Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

7 reasons to be highly skeptical of the legitimacy of the indictments of Trump
American Thinker ^ | 06/09/2023 | Thomas Lifson

Posted on 06/09/2023 7:01:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last
To: woodpusher
From the case you are citing: The PRA distinguishes Presidential records from “personal records,” defining personal records as “all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” Id. § 2201(3). The PRA provides that “diaries, journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Governmental business” should be treated as personal records. Id. § 2201(3)(A). The PRA requires that all materials produced or received by the President, “to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” Id. § 2203(b).

What’s at the core of the accusation is NOT diaries, journals or other personal notes.

61 posted on 06/11/2023 1:31:09 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
The PRA requires that all materials produced or received by the President, “to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” Id. § 2203(b).

What’s at the core of the accusation is NOT diaries, journals or other personal notes.

[emphasis added]

Somebody has to have the final authority to decide whether a document is a Presidential record or a Personal record. The authority and responsibility to classify records as Presidential or Personal is left solely to the President. "[T]he PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)–(b)." Judicial Watch v. NARA.

Perhaps it was just a libdem judge tilting the scales of justice to protect President Clinton. In any case, the Court decided that it had to consider the statute as a whole and could not interpret one provision being inconsistent with other provisions. You attempt to do precisely what the Court said cannot be done regarding statutory interpretation.

There is a single authority who makes the final decision on what is Presidential and what is Personal, and that is the President, whether that President be Clinton or Trump. The determination is made at the time the document is created or received.

Your questioning the correctness of the Presient may be well taken, but the Court held that neither you, I, nor anyone else holds the authority to overturn the determination of the President in classifying a document as Presidential or Personal. The question is what the President decided, not whether his decision was correct in the opinion of someone else.

As I quoted to you from Judicial Watch v. NARA:

In order to accept plaintiff’s theory that section 2203(f)(1) of the PRA creates a mandatory duty for the Archivist to assume custody and control of what he or she considers to be Presidential records regardless of how the President designated the documents, the Court would be required to ignore the rest of the PRA’s statutory scheme. This it cannot do. See Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 420 U.S. 395, 403 (1975) (stating that a statutory provision must be “read together with the rest of the Act”).

[...]

The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency.

[...] The PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President “categorized” and “filed separately” as personal records.

... the PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)–(b).


62 posted on 06/11/2023 9:29:33 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Of possible interest, new video from Viva Frei and Robert Barnes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxCDVOmGPlo&ab_channel=VivaFrei

SEND THIS VIDEO TO TRUMP - Barnes Analysis of Federal Indictment - IT'S BULLPLOP! Viva & Trump Clip

Viva Frei
Jun 11, 2023
50m:02s

Vive Frei (David Freiheit) is a Canadian lawyer. Robert Barnes is an American lawyer.


63 posted on 06/11/2023 10:57:01 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher

Authority is subject to the law, even when absolute. Which is what this judge ruled. The other is the requirement of memorializing the decision.


64 posted on 06/12/2023 1:31:00 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Authority is subject to the law, even when absolute. Which is what this judge ruled. The other is the requirement of memorializing the decision.

Quote the part that says any such thing about the President's authority.

The President's pardon authority is absolute. To what law is it subject? Does the Executive Branch hold any powers not subject to the whims of the Legislative Branch? What ever happened to the separation of powers?

The President's Executive Power derives from the Constitution and is not subject to being legislated away or limited by the Legislative Branch. The Legislature has the power of the purse, but they have zero Executive power. The Constitution vests all executive power in one President.

Even plaintiff’s counsel seemed to recognize at the hearing that there was no clear statutory duty he could point to:

THE COURT: They're required to assume custody and control of the [P]residential records after the [P]resident designates which are which?

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: Possibly.

Tr. at 30 (emphasis added)

[...]

THE COURT: How can I make that decision without the information that would really only be in the [P]resident's head, what they were created and utilized for?

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: Well, that's the problem.

See Tr. at 41.

The Court specfically stated, "... the PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)–(b).

The Court interpreted the statute law to say that classifying records as Presidential or Personal is a responsibility left solely to the President. To the extent that his authority is subject to law, that is the applicable law.

The CONCLUSION by the Court was:

CONCLUSION

Thus, because the Court is unable to provide the remedy plaintiff seeks by ordering that defendant "assume custody and control" over the audiotapes, the Court is unable to redress plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, the Court will grant defendant's motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 6] under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. A separate order will issue.

When the Court finds it is unable to grant the requested relief, the Plaintiff's claim of standing fails.

If you claim the President is not the final authority when classifying the documents, and the Court found The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency, WHO do you claim is the final authority to classify the records, during and not after the Presidency? Cite anything but your vivid imagination to support your claim.

65 posted on 06/12/2023 2:58:49 AM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
When the president pardons someone, it’s memorialized. When the z president signs a bill, it’s memorialized. When he issues an EO, it’s memorialized.

Like anything, it directs the President to “take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records,” id. § 2203(a).

Declassification falls under those duties. It doesn’t note any exceptions.

66 posted on 06/12/2023 5:22:12 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

We are headed down a bad road my friend to a very oppressive future. America is essentially Mary Jo Kopechne in a limo with Ted Kennedy headed for a bridge


67 posted on 06/12/2023 5:41:23 AM PDT by BigFreakinToad (Biden whispered "Don't Jump")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BigFreakinToad

As someone who has read the excellent book “Senatorial Privilege” three times, and is an unfortunate resident of Kennedy’s state, your spot-on post fills me with angst.

I did find something odd-for years, I have been looking for an audiobook version of “Senatorial Privilege” (I have great difficulty reading now due to my eyesight) and was unable to find it on Audible or in any library (I belong to a library network with 70 libraries that may be searched) but...could not find a version.

I looked again, and found a version of the book called “Chappaquiddick” by the same author (Leo Damore) and it seems that it might be the same book, but...updated.

I have always thought that “Senatorial Privilege” was a blackballed book in this respect. I wonder if this was Damore’s way of getting around that blackballing.


68 posted on 06/12/2023 6:02:57 AM PDT by rlmorel ("If you think tough men are dangerous, just wait until you see what weak men are capable of." JBP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
Although you’re providing the case law portion of the debate, the actual process is here: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html#2205

If you compare the decision against 44 U.S.C. 2201–2209 as amended, the court followed the process.

69 posted on 06/12/2023 6:04:12 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson