A federal judge who was appointed by Donald Trump has granted Trump's
request for a so called special master to review documents that were
seized by the FBI in his Mar-a-Lago residents.
Of course, this is the continuation of the investigation into Trump's possession
of highly classified documents.
Documents that he had multiple opportunities to
return to the national archives but refused to do so.
Now, Trump made the argument that some of the documents that were obtained
by the FBI from his residents are protected under executive privilege or
attorney client privilege.
And so, his lawyers tried to get this federal judge
to agree to a special master who will review the documents and
ensure that there's nothing protected by privilege in this
cache of documents that the FBI is now investigating.
However, what's really going on here and I wanna be clear is that Trump is
implementing the same tactic that we've seen in every other investigation,
which is delay, delay, delay.
This is all meant to delay the process and it appears that he is succeeding in that.
This means that federal prosecutors for
now are barred from using key pieces of evidence as part of their investigation.
That's not permanent but for the time being, that is the case.
Now, here is the background to the story.
Judge Aileen Cannon of the Federal District Court of the Southern District
of Florida ordered the appointment of an independent arbiter to review a trove
of material seized last month from Trump's private club and residents in Florida.
She also temporarily barred the Justice Department from using the seized
materials for any investigative purpose connected to its inquiry of Trump
until the work of the arbiter known as a special master was completed.
Let's also acknowledge that special master is probably the most bad ass title
that anyone could possibly have.
And it's unfortunate in this context but you get what I'm saying.
>> I think that it's one of the funnier titles.
>> I wanna be a special master.
>> [LAUGH] I think I know some special masters out there.
But what they're masters of is a different question.
All right, so now, listen, this is an interesting situation because for
the first time I'm now deeply worried about how much Trump has
contaminated the judge pool in this country at the federal level.
>> Is this the first time.
>> No, no, you can say, hey, listen to Anna's point, what do you mean for saying,
are you crazy to put the judges you put on?
But now, this is practical.
It is the first time we're seeing it live in action.
So this is, there's some parts of a ruling that I find to be relatively
straightforward and normal.
Sometimes people in this atlas for
media freaking out about everything that she said and
I don't think that's just five, I'll give you some nuance in a second, right?
But a lot of parts of the ruling where you're like,
I don't even make any sense at all.
But if she gets appealed its 11th circuit where 6 out of
the 11 judges are Trump appointed.
And if that gets appealed to go to the Supreme Court where 6 out of the 9 just
conservative and three of them appointed by Trump.
So there is a Trump ladder here all the way to the Supreme Court that can
say we don't give a damn what the law is, Trump is not guilty cuz he's Trump.
And she came close to saying that.
>> Yeah, she did.
So I wanna get to that cuz I think that's the most relevant part of her
decision here.
Because the Justice Department in its court filing which we covered on the show.
Tried to make it clear that they don't see Trump or
anyone in a position of power as someone who should be treated differently
from an ordinary person who does the same thing that he did, right?
He broke a law which was by the way, made harsher by Trump himself in 2018.
He wanted to make a point about Hillary Clinton and
her use of a private email server.
So in 2018, he made the classified documents laws far more
robust in terms of the punishment.
And an individual found guilty of mishandling classified documents could
serve as much as five years in federal prison.
Again, that was Trump's doing.
But in response to what the DOJ was arguing in its court filing,
this judge was like no, I think Trump should be treated differently.
[LAUGH] No, she didn't say it in so many words, but
I'll give you the words that she did.
>> Really close.
>> Really close So here it is.
Her ruling seemed to carve out a special exception to the normal legal process for
the former president and reject the DOJ's implicit argument that
Trump be treated like any other investigative subject.
She writes in her ruling, even if any assertion of executive
privilege by plaintiff ultimately fails in this context.
That possibility, even if likely, does not negate a former President's
ability to raise the privilege as an initial matter.
Judge Cannon said she had made her decisions to ensure at least
the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances.
Okay, so let's pause right there.
He's claiming executive privilege, he is not the President of the United States.
He took classified and
top secret documents home with him from the White House when his term was over.
What executive privilege?
And what are you talking about when you referred to this as
the appearance of fairness and integrity?
When in reality anyone else who was caught taking classified documents out of
the White House, taking it home with them, would certainly suffer consequences
far greater than what we're seeing in regard to Donald Trump and
how he's being treated by the courts here.
Now, Judge Cannon convinced concern that Trump might suffer reputational
harm from a search that was not conducted properly or as she added from a future
indictment that was based even in part on property that ought to be returned.
Okay, so let's pause.
So, what do you mean search that was not conducted properly?
A federal judge signed a search warrant that had to determine that
there was probable cause that trump had broken the law here.
So, what do you mean improper search?
There was absolutely no specificity in that regard.
>> Yeah. So
she kept saying extraordinary circumstances over and over again.
Why she's saying that?
She's saying because she wants to make a Trump exception to the law.
And she's basically acknowledging it by saying, yeah, it was another defendant.
