Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

A Federal Prosecutor is an officer of the United States. Thus must be appointed. Either the president...

The DOJ is part of the executive branch under the president. The president delegates his authority throughout his branch. If the DOJ appoints a special counsel, it is done so as an extension of the president's authority to appoint a special counsel.

Only partisan thinking can't see that. All Biden has to do is write, "I appoint Jack Smith..." and it's over. That's why no one has ever made this stupid argument that Trump and his cult are making. There's reason Hunter Biden didn't challenged the special prosecutor that got him convicted, because his appointment was perfectly legal, just like Jack Smith's is.

These dumb arguments show just how desperate and panicked Trump and his cult have gotten.

ETA: @MT15 showed that there's legislation allowing for the appointment of a special counsel by the DOJ. Jack Smith was appointed as a special counsel.

 

[DaveXA]

I am curious as to how many respond to the judges invitation to participate. Expect some really novel and peculiar concepts.

Also wonder if any of these random participants will raise that Supreme Court precedent states that presidential papers belong to the president.

There's no such precedent that I'maware of. Please cite the case that establishes that precedent.

Presidential papers belong to the US government, not the President. Certainly not a former President.

 

[MT15]

 

[Sendai]

There's no such precedent that I'maware of. Please cite the case that establishes that precedent.

Presidential papers belong to the US government, not the President. Certainly not a former President.

Yeah, I was operating on info from a friend. Basically ownership has likely never been contested. Prior to Nixon it was simply the default that the president owned his presidential records.

“Historically, all presidential papers were considered the personal property of the president. Some took them at the end of their terms, others destroyed them, and many papers were scattered.[16] Though many pre-Hoover collections now reside in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress,[17] others are split among other libraries, historical societies, and private collections. However, many materials have been lost or deliberately destroyed.”

Presidential library system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As he pointed out there is still a potential issue as to whether the Presidential Records Act is constitutional. Separation of Powers and all that. And Congress doesn’t appear to have an enumerated power to regulate the Executive. So expect challenges.

 

[Sendai]

The DOJ is part of the executive branch under the president. The president delegates his authority throughout his branch. If the DOJ appoints a special counsel, it is done so as an extension of the president's authority to appoint a special counsel.

Only partisan thinking can't see that. All Biden has to do is write, "I appoint Jack Smith..." and it's over. That's why no one has ever made this stupid argument that Trump and his cult are making. There's reason Hunter Biden didn't challenged the special prosecutor that got him convicted, because his appointment was perfectly legal, just like Jack Smith's is.

These dumb arguments show just how desperate and panicked Trump and his cult have gotten.

ETA: @MT15 showed that there's legislation allowing for the appointment of a special counsel by the DOJ. Jack Smith was appointed as a special counsel.

I don’t think the president can delegate his appointment clause responsibility. Especially with the consent of Congress thing. Actually all President Biden needs to do is nominate Smith. And as for Hunter, I’d forgotten, his special prosecutor has actually been nominated and confirmed by the Senate.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, I was operating on info from a friend. Basically ownership has likely never been contested. Prior to Nixon it was simply the default that the president owned his presidential records.

“Historically, all presidential papers were considered the personal property of the president. Some took them at the end of their terms, others destroyed them, and many papers were scattered.[16] Though many pre-Hoover collections now reside in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress,[17] others are split among other libraries, historical societies, and private collections. However, many materials have been lost or deliberately destroyed.”

Presidential library system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As he pointed out there is still a potential issue as to whether the Presidential Records Act is constitutional. Separation of Powers and all that. And Congress doesn’t appear to have an enumerated power to regulate the Executive. So expect challenges.

Expect challenges? This law has been in effect over 40 years. This is settled law. That's not gonna change just because you want it to.

§2202. Ownership of Presidential records
The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 95–591, §2(a), Nov. 4, 1978, 92 Stat. 2524.)

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title44/chapter22&edition=prelim

 

[MT15]

IIRC, there were early court challenges, which has led to this being settled law. Not to mention, these weren’t his papers. They were classified, more than a hundred of them.

Trump’s actions here are indefensible, yet we see people defending them.

 

[LA - L.A.]

IIRC, there were early court challenges, which has led to this being settled law. Not to mention, these weren’t his papers. They were classified, more than a hundred of them.

Trump’s actions here are indefensible, yet we see people defending them.

