If I recall correctly, Bill had these in a sock drawer.

the_batman26 said:

---

If I recall correctly, Bill had these in a sock drawer.

---

Yeah but which kind of "sock" drawer?

aggiehawg said:

---

And a response to a subpoena can be a motion to quash if overbroad. That might have been a mistake not to object to the scope of the subpoena way back when. But I doubt it would have been successful, ultimately.

Now the probable cause supporting the application for the search warrant at MAL? Harder to challenge unless an indictment ensues. Now we have an indictment and the legality of that search warrant can be challenged more directly.

---

I've heard of cases of people challenging a subpoena and asking them to be quashed in other cases.

It would seem to me that the approaches should be to object to the subpoena and then if that doesn't work, to provide the materials in the subpoena and then argue in court for their return.

Would that be the usual approach?

Quote:

---

So because of computers and electronic records, there are far fewer paper records than with earlier Presidents. And NARA does have storage for Trump's Presidential records in the Washington, DC, area.

---

And they do. Website went live at 12:01 PM on Jan 20th in 2021.

fka ftc said:

---

They did move documents and archives to Florida. That seems pretty obvious. Did you make a typo?

Part of this whole thing is Biden just shipped **** before they had a chance to setup storage. Hence bathrooms and closets.

Trump was going through process of reviewing, having been told, presumably, that precedent dictated the incumbent POTUS has wide deference in determining what was personal v presidential in nature.

---

According to https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001

Quote:

---

How are documents in the White House determined to be an official Presidential record or a personal record?

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) defines what constitutes "Presidential records" and what are "personal records." 44 U.S.C. 2201. Personal records include "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."

The PRA also requires that all documentary materials "be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately." 44 U.S.C. 2203(b). The President does not have discretion to categorize a Presidential record as a personal record.

---

Quote:

---

I've heard of cases of people challenging a subpoena and asking them to be quashed in other cases.

It would seem to me that the approaches should be to object to the subpoena and then if that doesn't work, to provide the materials in the subpoena and then argue in court for their return.

Would that be the usual approach?

---

In a normal case yes. This is not a normal case. Too much politics, not enough law.

Allow me a short derail here.

FARA had always been a civil admin issue that went away with paying some fines. It was never used as a criminal statute because it was never intended to be a criminal statute.

But now it is, unless the unregistered lobbyists are part of Hunter's gang. Like General Flynn.

That was after, well after a federal judge ruled otherwise.

IOW, not truthful.

aggiehawg said:

---

That was after, well after a federal judge ruled otherwise.

IOW, not truthful.

---

A federal judge did not say the POTUS has wide discretion (especially after he's out of office) to define what's a presidential and personal record.

A federal judge said NARA doesn't make the decision, the president is to execute the PRA with good faith, and that the public can't sue NARA about the determination.

And again, irrelevant to this indictment


Edited to add from the Judicial Watch case you've cited in this thread:

Quote:

---

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.
Id. at 1290. The court stated that Armstrong I only barred judicial review of "creation, management, and disposal decisions" of the President and not "the initial classification of existing materials

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It can't be said enough that none of this changes the fact that there isn't any apparent serious legal argument about whether the documents are presidential or not.

---

Okay.

Before the PRA, those records belonged to the outgoing president. PRA changed the presumption in favor of none of them were personal in nature, until the Clinton audiotape sock drawer case. There is was declared that the POTUS solely had that authority. Remember some of those tapes included highly classified info in conversations Bill was having with foreign heads of state, during a war, in Kosovo. No problem there.

So I ask again, which bureaucrat, beady eyed, academic librarian, gets to make such determinations? Or is it a bearded scandal plagued Special Counsel and a prosecuting attorney who had to remove herself and resign because of illegal wiretapping of defense counsel's phones back in 2009?

---

Ouch! That one hit hard. Go easy on them, Hawg. ;-)

Why wouldn't he (or she) have that power under Article II? Genuinely asking.

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) defines what constitutes "Presidential records" and what are "personal records." 44 U.S.C. 2201. Personal records include "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."


Interesting little piece, here. Definitely seems to indicate that personal notations on box tops would fall more under "journal or personal notes" than they would be considered as "transacting Govt. business".

Yet somehow Trump asking for box tops to be replaced is somehow a crime.

Quote:

---

A federal judge did not say the POTUS has wide discretion (especially after he's out of office) to define what's a presidential and personal record.

---

WTF? You never read the Amy Berman Jackson (horrible federal judge BTW) opinion that said NARA has never and will never have that authority...only A POTUS, even a former one does under the PRA.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

A federal judge did not say the POTUS has wide discretion (especially after he's out of office) to define what's a presidential and personal record.