We wouldn't have the extraordinary circumstances and
we would apply the law to him, but he appointed me.
I'm a trump head.
I don't want to apply the law to him.
So I'm gonna find this,
try to find a loophole in the law because the extraordinary circumstances
of the harm that the beloved Trump would face here.
Well, there's one reason he might face that harm because he stole
classified documents and took them home, and that's what this case is about.
Can you be neutral for one second?
Can you be fair for one second?
She's avowedly saying while saying, hey,
we really gotta be careful to be fair here saying.
Now, remember this ruling is, I am not going to be fair,
I am not gonna apply the law to Trump as I would to any other person.
Now, the one part that I think she has an interesting case to make is actually
an executive privilege.
Now, Biden says, and this has been the rule the entire time.
Hey your former president, I get to decide as the current president who has executive
privilege and who doesn't.
So, that has been the case for a long time.
And the National Archives agrees everyone in the government agrees, right?
But she says, look, the Supreme Court never ruled on it.
And maybe the Supreme Court can say executive privilege applies to people,
that to presidents who also leave office.
Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Kavanaugh has actually said something in a decision
that makes you go, he might think that if you're a former president you could
just claim executive privilege.
>> For the rest of your life.
>> And keep evidence hidden so that you're not prosecuted on it.
Now, that sounds terrible and that's the Trump ladder
I'm talking about where they just say, I don't care extraordinary circumstances.
He's allowed to break the law, right.
But is it conceivable that the Supreme Court would say that that yes,
no Trump is allowed to hide some of this evidence because of executive privilege.
We're now for the first time allowing ex-presidents to have.
>> Yes, it is conceivable that the Supreme Court would say that.
So buckle up, brace for impact.
So and by the way going all the way to the Supreme Court having them Mulan
it delays this for such a long time, which is of course what they wanna do.
Don't look at those documents, whatever you do, don't look at
the stolen classified documents that Trump took, that are you so nervous about?
If he didn't do it, won't you wanna do right away?
I know I would write if I didn't do it.
So look, last thing on this is important and I kind of read you a part of this but
she said, Mr. Trump faced quote unquantifiable potential harm by
way of improper disclosure of sensitive information to the public.
I mean think about how absurd that is.
No, there are now people saying wait a minute.
Way more than normal number of American spies were caught and
killed last year, that is an actual danger, okay?
We have to actually take care of that, we don't know exactly how that happened,
that's the whole point of an investigation, right?
And these things were sitting in an unlocked linen closet or
basement etcetera.
And people walking in and out with different boxes.
God knows these are real dangerous, but she doesn't think so.
She thinks the real danger is to Trump.
>> His reputation.
>> And the harm to his beloved reputation.
So this is a deeply biased ruling overall.
And by the way you should know what a special masters for.
It isn't for this at all.
Just so you're not confused.
A special master is for attorneys that are then charged better call saul, right?
And if you've gota criminal attorney,
you're bringing someone to make sure that they protect the client's information.
So that the while prosecuting the attorney,
you don't actually accidentally see how his clients are guilty.
So you're bringing a special master and say, hey, you can use that against
the attorney, but you can't use that stuff because it implicates his clients.
They just took that random law and they were like, maybe a the president.
And she's like, yeah, sure why not, maybe delayed and see how it goes.
>> And every legal expert who has commented on the judge's decision
here in the press has stated that this is unprecedented.
And I wanna read you one legal expert that was quoted
in the New York Times is the last graphic judge.
Cannon had a reasonable path she could have taken to appoint a special
master to review documents for attorney client privilege and
allow the criminal investigation to continue, otherwise said Ryan Goodman,
New Nork University law professor.
Instead, she chose a radical path.
And look, she chose a radical path because she was put in her position of power.
She was appointed by Trump in her position of power, specifically to do this, right?
Not specifically on this issue, but there's a reason why the right wing has
been piper focused on installing all of the fhese federalist society judges.
And to be sure, she is absolutely a federalist society judge.
In her Senate questionnaire, she described herself as having been a member of
the conservative federalist society since 2005.
And Trump nominated her in May of 2020 and the Senate confirmed her on November 12,
which as you guys already know, that's only nine days after he lost reelection.
>> Yeah. And
of course the idiot Democrats are helping Republicans confirm these judges and Trump
always attacks every time a judge rules against them, it's says Obama judges.
By the way to this point,
the trump judges at least in the election cases have been fair.
Okay, so that's important context, so they all ruled against Trump.
They said you never presented any evidence of election fraud.
Every single Trump judge ruled that way.
In this case, it looks like we've got a Trump judge saying no Trumps more
important than the rest of you guys.
So we're really worried about it.
But whenever anything goes against Trump, he goes Obama judges, Obama judges,
it's it and his followers believe it completely.
They think real judges are the ones that are biased etcetera.
Now, whenever it's a Trump judge doing something outrageous like this,
Democrats never say it because it's the sanctity of the courts and we don't wanna
be biased and other Democrats will yell at us if we say things about Trump judges.
So as usual, we have an uneven playing field.