 |
| Photo Credit: AP. |
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Friday asked an appeals court to dismiss the appointment of a special master who is currently overseeing the review of documents seized from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home by FBI agents during the 8th August raid.
The
government argues that it was untenable for a lower court to grant Trump’s
request for the appointment of a special master to review classified documents
and other records as well as barring government investigators from using the
documents as part of its investigation while the review is in progress, the
Washington Examiner reports.
Special
master, U.S. District Senior Judge Raymond Dearie was chosen to recommend
whether any of the nearly 11,000 seized documents shouldn’t be part of
investigation on grounds that they are privileged or personal.
Filing the
request before the 11th Circuit, the DOJ wrote in its brief:
“The
uncontested record demonstrates that the search was conducted in full
accordance with a judicially authorized warrant, and there has been no
violation of Plaintiff’s rights — let alone a ‘callous disregard’ for them.
Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in establishing any need for the seized
records — indeed, a substantial number of them are not even his—or in
establishing any irreparable injury in their absence,” The Hill reported.
Both Trump
and the Justice Department have been locked in weeks of litigation over the
scope of duties of the special master appointed to determine whether some of
the records seized during the raid may be protected by claims of legal
privilege.
The special
master initially caused delays in the DOJ investigation whether the former
president broke federal law relating to removal, storage and improper handling
of classified documents removed from the White House. Last month the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 11th Circuit lifted a temporary halt on the Justice
Department’s ability to use the seized documents as part of its investigation
leading to removal of some 100 classified records from the arbiter’s review.
The DOJ had
argued that Florida-based federal district Judge Aileen Cannon erred by
appointing a special master in the first place, according to The Hill.
On Friday department
lawyers argued in court that the entire special master review be suspended on
grounds the lawyer who made the appointment had no basis for doing so and
noting that Trump was not entitled to an independent review of the records
seized and has no privilege over them, according to The Associated Press.
“Plaintiff
has no plausible claim of executive privilege as to any of the seized materials
and no plausible claim of personal attorney-client privilege as to the seized
government records — including all records bearing classification markings,” The
Associated Press cited the department’s brief.
“Accordingly,”
they added, ”the special-master review process is unwarranted.”
The DOJ said
it recovered about 13,000 records which included roughly 100 with classification
markings.
The
department argued that Trump failed to demonstrate and Cannon failed to weigh
fully each aspect of the legal tests necessary before a court can impose limits
on a federal investigation, noting whether officials displayed a “callous
disregard” for someone’s rights, and whether they would be “irreparably
injured” by failing to get the return of their property, which according to the
DOJ Trump could not justify, The Hill reported.
"Further, because Plaintiff did not demonstrate that the standard filter-team process is inadequate to protect his privileged attorney-client communications in the remaining materials, special-master review is unwarranted on that score as well," the DOJ wrote in its filing on Friday, according to the Washington Examiner.
The DOJ said
it needed both classified and unclassified records seized during the raid
because both records were mixed during their storage at Mar-a-Lago.
“The dates
on unclassified records may prove highly probative in the government’s investigation.
For example, if any records comingled with the records bearing classification
markings post-date Plaintiff’s term of office, that could establish that these
materials continued to be accessed after Plaintiff left the White House,” the
DOJ wrote. According to The Hill.
“In short, the unclassified records that were stored collectively with records bearing classification markings may identify who was responsible for the unauthorized retention of these records, the relevant time periods in which records were created or accessed, and who may have accessed or seen them,” the department continued.