He'll skate

Just as I predicted, not that it was a difficult prediction to make: a judge ruled that Trump is entitled to a special arbiter to examine all of the documents found at Mar El Asshole, essentially giving Trump consideration that no other defendant in such cases has ever received. The ruling takes all of the documents out of the hands of the DOJ, indefinitely, thus choking off the investigation.

The judge was appointed by Trump in 2020.

The DOJ can appeal the decision, but the appeal would be heard before a court that has 6 of 11 Trump judges on it.

It was inevitable, sooner rather than later, that this case would hit a Trumpy judge and go boom. The DOJ must know now that any further progress they make will eventually be crushed by some other Trump lackey in judicial robes.

I don't think so.  The special master list is due Friday so it will move along quickly. It will also likely be overturned on appeal if the DOJ files one. Eventhough that circuit has a lot of Trumpets they know what would happen if that decision is upheld.  Every potential criminal defendant in that circuit would have the right to a special master at the taxpayers expense everytime a search warrant was executed.  It could cost a state like Florida hundreds of millions of dollars and clog the court system. Plus it would allow a lot more criminals to get off the hook.

Another way to look at it is Trump has done more to expand the rights of criminals than any other President in history.

I doubt that they're concerned about setting some sort of precedent. This is a special case. How many former Presidents have ever been the subject of a criminal investigation? All sorts of new concepts, such as the extent of executive privilege, are being tested.

That in fact was the argument given by the judge when she made her ruling. She's not fooling anyone, of course--this is nothing other than a quid pro quo. The Orange Pusbag is pretty stupid and doesn't usually plan ahead, but he knew to stuff the Florida courts with Trumpy judges--his literal get out of jail free card.

There is no such thing as a special case.  It doesn't matter if she says it hurnded times.  If the appeals court upholds that Trump has a right to a special master to review items sized via a valid search warrent, every person in that district has a right to have a special master appointed to review the fruits of any search of their property before they are charged with a crime.

I suspect the appeals court won't want to touch it. They would likely rule it moot if the special master has already reviewed the material by the time it gets to them which is likely or dismiss it altogether for lack of jursdiction. They are going to do anything to avoid having to rule on the newely created right for potential criminal defendants because they don't want to create binding precedent.

I tend to agree with you, but with less assurance. It's all uncharted waters.

There is a bright side or silver lining to the Trump judge's decision, though. It will help to keep Trump's criminal exposure front and center in voters' minds in the run-up to the midterms.

The pros say, and I have no reason to doubt them, that if voters are thinking about Biden, Republicans benefit, but if Trump is dominating the news cycles in the fall, Democrats will benefit. Other than Trump's small but rabid base, few people can stand either man.

Thanks to the Trump judge, there are now sure to be breaking news stories all fall with the selection, decisions and possible appeals of the special master. If that weren't the case, the matter would be entering a quiet period where Garland would respect the so-called "60 day rule."

Court filings in the special master case may allow Garland to release more damaging evidence against Trump as he has done rather brilliantly already without breaking "the rule."

I doubt that the number of people who are revolted by Biden is even remotely close to the number revolted by Trump. If they were food, Trump would be both disgusting and poisonous, while Biden would be...bland and mildly nutritious.

Obsessing over your bête noire apparently renders you unable to have a rational discussion. You reacted to a single and very minor point in my post, ignored the major ones, and even managed to mangle that minor point beyond recognition in the process.

My post didn't go to which man was the more "revolting."  I was simply noting their similar low approval in the polls, even as each man's unpopularity stems from totally disparate causes.