And doing a piss poor job of pretending not to be defending them.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I don’t think the president can delegate his appointment clause responsibility. Especially with the consent of Congress thing. Actually all President Biden needs to do is nominate Smith. And as for Hunter, I’d forgotten, his special prosecutor has actually been nominated and confirmed by the Senate.

How are the thousands of Assistant US Attorneys capable of doing their job without being nominated by POTUS and Senate confirmed????? What about Federal Law Enforcement Agents????????

 

[Sendai]

How are the thousands of Assistant US Attorneys capable of doing their job without being nominated by POTUS and Senate confirmed????? What about Federal Law Enforcement Agents????????

Assistant U.S. attorneys are appointed through a law enacted by Congress.

I don’t think Jack Smith is an Assistant U.S. Attorney.

Seems like they could make him one. Or Joe could appoint him as a U.S. Attorney.

But this is the kind of stuff that mire these cases in unending appeals.

 

[FullMonte]

Yeah, I was operating on info from a friend. Basically ownership has likely never been contested. Prior to Nixon it was simply the default that the president owned his presidential records.

“Historically, all presidential papers were considered the personal property of the president. Some took them at the end of their terms, others destroyed them, and many papers were scattered.[16] Though many pre-Hoover collections now reside in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress,[17] others are split among other libraries, historical societies, and private collections. However, many materials have been lost or deliberately destroyed.”

Presidential library system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As he pointed out there is still a potential issue as to whether the Presidential Records Act is constitutional. Separation of Powers and all that. And Congress doesn’t appear to have an enumerated power to regulate the Executive. So expect challenges.

That's one of those things I don't get. Trump and his cult members keep running with "Trump used the PRA to designate those documents as personal records when he brought them to Mar-A-Lago," and they NEVER get pushback from the media on that. The PRA was LITERALLY written specifically to prevent a president from trying to claim that government records were his personal records.

Even in Judge Cannon's ridiculous attempt to get Jack Smith to propose potential jury instructions based on Trump designating the records as personal records, she points out that the PRA has no mechanism to designate records as such.

 

[Sendai]

Expect challenges? This law has been in effect over 40 years. This is settled law. That's not gonna change just because you want it to.

§2202. Ownership of Presidential records
The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 95–591, §2(a), Nov. 4, 1978, 92 Stat. 2524.)

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title44/chapter22&edition=prelim

No one has challenged the constitutionality of the act. Given the circumstances of the documents case that may change.

This case gives a federal district court view as to just how toothless the the PRA is.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

And the Armstrong cases cited in the opinion don’t strengthen it.

Again, separation of powers. And I can’t find any constitutional power of Congress to regulate the Executive. It’s just not there.

 

[Sendai]

That's one of those things I don't get. Trump and his cult members keep running with "Trump used the PRA to designate those documents as personal records when he brought them to Mar-A-Lago," and they NEVER get pushback from the media on that. The PRA was LITERALLY written specifically to prevent a president from trying to claim that government records were his personal records.

Even in Judge Cannon's ridiculous attempt to get Jack Smith to propose potential jury instructions based on Trump designating the records as personal records, she points out that the PRA has no mechanism to designate records as such.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Judge Jackson has a different opinion on the presidents power to designate what’s personal. The act is pretty much powerless.

It’s not something I want. But the issue can’t be ignored.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Assistant U.S. attorneys are appointed through a law enacted by Congress.

Which law???

Nvmd, don't attempt to answer that question because it seems to me that you believe that everything that a government agency does has to be blessed by POTUS and his small council. AUSA's are hired by the the USAtty and that person is empowered by his boss the US AG through DoJ regulations, to make thousands of decisions on their own including hiring personnel.

That is what it means to be an independent government agency. Your insistence that everyone that works for the government be either nominated by the president and confirmed by congress negates the need for cabinet secretaries.

Project 2025 isn't here yet and that is why even having a hearing to challenge this assertion is absurd. Presidents are not kings and there are thousands of task that can be taken by government agencies without it be written into law or blessed by his highness and his council.

I don’t think Jack Smith is an Assistant U.S. Attorney.

Seems like they could make him one. Or Joe could appoint him as a U.S. Attorney.

Isn't the point of the Special Counsel is to remove any conflict of interest from the DoJ? What are we doing here?

ICYMI:

Does Jack Smith taking the Oath of Office satisfy this stupid claim?

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-10/10.06.23.%20-%20Special%20Counsel%20Oath%20Jack%20Smith.pdf

The regulation governing the Special Counsel: CFR Title 28 Part 600

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

 

[FullMonte]

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Judge Jackson has a different opinion on the presidents power to designate what’s personal. The act is pretty much powerless.

