#24. I was just about to link his tweets.
This special master opinion is so bad it's hard to know where to begin:
1. She says Biden hasn't weighed in on whether docs protected by Exec Privilege. Nonsense. The archives letter (which DOJ submitted to the Judge) makes it clear current President thinks none of this is privileged. Archivist says it is "not a close" question
2. Judge enjoins the entire investigation because some of the material might be subject to Executive Privilege. But Executive Priv isn't some post-presidential privilege that allows Presidents to keep documents after they leave office. At most, it simply means these are Executive documents that must be returned to the archives. It doesn't in any way shape or form mean they can't be used in a criminal prosecution about stolen docs.
3. She says the "reputational" harm to Trump justifies a special master. That's insane - every crim deft has reputational harm. Are we now going to have special masters in every crim investigation?
4. She says the Special Master should screen materials for exec privilege, without ever once explaining what specific material is subject to exec priv, particularly when the incumbent President rejects the assertion. How is the Master supposed to figure that intricate Q out?
5. She says that because some tiny percentage of materials might be privileged, the entire investigation over all the materials has to stop. That's a bazooka when one needs at most a scalpel.
6. She tries to enjoin the Exec Branch from using these materials in an investigation, but the govt has already reviewed all the materials. It makes no sense.
7. She says Trump suffers irreparable harm in interim, but the only harm she isolates is he won't have the docs back during the investig. That's not irreparable, he can get them back later &if they are improperly used to bring an indictment, he can move to dismiss the indictment
8. Her analysis of standing is terrible. Trump wouldn't own these docs anyway, so why does he get a Master over them? If there is some marginal claim to some attorney client docs, that handful of material can be separately dealt with"you don't enjoin the entire investig for that
9. Her jurisdictional analysis is similarly awful. She let Trump forum shop for a judge, instead of letting the magistrate judge evaluate these claims. The appearances here are tragic.
That's just a few of many more problems. Frankly, any of my first year law students would have written a better opinion.