Trump Tweet About Surveillance Undercuts FBI's Glomar Responses In FOIA Lawsuits
from the Make-Petitioning-Grievances-Great-Again-Also dept
There's no precedent for the volatility of our current president. That seems to be working out just fine for many, many plaintiffs engaged in lawsuits against the government. Attorney Brad Moss, currently suing the FBI over denied FOIA requests related domestic surveillance of Trump administration personnel, just had a 276-character gift dropped in his lap by the Commander-in-Chief.
The House of Representatives seeks contempt citations(?) against the JusticeDepartment and the FBI for withholding key documents and an FBI witness which could shed light on surveillance of associates of Donald Trump. Big stuff. Deep State. Give this information NOW! @FoxNews
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 30, 2017
The House of Representatives seeks contempt citations(?) against the JusticeDepartment and the FBI for withholding key documents and an FBI witness which could shed light on surveillance of associates of Donald Trump. Big stuff. Deep State. Give this information NOW! @FoxNews
The key here is the contempt citations and "shedding light on surveillance" of Donald Trump's associates. These are exactly the records Brad Moss is seeking. Moss jumped on the tweet, letting the president know he'd just performed an invaluable, if inadvertent, service on behalf of his clients.
OMG, are you stupid? You just blew apart two different cases your DOJ is defending against me. I’m going to take you apart, Mr. President. https://t.co/lpeTAkBFwP
— Bradley P. Moss, Esq (@BradMossEsq) November 30, 2017
OMG, are you stupid? You just blew apart two different cases your DOJ is defending against me. I’m going to take you apart, Mr. President.
Moss (and Mark Zaid) -- representing the Brad Heath (in one case) and Propublica (in the other) -- filed complaints when the FBI refused to produce documents pertaining to alleged FISA-approved surveillance (the Heath case) and the Christopher Steele dossier (Propublica case). In support of the FOIA requests, the plaintiffs cited plenty of public comments by officials and representatives, including House Oversight member Devin Nunes, who apparently was troubled that the surveillance apparatus he loves was being used against members of his own party.
The deadline for response came and went in both cases, prompting lawsuits. According to the amended complaint [PDF] filed in the Brad Heath case, the FBI suddenly felt the overwhelming urge to provide a (non) answer when hit with a lawsuit.
Approximately six hours after the initiation of this litigation, the FBI issued a response to the Requesters. In that response, the FBI stated that it could not confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, as doing so would trigger harm to national security interests under Exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).
Moss set some sort of FOIA litigation land speed record filing a Notice of Supplemental Information [PDF] based on the still-warm Trump tweet. The filing quotes Trump's tweet before explaining what the president was apparently referencing.
For context, this tweet by the President appears to be in reference to a news report aired on Fox News this evening. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5662667184001/ ?#sp=show-clips (last accessed November 29, 2017). In the news report, Fox News anchor Bret Baier announces that investigators for the House of Representatives have recommended the issuance of contempt citations against the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). The basis for the contempt citations concerns pending subpoenas served upon DOJ and FBI by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and that seek, among other things, “efforts to corroborate information provided by Mr. Steele” that were memorialized in the Steele Dossier. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/09/06/nunesletter.pdf (last accessed November 29, 2017). In the Fox News report, reporter James Rosen notes the separate issue that allegations from the Steele Dossier were purportedly relied upon in some fashion as the factual justification to secure surveillance warrants targeting associates of President Trump. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5662667184001/?#sp=show-clips (last accessed November 29, 2017)
Trump's tweet -- based on Fox News reports -- makes it pretty clear the FBI has some files on surveillance targeting Trump associates. I'm sure DOJ counsel will be filing something shortly contesting Trump's assertions and/or claiming Trump's tweets aren't "official" administration statements. It shouldn't matter. The tweet and the underlying reports will force the FBI to give up its Glomar and take a side.
The President’s tweet this evening is a rather clear and concrete official acknowledgment of the existence of records responsive to the Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests. The President specifically and definitively stated that the “key documents” he is publicly ordering the FBI and DOJ to release to Congressional investigators “could shed light on surveillance of associates of Donald Trump.” This is more than sufficient to nullify at least in part, as a matter of law, the appropriateness of the Glomar responses categorically invoked by the DOJ in this present case.
