Where Judicial Watch’s Defense of Trump Goes Wrong

National Review ^ | 6/14/2023 | Andrew C. McCarthy

[randita]

Michael Bekesha, the ‘Clinton sock drawer’ lawyer, misses the distinction between agency records and presidential records.

I’ve already extensively addressed why the Presidential Records Act (PRA) is not a viable defense against charges that President Trump unlawfully and willfully retained national-defense information under Section 793(e) of the federal criminal code (which, in hope of avoiding Senator Lindsey Graham’s conniptions, I’ll refrain from calling the Espionage Act). So I’ll state the main point as succinctly as I can: Agency records are not presidential records.

Trump’s case is about agency records regarding the national defense — mainly, classified intelligence reporting generated by U.S. spy agencies. The PRA, by contrast, addresses documents and other records generated by and for the president in the carrying out of his duties.

[FreeReign]

The raid was bogus. Whether the material was classified has no bearing on charges under the Espionage Act. That only cites that the material contains defense information. 18 USC 793(e) the specific part shown on the indictment states, “Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document,... or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,...”

Is the DOJ really arguing that the President of the U.S. is not authorized to have defense information from his own administration? That he is going to willfully put it in the hands of or make it available to a person not entitled to receive it for the purpose of causing such injury or giving such advantage?

(my bold)

Yup, a president taking a copy of a document seems like a self-authorization.

[Joachim]

“Agency records” as defined in the FOIA already excludes classified material. Only FOIA-accessible records are included in the definition of “agency records” so the exclusion from “presidential records” in the PRA is not about protecting classified material.

The exclusion just makes clear that the National Archives does not have to collect and preserve “agency records” as part of “presidential records.”

[Golden Eagle]

Which is why she allows the Chief Executive to determine what a president can take as a personal record, instead of a law, written by a Democrat House and Senate and signed off by Jimmy Carter. LOL!

Silly argument, Presidents are still bound by laws, even while President. They may choose to break them, but they can still be punished for that by impeachment, and/or trial after leaving office.

A good example is Air Force One. While that is an Executive Branch Asset, Trump does not have the ultimate authority to break laws regarding it’s use. He would not be allowed to order it be delivered to Moscow, or to pilot it himself for a joy ride, as there are laws governing who can pilot that plane. If he tried he could face impeachment, and trial after leaving office for breaking the laws that govern that plane, and there are countless ones. Sure, he can order it to take him places, but he can not legally order a pilot to land it in a corn field for kicks, there are laws against that, whether it is an executive branch asset or not.

A lot of you have this fantasy about Trump being our king, that everyone must bow before but that is simply not the case. He is still subject to our laws even while in office. One of those laws is the Presidential Records Act.

[FLT-bird]

That’s a liberal hack judge, who ruled in favor of Clinton in a civil circuit court, whose rulings by law do not carry future precedent. A federal criminal judge might look into that ruling, but they very well may not. It is hardly considered the defining interpretation of the law in question. Read the law yourself, and show me the text where it says the President has any discretion whatsoever in determining what is considered personal records, or not. No one else has been able to yet, but maybe you’re the one who can find it.

That is THE ONLY federal ruling on the presidential records act. She ruled that the president can take whatever document he wants as part of his presidential records and that is unreviewable by anyone. That is settled law unless and until overturned. That would therefore govern this case. Trump, as a president leaving office, could take any document he wanted to as part of his presidential record and that is unreviewable.

IF the federal courts want to overturn that, then they can, but there is no crime on Trump's part for having relied on the federal law as it stood until overturned.

[Prince of Space]

Now apply these “rules” to Joke Biden and explain why nothing has happened to him for egregiously violating them. Or is Trump the only guy in DC who ever breaks the law?

[Prince of Space]

Petraeus gave his mistress his personal journals that contained classified info about troop movements and the names of confidential informants which put their lives in jeopardy. She kept them among her personal effects with no security whatsoever.

For his punishment, Petraeus was forced to resign as CIA director and paid a civil fine of $40,000. He wasn’t charged with espionage or brought up on criminal charges, and we were in the middle of a war at the time, FFS!

For you to spend this much time discussing the intricacies of the PRA and NARA regulations is mind boggling to me. Nobody GAF except ppl with a vested interest in defeating Trump at the ballot box, which makes you nothing more than a partisan hack, IMO!

[Prince of Space]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/in-depth-trump-indictment-rests-on-untested-legal-theory-experts-say_5330496.html

[Golden Eagle]

She ruled that the president can take whatever document he wants as part of his presidential records and that is unreviewable by anyone. That is settled law unless and until overturned. That would therefore govern this case. Trump, as a president leaving office, could take any document he wanted to as part of his presidential record and that is unreviewable.