It’s not something I want. But the issue can’t be ignored.

Did you read that ruling? She did not say anything about the president not having the power to designate what is personal. The court granted the motion to dismiss not because the president was allowed to designate them as personal, but because "NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. "

She then went on to explain that the FOIA request that demanded the tapes was inadequate since the tapes were not in the possession of the government.

She then said "In making a decision on this matter I have to consider the nature of the audio tapes, if they were created with the intent of their use as government materials, and whether or not they were circulated within the Administration or relied on as policy documents," followed shortly after by "For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the audio tapes created by Taylor Branch are personal records of President Clinton as defined by the PRA."

So, not only did she NOT have a different opinion about the president's power to designate what was personal, but she cited "as defined by the PRA" as the reason the tapes in question were personal records....therefore verifying that the PRA defines what is a personal record.

 

[Sendai]

Did you read that ruling? She did not say anything about the president not having the power to designate what is personal. The court granted the motion to dismiss not because the president was allowed to designate them as personal, but because "NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. "

She then went on to explain that the FOIA request that demanded the tapes was inadequate since the tapes were not in the possession of the government.

She then said "In making a decision on this matter I have to consider the nature of the audio tapes, if they were created with the intent of their use as government materials, and whether or not they were circulated within the Administration or relied on as policy documents," followed shortly after by "For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the audio tapes created by Taylor Branch are personal records of President Clinton as defined by the PRA."

So, not only did she NOT have a different opinion about the president's power to designate what was personal, but she cited "as defined by the PRA" as the reason the tapes in question were personal records....therefore verifying that the PRA defines what is a personal record.

She cited from Armstrong II

“In the Court's view, plaintiff reads too much into this statement. 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”

“Thus, a close reading of the Armstrong II decision suggests that the limited judicial review authorized by the D.C. Circuit left untouched that portion of Armstrong I that gave the President unfettered control over his own documents. ”


So the President has sole discretion. But not necessarily the right to go unchallenged.

If you read Armstrong I, Armstrong II in addition to this case there is discussion pertinent to how to resolve questions as to the nature of the documents and that is for the Archivist to enlist DOJ assistance in evaluating the nature of the documents. It’s basically for the DOJ to request assistance from the courts and have a judge make the determination on the nature of the presidential documents. That didn’t happen.

All this presumes the PRA is constitutional. With the current make up of the Supremes I have my doubts.

 

[Sendai]

Which law???

Nvmd, don't attempt to answer that question because it seems to me that you believe that everything that a government agency does has to be blessed by POTUS and his small council. AUSA's are hired by the the USAtty and that person is empowered by his boss the US AG through DoJ regulations, to make thousands of decisions on their own including hiring personnel.

That is what it means to be an independent government agency. Your insistence that everyone that works for the government be either nominated by the president and confirmed by congress negates the need for cabinet secretaries.

Project 2025 isn't here yet and that is why even having a hearing to challenge this assertion is absurd. Presidents are not kings and there are thousands of task that can be taken by government agencies without it be written into law or blessed by his highness and his council.


Isn't the point of the Special Counsel is to remove any conflict of interest from the DoJ? What are we doing here?

ICYMI:

28 U.S.C. 542 - Assistant United States attorneys​

 

[DaveXA]

She cited from Armstrong II

“In the Court's view, plaintiff reads too much into this statement. 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”

“Thus, a close reading of the Armstrong II decision suggests that the limited judicial review authorized by the D.C. Circuit left untouched that portion of Armstrong I that gave the President unfettered control over his own documents. ”


So the President has sole discretion. But not necessarily the right to go unchallenged.

If you read Armstrong I, Armstrong II in addition to this case there is discussion pertinent to how to resolve questions as to the nature of the documents and that is for the Archivist to enlist DOJ assistance in evaluating the nature of the documents. It’s basically for the DOJ to request assistance from the courts and have a judge make the determination on the nature of the presidential documents. That didn’t happen.

All this presumes the PRA is constitutional. With the current make up of the Supremes I have my doubts.

You're saying that the makeup of the court determines whether it's Constitutional? It's been in effect for 40 years, has been challenged multiple times, and numerous people have been charged under the statute... (remember Iran-Contra, Oliver North?) and the PRA is basically administered by National Archives. I don't see anywhere this is going to be challenged in terms of Constitutionality. Wishful thinking imo. But you're entitled to your opinion.