Posted on 06/12/2023 9:34:24 AM PDT by bitt
Does the Presidential Records Act provide a defense for Donald Trump and his 38-count indictment for mishandling national-security material? Trump himself has repeatedly asserted this for months, as have his campaign and his supporters. The argument declares that the president has plenary authority to determine the difference between “presidential” and “personal” records, and that the National Archives has no authority to contradict those decisions.
To bolster that argument, Trump and his supporters are relying on a decision handed down eleven years ago in a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch. And it involves Bill Clinton’s sock drawer:
The reference to Clinton’s socks, which has cropped up not just in the former president’s Truth Social feed and at conservative news outlets but even in Trump court filings, stems from a 13-year-old case in which the right-leaning nonprofit Judicial Watch sought access to 79 audio tape recordings of Clinton interviews conducted by the historian Taylor Branch while Clinton was in office.
During his presidency, according to GQ magazine in a 2009 Q&A with Branch, Clinton “squirreled away the cassettes in his sock drawer.” But for Trump’s purposes, what matters is Clinton’s handling of the tapes after he left office: Clinton designated the recordings as personal records, not official presidential records, that were therefore not required to be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration under the Presidential Records Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
p
Very informative article. Hope it’s widely read here.
It sounds like Trump’s primary defense is going to be a political one - that Crooked Hillary wasn’t prosecuted, so he shouldn’t be either. Maybe he has a shot at a hung jury in Florida that he wouldn’t have in DC if he can get just one patriot who refuses to give in, but the situation is really not good.
Unfortunately, Trump is on tape saying he didn’t declassify certain records, so his legal argument that he had absolute power to declassify with the snap of his fingers is no longer going to be his (primary?) defense. If he’s convicted, he’s going to need that defense if it gets appealed to SCOTUS who’ll have to say something like the mere act of bringing records home was an act of declassification whether he was aware of it or not.
The president has plenary authority to determine the difference between “presidential” and “personal” records, and that the**( National Archives has no authority to contradict those decisions)**.
Case closed bogus charges void FIB had a big hand in setting up the scam in Florida raid.
Democrat scam to keep the maggot Biden in office.
Whether they started out classified or not, the president was the chief executive and he is the final call on that. So any claim that they were still classified is moot in my opinion. Juicy for headlines but that's about it.
So, is Trump to be the example set to seize back non-personal documents? And as a criminal matter? That latter stinks and is wrong. By all accounts, Trump and his lawyers were cooperating. The former then begs the question, will the government go to all former presidents, vice-presidents, and other elected and non-elected officials and ask for, raid and search for non-personal documents? Let's start with Biden's records, though as current president he can pardon himself and declassify whatever he possesses. Will he do the same for Obama, Clintons, and Bush? What about those 51 intelligence chiefs, I bet they have more than personal documents. Where does this end? When does it start?
Going after Trump is persecution when everyone else is given a pass. Doing so is also election interference, either to ensure he is out of the race or to ensure he is the nominee. They are making a martyr of Trump, which is wrong and unAmerica.
I think they misrepresented having him on record saying that.
Ed Morrissey is an anti-Trump guy. His analysis is flawed. I have read the Judicial Watch v. NARA opinion. Clinton-appointed left-wing hack Judge Amy Berman Jackson went out of her way to protect the Clintons in this decision. As a result, she made some fairly strident claims about the PRA. Basically, she determined that NARA had no legal right to act AFTER Clinton left office to classify or demand documents. Further, that the PRA left up to the POTUS the decision as to what constitutes a “presidential record” and that the POTUS was effectivly on the honor system. This is important to the Trump case, because the gist of the Indicment is that Trump refused to honor NARA’s request to return documents (of course, NARA did not know what documents Trump had in his possession). NARA had no legal authority—after Trump left office—to require him to return anything.
One thing that these anti-Trump commentators are leaving out is that the PRA also mandates that former presidents and their proxies have access to what were deemed “presidential records.” It seems kind of dumb that Trump and his proxies are entitled to access the same records at any time, but his is charged with failing to return the records (to an agency that had no right to get them).
Another point is that Trump, under the statute, had to subjectively believe that his handling of the documents would cause some type of harm to the national defense.
Finally, the statute requires that Trump acted “wilfully,” which means he had, among other things, a specific intent to violate the statute.
This case is a political hatchet job, and most of the people commenting on it are anti-Trump hacks that haven’t read the statute, case law, etc.
You should watch Robert Barnes tear this indictment a new a**hole.
It's been long standing practice that when a President takes their personal records, which is what these are, they are declassified by default and no process is needed (for the president).
A declassification process only applies when the president intends to have other access the documents.
“The president has plenary authority to determine the difference between “presidential” and “personal” records, and that the**( National Archives has no authority to contradict those decisions)**.“
Except that the act is pretty clear as to what constitutes a government record versus a personal record. Government documents whether classified or not, cannot be considered “personal”. The “sock drawer” case dealt with material that was produced by a private citizen for no. Government use and it was never considered government property. We cannot say the same thing about any documents, records, notes ect. Created for government use.
Regardless of legality right or wrong, DJT will be found guilty on at least one felony ans sentenced to 20 years.
