Transcripts from the Sept 1 hearing before Judge Cannon

case, but judge may not agree.

The Supreme Court has a case on the docket, United States v Korf seeking to deem "FBI "Filter Teams" unconstitutional under the 6A.

"Filter Teams" have been mentioned negatively in several Court opinions and if the SCOTUS takes the case there's a decent chance that "Filter Teams" may be found unconstitutional.


Here's the 11th Circuit affirming the lower Court...

And here's the SCOTUS appeal.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/korf-v-united-states/

Not even remotely like this case although Trump's lawyers continue to insert these cases as though they are. Trump's lawyers want a special master to go over not just any attorney privilege, which the team has put aside for both parties to review (DOJ review team says most if not privileged but they put aside, being extra cautious. Trump is still claiming the documents are his and a special master should review, the stolen documents that belong to the archives. This is not even remotely close to being the same thing.

That's all I said...

I have no problem with a SM because 1) They're not going to indict before the election anyway... 2) It crosses the t's and dots the i's and takes away ALL silly suggestions of bias.

I won't post the whole Emerson quote... but when you "go after the King..."

You know the rest.

If he somehow wriggles out of this, he'll exit 2x stronger.


Take him down so that there is NO question about his guilt.

merits such tremendous verbiage. It seems they lose sight of the fact that these documents are purloined and forcibly returned.

I just hope that when Trump gets sentenced to jail we do not have judges ruling ad infinitum on the proper gait to arrive at the prison, etc.

be that these documents could be used as evidence in a criminal investigation or trial???? Duh yeah, if they read the warrant there are 3 criminal statutes on it. Geez.

I thought I saw something about that on one of the news channels?

I love the way they stated that this was a preindictment response, and that the plaintiff was really asserting a 41(g) motion, even if they didn't characterize it that way, but that he had no possessory interest in the property, anyway, as required by 41(g).

Also, the Gov said that if they wanted to proceed under the PRA, they should have filed in DC (!) Plaintiff never mentions the Espionage Act under which the search warrant was issued. Gov talks about a "preindictment challenge to a search warrant," which they are expecting.

So, I think the tone of the Judge's remarks favor the Plaintiff, except that she specifically asked for Plaintiff to articulate the "irreparable harm" needed, and they couldn't state it.


I'll be stunned if they don't get the SM.

Added: Also, the Gov. made reference to Trump's "unclean hands" down at the bottom of page 22. He comes to Court with unclean hands, a legal term for being a crook. Hah hah.