OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Attorneys for the Department of Justice have filed another motion for a stay in the judge’s order to appoint a special master to review documents that were seized during the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago.
The Department of Justice said it “seeks a limited but critical stay,” to “a discrete set of just over 100 records marked as classified” and “whose unauthorized retention may constitute a crime.”
It said that the records it wants to review have markings that show that unauthorized disclosure “reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security,” including “exceptionally grave damage
“The government’s stay motion demonstrates that the government is likely to succeed on the merits because Plaintiff cannot plausibly establish any property interest in or privilege,” it said in the letter to Judge Aileen Cannon.
“These records are at the core of the government’s investigation, and the government’s inability to review and use them significantly constrains its investigation,” it said. “The compelled disclosure of records marked as classified to a special master further harms the Executive Branch’s interest in limiting access to such materials absent any valid purpose served by their review.”
It came in response to a motion filed by attorneys for former President Donald Trump in which they argued against a stay.
“[Trump] instead references other seized records that contain personal information or could be subject to attorney-client privilege, none of which are at issue in this stay motion,” the DOJ also wrote. “As to the records marked as classified, Plaintiff asserts that the government has not ‘proven’ their classification status.”
The attorneys for former President Trump filed their motion on Monday as the former president dismissed the FBI seizing documents from his Mar-a-Lago residence as a “misguided storage dispute,” The Daily Mail reported.
The former president’s attorneys praised US District Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to pause the review of his documents as they await the appointment of a special master as a “sensible preliminary step towards restoring order from chaos.”
“In what at its core is a document storage dispute that has spiraled out of control, the Government wrongfully seeks to criminalize the possession by the 45th President of his own Presidential and personal records,” the filing said.
“What is clear regarding all of the seized materials is that they belong with either President Trump (as his personal property to be returned pursuant to Rule 41(g)) or with NARA, but not with the Department of Justice,” it said.
The government took issue with Cannon’s stay on reviewing the documents and the Trump team hit back.
“The Government’s stance assumes that if a document has a classification marking, it remains classified irrespective of any actions taken during President Trump’s term in office,” it said.
The ex-president’s lawyers have appeared hesitant to make that claim in court despite Trump insisting in multiple public interviews and statements that he had not taken classified documents because he had waived their secrecy as commander-in-chief.
However, in their court filing, Trump’s lawyers directly contradict him by stating the Biden administration has ‘not proven these records remain classified,’ adding that it’s a topic ‘to be determined later.’
Despite ordering the FBI to temporarily halt its probe, Cannon did let allow a separate review of the documents by the intelligence community to move forward.
Federal prosecutors argued Thursday that allowing one without the other is unworkable, ‘given that the same senior DOJ and FBI officials are ultimately responsible for supervising the criminal investigation and for ensuring that DOJ and FBI are coordinating appropriately with the [Intelligence Community]’ on its own review.
The Department of Justice wants the former president to pay for the special master in the case, but Trump has said that they should split the cost, Mediaite reported.
“Plaintiff proposes to split evenly the professional fees and expenses of the Special Master and any professionals, support staff, and expert consultants engaged at the Master’s request,” it said in the filing.
“The Government’s position is that, as the party requesting the special master, Plaintiff should bear the additional expense of the Special Master’s work,” it said.
