What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Barrister]

Many thanks 

Just reading through the wiki page on it (I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disallowance_and_reservation_in_Canada

Couple interesting findings:

-looks like the UK still has the power to disallow federal legislation!  This apparently only happened once in 1873, and only because the federal legislation was contrary to the BNA Act (as it then was).  The UK subsequently amended the BNA Act, and the federal legislation was re-passed.

-because of it's long disuse some have argued that disallowance is now by constitutional convention unable to be used (and even the SCC has raised it as a possibility)

-Trudeau was prepared to remove disallowance in exchange for the Charter, but because the provinces negotiated the Notwithstanding clause (which Trudeau was opposed to) he insisted on keeping disallowance

-In 2019 Toronto City Council asked Justin Trudeau to use disallowance on a reorganization of City Counsel done by Doug Ford.  Trudeau declined, and the SCC found the reorganization was constitutional.

[grumbler]

Interesting observation by LegalEagle on Judge Canon's assumption of jurisdiction in the Trump case:  Section 2204 of the Presidential Records Act states that

(e) The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any action initiated by the former President asserting that a determination made by the Archivist violates the former President's rights or privileges.

This whole investigation started because the Archivist believed that Trump was illegally holding government records.  All of the unclassified material that was seized by the FBI was either mingled with classified material, or seized pursuant to the Archivist's determination.  Neither of those categories would seem to fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, if Federal law is, indeed, law.

[The Minsky Moment]

Interesting observation by LegalEagle on Judge Canon's assumption of jurisdiction in the Trump case:  Section 2204 of the Presidential Records Act states that

(e) The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any action initiated by the former President asserting that a determination made by the Archivist violates the former President's rights or privileges.

Cannon's opinion recognized that jurisdictional provisions in a footnote:

16 The Court recognizes that, under the PRA, "[t]he United States District Court for the District of
Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any action initiated by the former President asserting that a
determination made by the Archivist" to permit public dissemination of presidential records
"violates the former President's [constitutional] rights or privileges." 44 U.S.C. § 2204.

Usually such a footnote concludes with an explanation why it doesn't apply or the court is nonetheless taking jurisdiction.  In the opinion, however, the footnote simply stops care, creating the impression that the Court has just acknowledged its lack of jurisdiction but has decided to ignore the problem.

The most charitable explanation is that Cannon believed that notwithstanding the PRA, she can assert jurisdiction through Fed R. Crim P. 41(g), which permits parties to bring original actions for return of property seized in the District where the seizure occurred.  That doesn't work, however, because she reserved ruling on the Rule 41(g) relief and because Rule 41(g) is not a mechanism for asserting presidential privilege over documents.

There is yet another venue problem that has essentially been ignored which is that the case was not properly before her under the internal operating procedures (IOP) of the SD Florida District.  Under the IOP, privilege challenges to documents seized under a warrant should be made to the duty judge in the relevant section, West Palm Beach.  Cannon was not the duty judge for the month.

[The Minsky Moment]

Interesting observation by LegalEagle on Judge Canon's assumption of jurisdiction in the Trump case:  Section 2204 of the Presidential Records Act states that

(e) The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any action initiated by the former President asserting that a determination made by the Archivist violates the former President's rights or privileges.

Cannon's opinion recognized that jurisdictional provision in a footnote:

16 The Court recognizes that, under the PRA, "[t]he United States District Court for the District of
Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any action initiated by the former President asserting that a
determination made by the Archivist" to permit public dissemination of presidential records
"violates the former President's [constitutional] rights or privileges." 44 U.S.C. § 2204.

Usually such a footnote concludes with an explanation why it doesn't apply or the court is nonetheless taking jurisdiction.  In the opinion, however, the footnote stops there, creating the impression that the Court has just acknowledged its lack of jurisdiction but has decided to ignore the problem.

The most charitable explanation is that Cannon believed that notwithstanding the PRA, she can assert jurisdiction through Fed R. Crim P. 41(g), which permits parties to bring original actions for return of property seized in the District where the seizure occurred.  That doesn't work, however, because she reserved ruling on the Rule 41(g) relief and because Rule 41(g) is not a mechanism for asserting presidential privilege over documents.

There is yet another venue problem that has essentially been ignored which is that the case was not properly before her under the internal operating procedures (IOP) of the SD Florida District.  Under the IOP, privilege challenges to documents seized under a warrant should be made to the duty judge in the relevant section, West Palm Beach.  Cannon was not the duty judge for the month.

[grumbler]

Interesting observation by LegalEagle on Judge Canon's assumption of jurisdiction in the Trump case:  Section 2204 of the Presidential Records Act states that

(e) The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any action initiated by the former President asserting that a determination made by the Archivist violates the former President's rights or privileges.

Cannon's opinion recognized that jurisdictional provisions in a footnote:

16 The Court recognizes that, under the PRA, "[t]he United States District Court for the District of
Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any action initiated by the former President asserting that a
determination made by the Archivist" to permit public dissemination of presidential records
"violates the former President's [constitutional] rights or privileges." 44 U.S.C. § 2204.

Usually such a footnote concludes with an explanation why it doesn't apply or the court is nonetheless taking jurisdiction.  In the opinion, however, the footnote simply stops care, creating the impression that the Court has just acknowledged its lack of jurisdiction but has decided to ignore the problem.

The most charitable explanation is that Cannon believed that notwithstanding the PRA, she can assert jurisdiction through Fed R. Crim P. 41(g), which permits parties to bring original actions for return of property seized in the District where the seizure occurred.  That doesn't work, however, because she reserved ruling on the Rule 41(g) relief and because Rule 41(g) is not a mechanism for asserting presidential privilege over documents.

There is yet another venue problem that has essentially been ignored which is that the case was not properly before her under the internal operating procedures (IOP) of the SD Florida District.  Under the IOP, privilege challenges to documents seized under a warrant should be made to the duty judge in the relevant section, West Palm Beach.  Cannon was not the duty judge for the month.

You can say that again! 

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSlxEmj_Cbk

Mypillowguy had his phone seized by the FBI in connection with the Colorado voting records breach.

I guess they're referring to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6QjOJm4rlI

I hadn't even heard of this.

At first I thought they were talking about the Georgia thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du0tZ8EyiDI

[Syt]

[grumbler]

Not the first case of Trump mistaking criticism for flattery.

[Jacob]

Not the first case of Trump mistaking criticism for flattery.

I suspect he knows it's not a mistake but twofold:

1) He likes the image because it IS how he sees himself.

2) He takes pleasure in (or at least wants to be seen taking pleasure in) "impotent liberal tears."

[HVC]

And he might win again.

Donald Trump's White House chief of staff secretly bought a book in which 27 mental health professionals warned that the president was psychologically unfit for the job, then used it as a guide in his attempts to cope with Trump's irrational behavior.

Guardian article

[Razgovory]

Judge rules that criminal prosecution is kaput.  Every defendant should own his own judge.

[FunkMonk]

Trump won again.

[HVC]

Trump won again.

What happened now?

[Valmy]

Judge rules that criminal prosecution is kaput.  Every defendant should own his own judge.

Was there a particular statute referenced?

[Admiral Yi]

What happened now?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-rules-trump-blocks-review-seized-classified-records-2022-09-15/

Judge says DOJ can't begin reviewing classified docs.

Seems kind of like a nothingburger to me.

In related news NY Attorney General declined a plea proposal concerning the Trump Organization financial fraud case.