This isn't the first time a Trump tweet has contradicted legal arguments made by his own administration. It certainly won't be the last. A house divided against itself cannot stand, but it does make for entertaining litigation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brad heath, brad moss, donald trump, fbi, foia, glomar, tweets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just wait next mid-terms...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
I'm not for Trump but harbor a SLIGHT hope that he's NOT entirely one of "Them", despite the Goldman-Sachs executives, and/or that some of them are partly sane, don't want to actually destroy the USA.
We can't tell how much of what's attributed to Trump is just (the NYT's or Techdirt's) imagination and what's out of his control, done BY the "Deep State" for him to be blamed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
"Drain the Swamp," "MAGA," "Deep State." All of these slogans have no meaning but are repeated and repeated so that they can apply to almost anything.
"SEE! He's draining the swamp!!"
"SEE! Deep State!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
Trump is nothing like Hitler. There's no way he could write a book.
And his guide book isn't "Mein Kampf." It's Hitler's collected speeches, "My New Order."
Business Insider:
Someday we'll look back on this Presidency and laugh. It'll probably be one of those deep, eerie ones that slowly builds to a blood-curdling maniacal scream... but at least it'll still be a laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
"Donald Trump's credibility is so poor at this point that if I heard that he'd announced that the sky was blue, I would literally want to go outside and check."
That is not in any way an exaggeration, or a misuse of the word "literally".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
No, I think you misunderstand. Trump is evil, in that he is completely selfish (the root of all evil, IMHO). However, he is also dumb. He is convinced of several conspiracy-theory notions, including that he and/or his staff were spied upon during his Presidential campaign. That's what he is referencing here. He saw the Fox News piece, thought to himself, "See? I was right, they were spying on me!" and spat out this tweet.
He had no idea it might impact ongoing litigation, litigation against his own DOJ. It's possible that he wouldn't care even if he did know. All Trump cares about is Trump; his DOJ can go hang if they don't support him and his deranged theories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
It's also fairly obvious that the connection between Trump himself and Russia is exceedingly tenuous at best. This is a tech website, so it's a little silly that people here haven't looked into what they actually claim the "hacking" was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
Judging by reports about Mike Flynn’s plea of guilty of lying to the FBI, his subsequent cooperation with the Mueller investigation, and the substance of his potential on-the-record testimony, you might want to re-think that statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
Or do you just lack suspicion when people come from 3 letter agencies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
It is common knowledge that telcon to places outside the borders is monitored - no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
So yeah, they were spied on. Big-time.
And "spied on" doesn't just mean "by US agencies". All of the Five Eyes have SIGINT on them because they have skin in the game as well. They're sharing that with the US, because they would expect the US to share with them if one of their potential leaders turned out to be Putin's obedient servant. (You do know this about Trump, right? He has criticized every world leader but one: Putin. It's laughably obvious to everyone but the pathetic Trumpkins who are too blinded by worship of the Bloated Orange Swampdonkey to notice.)
(Speaking of bloated fat disgusting blobs, did you know he's up to 345lbs? He's been rage-eating junk food. I'm waiting for him to do a Mr. Creosote live on national television.)
You can whine about it all you want, but that's what our intelligence are supposed to do: find out what our adversaries are doing. An easy way for any politician or political candidate to avoid being caught up in that is DON'T CONSPIRE WITH OUR ENEMIES. That's why none of our intelligence agencies spied on Obama or Romney or Bush or McCain or Clinton: there was no need to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
Those damned microwave ovens!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
note
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how much twitter pays this guy,
He must be getting paid by the line. He must be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm inclined to believe the latter, since Trump uses his years-old personal account rather than the official White House media accounts previously used by former presidents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hopefully future generations can see what a mistake he is as president and not repeat history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, the fact that emails are private communications while Twitter is public would also have to be considered in trying to classify Trump's Tweets.
