DOJ filing defending Trump's ballroom uses random caps, invented words, and language straight from his social media

[Miles Archer]

A Justice Department court filing defending Donald Trump's controversial White House ballroom project reads less like a legal document and more like a Trump Truth Social post — complete with random capitalization, invented words, and language straight from the president's social media feed, according to an ex-CBS News reporter who reviewed the filing Monday.

"Trump's fingerprints are all over a new Justice Dept court filing," wrote Scott MacFarlane, who also noted the document's random capitalization and claims that Trump is providing America an "invaulable gift" — a word that does not exist in the English language.

The six-page filing, submitted to defend the ongoing ballroom and East Wing construction project, also claims the project is "underbudget" — a striking assertion given that Senate Republicans recently fielded a request for $1 billion in taxpayer money to fund it, a demand so outrageous it helped trigger a Republican revolt that sent senators home for recess without passing Trump's reconciliation bill.

The Justice Department also argued in the filing that "without the construction of this great Project, the President cannot safely conduct the business of the United States" — capitalizing the word "Project" in a style familiar to anyone who follows Trump's social media posts, according to MacFarlane.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-ballroom-2676938753/

Scott MacFarlane
@MacFarlaneNews
Trump's fingerprints are all over a new Justice Dept court filing defending the Trump Ballroom

Random capitalization

Claims that Trump is providing America an "invaulable gift"

Claims the project is "underbudget" despite Senate request for $1 billion in taxpayer money

Link to tweet

[Old Crank]

1. Lots of lawyers are going to regret

working for this slime ball.
Wonder what the judge reading this stuff will think.

[spanone]

2. They should just move the DOJ office to the White House.

[Ocelot II]

3. Link to the document here. Raw Story never bothers to link to the source,

which is only one of the many irritating characteristics of Raw Story. This document is so awesomely and hilariously awful that it deserves to be read in its entirety and mocked mercilessly. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72028010/82/national-trust-for-historic-preservation-in-the-united-states-v-national/

1. "Last night, shortly after 6:00 p.m., an armed assassin approached a White House security checkpoint near 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, professionally pulled a high caliber gun from a bag, and opened fire in the exact direction of the White House. Brave Secret Service officers returned fire. The gunman was killed and an innocent bystander was seriously wounded in the shooting."

How would the existence of The Ballroom prevent a bystander outside the WH grounds from being injured by someone shooting at the WH (which, by the way, has had bulletproof windows since the '40s)?

2. The Ballroom "is being constructed to ensure that the President can perform his constitutional duties in a safe and heavily secured facility."

How have the previous 45 presidents been able to perform their constitutional duties safely before now? No president has been ever been assassinated or attacked inside the White House while performing their constitutional duties.

3. The Ballroom "will provide a “SAFE HAVEN” from attackers such as the one last night, and on April 25th. It will provide a highly secure space for future Inaugurations, and other major events, such as the recent visit of the King and Queen of the United Kingdom, and the coming visit in September of President Xi of China. Without this National Security Facility, such events are otherwise relegated to the vulnerable tents on the South Lawn, exposed to various threats, as again shown by last night’s shooting, which would have been easily in range to reach a tent (in all cases made of plastic or canvas, which has virtually no ability to stop a bullet, unlike the walls of the Facility under construction, which has the highest degree of bullet stoppage, including that of a higher range than a large caliber AK-47), on the White House South Lawn, and cause death and destruction."

Major events such as the referenced state visits by foreign dignitaries are not held in tents. They take place inside the White House in the East Room, the State Dining Room, and the Blue Room, or sometimes in the Blair House. The East Room holds 200–250 guests, and the majority of state dinners are and have been held there. Occasionally, guests have been accommodated in Rose Garden (now paved over). Occasionally (and not in the winter) a tent has been erected on the South Lawn (once during the Obama administration and once during the Biden administration) for overflow.

4. "Top Secret features have been revealed to potential enemies, criminals, and all others, including the fact that there will be a major drone port and Government sniper facilities on the heavily secured roof of the Ballroom, all for the sake of an unhappy passerby, a woman with absolutely no standing, represented by the “National Trust,” which was defunded by Congress due to a total lack of respect for them."

Security features like snipers have been installed on and around the White House for decades and are no secret (and if they are top secret, why are you talking about them?). Snipers are routinely stationed on the roof.

5. "In light of the recent attacks against President Trump’s life—including two attempts in less than a month—the injunction entered by this Court for the benefit of a strolling woman, who filed suit against the East Wing Project long before she knew what was going to be built (This is a woman who is a known serial plaintiff throughout Washington, D.C.), and who has absolutely no standing, must be immediately vacated, and this suit, which is a complete embarrassment to our Country, must be dismissed. This is a terrible, tremendously harmful case to the United States of America, and all it stands for!"

The woman in question is Alison K. Hoaglund, an architectural historian and a trustee on the board of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and is the named plaintiff. As an expert and a trustee she was named specifically to establish "aesthetic injury"—the legal standing required for the National Trust to challenge the construction.

I have no doubt that Himself requires all legal documents to be submitted to him for review before they are filed, since no self-respecting lawyer would ever write this way - but in order to work for Trump a lawyer would have had to shed every vestige of self-respect.