Anyone who is reading this is probably already aware of the blockbuster brief that the Justice Department just filed in the case against the genius. I’ve read through it, and as has been reported almost everywhere, it makes a strong case for the former guy’s guilt, as well as implicating some of his lawyers in his crimes, or, alternatively, proving beyond doubt that they are among the most incompetent lawyers on the planet. (I’m going with door number one)
The brief was filed in response to a motion Trump filed in an entirely different court, before an entirely different judge, than the judge that issued the search warrant in the first place. It was a clear case of judge shopping, as they were looking for a Trump appointed judge who would rule in Trump’s favor, regardless of the law, and they may have found one, as she has indicated that she is disposed to grant his motion to appoint a special master. It’s unclear if she’ll stick to that position since, as the Justice Department persuasively proves in its brief: 1) it is clear as day that there is no legal basis for such a ruling, and 2) the Justice Department has already reviewed all the documents because Trump delayed seeking the relief that he should have sought the minute after the warrant was served, so the case is somewhat moot.
I haven’t seen much discussion of the fact that the judge has held on to the case rather than refer it back to the court that issued the warrant. I didn’t practice criminal law, but I know for certain that I could never have gotten away with asking one judge to interfere in a case that was pending before another. The likelihood is that I would piss off both judges, particularly the first judge, to whom the second judge would likely refer my motion. It seems to me that Trump’s motion should have been directed to the judge that issued the warrant.
Why hasn’t this judge referred the case to the appropriate court for a decision? That fact alone makes me think that she’s trying to figure out a way to do something for Trump that will, in one way or another, defy pre-existing precedent, though, of course, precedent means nothing to much of the latter day judiciary. Whether she’ll decide to sully her reputation is at present unknown, but remember that virtually nothing she does can affect her lifetime appointment, and, who knows, if DeSantis gets into the White House, he might reward her intellectual dishonesty with a Supreme Court seat.
She is symptomatic of a huge problem that will fester in the courts of this nation for the next 40 years or so, assuming the republic somehow holds on that long. The courts are now well stocked with”originalists” whose definition of “originalism” is: I get to do whatever I want.
Post a Comment