DOJ files 'bratty' new motion in response to Aileen Cannon: analysts
Justice Department prosecutor Jay Bratt is being called a little "bratty" by legal analysts over his recent court filing in the classified documents case, commented legal experts Allison Gill and Andrew McCabe on the "Jack" podcast.
Bratt clashed with Judge Aileen Cannon last week when he filed a request to adjust the bail conditions of former President Donald Trump's release that were set as a condition of his release after his arrest for allegedly retaining top-secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.
In this particular case, Bratt argued that new restrictions on Trump's release were needed after he spread bogus conspiracy theories about the FBI supposedly being authorized to kill him, despite the fact that authorizations of deadly force are common in nearly all such search warrants.
Read Also: A criminologist explains why Judge Cannon must step away from Trump trial immediately
"We learned that Trump's attorneys misquoted language the FBI uses on operations orders, which they must prepare before executing any search warrant," explained McCabe.
"Trump's attorneys said that the FBI was authorized to use deadly force when necessary," McCabe said. "When the ops order actually says, 'only when necessary' and 'only when the lives of officers or other people are in danger.'"
Trump then used that language to falsely claim that President Joe Biden was attempting to assassinate him.
The DOJ responded by filing this request to adjust the bail conditions. But in doing so, Bratt dodged a local rule demanding that prosecutors to "meet and confer" with Trump's team, which he did not do.
In response, Judge Aileen Cannon denied the motion and reprimanded Bratt for the procedural error.
This week, "Jay Bratt refiled his motion," Gill explained. "But I still think there might be some problems with this. First, he filed the exact same motion to modify bail conditions. The only thing he changed was the date because he said something like 'yesterday,' and it was May 28th, which is no longer 'yesterday.'"
Bratt also didn't add any declarations from FBI agents to the motion.
"And he didn't ask for an expedited briefing. He didn't file for emergency relief again," Gill continued. "And that move, just to refile the same thing again with your little meet and confer, at the end of it with your little meet and confer certificate, seemed like — it seemed bratty."
Both hosts chuckled at the double meaning.
"Well, it's definitely bratty because it's coming from Jay Bratt," McCabe quipped. "And, so, technically..."
Gill said that it wasn't exactly unprofessional but it was a "dig" at the judge, like saying "fine. Here. Uggh."
Leave a Comment
Related Post