Jump to content

lemonlime

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3600
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lemonlime

  1. Those quotes don't change my opinion. The PRA says the government controls Presidential Records. But a former president can sue to stop the current executive/archivist from releasing those records. None of this has any bearing on whether a former president can steal Presidential Records and refuse to return them by claiming executive privilege, which is a tortured reading of the PRA.
  2. That case was about whether the archivist could release Presidential Records, and whether a former president could assert privilege to stop the archivist from releasing those records, which were already in the government's possession as they were government records. It has nothing to do with whether a former president could hide Presidential Records from the current executive. The records were Presidential Records, and the issue was whether the archivist could give those records over to the January 6 Committee. From your quote: The Presidential Records Act reflects that understanding by providing that a former President may initiate an action "asserting that a determination made by the Archivist violates the former President's rights or privileges." 44 U.S.C. § 2204(e). And "[n]othing in [the] Act shall be construed to * * * limit * * * any constitutionally-based privilege which may be available to a[ ] * * * former President." Id. at § 2204(c)(2).
  3. My internet's been down most of the day. And looking back on my posts, JFC the typos. But wanted to add that this is the start of the PRA, setting forth definitively that presidential records belong to the government, meaning the American people, and not to trump or anyone else who occupied the executive branch for a few years. §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. The PRA then goes on to delineate when the archivist can release Presidential Records and procedures for current and former presidents to assert privilege to stop the archivist from releasing Presidential Records. Nothing in the PRA suggests that a former president could assert executive privilege to stop the executive from retrieving these records. In fact, the first section of the PRA specifies that the government shall retain complete ownership, control and possession of those records, and trump plainly has violated the PRA.
  4. The Presidential Records Act guides when the executive branch may release presidential records to others. And yes there are some rare occasions when a former president may be able to assert exec privilege to stop the current president from releasing records. The PRA has nothing to do with records someone removed from the governments custody and has been hiding from the government
  5. How could trump Possibly possess anything subject to executive privilege? He’s no longer the executive. The documents the FBI seized are either government documents that trump stole or they’re personal documents that wouldn’t be executive privileged. That’s an insane result that he could steal documents from the government and then claim the government can’t get them back because they’re trumps own super secret documents
  6. God, I hope you’re right. But I can’t shake the feeling that we’re letting a mass murder go around committing more murders while the investigators get tied up investigating an ever increasing number of murders and perfecting those cases. Meanwhile, scores more are murdered and hopefully the investigators, judges and juries don’t get whacked while all the investigating is going on.
  7. Why would Biden have weighed in on executive privilege? Trump never actually asserted it. He never identified any documents or even topics that are privileged. Why would Biden have to affirmatively waive a privilege that has never been properly invoked? Trump only filed a nonsense shit flinging motion in a different court than the one overseeing the investigation in which his lawyers argued for a special master over stolen records under dubious grounds of executive privilege, again without identifying any items that are actually subject to the privilege. It’s not some magic phrase that you can wave around to stop investigations. The next time I’m stopped for speeding I’m gonna argue that attorney client privilege applies. Which makes exactly as much sense as what trumps legal team is arguing here
  8. Except they’ve now given him too much rope. Nothing they do will matter. It doesn’t matter how airtight the case is. The cult along with the GQP in government including congress critters and scotus will side with trump. It’s too late for consequences after giving trump years to obstruct and rally the troops.
  9. Trump should have been arrested along time ago. Murderers aren’t allowed to roam the street for years while an investigation is ongoing. Yet trump tried to overthrow the government, and not only is he free of consequences, he’s had 2 years to rally his people. Meanwhile despite committing criminal acts on tape and camera,he installed many of the people deciding his cases. You can’t have a functioning democracy where the person who tried to overthrow it is put free continuing his efforts. I get that doj typically takes a long time to investigate white collar crimes. But these aren’t white collar crimes and they’re hugely different in scale from any crime the FBI has investigated in the past. They given the GQP many months to normalize treason so that when charges finally come if they do, everyone will just stay in their default tribal positions
  10. You may be right about the impact to the case, but here's a twitter thread Neal Katyal posted in which he says a first year law student should write a better opinion than this judge.
  11. How could he have executive privilege over documents the executive wants back? I usually like your posts, but I'm really not sure what you're saying here. He took national security government documents and is now claiming they're privileged from the government. He's essentially conceding the documents lying around his home office are government documents, and then arguing he wants to keep the government documents from the government. How is this any different than if I stole files from my former law firm employer and then said that a special master had to look over the documents to make sure I wasn't giving the law firm their own attorney client documents?