But even if Trump's Twittering is considered official communication from the Office of the President, then what are we to make of these "re-tweets" that have everyone in an uproar? Are we to consider it an official de facto endorsement of the original person's ideas, or could it be more along the lines of pointing out someone's obvious stupidity or carelessness, in much the same way that a person's online spelling and grammer errors can be repeated (and silently laughed at) by others without additional comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Given Trump’s generalizing statements about “radical Islamic terrorism”; his plans to curb travel and immigration of people from majority-Muslim countries, which were based near-specifically on the fact that those countries are majority-Muslim; his willingness to lie about having seen Muslims celebrating in the streets after the September 11th attacks; his willingness to denigrate a Gold Star Family because they were Muslim; and all the other racist bullshit he has said about Muslims and people from the Middle East—on top of all his other racist rhetoric and actions—I would say yes, we can and should consider his sharing a trio of ultra-right-wing videos meant to incite anti-Muslim hatred as a presidential endorsement of the views of those British White nationalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now I bet you don't have the same logical standards for the hate spewing that the left, democratic party, and antifa does do you?
It's just one big circle jerk of haters calling each other a bunch of haters. You are all despicable humans trying to oppress other humans because "your reasons".
Nothing is truly new under the sun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are human. Who are you trying to oppress?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
hate spewing that the left, democratic party
Yeah, I really wish the left would leave those Muslims, LGBTQ, and especially them poor persecuted Nazis alone.
All that hate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's no shrugging it off and saying "it's just his personal account" or "other people do it too." He's the goddamn president!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did no one see it coming?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
as an official government document
The courts have consistently held them as relevant, with respect to policy.
You might want to google "trump tweets" along with "transgender military ban," "travel ban," "CNN AT&T Merger," and most recently "fucks up 2 DOJ cases."
This isn't a senile old fucktard just blabbering.
It's a senile old fucktard who happens to be president blabbering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Have also justified slavery, murder, bullying, threats, and theft from time to time too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, every intelligence agency on the planet, ESPECIALLY the ones that belong to adversarial governments, absolutely love his tweets. Why?
1. They indicate when he's awake.
2. They indicate what he's watching on TV.
3. They show what he's thinking about.
4. They betray his vanity, his pride, his conceit, his arrogance, etc. -- every one of which is a trait to be exploited.
5. They include metadata. Happy, wonderful, valuable metadata.
6. And so on. Even the typos have some value.
There are, no doubt, analysts whose sole job is to dissect every single one of his tweets and prepare reports on his state of mind and his likely next course of action. Why wouldn't there be? He's handing over reams of valuable, actionable data on a daily basis, only a fool would ignore it.
By the way, there is also no doubt that Mueller's team is analyzing them all too. Trump has already publicly confessed to several crimes (that we know about) and my guess is that there are more that we may find out about in due course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What crimes? Pussy grabbing? That was not a *public* confession, and perhaps not even a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Last I heard it was, what has changed?
Now whether the AG/DA has the balls to prosecute is another story. Perhaps one of them will recognize their personal responsibility and actually perform the job that they signed up for. But based upon their past, I assume they will not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In case you weren't paying attention, he's publicly confessed to obstruction of justice multiple times, most recently on Saturday. Part of this is a result of his dementia, part of this is a result of his obvious insanity, but at lot of it is the result of his arrogance: he truly believes he's above the law. And unfortunately his enablers, including the sycophants in Congress, aren't calling him on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is he an asshole, of course, but he is trying to change Washington, which is why he won in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Based on discussions with my friends who vote R see how bad Trump is for the party more-so than Dems, but the Dems don't understand that their politicians are viewed as even worse.
Just about everyone I know that voted for Trump did it while holding their nose. THAT is how nasty the democrats are... people would rather have Trump than the likes of Hillary and the concept is just lost on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe they voted Trump because he planned to pass the broader Republican agenda and appoint anti-abortion/anti-queer judges to federal benches and the Supreme Court. If you think it was all about Hillary being a bad candidate, you are incorrect in your assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't assume either party actually stands for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They both stand for at least one thing: whatever their corporate donors tell them to get on their knees for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
but he is trying to change Washington
Sure...by accomplishing absolutely nothing, rather than very little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The sad fact of the matter: He does not need to accomplish anything to change Washington. He already has changed it, and only by virtue of being who he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But don't worry: this stuff is going to come out at Trump's trial. So there will be ample opportunity for all of us to scrutinize it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He sounds surprised
Apparently, some people still assume that the president is interested in having a smoothly-running government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]