While he could pardon himself, if he won in 2024, he wont win. He cannot be allowed to win.
All stops will be pulled out to ensure that Joe, or whoever the tyrant-in-waiting the Dems run, wins by a landslide that will dwarf the the 2020 results.
States that use ERIC to clean their voter roles find that they are not clean, but even more ‘dirty’ than before the cleaning.
How Democrats out raise Republicans:
Become a Donor Mule
Donate once to the candidate of your choice for any election any time any where, and if you look at the records of donations, you could find that you donated 4,000-5,000 times.
How?
The lefties take your info off the dark web or any where they can find it and attach illegal monies to donations in your name to the candidate of their choice as many times as they please.
Declassification procedures exist for other people to seek declassification not a president. By necessity a president has unilateral and absolute authority when it comes to disclosure.
They are using the recording to say Trump absolutely didn’t declassify anything. Allegedly they don’t have this document and the indictment quote doesn’t match the CNN leaked transcript. It’s edited to sound more precise and declarative. Is it video recording? I don’t know. Trump is also a sh*t talker and jokester. Who knows how much of that was real?
We need to sort through the facts not just the unchallenged statements of the indictment. Trump is at risk and his best strategy is political rather than legal but there are many issues that need to be litigated here. His best hope is appealing to Trump leaning voters who surely will be on the jury and those who don’t like politically motivated prosecutions.
>>It sounds like Trump’s primary defense is going to be a political one - that Crooked Hillary wasn’t prosecuted, so he shouldn’t be either.
You may claim correctly that the car in front of you also rolled through the stop sign and didn’t get a ticket, but that defense won’t even amuse the judge.
Yes, subjective selective prosecution here, should be tossed out summarily.
Man, I’m rooting for Trump in this, but they weren’t just personal records. It wasn’t just personal letters from Kim Jong Un or others. There was stuff that pertained to national security that he admitted on tape he didn’t declassify.
The presidential records act spells out the difference between personal and government records for the very reason that a president can’t just take every document he ever touched with him and call it a personal record. There is some overlap that is the source of document disputes with other presidents and the national archives, but some of these that Trump had are clear cut govt records.
I agree that the fact that there is a trial is total BS considering what Hillary and Biden have done, but you now live in a country with a judicial system on par with North Korea. There are just so many ways for the government to win and Trump just has to lose one of them.
It's one of the reasons they have DUI checkpoints, so they cannot be accused of selective pull overs.
I made much of the same observations over the weekend on FR. Trump talks loosely, in hyperbole, which drives the government and media crazy. They want to parse every word and phrase as explicit truth or lie. It doesn’t work that way, especially with Trump and people like him. And since his lawyers were working with the government to return requested documents, upgrading security on their request, this whole thing is unnecessary and stinks of political persecution. I think the only potential case on the matter would be if they could prove that he was explicitly selling or giving away formerly classified documents. They haven’t done so and I seriously doubt Trump was doing this. Now, maybe one of his great hiring picks, maybe they were, but not Trump.
Does Trump determine whether records are personal or official Presidential Records. Not without consulting with the National Archives. Did Trump’s Presidential Records become property of the U.S. Government at the end of his term? Yes. Were those records supposed to be turned over to the National Archives? Yes. Does the Presidential Records Act provide a penalty for failure to do so? No.
Do those records include classified material? Yes.
After leaving office and surrendering the records to the National Archives does the former President have access to these records? Yes.
Is that access restricted per the act? No.
Is having his own classified materials evidence that Trump violated the Espionage Act? No.
Why not? The act (18US 793) states “...the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered...” Not only must the possessor have knowledge that the material if shared could be used to cause harm he must make those materials available of his own deliberate, free will. The claim that he mentioned a document was classified does not rise to the burden of proof given in the act. In order to cause harm logic tells us the document would have to be given over to the person who wanted it for that purpose. Did that happen? NO.
What about the “Willful retention” that is cited in the indictment? Still does not apply. That section reads in full “ or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;..” The use of the word “same” here does not only refer to documents but whether the possessor had knowledge they could cause injury to the U.S.,or to the advantage of any foreign nation. I was unable to find any mention of a time limit for returning material upon request. So I don’t even understand how he could be charged with willfully retaining them.
IMHO. The Presidential Records Act is 100% a defense against the claim of violation of the Espionage Act and it also a defense against his violating the Executive Order on classified materials. These were his own materials. The debate over Presidential v personal should have remained a civil matter. If a former President is allowed unfettered access to any of his records once they are in the archives why would it be proof of espionage for him to have possession of them at another location? Unless it could be shown he shared them knowing they could cause harm to the United States? Let me know when they did so.
According to CNN, which had a success rate of reporting negative news articles about Trump of about a 0.000000000000000000001%, Trump said what you’re saying. The FACT is, we have one of his aids specifically stating that in 2017, Trump declared that during his presidency, anything he brought to Mar A Lago was automatically declassified because he was tired of having to bless each document.
Any of the faux pas committed by Trump after that were mistakes, not illegal acts.
Why would it matter if the material was not declassified? The section of the U.S. code he is charged under makes no mention of the status of the documents. Only that they are defense documents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.