---

WTF? You never read the Amy Berman Jackson (horrible federal judge BTW) opinion that said NARA has never and will never have that authority...only A POTUS, even a former one does undert the PRA.

---

I have read the opinion. I quoted it in my post you just quoted.

And did I say NARA has that authority? No, no I did not.

Quote:

---

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.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

A federal judge did not say the POTUS has wide discretion (especially after he's out of office) to define what's a presidential and personal record.

---

WTF? You never read the Amy Berman Jackson (horrible federal judge BTW) opinion that said NARA has never and will never have that authority...only A POTUS, even a former one does undert the PRA.

---

I have read the opinion. I quoted it in my post you just quoted.

And did I say NARA has that authority? No, no I did not.

---

Then who has? Answer my original question under the PRA?

Explain it to me like I'm five and know nothing about statuory construction, case law and precedent because I am very confused right now. If the PRA never applies, why is it even in existence?

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

A federal judge did not say the POTUS has wide discretion (especially after he's out of office) to define what's a presidential and personal record.

---

WTF? You never read the Amy Berman Jackson (horrible federal judge BTW) opinion that said NARA has never and will never have that authority...only A POTUS, even a former one does undert the PRA.

---

I have read the opinion. I quoted it in my post you just quoted.

And did I say NARA has that authority? No, no I did not.

---

Then who has? Answer my original question under the PRA?

Explain it to me like I'm five and know nothing about statuory construction, case law and precedent because I am very confused right now. If the PRA never applies, why is it even in existence?

---

The PRA defines what is a Presidential and Personal Recoed. Under the PRA, the President (more practically, the White House staff) are supposed to, in good faith accordance to the definitions in the PRA, contemporaneously (at the time the document is created or at least, "during the presidency" according to the court) determine if it's presidential or personal and take all steps necessary to

When the President makes the determination, the two types of documents are required by the PRA to be preserved and kept as Presidential Records or go to personal record land

NARA takes full custody of the presidential records the second the President is no longer in office.

The Court in that case said NARA doesn't make the determination of what kind of record it is and that NARA cannot come in on it's own and tell the President "that's marked personal when it should be presidential" and then be required to make the document public.

The Court in that case does not say there is no possible judicial review at all of whether the President made the correct determination.

And really, more accurately, let me clarify the Judicial Watch case said NARA cannot be compelled to second guess the President.

Quote:

---

To the extent that there was a subsequent classification decision the Archivist purported to make, see supra note 2, or to be more accurate, a decision to decline to revisit the President's classification decision, any injury plaintiff claims it suffered as a result would not be redressable because there is nothing under the statute that the Court can compel the Archivist to do.

---

Quote:

---

The Court in that case does not say there is no possible judicial review at all of whether the President made the correct determination.

---

But they said they have no jurisdiction to second guess it either. Separations of powers.

Tell me why that changed now?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The Court in that case does not say there is no possible judicial review at all of whether the President made the correct determination.

---

But they said they have no jurisdiction to second guess it either. Separations of powers.

Tell me why that changed now?

---

It said the public cannot make NARA second guess it and by extension the public cannot make the courts second guess it. See my follow up post to make an important clarification. Remember, this was a lawsuit by a private organization (judicial watch) trying to compel the NARA to do something

Quote:

---

The PRA authorizes NARA to invoke the same enforcement mechanism embodied in the Federal Records Act, which begins with a request to the Attorney General to institute an action for the recovery of missing records. Compare44 U.S.C. 2112(c) with 44 U.S.C. 3106. The statute does not mandate that NARA invoke this enforcement scheme but rather vests complete discretion with the agency to utilize that mechanism. 44 U.S.C. 2112(c) ("When the Archivist considers it to be in the public interest, he may ...." (emphasis added)). The Archivist has chosen to invoke the mechanism in the past when it deemed such action appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. McElvenny, No. 023027, 2003 WL 1741422 (S.D.N.Y. April 1, 2003) (seeking recovery of a map of Cuba annotated by President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis).

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And really, more accurately, and importantly, let me clarify the Judicial Watch case said NARA cannot be compelled to second guess the President.

Quote:

---

To the extent that there was a subsequent classification decision the Archivist purported to make, see supra note 2, or to be more accurate, a decision to decline to revisit the President's classification decision, any injury plaintiff claims it suffered as a result would not be redressable because there is nothing under the statute that the Court can compel the Archivist to do.

---

---

Footnotes?

Disregard the actual ruling. Let's go to footnotes.