  12. Or the corollary that if you lose a ruling in which you're this obviously in the right, the judge is either incredibly dumb (and I've been before some of them) or the judge has a finger on the scale. Or both. Not to try and talk you onto the ledge, but this is really bad, IMO. It's a nonsense ruling against all sorts of established precedent, covering up corruption, which if appealed will be going to even more corrupt institutions. It's not that I think this particular ruling is really bad. It is, but given the FBI already reviewed the documents I'm not sure ultimately how much it matters, by itself. But this is a nice give away of what the judiciary is going to do once trump is indicted.
  13. Yeah. It makes no sense. He's claiming executive privilege over documents he stole. And to the extent there could possibly be other executive documents that are rightly his and somehow mixed in (which makes no sense given the executive is the one who has the documents and the current executive has waived executive privilege) he hasn't set forth anything to suggest there are privileged documents mixed in with the stolen documents.
  14. Yup, they can appeal. And if law wasn't calvin ball, they should appeal. This should have been a no brainer decision for the government. But what happens if they take it to the Eleventh Circuit, and then Thomas gets involved (he oversees emergent applications for the 11th), and what Alito, Gorsuch, Kav, Thomas, and Barrett do with this, wouldn't make me hold my breath on a rational, correct outcome.
  15. Yeah. The no wifi in the courthouse was a tell. The judge is going to do something indefensible and doesn't want scrutiny. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised as trump's arguments are so bananas, no one who's not a full on Kool Aid drinker would buy them. But I'm not holding my breath.
  16. They turned off wifi in the courthouse. We probably won't hear anything until after the hearing's over.
  17. I'm not sure what you're saying. Attorney client privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney. Only trump can waive the privilege. The privilege also only applies to communications regarding legal advice. Her spouting off on tv about the criminal case would never be subject to attorney client privilege. Nor would her witnessing crimes her client was committing. She presumably is providing (bad) legal advice in the NY AG case, and her conversations with trump about that case are privileged unless trump talks about them, which maybe he's stupid enough to do.
  18. There's still attorney client privilege. She may be disqualified from representing him, however, as she's now almost certainly a witness in the criminal case against him. There's nothing privileged about who she saw entering his office at mar a lago, where he kept classified documents lying about. If the FBI hasn't talked to her yet, I'm sure they will be now.
  19. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.
  20. Really. The only things he understands are greed and his own ego. And he’s spent an entire lifetime committing crimes and getting away with them. And I doubt he knows how to read a coloring book, never mind State secrets. He took the papers with intent to sell them. I’m just not certain if it’s been proven that he did in fact sell them.
  21. Or they could have searched for the documents themselves, once it was clear that trump along with his legal team was obstructed. If trump didn't want to submit a real certification, I'm not sure why it's on the FBI to ask trump's attorneys to do their job.
  22. Agreed on perjury. But she signed a certification to mislead the FBI about national security crimes her client committed. She either helped him commit those crimes and/or helped him cover them up with this certification. Someone, either Bobb, or Trump, or both, attempted to mislead the FBI about national security information. Either way she should be fucked from a legal standpoint. Whether she actually is with a trump appointed judiciary, who the fuck knows.
  23. Who the fuck knows in this instance, it's so far outside the realm of normal lawyer. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if the trump appointed judge appointed rudy giuliani to be the special master, and the Supreme Court threw out the entire case on some made up grounds. Without knowing the specifics of this case, it's hard to know the consequences. But at best for Bobb, she is disqualified from representing trump because she's now a witness to his lies in the ongoing case. She may also be charged as a coconspirator if she signed that certification knowing that trump was hiding sensitive national security documents. I imagine if she engaged in espionage she would be disbarred; I mean she did take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
  24. And no reasonable lawyer would sign that certification. As to the second point, if something is missing from the production, the lawyer is probably disqualified from representing her client. It's not in the client's best interest to have a lawyer sign the certification unless the client wants to risk having to find a new lawyer. The lawyer is now a witness as to possible tampering with or hiding of evidence. Even in a totally normal scenario, with good faith actors, there are sometimes documents that are inadvertently not produced, say the client diligently searched for documents but forgot that a small subset of documents relating to x are kept at an offsite facility. If the lawyer signs that certification, the lawyer is now a witness against her client as to why a false certification was submitted. Did someone do a bad job searching? Was something destroyed? Did someone lie to the lawyer? And that's with good faith actors. I can't imagine the idiocy of Bobb signing this certification.
×
×
  • Create New...