A new twist ( perhaps ) in the document wars

[HedonistForever]

Listening to John Solomon, Just the News, who has come up with a bit of information that could impact the documents war.


https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact

When it comes to the National Archives, history has a funny way of repeating itself. And legal experts say a decade-old case over audio tapes that Bill Clinton once kept in his sock drawer may have significant impact over the FBI search of Melania Trump's closet and Donald Trump's personal office.

The case in question is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration and it involved an effort by the conservative watchdog to compel the Archives to forcibly seize hours of audio recordings that Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.

For pop culture, the case is most memorable for the revelation that the 42nd president for a time stored the audio tapes in his sock drawer at the White House. The tapes became the focal point of a 2009 book that Branch wrote.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.


"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

The judge noted a president could destroy any record he wanted during his tenure and his only responsibility was to inform the Archives.

As to whether records a president concluded were personal can be forcibly seized after he leaves office, the court concluded it was unreasonable to force NARA to go get the tapes
"Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government's possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them," Jackson noted. "Defendant considers this to be an 'extraordinary request' that is unfounded, contrary to the PRA's express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law. The Court agrees."
That defendant was the same Justice Department that authorized the raid on Trump's estate.


Jackson also concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted.


At this point I'm wondering "think anybody at the FBI including Merrick Garland knew of this decision"?

The Jackson ruling and the declassification powers have left some experts worried the FBI raid was heavy-handed under the current laws.
Kevin Brock, former assistant FBI director for intelligence, told Just the News the bureau's search warrant was overly broad and went beyond what the FBI manual for agents recommended. "Specificity is important in order to protect fourth amendment rights from exuberant government overreach designed to find whatever they can," he told Just the News.

Brock added he did not believe DOJ and FBI had authority to criminalize the retention of presidential records.

The warrant "apparently makes a novel legal assertion that any presidential record kept by a former president is against the law," Brock said. "You have to wonder what the other living former presidents think about that. They have the right and, apparently, clear desire to remain silent."
The search warrant the FBI enforced sought two types of records: classified materials and records created during the Trump presidency. Trump has been adamant the records he took to Mar-a-Lago were both declassified and deemed personal by him.

Some government lawyers reached out privately to Just the News in recent days questioning the use of the FBI to collect presidential records, citing Jackson's ruling and suggesting it was a civil and not criminal matter where deference to Trump is required by law.

On the classification issue, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama signed executive orders — which remain in force to this day — declaring that presidents have sweeping authority to declassify secrets and do not have to follow the mandatory declassification procedures all other government officials do.


Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch who was on the losing end of the Clinton sock drawer case, said he believes Jackson's ruling could have a profound impact on the coming legal battles over the Trump search.

"The government, the lawyer for the Archives, said, 'You know what? If documents are in the former President's hands, where they're presumptively personal, we just, you know, we presume they're personal,'" Fitton said.

"The Justice Department previously had told us in response to a question about Bill Clinton: 'Tough luck, it's his.' But they changed their mind for Donald Trump?" he asked. "… The law and court decision suggests that Trump is right. And frankly, based on this analysis, Trump should get every single document they took from him back. It's all personal records."

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/foia/2020-02-11/court-rejects-archive-lawsuit-over-trumps-abuse-records-law

Washington, D.C. February 11, 2020 - U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson made clear yesterday that her ruling in the Archive’s lawsuit seeking to compel the White House to preserve records “should not be interpreted to endorse” the White House’s records-keeping practices, “nor does it include any finding that the Executive Office is in compliance with its obligations.”
Judge Jackson dismissed the suit, brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), together with the National Security Archive and the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, on the grounds that Circuit precedent finds that courts lack the authority to review the chief executive’s “day-to-day compliance” with the Presidential Records Act.


As stated in her ruling, “the PRA gives neither the Archivist [of the United States] nor the Congress the authority to veto the President’s decision” to destroy records – or in this instance, fail to create the records in the first place. Jackson also makes clear that Congress must step in to address this outdated loophole, noting “it is Congress that has the power to revisit its decision to accord the executive such unfettered control or to clarify its intentions”.

You can read the entire ruling here.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/19874-ruling

[Yssup Rider]

Your link to the OP is broken.

But in the world of “mainstream media lies,” here are a few things to consider, though I doubt you will:

The OP is based on action taken by Judicial Watch, en extremist blog known for creating and promoting lies.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/

The OP takes that action and spins it even further to the extreme.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-the-news/.

If dealing in conjecture and conspiracy theory is your goal, then you’ve hit the jackpot. If you’re trying to convince people this is the truth, then not so much.,

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your link to the OP is broken.

But in the world of “mainstream media lies,” here are a few things to consider, though I doubt you will:

The OP is based on action taken by Judicial Watch, en extremist blog known for creating and promoting lies.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/

The OP takes that action and spins it even further to the extreme.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-the-news/.

