Argument: 1. THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER TO REVIEW THE CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HERE.
- A. Cases In Which Courts Have Appointed Special Masters Involve Claims of Attorney-Client (Not Executive) Privilege.
- B. The Presidential Records Act Forecloses the Relief that the Former President Seeks.
2. EVEN IF THERE WAS A LEGAL BASIS FOR APPOINTING A SPECIAL MASTER, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLEARLY DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SEIZED RECORDS
“The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation…These are essential, constitutional functions that the Executive Branch cannot adequately perform without access to the seized records. And, in particular, there is great urgency in conducting a thorough damage assessment of any potential mistreatment of classified materials, which militates against the additional delay that would inevitably result from the appointment of a special master in this matter. To indulge former President Trump’s assertions of executive privilege through the appointment of a special master would simply put off the inevitable, and harm significant national interests in the process by delaying a criminal investigation and intelligence community assessment of damage.”