The special master set to examine the 11,000 documents that were retrieved from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate last month — including over 100 documents that were marked as classified — has voiced skepticism over Trump’s assertion that he declassified the documents before leaving office, citing his lawyers’ refusal to specify whether or not the claims were true.
Trump has publicly claimed he declassified all the documents that were marked as classified, but his lawyers have not made that same argument in their request for a special master or in any other legal filings. They have insinuated, however, that it’s a possibility he did so, and have argued that the court shouldn’t automatically assume that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) claims that the documents are still classified are true.
On Tuesday, during Judge Raymond Dearie’s first hearing since being appointed the special master, the veteran judge said that the DOJ’s argument is stronger than Trump’s, since their claim (that documents with classified markings are indeed classified) makes more sense in the absence of contradictory evidence.
“Let’s not belittle the fact that we are dealing with at least potentially legitimately classified information,” Dearie, who was one of Trump’s suggestions to be special master, said during the 40-minute hearing. “The government has a very strong obligation, as do all of us, to see to it that that information doesn’t get in the wrong hands.”
In discussing the DOJ’s “prima facie evidence” — terminology that means “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted” — Dearie said that the former president’s lawyers didn’t make a cogent legal argument that the material that was retrieved last month might not be classified.
“As far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of it,” Dearie said, noting that he would only make an exception if Trump’s legal team could provide evidence of declassification.
Many legal experts praised Dearie for refusing to accept the flimsy legal argument.
“It really was ‘put up or shut up'” from the special master, said former DOJ prosecutor Andrew Weissmann on MSNBC on Tuesday.
“Dearie seems poised to just say the 100 docs” marked as classified “are classified, maybe [without] even looking at them, since they’re so marked and Trump team gave zero evidence,” said Harry Litman, a legal columnist for The Los Angeles Times and former U.S. Attorney.
“Dearie should simply decide that he is going to accept the government’s assessment that docs that are marked classified are classified; if Trump wants to wait until he is charged to litigate declassification it’s unclear what the point is in reviewing them further now,” Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent and current editor at Just Security, tweeted in response to Dearie’s comments during the hearing.
The bickering from Trump’s lawyers over the classification status of the documents began before the hearing on Tuesday. Prior to Monday, Dearie had provided both Trump’s lawyers and the DOJ with his “draft management plan” outlining how he intended to proceed as special master. In a legal filing on Monday, Trump’s lawyers complained about the request for proof of declassification in that plan, saying that providing that information would deprive Trump of a defense strategy should he be indicted.
“[T]he Special Master process will have forced the Plaintiff to fully and specifically disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment without such a requirement being evident in the District Court’s order,” Trump’s lawyers said in their legal briefing.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.