in fact didn’t have the authority to review it. The arrogance here is breathtaking—at least they used to follow Sir Humphrey Appleby rules of pretending to be humble servants exercising powers delegated by the elected government. I suppose it’s better that they’ve identified themselves to the more casual followers of politics.
Clarice Feldman apparently liked your analysis as well, since she mentioned you and it in her Sunday American Thinker post; the one Donald Trump gave a thumb's up to later in the day. Reading her post, one might think her entire write-up was based on your prior post where you posit the intelligence community believes it 'trumps' the courts when it comes to classified material. I use the term 'classified material' guardedly given Trump's legal response today.
My understanding is that general warrants are impermissible under the 4th Amendment. If I recall correctly, the warrant stated that the FBI could take possession of any and every document dated 1/20/17 through 1/20/21 and, if a "classified" document was found in any box, the FBI could take possession of the entire box.
I surmise that that is how the FBI justified taking clearly personal items such as clothing, framed magazine covers, newspaper and magazine articles, passports, medical records and tax records.
Further, the warrant stated that the FBI had the right to search any space in the residence where "classified" documents might be found - ergo, the tossing of Melania's closet and Barron's room.
I'm curious as to how the FBI knew to take a safecracker with them. Was it because they had seen the safe on one of their previous forays (unlikely because the safe was empty, leading me to believe it had only been recently delivered - after the FBI's June visit, when they advised President Trump to procure a stronger lock for the room), they guessed that he might have a safe somewhere in the residence (Melania's closet perhaps), or they had inside information that the president had recently acquired a safe? The last alternative is chilling.
More accurately they are consistently and vigorously doing the the bidding of their donor class, the Oligarch's. and rejecting not populism, but pragmatic thinking which was once the hallmark of a good Republican. citizen.
>>>Cannon's appointment of Dearie came alongside a separate ruling that denied the Department of Justice's request to continue its own review of the documents.
>>>>"The Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion," Cannon wrote in her ruling denying the DOJ further review of the seized documents.<<<<
The DOJ has already appealed that matter to the 11th Circuit. <<<
>> https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/judge-names-special-master-trump-fbi-case <<
See the new post.
....And a very well deserved one it is.
So permanent employees of the US government are not accountable to the elected executive of that government or the officials appointed by that executive by the advice and consent of the elected officials of the legislative branch of that government. Why are we shocked they’d argue their actions aren’t reviewable by the judicial branch of that government?
Oh, I would have made this argument as a practical matter, wholeheartedly, years ago. It’s just still pretty shocking to read the DEEP STATE itself write it in an UNSEALED LEGAL BRIEF to and Article III Judge deciding a case essentially, “we are the law.” IANAL, but I’ve been told one of the no-no’s to avoid is telling a judge they don’t have the authority to review something even if they in fact didn’t have the authority to review it. The arrogance here is breathtaking—at least they used to follow Sir Humphrey Appleby rules of pretending to be humble servants exercising powers delegated by the elected government. I suppose it’s better that they’ve identified themselves to the more casual followers of politics.
Exactly.
Clarice Feldman apparently liked your analysis as well, since she mentioned you and it in her Sunday American Thinker post; the one Donald Trump gave a thumb's up to later in the day. Reading her post, one might think her entire write-up was based on your prior post where you posit the intelligence community believes it 'trumps' the courts when it comes to classified material. I use the term 'classified material' guardedly given Trump's legal response today.
For those may not religiously read Ms. Feldman's Sunday posts: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/09/the_doj_argues_that_the_intelligence_community_overrides_the_judiciary.html
My understanding is that general warrants are impermissible under the 4th Amendment. If I recall correctly, the warrant stated that the FBI could take possession of any and every document dated 1/20/17 through 1/20/21 and, if a "classified" document was found in any box, the FBI could take possession of the entire box.
I surmise that that is how the FBI justified taking clearly personal items such as clothing, framed magazine covers, newspaper and magazine articles, passports, medical records and tax records.
Further, the warrant stated that the FBI had the right to search any space in the residence where "classified" documents might be found - ergo, the tossing of Melania's closet and Barron's room.
I'm curious as to how the FBI knew to take a safecracker with them. Was it because they had seen the safe on one of their previous forays (unlikely because the safe was empty, leading me to believe it had only been recently delivered - after the FBI's June visit, when they advised President Trump to procure a stronger lock for the room), they guessed that he might have a safe somewhere in the residence (Melania's closet perhaps), or they had inside information that the president had recently acquired a safe? The last alternative is chilling.
The unconstitutionality of "general" warrants is pretty basic law.
My 15 minutes of fame?
Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death!”. The Republicans say, “Give me liberty, or hey, maybe we can work something out.”
Whether you are good at ruling or not, sometimes you have got to take a stand and fight!
More accurately they are consistently and vigorously doing the the bidding of their donor class, the Oligarch's. and rejecting not populism, but pragmatic thinking which was once the hallmark of a good Republican. citizen.
If Republicans took a stand, that would mean they weren't "working across the aisle" - code for knuckling under to the Democrat agenda.
Six ways to Sunday.
Yes, Senator Schumer.
They are the law. Might is right!
Apparently these idiots didn’t get that memo!
We are so far down the totalitarian rabbit hole here that I fear greatly for the Republic.
It is a deep hole, and many of them are as deranged as the mad hatter.