Fine Amici In The Eleventh Circuit -- On How Preposterously Wrong Cannon's Decisions (Plural) Are...

This was actually uploaded Friday night, but the Eleventh Circuit's PACER feed was undergoing upgrades all weekend, so the full PDF of the text, on this fine friend of the court brief (from former federal and state prosecutors, no less) just became accessible this morning, here on Monday. It is absolutely spot on.

As I say, do go read it all -- 32 pages worth:

. . .First, the district court [Aileen Cannon] erred in holding that former President Trump could under any circumstances prevail on a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) (“Rule 41(g)”) as to the approximately 100 documents that are at issue in this appeal. Those documents are all classified and, in some cases, may qualify as Presidential records, which are both by definition property of the U.S. government such that former President Trump does not have (and cannot have) the possessory interest in them required to prevail on a motion under Rule 41(g).

Second, the appointment of a special master was clearly improper at least insofar as the special master was empowered to decide claims of executive privilege. Executive privilege simply cannot be asserted -- as the former President proposes to do here -- against “the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked.” Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Serv., 433 U.S. 425, 447–48 (1977) (“Nixon v. GSA”). That is particularly true here, where the Executive Branch has sought the return of its own classified records in connection with its ongoing performance of core executive and national security functions. Further, and again by definition, any records that are subject to executive privilege will be Presidential records belonging to the U.S. government, not to former President Trump.

Third, a former President is entitled to no greater protection under the law than is any other citizen. To the extent that the district court held otherwise, concern for reputational harm is not a valid basis for enjoining a criminal investigation, especially one that is inexorably intertwined with a national security damage assessment. Nor is there a principled basis for applying a different rule to this plaintiff, by virtue of the “position formerly held by” him, ECF No. 89 at 10, effectively endowing him with greater procedural rights than those afforded to other citizens. . . .

It is hard NOT to see these Judge Cannon "Rube Goldberg machine-like" rulings as anything other than naked partisanship -- she chooses the result she favors, then simply makes up a series of illogical, randomly-assembled shibboleths, in each case, to "get there."

But in the end, she won't matter -- at all. She is. . . like her Tangerine handler. . . going to soon be. . . irrelevant. Out, grinning.

नमस्ते