The latest response filed by former President Donald Trump’s lawyers in the Special master dispute before Judge Aileen Cannon it smacks of extremism and desperation perhaps born of being maneuvered into a legal corner by Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice.
Instead of presenting a concise response to the Department of Justice’s carefully crafted request for Judge’s Cannon to partially suspend its own warrant long enough to allow investigators access to classified documents, Trump’s legal team begins with a rambling “Introduction” that takes up nearly a quarter of its presentation in which it characterizes the entire affair as simply ” a document storage dispute. which unfairly criminalizes Trump’s possession of his own presidential and personal records.
Trump’s lawyers use quotation marks around the word “classified,” implying that the very classification of any document is suspect, claiming that only a special master can begin to “restore order to chaos,” and arguing that the Department of Justice is trying to “skip the process and proceed.” straight to a predetermined conclusion.” All of that is on the first page.
The Justice Department’s decision to reduce its legal argument to just seeking access to classified materials is a smart move because it plays into the strongest part of its argument, namely that it is not possible to investigate a case involving classified documents without access to the documents, leaving Trump’s lawyers have no choice but to attack the very decision of the Justice Department to investigate.
For example, his use of the phrase “default conclusion” clumsily attempts to mimic the clichéd “rush to judgment” language used by legendary defense attorney Johnnie Cochran in his successful closing argument in the OJ Simpson murder trial. But the conclusion that Cochran challenged was the conclusion reached by a criminal investigation, namely that OJ Simpson had committed murder. In contrast, Trump’s lawyers are trying to control the process of the criminal investigation itself.
The uproar over the ranking is another example of forced heavy-handedness by Trump’s lawyers, as seen in his derogatory statement: ”