Court rejects Trump's efforts to keep records from 1/6 panel

AP vis MSN ^ | 12/9/21 | Eric Tucker and Zeke Miller

[DoodleDawg]

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday against an effort by former President Donald Trump to shield documents from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

In a 68-page ruling, the three-judge panel tossed aside Trump's various arguments for blocking through executive privilege records that the committee regards as vital to its investigation into the run-up to the deadly riot aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Judge Patricia Millett, writing for the court, said Congress had “uniquely vital interests” in studying the events of Jan. 6 and said President Joe Biden had made a “carefully reasoned" determination that the documents were in the public interest and that executive privilege should not be invoked. Trump also failed to show any harm that would occur from the release of the sought-after records Millett wrote.

[Be Free]

"Next step, Supreme Court. We'll see if they can slow walk it or not."

Either that, or a pre-emptive strike: release them all on his own, to ensure Adam Schiff-for-brains can't mischaracterize them. (Just like he did with the phone-record with the Ukrainian president.)

[AmericanInTokyo]

The National Archives is in complete custody and sitting on them, not the former President, because of challenges to their release to the Committee. They WILL be released to the Committee (if not stopped by the USSC) and they will be released IN FULL unless redacted by the Archives for national security reasons. Trump or his legal camp will have no say about what is blacked out or not. Out of his hands.

[kiryandil]

They’ve been planning on a coup d’etat for a long time because Obama expanded the DC circuit with his stooges knowing that many lawsuits involving the Fed Gov’s powers would go through the DC circuit.

TOTALLY NOT a DNC/Obama/Biden stooge.

During [Ketanji Brown Jackson's] time on the DC District Court, she issued multiple rulings against the Trump administration.

Notable rulings

BT (Before Trump)

• On September 11, 2013, in American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jackson declined to enjoin a U.S. Department of Agriculture rule preliminarily that required meatpackers to identify the animal's country of origin. She found that the rule likely did not violate the First Amendment.
• On September 5, 2014, in Depomed v. Department of Health and Human Services, Jackson ruled that the Food and Drug Administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it failed to grant pharmaceutical company Depomed market exclusivity for its orphan drug, Gralise, despite the fact that Gralise met the statutory requirements for exclusivity under the Orphan Drug Act.

AT (After Trump)

• On September 11, 2015, in Pierce v. District of Columbia, Jackson ruled that the D.C. Department of Corrections violated the rights of a deaf inmate under the Americans with Disabilities Act because jail officials failed to assess the inmate's need for accommodations when he first arrived at the jail.
• In April and June 2018, Jackson presided over two cases challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to terminate grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs two years early. Jackson ruled that the decision to terminate the grants early, without any explanation for doing so, was arbitrary and capricious.
• On August 15, 2018, in AFGE, AFL-CIO v. Trump, Jackson invalidated provisions of three executive orders that would have limited the time federal employee labor union officials could spend with union members, the issues that unions could bargain over in negotiations, and the rights of disciplined workers to appeal disciplinary actions.
• On September 4, 2019, in Center for Biological Diversity v. McAleenan, Jackson held that Congress had stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear non-constitutional challenges to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to waive certain environmental requirements to facilitate construction of a border wall on the United States and Mexico border.
• On September 29, 2019, Jackson issued a preliminary injunction in Make The Road New York v. McAleenan, blocking an agency rule that would have expanded "fast-track" deportations without immigration court hearings for undocumented immigrants. Jackson found that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had violated the Administrative Procedure Act because its decision was arbitrary and capricious and the agency did not seek public comment before issuing the rule, which made Jackson set aside the rule.
• On November 25, 2019, Jackson issued a ruling in Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn in which the House Committee on the Judiciary sued Don McGahn, former White House Counsel for the Trump administration, to compel him to comply with the subpoena to appear at a hearing on its impeachment inquiry on issues of alleged obstruction of justice by the administration.

  McGahn declined to comply with the subpoena after U.S. President Donald Trump, relying on a legal theory of executive testimonial immunity, ordered McGahn not to testify.

  In a lengthy opinion, Jackson ruled in favor of the House Committee and held that senior-level presidential aides "who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena" even if the President orders them not to do so. Jackson rejected the administration's assertion of executive testimonial immunity by holding that "with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist."

  According to Jackson, that conclusion was "inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law."

  Jackson's use of the phrase "presidents are not kings" gained popular attention in subsequent media reporting on the ruling. The ruling has been appealed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Of course, Jackson has now changed her mind, now that PuppetKing Brandon is on the throne in the Oval Office toilet...

[Recovering_Democrat]

Huh. More deep state crap.

Do it en banc.

Then to SCOTUS.

After that, no matter the result, GOP majority should demand Obama and Biden records...

[TribalPrincess2U]

Interesting!

[MrRelevant]

My guess is there’s nothing there. Nothing. This is the pattern. Fight fight fight to get xxxxxxx, Trump fights to stop…. He fails…. Then nothing.

And he wins by “losing”.

[kiryandil]

An en banc would fail - 1 Grabby Poppy judge, 2 Rapin Bill judges, 4 Clownbammy judges, 3 Trump judges and a Brandon judge.

Try it anyway, then appeal to the Supremes.

[Sgt_Schultze]

That was Ryan’s House. Nobody was heading a committee looking into the Kenyan. In a new more MAGA House, that is likely to be a bit more aggressive.

[DoodleDawg]

That was Ryan’s House. Nobody was heading a committee looking into the Kenyan.

I know. But had they subpoenaed Obama documents do you think that Trump would have hesitated for a moment before releasing them?

[Sgt_Schultze]

Probably not. But Biden opened that Pandora’s box. Hoping Trump or DeSantis has the opportunity to release that Krakken

[Robert DeLong]

Judge Patricia Millett

Appointed by Barack Obama

[GMThrust]

You are right. There will be absolutely nothing. In fact, it will show that he did all the right things and the rats were behind it all. Therefore, it will get buried.

[Lisbon1940]

Doesn’t look judicial. Or judicious.

[unclebankster]

“The National Archives is in complete custody and sitting on them, not the former President, because of challenges to their release to the Committee. They WILL be released to the Committee (if not stopped by the USSC) and they will be released IN FULL unless redacted by the Archives for national security reasons. Trump or his legal camp will have no say about what is blacked out or not. Out of his hands.”

Nothing will happen to Trump.

He’s untouchable, just watch.

[Gil4]

If there was a Congressional request for papers from the Obama administration is there anyone who doesn't think that Trump would have signed off on releasing then in the proverbial New York Minute?

Possibly. But I doubt the three DC court stooges would have signed off on it.

[AmericanInTokyo]

I thought that, too.

[flaglady47]

“What’s to worry about? Everyone knows he has nothing to hide. Bring it on. Release them and he will be vindicated completely.”

The Dems want these docs to study them for other possible charges if they can find them based on thin air, nothing. They also will have access to private conversations and policy making info that could prove valuable to the Dems in the future. These docs should never see the light of day, but they will; the Dems will leak them for propaganda purposes.

[ProfessorGoldiloxx]

In the left’s ‘mind’ they have rigged elections forever and there will be no next Republican House (or Senate).

[ridesthemiles]

IF Trump’s Executive Privilege can be breached——SO can Carter-—Clinton-—Obama-—Biden

Slippery slope here

[ridesthemiles]

It is like blaming the wheat farmer for your Gluten problems.