Posted on 08/31/2022 6:23:15 AM PDT by Red Badger
The general counsel for the National Archives and Records Administration, who was central to coordinating between NARA and former President Donald Trump's attorneys regarding the documents at Mar-a-Lago, previously sued then-President Ronald Reagan in 1989 while working at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Mar-a-Lago was raided by the FBI's Washington Field Office on Aug. 8, after Trump's team had voluntarily given documents to NARA and was working through issues of executive privilege.
Trump defense attorney Evan Corcoran wrote NARA General Counsel Gary Stern on April 29 that the former president wanted to personally review the documents that NARA had received from Mar-a-Lago before letting the FBI access them "in order to ascertain whether any specific document is subject to privilege."
President Joe Biden empowered NARA to waive any claims to executive privilege that Trump might assert to block DOJ from gaining access to the documents.
Earlier this year, Stern was reportedly frustrated while working with Trump's team regarding the return of documents to NARA from Mar-a-Lago, according to CNN. Stern has been the general counsel for NARA since 1998.
Stern's NARA bio notes that he was a plaintiff in the case of Armstrong, et al. v. Executive Office of the President while a staff attorney for the Washington Office of the ACLU. The case, which began towards the end of Reagan's presidency in 1989, wasn't decided until 1993.
The U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia decided in favor of the plaintiffs with regard to the Reagan administration having to maintain electronic records, but noted the distinction between federal records and presidential records.
The court said that, according to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, it "has no power to review compliance with the [Presidential Records Act], and thus, no power to review the record keeping procedures of [Executive Office of the President] components whose 'sole responsibility is to advise the President.'"
Stern spoke on a panel in January 2021 called "Preserving Presidential Papers and Archives," where he explained the Presidential Records Act of 1978 — which was central to the Armstrong case — and how presidential records are supposed to be maintained.
In response to a question about someone leaving government and taking presidential records with them, Stern said that if original government documents that NARA doesn't have are removed from the White House, then NARA will tell the person that "they have something that doesn't belong to them and is government property and belongs to us."
Most of the time in such cases, he said, the person gives it back. But, he added, "If they don't, we can enforce that with the support of the Department of Justice to file a legal claim."
Katie Sullivan, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Trump Justice Department, told the John Solomon Reports podcast on Monday's episode that Stern's statements on the panel of "what he feels about presidential records" were "sort of a shot across the bow."
She mentioned a February CNN report about Stern, which mentioned his frustration with obtaining documents from the Trump team.
Sullivan said that the situation with NARA seeking documents from Trump and the subsequent Mar-a-Lago raid appeared to her "like this has been something that was certainly cooked up for some time."
According to the CNN story, Stern reached out to a White House Counsel's Office attorney and another Trump lawyer regarding the documents to be turned over.
Trump said in a statement at the time that the boxes he took to Mar-a-Lago "contained letters, records, newspapers, magazines and various articles" that would "someday" be featured in his presidential library, CNN reported.
"The papers were given easily and without conflict and on a very friendly basis," the former president added.
NARA said in a statement at the time, "Former President Trump's representatives have informed NARA that they are continuing to search for additional Presidential records that belong to the National Archives."
I’m sure he must have been deeply interested in the 33 MILLION pages of documents that 0bama has stacked up in Chicago.
Now we have a name.
If there was a SCIF built at the residence....certified to operate, then I don’t see what all this chatter is about, unless documents were kept outside of the SCIF.
Somebody needs to tell this maggot that GSA packed those boxes sent to Trump. If the so called DOJ has a problem with them, get a hold of the GSA. Idiots.
Never, ever, leave a commie in charge of anything!
they are guarded by SService. they aren’t digitized so vulnerable to hacking like others were. this is smear attempt - but i think DOJ with leaks is getting in pretty deep. but from D point of view, they just want DJT to look bad in the near-term. who wins in the long-term is less important because the sideswipe impression is what remains in people’s minds. same pattern over and over....
Um, maybe I missed something but Reagan was only president until Jan of 1989 when Bush sr was inaugurated
I love the photo the DOJ used, showed Secret Documents noted by the Yellow, Brown and Gold boarders (🤣). Isn’t using such a photo violation of all the laws they claimed a Trump broke! That ‘secret’ document photo is all over the news, can the DOJ now be raided for releasing the photo of Secert Documents?
He was at ACLU when Reagan was POTUS..............
President Joe Biden empowered NARA to waive any claims to executive privilege.
Sounds more like king power than legal issue rigged systems only work for one side the bad one.
This whole episode was:
1. to sow doubt in the minds of Trump supporters
2. give the MSM a fake story to broadcast all over the airwaves for a few weeks
3. give Biden and the Democrats an illicit, unethical look into Trump and his lawyers’ communications to find out what they are going to do if he is reelected
4. give any possible targets a heads-up warning
5. further defame Trump and anybody associated with him as traitors and criminals
6. buy some time before the SHTF.....................
They don’t accept that Trump’s word, and that of his appropriate staff, that these were all declassified by Trump prior to the GSA removing them to Mar-a-lago, without having time to update their labeling. Their proper response would have been to have sent a low level GSA flunky to correct the outdated labels on this highly DEclassified material, and to have corrected any NARA databases regarding them. Meanwhile they accept the word of ‘resident Biden and his staff that Joe is still competent to serve under the standards of the 25th.
without waitng o drain the swamp
beginning after the 2024 election
we need a law that mandates automatic no exception term limits for the entire top tier of federal bureaucrats, appointed or merely hired, at all Federal agencies
Obama made a whole bunch of federal offices that were political appointees PERMANENT CIVIL SERVICE JOBS SO THEY CANNOT BE GOTTEN RID OF VERY EASILY AS BEFORE HIM................
That is just one reason whey the civil service law/code should not ne excluded from the term limits mandate I suggest.
I think it has always been bad for the country for the top tier of federal bureaucrats to not have a limit on their term of service. The absence of such a mandate is how the permannent anti-Conservative admisitrative state got constructed.
FBI Director is 10 years, IIRC...............
One job alone if not enough.
So typical of the damage Obama and Co. inflicted upon D.C. They inserted leftist marching soldiers in every level of every department and agency. It’s pervasive throughout.
I’m not sure DJT can undo this in the next four year term, even at a scorched earth pace.
With a compliant Congress, he can return those jobs to political appointee status and reverse the Obama disease..................
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.