Completely ridiculous. Settled law means the Supreme Court has already ruled on it. This court is at so low of a level it can’t even carry enough weight that it must be considered as part of the new judge’s ruling. She can even bar those results from being presented as evidence in the new trial, and be well within her rights. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. And are a great example of why Trump and his team spreading lies about the law and this case are dangerous. I hope he can get off, but not this way, by flooding the public with BS.

[odawg]

1.) I have heard a few expert legal minds say the decision does not say what you claim. Should I believe them or you?

2.) As Robert Barnes would say, does a nameless person in an agency in the executive branch have more authority, under the Constitution, than does the President, and requires the President ask for permission to do such and such?

[Golden Eagle]

I believe and have said repeatedly that Trump is being unfairly targeted, based on the history of other similar cases, and I hope he is able to prove his innocence. But that doesn’t give him or his legal team the right to go out and start falsely claiming what the actual laws say, or misrepresent the legal similarities and significance of this one case involving Clinton.

It’s this exact type of dishonesty that led to me no longer supporting him for President. He plays his supporters for fools and takes advantage of their admiration for him. Clearly many of you are willing to look the other way, and regurgitate his misrepresentations of what this law says. Tump himself said he could shoot someone right on 5th avenue and many of you would defend it. I clearly would not. I find that mere boast appalling.

I want honesty and integrity from my leaders. Not demands of loyalty then actions that constantly test it.

[central_va]

Donate to the Trump campaign.

Click here

[Golden Eagle]

As Robert Barnes would say, does a nameless person in an agency in the executive branch have more authority, under the Constitution, than does the President, and requires the President ask for permission to do such and such?

That analysis is bunk. It’s clearly not that executive branch employee who is more powerful than the President, it’s the laws that are more powerful than the President. I agree he’s being unfairly persecuted when compared to others, but laws that govern how the executive branch operates do limit the President.

The examples of this are limitless. I gave one above, that the President cannot order Air Force One, to do illegal things, even though it is an executive branch asset. He can’t order them to try to fly it to the moon, just to see what happens. Their are FAA laws, an executive branch organization, that make that an illegal order.

Another example is sending the US military to the southern border to enforce it. The Posse Comitatus law prevented Trump from doing it. Guess you don’t remember. Yes it would have been great if he could have done that, but he couldn’t legally, even though the military is an Executive Branch function and he was the President.

[FLT-bird]

Completely ridiculous. Settled law means the Supreme Court has already ruled on it. This court is at so low of a level it can’t even carry enough weight that it must be considered as part of the new judge’s ruling. She can even bar those results from being presented as evidence in the new trial, and be well within her rights. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. And are a great example of why Trump and his team spreading lies about the law and this case are dangerous. I hope he can get off, but not this way, by flooding the public with BS.

Its settled law unless and until it is overruled. Even in that case, Trump has the defense that he was relying on the ruling of the federal courts under the Presidential Records Act.

She can even bar those results from being presented as evidence in the new trial, and be well within her rights. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

She can? The judge in a previous case can prevent her ruling from being cited in a future case? Gosh, that wasn't on the bar exam when I took it. LOL! It is YOU who has no idea what he's talking about. And it is YOU who is a great example of the Democrats/DOJ/Corporate Media spreading lies about the law and this case.

[CodeToad]

“Why PRA does not apply - “Agency records are not presidential records.”

All agencies operate under the president...or do they? Ask the question, where does the national intelligence agencies lie in the three tier government system.

[Golden Eagle]

Its settled law unless and until it is overruled.

Completely wrong. That civil circuit court ruling is not legally considered a “binding precedent.” It has no power outside of that tiny court. Basic stuff, that you have no interest in learning.

[FLT-bird]

Completely wrong. That civil circuit court ruling is not legally considered a “binding precedent.” It has no power outside of that tiny court. Basic stuff, that you have no interest in learning.

It DOESN'T MATTER that it was a civil case. This is the federal court's ruling on the interpretation of the Presidential Records Act. I didn't say it was mandatory authority. It is persuasive authority. It will however completely defeat mens rea. I would explain it to you further, but it is clear you have no legal education and no idea how the law works. Stick to trolling for other Democrat causes.

[jpsb]

Makes no sense. ALL records are presidential records if in the presidents hands.

I agree, the President is the head of the executive branch of government. Any document that originated in the execute branch belongs to the President of the United States.

[randita]

National Archive Statement:

What are “personal records” under the Presidential Records Act (PRA)?

Under the PRA, “’personal records’ means all documentary materials 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.” This includes

(A) 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 Government business;

(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and

(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

What are “Presidential records” under the Presidential Records Act (PRA)?

“’Presidential records’ means documentary materials created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001#June-9-2023-statement

[randita]

Excellent! Thanks for posting.

[Golden Eagle]

I never said the new judge couldn’t cite those previous results, only that she is not required, or mandated to. And it is laughable for you to claim that single circuit course case, that has never even been challenged much less held up on appeal, is “settled law.” These are the kind of statements from Trump supporters that make them sound like gullible rubes.