Trump Indicted in Docs Probe

[Res Ipsa]

So an argument is being made by FOX News' Jesse Watters and quite a few legal folks on the Right that Trump has already been exonerated based on the "Clinton sock drawer" lawsuit which he won. I'd love to get Res Ipsa's take on this issue, as people are literally claiming that the ruling by Judge Jackson in that lawsuit says Presidents and only Presidents get to determine what's personal records and what's Presidential records.

Check this out for example: https://Twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/sta ... 50273?s=20

One guy says, "Except it's also 100% true, on accordance with settled case law, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin - 2009."

"the President can call anything he wants 'Personal Records' and they become such ipso facto,"

I don't expect accuracy from FOX, but the lawyers know better.

I read the Clinton decision, and I disagree. The opinion doesn't say that. In fact, it quotes the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (the court over the D.C. District Court that heard the case):

The PRA does not bestow on the President the power to assert sweeping authority over whatever materials he chooses to designate as presidential records without any possibility of judicial review.

That's the opposite of what Watters et al. are arguing.

The lawyers should also understand that the cases are not at all alike. In the Clinton case, both Clinton and the National Archives agreed that the tapes qualified as "personal records." Twelve years later, the right-wing organization Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with the National Archives to obtain copies of the tapes. The National Archives responded that it didn't have custody of the tapes.

Judicial Watch then sued to try and force the National Archives to seize the tapes and make them publicly available. The court held that it didn't have the authority under the PRA to force the National Archives to change its position on the tapes or to order the National Archives to seize them. Although it talked about the broad discretion of the President, it did not hold that the President had unlimited authority to declare any record he wants to be a "private record." JW hadn't even made Clinton a party to the lawsuit. The dismissal was based on the discretion of the National Archives, not the President.

In Trump's case, the National Archives takes the position that the records are "presidential records" as defined in the PRA. This is an issue of statutory interpretation that federal courts do constantly. Nothing in the Clinton decision or the PRA gives the President the right to declare documents that are squarely within the definition of "presidential records" as "personal records" by fiat.

[Vēritās]

Thanks Res, great stuff as usual.

[Doctor Steuss]

NARA has all of their press statements based on queries around this stuff catalogued into a single easy-to-reference page, for any curious: Link

[Gadianton]

Kari Lake has vowed to turn violent over this indictment

Are you sure about that? I would think she'd call upon someone other than herself to turn violent, rather than take the risk herself.

I think right-wingers are temporarily over the whole insurrection thing. The capitol rioters got owned big time, and most of them cried and said they'd been duped and promised to be good. I think the extremist groups are laying low, most likely with intent to do something again one day but not quite sure how to move the ball forward. I think they're all on board to back lying and cheating representatives but they aren't going to do much themselves.

Nobody is going to risk anything material for lake, and very few at this point are going to take the risk for Trump. He can't even find right-wing lawyers to pay to represent him anymore -- if he were so innocent, you'd think they'd be lining up to help.

Trump somewhat misreads his base. He's right that he could shoot someone in the street and they'd still support him, probably all the more. But for those he's a real hero to, he's kind of a cartoon hero, like, they're rooting for someone on TV, not backing someone in reality where they have skin in the game. Even for the rioters who temporarily put their money where people like Ajax put their mouths it's less about Trump, and more about their own pet conspiracy theories. Even though QAnon promoted Trump as the hero, Q became the bigger hero; as if Trump worked for him not the other way around. A lot of extremists only sorta support Trump because they don't think Trump is extreme enough.

There's an energy to the whole unhinged right-wing thing(s) and being a part of that is more important than supporting Trump per se. So no, there isn't going to be any violence in the streets over Trump being indicted, right-wingers are shrugging it off. It's funny seeing the clips of Fox News hosts going completely bananas over this. I would even say LE could take some time off this summer and get some R&R in because Trump's base is so unlikely to lift a finger over any of this.

[Physics Guy]

I think that a fair fraction of Q patriots would react to Trump's imprisonment with board posts about trusting the plan and watching the movie. Some would condescend to explain patiently to the dim-witted that Trump was obviously still running the world from a secret presidential bunker and the guy behind bars was a clone. Then they'd argue about whether the clone was a hologram.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] the Clinton case [...]

The Analysis (3.III) in the ruling made me chuckle:

[T]he Armstrong decisions do not control the outcome here. But in light of the parties' joint insistence that the precedents have implications for this case, and their clashing and ultimately incomplete readings of the decisions, the Court will address them here.

Lol. "Since NARA and Judicial Watch are idiots, I guess I have to explain this..."

[Res Ipsa]

[...] the Clinton case [...]

The Analysis (3.III) in the ruling made me chuckle:

[T]he Armstrong decisions do not control the outcome here. But in light of the parties' joint insistence that the precedents have implications for this case, and their clashing and ultimately incomplete readings of the decisions, the Court will address them here.

Lol. "Since NARA and Judicial Watch are idiots, I guess I have to explain this..."

Yep. That’s about it. Although, to be fair, there just isn’t much case law on the PRA.

[Moksha]

Is there anything new about Judge Cannon?

[Doctor Steuss]

Not guilty plea officially entered, and still having trouble finding national security law representation (or someone in Florida, other than Kise... and his insurance lawyer).

I wonder how much of that is from reputational concerns, and how much is from perception of the strength of the Fed case. Media seems to be primarily painting it as "Trump sucks to work for," or "Trump doesn't pay people" -- but those both seem trivial to me, given that Kise has already shown how to bypass Trump's history of wage theft, and someone being difficult to represent is kind of a silly obstacle when compared to the upside of representing a former president in a high profile case (and potentially winning).

[Equality]

Is there anything new about Judge Cannon?

Nothing new. She's still an unqualified Trump-cult hack who has no business on the federal bench, but who no doubt will do exactly what she was installed to do: run interference for the many crimes Trump has committed in her jurisdiction. She will likely listen to the prosecution's evidence and then summarily acquit Trump under Rule 29, which is unappealable, dispositive, and which will cause jeopardy to attach. Hopefully, Smith is going to secure grand jury indictments for Trump's criminal acts he committed in DC and New Jersey, as Trump's hand-picked corrupt judge will most likely do his bidding to immunize him from accountability for the crimes he committed in West Palm Beach.

It would be like if Tony Soprano got to appoint the judges in Newark. That's what Trump was able to do with the appointment of Cannon.