Posted on 06/13/2023 9:21:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The tape pertains to one of the espionage charges.
For the obstruction charges they have witnesses. The most devastating one (potentially) is Evan Corcoran.
Jordan graduated law school but wasn’t admitted to the bar.
Let’s say that they WERE declassified.
That should have been used as an objection when the subpoena was issued in May, 2022. Trump’s team NEVER challenged the subpoena, they merely stalled it, hence the raid.
It’s pretty late in the game (meaning obstruction) when the means you use to challenge a subpoena is to merely defy it.
The ruling you’re trying to use to validate your position deals with “documentary records,” as opposed to “Presidential Records.” That’s where the distinction lies.
Agency records—materials created by DoD, CIA, NSA, etc,—are defined in the Presidential Records Act as “Presidential Records.”
NARA put out a press statement in the last year, and I don’t have a hard time imagining that they had a team of lawyers that used a metaphorical lice comb on it before they released it. (CAPS emphasis is mine)
“The PRA also requires that all DOCUMENTARY MATERIALS “be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” 44 U.S.C. 2203(b). THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO CATEGORIZE A PRESIDENTAL RECORD AS A PERSONAL RECORD.”
https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2023/nr23-016
The audio tapes in the Clinton sock drawer (not created by governmental agencies for use by the President for use in constitutionally described duties) were “documentary materials” and as such were required (under the PRA) to be designated either “personal” or “Presidential” when they were created, and yes the ruling you cited gives him sole discretion to do so.
The documents listed in the indictment do not fall into that category. These documents are “agency documents” and according to the PRA are automatically “presidential records.” As we see in NARA’s press statement,
“The President does not have discretion to categorize a Presidential record as a personal record.”
This is why the ruling your citing doesn’t apply to this situation.
I’d like you to consider this: There is absolutely no point to the Presidential Records Act AT ALL if any president can just automatically claim that every piece of paper from his/her administration is a “personal record.”
Think also about this: if your interpretation is correct, and he’s LEGALLY entitled to whatever he walks away with, then his course of action would have been to challenge the subpoena demanding all documents w/ classification markings. If your interpretation is correct, it would have been a slam-dunk case.
We all know he didn’t do that. Why not?
For the obstruction charges they have witnesses. The most devastating one (potentially) is Evan Corcoran.Ah, yes, privileged attorney-client documents... It is not illegal to ask an attorney about options.
> countries with dictators and totalitarian leaders is when
> they took over, they put their opponents in jail.
What if a President provably took bribes from Ukraine? Should the USA not jail such a person?
If Hillary Clinton and others had been given the jail time they deserve, things might actually be different now.
It’s not legal to tell a lawyer, “Hey, maybe you could hide or destroy some subpoenaed material.”
He didn’t say that. He made a “plucking” noise.
GUILTY!!
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.