It can be stated that in the Balakleya operation, the Armed Forces of Ukraine at the moment have completely outplayed in operational art the [Russian] command [...] Izyum prepares for battle. We wish good luck to our warriors, veterans, ordinary soldiers and officers. The enemy is preparing a strike not only from the north, but also from the south. In the area of the settlement of Dolyna, reserves are accumulating, the enemy is deploying tanks in attacking formation. Our aviation is actively working, the night will be hot.
“After a while, the lawyer lost patience, and he showed up, unannounced, at Trump Tower. Someone sent him up to Trump’s office. Trump was initially pleased to see him – he didn’t betray any sense of sheepishness – but the lawyer was steaming.
“‘I’m incredibly disappointed,’ he scolded Trump. ‘There’s no reason you haven’t paid us.’
“Trump made some apologetic noises. Then he said: ‘I’m not going to pay your bill. I’m going to give you something more valuable.’ What on earth is he talking about? the lawyer wondered. ‘I have a stallion,’ Trump continued. ‘It’s worth $5m.’ Trump rummaged around in a filing cabinet and pulled out what he said was a deed to a horse. He handed it to the lawyer.”
The federal judge who issued an unusual Labor Day ruling appointing a special master to review thousands of files seized from the 45th president’s Mar-a-Lago estate issued a brief order on Tuesday refusing to allow several onetime GOP officials from filing an amicus brief in opposition to the special master appointment. In late August, several anti-Donald Trump former officials who served under Republican administrations moved to submit a “friend of the court” document that would help U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon sort through the various legal issues at stake in the unprecedented criminal inquiry into the former U.S. head of state.
Cannon, in a paperless order with one sentence of explanation, dismissed the need for the ex-federal and state officials’ thoughts on the matter. “Upon review of the Motion, the Court appreciates the movants’ willingness to participate in this matter but does not find the proposed appointment of amici curiae to be warranted,” the judge wrote. Additionally, six other attorneys sought leave from the court in pro hac vice motions to formally take part in the case as the counsels-of-record for the seven anti-Trump prospective amici. The Trump-appointed district judge denied those efforts as well.
“…the appointment of a special master to adjudicate the claims of executive privilege would be a waste of time because the claim of executive privilege against the Executive Branch in this case is manifestly frivolous. Controlling legal precedent on this issue establishes that determinations of executive privilege made by the current President outweigh claims of privilege made by a former president. Here, it is abundantly clear that the Executive Branch, including the President and the Acting Archivist of the United States, have determined that the records at issue should be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Further, and in any event, executive privilege is not absolute; its protections are subject to a balancing of interests. Here, the former President has identified no concrete interests supporting his position, but the Executive Branch seeks the seized records for core constitutional functions: to conduct a criminal investigation and to assess the damage caused by potential mistreatment of classified information.”