Still wondering how DT's legal team is anything but for show, since none of them

[pnwmom]

has the security clearance to read all the documents involved.

He can't bring a lawyer into an interview if the lawyer lacks the security clearance to hear everything that might be said in there. Can he?

John Dowd was the only one who had a clearance, and he's gone. Sekalow has been there a year and still doesn't have one. People are doubtful, because of his foreign clients, that Giiuliani could even qualify.

So what's the plan? Why are they even pretending to negotiate an interview when no one has a clearance?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-02/trump-lawyers-said-to-lack-security-clearance-amid-mueller-talks

Donald Trump’s current team of lawyers lacks the security clearances needed to discuss sensitive issues related to a possible presidential interview with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Trump’s former lead lawyer John Dowd had been the only member of the president’s personal legal team with a security clearance, the people said. When Dowd quit in March over disagreements with Trump on legal strategy, Jay Sekulow became the lead lawyer on the investigation and is still waiting for his clearance.

The lack of security clearances could further complicate already sensitive talks with Mueller’s team. Prosecutors for Mueller made clear to Trump’s lawyers before Dowd left the legal team that the special counsel would consider a subpoena compelling the president to testify before a grand jury if he refuses to participate in a voluntary interview, Dowd told Bloomberg News.

SNIP

If Trump agrees to an interview, the topics that could require security clearance for the president’s lawyers include a meeting he had with Russian officials the day after the president fired FBI Director James Comey. That was on a list of more than 40 potential questions that Trump’s legal team compiled based on their discussions with Mueller.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Why do they need a security clearance? The President can just authorize them to view the documents.

[pnwmom]

3. If that is true then why does anyone on his staff ever need a security clearance?

Suppose they can view anything at the meeting. How can they prepare for the meeting without being able to read classified documents?

[PoliticAverse]

6. It's a good idea to have people's backgrounds be vetted before letting them see Classified info...

That doesn't mean it is ultimately a legal requirement.

See this article that discusses the matter specifically:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/jared-kushner-trump-family.html

[unblock]

4. no, he can't.

well, this one seems to have no problem violating federal law with impunity; but legally, there's a procedure for this and the president just saying "it's ok" isn't part of that process.

[PoliticAverse]

7. Actually it is. The President, as head of the executive branch has control over security clearances.

and classified information...

From: US Supreme Court, Department of the Navy v. Egan,484 U.S. 518 (1988):
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/518/

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief.

[unblock]

8. your link doesn't support that:

"Held: In an appeal pursuant to § 7513, the Board does not have authority to review the substance of an underlying security clearance determination in the course of reviewing an adverse action. Pp. 484 U. S. 526-534.

(a) The grant or denial of security clearance to a particular employee is a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment call that is committed by law to the appropriate Executive Branch agency having the necessary expertise in protecting classified information. It is not reasonably possible for an outside, nonexpert body to review the substance of such a judgment, and such review cannot be presumed merely because the statute does not expressly preclude it. Pp. 484 U. S. 526-530."


i agree that the granting of security clearances is an executive branch function, but it does not follow that the president can unilaterally make individual decisions in this area. there are federal agencies for this, such as defense security service.

[PoliticAverse]

9. That decision affirmed the right of the executive branch to make the decisions not some "outside,

nonexpert body".

but it does not follow that the president can unilaterally make individual decisions in this area.

According to the Supreme Court, it does follow. The President could actually declassify all information classified by the executive branch merely upon his say so.

[unblock]

10. declassifying information is not the same as granting specific clearance to individuals.

[PoliticAverse]

14. Right but it illustrates how broad the President's control over the issue is.

He can grant or refuse clearance to anyone he chooses and he can classify or declassify documents he chooses.

[unblock]

15. i still don't think the decision you cited supports this conclusion

your excerpt says it flows "primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the president".
"primarily" but not "exclusively".

in other parts of the opinion, it states that great deference is given to the executive in such matters, but goes on to review the laws, congressional intent, etc.

overall, my read is that the opinion does not grant a completely unfettered right for the president to unilaterally declassify anything or grant security clearances unilaterally. this opinion doesn't deny a role for congress here, it just says it isn't as important as the president's role.


perhaps there's another case out there that clarifies, but i don't think this one is it.

[RockRaven]

2. Honestly, Trump will have poor personal legal representation

I don't really see any way around that.

The White House Counsel and staff have security clearances, I think. So the office of the President will probably have good representation. And there's a lot of overlap between Trump-the-person's interests and Trump-the-President's interests. I suppose there will be times when the two sides of that coin will be in conflict and I guess Trump the person would get short-changed.

But Trump's got another problem when it comes to his lawyers not having all the facts, or not being able to advise him about certain matters -- he lies to EVERYONE including his own lawyers. Even with the right security clearances, they're going to get blindsided on occasion because of Trump not being straight with them.

[unblock]

5. this is deliberate, imho. it's a delaying tactic.

he won't seek a security clearance for any of them for as long as possible, then tell the court that he can't get a fair hearing unless counsel has a clearance, and gosh that can't take more than 9 months or maybe 18 or so but surely by the end of my second term....

for good measure he'll make sure the biggest security risk applies first, and he won't put in for another lawyer until the first one is rejected, etc....

[PoliticAverse]

11. Perhaps but then the court would tell him to either get attorneys that can get clearance or...

simply use his authority to authorize them to view the information.

[unblock]

12. separate from our discussion upthread, i don't think a court could impose on the president like this

even if donnie legally had the power to grant clearance with the stroke of a pen, he could certainly argue that it would be against the interests of national security for him to do so without a proper background investigation and review by the appropriate investigative agency.

it's one thing to say the president has this power, it's another thing to say the court can essentially force him to use that power.

but in any event, yes, a court can certainly insist that it can't be that hard to find qualified counsel that has appropriate clearance, and eventually the court will run out of patience, at which point donnie will produce such counsel.

it's just a delay tactic, imho. donnie doesn't have to win any arguments with the court, he just has to raise this issues to justify taking more time to find suitable counsel.

[NewJeffCT]

13. Flood has had security clearance before

so, likely can get it again.

Besides, Trump is so smart (a very stable genius after all) that he don't need no stinkin' lawyer to talk to Mueller