Disclaimer: This article may contain the personal views and opinions of the author.
A federal judge handed former President Donald Trump a huge win over Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice. They issued a preliminary order intending to appoint a special master that Trump requested to review the documents the FBI seized in their raid on his home.
The judge wrote, “THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief [ECF No. 1] and Supplemental Filing [ECF No. 28]. Upon review of Plaintiff’s submissions and the exceptional circumstances presented, and subject to an opportunity to be heard as indicated below, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
“Pursuant to Rule 53(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent authority, and without prejudice to the parties’ objections, the Court hereby provides notice of its preliminary intent to appoint a special master in this case.
In her brief, which is not a final decision, she directed the Department of Justice to produce “a more detailed” list of items seized from trump’s home by Tuesday. She also directed the DOJ to give a status update on the government’s ongoing review of those materials.
The FBI executed a search warrant of the Mar-A-Lago estate that was aimed at recovering “highly classified” documents in Trump’s possession. The search was part of an investigation into alleged “willful retention” of classified information, theft of government records, and obstruction of justice.
Cannon was nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate back in 2020. She said she plans to hold a hearing Thursday in West Palm Beach on the former president’s requests for a special master.
Cannon didn’t give an indication of how she views Trump’s claims that the search was unnecessary and extreme. She did ask Trump to file a brief Rep signing to the Justice Department’s produced list of seized materials.
She also asked both sides to describe specifically the role they envision for a special master. She asked the DOJ to reveal the status of its filter review and if any investigators outside of the review teams had seen the seized materials.
The DOJ declined to comment on the ruling.
Politico reported:
Appointments of special masters to oversee the handling of evidence seized in federal criminal investigations are unusual, but typically have occurred when prosecutors seize records from an attorney’s office. Judges in Manhattan used the mechanism in recent years in connection with investigations into two Trump attorneys: Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani.
Fox News reported on the redacted affidavit:
First, there is little effort spent addressing the significance of apparent exculpatory evidence and mitigating facts. While it includes a letter from Trump’s lawyers, it does not acknowledge potential advice of counsel defense or any authority to bring such a case against a former U.S. president or even refute the issues raised by Trump’s lawyers in any meaningful way.
Surprisingly, in a case seeking to tread this kind of new legal ground, there is no accompanying memo from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel defending its legality. Further, the affidavit references the applicable law but withholds any mention of court decisions regarding a U.S. president’s unfettered ability to declassify documents, and it fails to inform the court that a former U.S. president may fall outside the criminal statute.
Second, it’s hard to find criminal intent anywhere in the unredacted affidavit. If it’s in there, it is redacted since no visible language alludes to any individual “willfully” retaining documents or otherwise violating the laws that the FBI alleges have been broken.
Trump had already been working with the National Archives and the FBI in regard to the classified documents before the raid.
