Posted on 03/19/2024 5:33:34 AM PDT by Tench_Coxe
NEW: Judge Cannon continues to squeeze DOJ to define the vague terms in the Espionage Act. She just ordered Jack Smith and Team Trump to file proposed jury instructions by April 2 on how jurors should interpret "unauthorized possession" of national defense files.
Cannon repeatedly asked prosecutors to explain which official and/or agency determines "unauthorized possession" of a document. DOJ admitted NARA has no law enforcement role in assessing who--esp a former president or VP--is keeping a record without authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at threadreaderapp.com ...
A President is part of the Executive Branch, and is therefore subject to orders governing it.
Q: How do you end or overturn an Executive Order?
A: The President who issued an Executive Order can revoke it. Likewise, an incumbent President has the power to revoke an Executive Order issued by a predecessor.
I don't see Smith appealing to any EOs to help his case, and I'm sure he would do so if they did.
My understanding.
1. EO’s from previous presidents, including Trump, and various other actual laws, outline how classified information is to be managed in many instances. But mishandling of classified is not one of the charges against Trump.
2. The Presidential Records Act was written to define what is a Presidential Record verses what is Personal Record, and it makes those definitions very distinctly on its own, and does not leave it up to Presidents to adjust it to fit their needs when leaving office. It is not a criminal charge, only civil, for violating it.
3. What Trump is being charged with are criminal laws under the Espionage Act. They have been rarely used in all of US history, and never against a President, but they are laws governing the handling of government owned, national security information, whether it is classified or not.
b) the PRA basically states that what a President deems a personal record is a personal record: its classification level is not addressed, but no restrictions are specified.
c)The rule of lenity would suggest that without specific legislation saying otherwise, Smith cannot change the interpretation of the law to criminalize behavior that isn't clearly criminal beforehand.
Point (b) above is part of Judge Cannon's questions to Trump's attorney's and Smith.
Executive orders are issued by the President of the United States, acting in his capacity as head of the executive branch, directing a federal official or administrative agency to engage in a course of action or refrain from a course of action.
A President doesn’t issue executive orders to tell himself what to do (or not do). And he certainly has no authority to tell his successors in the White House what THEY must do.
1. Isn’t this exactly what is being asserted here by the DOJ in its attempts to hide the evidence from the court and/or jury?
2. How does the Espionage Act define “national security information?”
The judge in this case has painted the DOJ into a corner. The prosecutors are going to need SOMEBODY other than the prosecution team to provide the legal basis for that determination.
I made the distinction in the post you responded to, where I referred to “actual laws” being different than EO’s. But EO’s carry “the force of law” and are therefore very very similar in power and authority.
An EO is a declaration by the president which has the force of law, usually based on existing statutory powers, and requiring no action by the Congress. They are numbered consecutively, so executive orders may be referenced by their assigned number, or their topic. A sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect.
Maybe my point wasn’t clear. Why would a President issue a formal order to tell HIMSELF what to do (or not do)?
No it doesn’t, I’ve read it several times and it states nothing of the sort. It makes those determinations, by the definitions contained within it, which were released after Nixon to prevent Presidents from making those determinations on their own. If you disagree, show me the language in the law where it states that, rather than parroting what you’ve heard from others.
This case is being waged in the court of public opinion, by both sides, independent of what the indictments actually say, is the answer.
How does the Espionage Act define “national security information?”
I don’t know that it does. But the DOJ thinks it does, and they probably have witnesses from government on their side who can attest their opinion of it. Courts are where charges and the law are weighed, so Trump would be offered an opportunity to dispute whatever info they’re talking about isn’t national security related, etc.
Trump's EO's were exactly that (although I questioned one of them). None of Biden's EO's have been applications of existing law.
Actually, the first two paragraphs of the article posted above suggest that this is NOT the case.
And keep in mind that this is exactly what makes the case so ludicrous. If the prosecution and prosecution he defense have competing opinions on a point of fact (as opposed to a point of law) in a case, then the jury MUST see the evidence in order to make a factual determination.
No I got it. EO’s are almost exclusively used to direct other Executive Branch employees on how to perform their duties. But the President him or herself is also part of the Executive Branch, and not exempt from the EO’s directives, unless they rescind or replace it.
Your last statement has no basis in constitutional law.
They’re working through this now. I think the public claims of ‘it’s classified’ and “has to do with nuclear sub etc info” were to try to paint a picture that it was pretty much without question national security related. Whether that’s what the information truly is or not, isn’t publicly know, but it doesn’t necessarily require each jury member to make that determination by themselves alone, either. Some jurors may feel that they personally have to see it, butsome may not, and be willing to listen to the professional opinions of witnesses on its nature, only.
Red herring, as EO’s aren’t covered by the Constitution. Doesn’t make them un-Constitutional , of course. I’ve given you multiple sources showing they carry the weight of law, and are in effect until rescinded by a President. Its’s open and shut, actually.
This is a U.S. criminal court case. The issue is not what jurors may or may not want to see/hear. The only issue that matters is the right of the defendants to see evidence in the case, call and cross-examine witnesses, and present facts in a court of law.
You have presented no evidence to support your claim that a President is subject to his own executive orders.
I agree. I also think she is getting them to concede whether they intend to go by what is written or just make up crap as they go along.
“But the President him or herself is also part of the Executive Branch, and not exempt from the EO’s directives, unless they rescind or replace it.”
I don’t think that is correct. In fact I am pretty dang sure it is not correct. The reason being that the President is not considered an officer or an employee or other such functionary normally subject to such orders.
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.