Federal judge mocks ‘squirming’ Trump lawyer’s ‘cringe’ golf course argument

Donald Trump at the Trump International Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey on July 28, 2022 (Image: Shutterstock)

On Friday, at a hearing on whether the Trump administration had destroyed documents that revealed its plans to close a D.C. golf course in contradiction to a court order, a federal judge was reported to have been “mocking” government lawyers for offering “very cringe” arguments. According to court reporters, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam R.F. Gustafson essentially argued that President Donald Trump’s actions were the will of the people, but Judge Ana Reyes wasn’t having it.

The hearing arose out of whistleblower complaints that allege administration officials are destroying documents relating to Trump’s D.C. vanity projects in anticipation of investigations by the incoming Democratic majority. According to the Independent, Democrats have called for administration officials to “preserve existing records collections and productions” and “identify and recover any deleted information” and “suspend any destruction and deletion practices,” presumably to prepare for investigations. “If I find credible evidence of any document destruction, I will start proceedings on sanctions or contempt within a zeptosecond,” said Judge Reyes, who is presiding over the escalating legal battle over Trump’s effort to turn East Potomac Golf Links and a surrounding park into a “World Class, championship-level golf course” – a project local groups have sued to block.

At the hearing, when the discussion turned to whether Trump had revealed plans to close the park even though Reyes has issued an injunction against it, Gustafson attempted an argument that drew “mocking” skepticism from the judge. According to Lawfare senior editor Molly Roberts, Gustafson asserted that “the people elected the president because he’s a builder.” Judge Reyes didn’t hide her incredulity, asking, “People elected him so he could do golf courses in the District?” The government’s lawyer could only repeat the claim, saying again that “people elected him knowing his experience as a builder and success in real estate.” Those watching noticed that the attempt fell flat. “This is very cringe,” commented appellate attorney Gabriel Malor.

It was far from the only eyebrow-raising moment. According to reporters in the court, Reyes took issue with Trump’s shifting justifications for closing the park. Initially, he’d said it was for renovations, but when the court barred that plan, he claimed it had to be closed out of safety concerns. But, asked the judge, did Gustafson not “concede that renovating the golf course is one of the rationales for doing all this?” The lawyer admitted that was one of the reasons. “The president went to the course this summer,” noted Reyes. “If he had seen safety concerns to human individuals, wouldn't he have insisted that something get done immediately?” As court reporter Chris Geidner pointed out, this was one of a series of questions Reyes asked Gustafson that “have only one answer…bad for him, and he’s squirming.”

Another uncomfortable incident caught the attention of onlookers. “I take it you are aware that there is some controversy in this design,” Reyes asked Gustafson. “People in D.C. are very upset about this design.” When the attorney refused to answer directly, the judge asked people in the courtroom to raise their hands if they opposed the project. “Turn around, sir,” Reyes told Gustafson, noting that of more than 100 people in the room, the “vast majority” had their hands up.

From Your Site Articles