If dealing in conjecture and conspiracy theory is your goal, then you’ve hit the jackpot. If you’re trying to convince people this is the truth, then not so much.,

He is comparing apples to tennis balls.

[nevergaveitathought]

as touched on in the posting HF

the warrant was unconstitutional as written

the constitution calls for specificity, i think its article 4

the warrant issued was more in the nature of a general warrant

which the founders rejected as under british rule general warrants were issued

[1blackman1]

You’ve no clue what you’re talking about, Never. But I wouldn’t expect better of you.

[Yssup Rider]

I do like his creative use of colors, though.

HAHAHAHAHA

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You’ve no clue what you’re talking about, Never. But I wouldn’t expect better of you.

And as usual, rather than make a coherent argument as to why the poster is wrong, which he isn't, you choose an ad hominem attack

ad ho·mi·nem

• (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
  

It's your "go to play". And it is long pasted boring!


and I wouldn't expect any better than you. Funny thing about this particular issue, is that you know what he said is true because it is taught in every law school in the country, the subject of "general warrants" and their pernicious nature.

Here is a little edumacation for you counselor. Let's see what kind of ad hominem attack this will bring from you.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/location-tracking/what-founders-would-say-about-cellphone-surveillance


Prior to the American Revolution, British subjects in the colonies and in England had lived with threats posed by “general warrants.” Unlike contemporary search warrants — which require probable cause, judicial approval, and limits on the place to be searched and the things to be seized — general warrants gave government agents license to search wherever they pleased, no matter their reasons, with impunity.

And because the king’s ministers could issue general warrants on their own authority, these devices also opened the door to unchecked executive power.
This, of course, was a recipe for abuse.

Under the authority of general warrants, the king’s agents used the power to search and seize as a tool of oppression, targeting disfavored religious minorities and political opponents, such as those who published pamphlets criticizing the government. Some even used their powers to settle personal vendettas. In a series of mid-18th-century cases, courts in England put a stop to this madness, holding that general warrants violated basic principles of English law and were therefore unreasonable. These courts stressed that the very existence of general warrants made everyone vulnerable to the threat of unreasonable searches and seizures.


For example, one influential decision condemned general warrants as “totally subversive of the liberty of the subject” because they gave officers “a discretionary power … to search wherever their suspicions may chance to fall.” Another warned that “the secret cabinets and bureaus of every subject in this kingdom will be thrown open” if general warrants were not forbidden.


Across the Atlantic, James Otis, the Boston lawyer who popularized the slogan “taxation without representation is tyranny,” denounced general warrants, which British authorities were increasingly using to find smuggled goods on which taxes had not been paid. In a legendary speech, he derided them as “the worst instrument of arbitrary power,” which placed “the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” John Adams later called Otis’s speech “the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.”


After splitting from Britain, many states adopted constitutions that guarded against oppressive searches and seizures, and the Fourth Amendment was later modeled on those protections. Read in this historical context, the Fourth Amendment is aimed at denying executive agents the unfettered discretion to conduct searches because of the pervasive insecurity that such discretion creates and the abuses of power it enables.

[1blackman1]

If you think the warrant the FBI is even vaguely similar or a general warrant, there is no argument that would explain to you or he the difference.

[chefnerd]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-mar...t-337546097701

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

If you think the warrant the FBI is even vaguely similar or a general warrant, there is no argument that would explain to you or he the difference.

That excuse comes in handy for you, doesn't it. Seems to me a man of your education could make a short, very short argument on the matter but I guess you just don't have the time with your busy schedule.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/g/ge...0be%20searched.

A general warrant refers to a warrant providing a law-enforcement officer with broad discretion or authority to search and seize unspecified places or persons. A general warrant lacks a sufficiently particularized description of the person or thing to be seized or the place to be searched. General warrants are unconstitutional because they do not meet the Fourth Amendment's specificity requirements.

Anybody that doesn't believe that is part of the legal argument taking place right now, should surrender their law license for fraud.


Were the agents given broad discretion? Sure sounds like it to me. Did they look in "un-specified" places? And what exactly was the "particular description" of the thing to be seized? Or was it merely every paper or document that they found and would be sorted later?


I wonder if Melania's panties drawer was "specifically" mentioned or one of those "unspecified places" and was good to go with this "general warrant". To pretend like this isn't a major legal argument taking place right now, would be the height of naivete.


And I guess the agent that picked up 3 of Trump's passport's, that had to be returned, wasn't quite sure what he, she or it was allowed to seize because the warrant was so "general" in nature.


Pitiful lack of a coherent argument counselor.

[1blackman1]

Lol. Ok. You’re proving my point about your inability to understand. It’s all good though. At least you’re back to being entertaining. One day you might actually realize that just because someone says something is in question doesn’t mean it’s a legitimate question. There are such things as stupid questions.