Just want to point out one more time this is all pretty much irrelevant at this point and to this indictment

With Canon as judge, I feel even more confident in my prior prediction:

Trump is not going to spend 1 minute behind bars. Not post-conviction, not for an arraignment, not for questioning, etc. etc.

Not
1
second.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Just want to point out one more time this is all pretty much irrelevant at this point and to this indictment

---

Got it.

Political purely.

Law is not involved.

So, again, who has power to assert sweeping authority? If not NARA? I'd like an answer this time instead of "well, idk but Judicial Watch holds NARA can't."

the_batman26 said:

---

So, again, who has power to assert sweeping authority? If not NARA? I'd like an answer this time instead of "well, idk but Judicial Watch holds NARA can't."

---

I am so confused as well. Does the Clinton decision apply or not?

Switching jurisdictions between DC and South Florida also raises questions. Why?

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Just want to point out one more time this is all pretty much irrelevant at this point and to this indictment

---

Got it.

Political purely.

Law is not involved.

---

Law is absolutely involved. Just not the PRA at this point because (as the 11th Circuit has already made pretty clear during Trump's ill-fated attempt to invoke the PRA), there's no real serious or colorable legal argument that those 31 documents are Trump's personal records

And deep down the lawyer in you knows that.

Gee.

Now I know I was a much better lawyer than you are.

That's pretty much out there. Was that a joke?

the_batman26 said:

---

So, again, who has power to assert sweeping authority? If not NARA? I'd like an answer this time instead of "well, idk but Judicial Watch holds NARA can't."

---

I don't know what you're talking about

aggiehawg said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

So, again, who has power to assert sweeping authority? If not NARA? I'd like an answer this time instead of "well, idk but Judicial Watch holds NARA can't."

---

I am so confused as well. Does the Clinton decision apply or not?

Switching jurisdictions between DC and South Florida also raises questions. Why?

---

I heard a guy on tv say they put the trial in Florida because they thought if they put it in DC it would be an automatic throwing out of the case on the grounds of wrong venue ? He said that the special council thinks he has a strong case and was not risking that possible outcome ?

aggiehawg said:

---

Gee.

Now I know I was a much better lawyer than you are.

That's pretty much out there. Was that a joke?

---

If you agree the PRA is pretty much irrelevant at this point, save us all some time and stop *****ing about it

Ags77 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

So, again, who has power to assert sweeping authority? If not NARA? I'd like an answer this time instead of "well, idk but Judicial Watch holds NARA can't."

---

I am so confused as well. Does the Clinton decision apply or not?

Switching jurisdictions between DC and South Florida also raises questions. Why?

---

I heard a guy on tv say they put the trial in Florida because they thought if they put it in DC it would be an automatic throwing out of the case on the grounds of wrong venue ? He said that the special council thinks he has a strong case and was not risking that possible outcome ?

---

Yeah, bringing this particular indictment in DC where nearly all (or all) of the conduct alleged in this particular indictment took place in Florida would be asking for delays and headaches around venue

You clearly do, when it's the same topic you've been on for the last hour lol. I even used your own language.

Quote:

---

Switching jurisdictions between DC and South Florida also raises questions. Why?

---

What questions? Alleged acts occurred in SoDFla. Venue lies there. Rule 18.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

So, again, who has power to assert sweeping authority? If not NARA? I'd like an answer this time instead of "well, idk but Judicial Watch holds NARA can't."

---

I don't know what you're talking about

---

I think the issue here is that very clearly… you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You keep trying to post that Trump had no authority or even received any deference for what is personal v presidential. Then you also say NARA certainly has no authority. Then when asked who does you quote nonsense and not answer.

Again, it's clear that until today you had not read any of the PRA nor subsequent cases. Others of us have been reading it for the better part of the year.

This was again a civil dispute that became criminal at the REQUEST of WH counsel to NARA with a redirect to the supposedly independent DOJ along with an instruction for an ARMED raid on a personal residence guarded 24/7 by US Secret Service that is also surveilled 24/7 via recorded CCTV.

"I don't know what you're talking about" is probably the clearest thing you posted today.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Gee.

Now I know I was a much better lawyer than you are.

That's pretty much out there. Was that a joke?

---

If you agree the PRA is pretty much irrelevant at this point, save us all some time and stop *****ing about it

---

Why would I agree that Trump was never a President and because of that the PRA never applied?

Because that is what you are saying. PRA doesn not apply to Trump, and to only Trump only.

I asked why, on legal grounds, you hold that opinion?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Gee.

Now I know I was a much better lawyer than you are.

That's pretty much out there. Was that a joke?

---

If you agree the PRA is pretty much irrelevant at this point, save us all some time and stop *****ing about it

---

How is the PRA irrelevant oh wise counsel?