Preliminary Intent For A Special Master

There’s a lot in the legal realm that’s rhetorically cryptic. It was just yesterday we discussed who criminal confederates are and why they showed up twice in the unredacted portion of the Mar-a-Lago raid affidavit. But for now, the attention in the investigation will turn to Thursday’s hearing for a potential special master to be appointed to oversee the DOJ’s entire Trump-related investigation. By now we’re familiar with special people being appointed but mostly on the prosecutorial side. For example, there was Special Prosecutor Robert Muller, who was appointed to investigate the alleged Trump-Russia collusion, only to determine that there was never any. And then there was Special Prosecutor John Durham, who is still actively investigating the corruption within the DNC, Hilliary Clinton Campaign, CIA, FBI and DOJ – as they conspired to create the fraudulent Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy. Context, which should also be remembered as a premise to what’s happening with the DOJ and FBI against Trump right now. The concept of a “special master” is so foreign, this side of those with kinky tendencies, that the second most commonly related searched phrase is if a special master is a real thing. It is. As Cornell’s Law School defines: A "special master" is appointed by a court to carry out some sort of action on its behalf. Theoretically, a "special master" is distinguished from a "master". A master's function is essentially investigative, compiling evidence or documents to inform some future action by the court, whereas a special master carries out some direct action on the part of the court. It appears, however, that the "special master" designation is often used for people doing purely investigative work, and that the simple "master" designation is falling out of use. So, you’ve got it now, right? Yeah, the term is cryptic enough that even the explanation isn’t exactly clear. But I’ll attempt to clear what’s happening up. First is what happens today. U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, who issued the request for the hearing regarding the potential appointment of a special master set a deadline for today regarding “a more detailed” explanation of what was seized by the FBI during the Mar-a-Lago raid. She’s seeking an explanation for the attorney-client pillaged information seized in the raid. Information Trump and his legal team have asserted were illegally seized in the search. And that’s potentially huge because as I noted on Friday immediately following the release of the affidavit, if the Trump team is accurate in their accounting of attorney-client docs being seized by the FBI, which we now know is the case, the feds would be in a potential violation of section 83 on page 31 of the affidavit if they continued to possess them.