General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCould Joe Biden deny executive power to Donald Trump in the Judge's decision?
The "executive power" in the Constitution rests solely with the President of the United States, not with a former president and not subject to the discretion of any judge in the Justice system.
Could President Biden take this case to court?
spanone
(135,830 posts)kentuck
(111,088 posts)...within the three branches. The judge does not have the authority to give Donald Trump executive power.
Thanks
elleng
(130,891 posts)'Justice Department officials last week had discussed the possibility of an appeal if the judge ruled in Mr. Trumps favor, but a department spokesman, Anthony Coley, demurred on Monday when asked how it would respond.
The United States is examining the opinion and will consider appropriate next steps in the ongoing litigation, he said.'
LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)give former presidents standing to assert executive privilege with respect to their presidential records. The issue for a court is whether that assertion of EP should be upheld. And where the incumbent president disagrees with the assertion of executive privilege, the courts likely (but not automatically) will follow the lead of the incumbent president and deny the assertion of EP.
kentuck
(111,088 posts)(snip)
In the case involving the congressional committee's request for records, the Biden administration objected to Trump's assertion of "communications privilege," and a federal court agreed. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the lower court's ruling, though not because of Trump's "status as a former president."
In the second case, Trump's lawyers asked the National Archives for additional time to review the records before they were turned over to the FBI. The lawyers wanted to "ascertain whether any specific document is subject to privilege" and give Trump an opportunity to "assert a claim of constitutionally based privilege."
The archivist rejected Trump's request, citing a Justice Department opinion that "there is no precedent for an assertion of executive privilege by a former president against an incumbent president to prevent the latter from obtaining" government records from the National Archives.
Trump's claim of executive privilege over the documents taken from Mar-a-Lago remains unresolved. If a federal judge accepts Trump's request for a "special master" to review the documents, the former president may decide to assert executive privilege over some records. Dismissing Trump's request as unnecessary, the Justice Department wrote in a filing late Tuesday that any assertion of executive privilege by the former president "would fail here because this case involves the recovery and review of executive records by executive officials performing core executive functions."
onenote
(42,700 posts)of documents to the current executive branch over the objections of the current executive branch doesn't mean that a former president doesn't have "standing" to make the claim.
EndlessWire
(6,522 posts)Trump took records from a former administration that he would not have EP over?
kentuck
(111,088 posts)Wouldn't that change the circumstances?
ScratchCat
(1,988 posts)Biden could shut this down right now with stating, in an EO if necessary, that no EP is being extended to Trump and that this is all moot. He won't, but he could. It's not a legal debate. He's president.
kentuck
(111,088 posts)Perhaps he should?
ScratchCat
(1,988 posts)That some or all of what he took and wouldn't give back is likely transcript and readouts of his conversation with foreign leaders and it's evidence of further crime as he doesn't seem concerned that meer possession is a felony. That's why he is reaching for a sm and using EP. It has to be shut down. The notion that a former POTUS can take documents that indicates crime and thenshield himself with EP claim is legally ridiculous
EndlessWire
(6,522 posts)seems very confused about.
onenote
(42,700 posts)The Supreme Court has acknowledged that a former president can assert executive privilege. It also has indicated that whether a court accepts that assertion requires a consideration of various factors, including the position of the incumbent president, with the position of the incumbent president given significant weight in the court's determination.
But a blanket assertion that Trump is not entitled to assert, and possibly prevail, on a claim of EP without that determination having involved consideration of the specific documents involved and the specific reasons for not according them privileged status, would almost certainly lose at the SCOTUS.
ScratchCat
(1,988 posts)Is the crime. That would seem to be the overriding factor already considered
kentuck
(111,088 posts)Claiming "executive privilege" in the commission of a crime.
I would not be surprised to see this go all the way to the Supreme Court.
BumRushDaShow
(128,905 posts)The president informed the National Archives that it should turn over the logs sought by the Jan. 6 committee within 15 days.
By Michael S. Schmidt
Feb. 16, 2022
President Biden ordered the National Archives to hand over a range of visitor logs from the Trump White House to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, rejecting his predecessors claim that the material is protected by executive privilege. The decision boosts the committees efforts to gather information about who was coming and going from the White House not just on the day of the attack last year but also in the months preceding it as President Donald J. Trump sought to overturn the election.
Mr. Biden had similarly decided last year not to support Mr. Trumps claim of executive privilege over other batches of White House documents and records sought by the committee. Mr. Trump went to federal court to block the release of those earlier batches but lost. In a letter sent Tuesday to the National Archives, Mr. Bidens White House counsel, Dana Remus, said Mr. Biden had rejected Mr. Trumps claims that the visitor logs were subject to executive privilege and that in light of the urgency of the committees work, the agency should provide the material to the committee within 15 days.
The archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, said in a letter to Mr. Trump on Wednesday that unless prohibited by a court, the National Archives would hand over the logs to the committee on March 3. Mr. Trump did not respond publicly, and it is not clear whether he might go to court again to try to delay or block the release of the logs.
Citing in part the same reasoning as in the earlier case, Ms. Remus told the National Archives that the documents needed to be disclosed in a timely fashion because Congress has a compelling need. She said that constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself.
(snip)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/us/politics/biden-trump-white-house-visitor-logs.html
Last Updated 6 months ago
U.S. Archives turns over Trump White House visitor logs to Jan. 6 committee
By Patricia Zengerle
WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration has delivered White House visitor logs from former President Donald Trump's administration to the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the committee said on Friday.
NARA also turned over records from former Vice President Mike Pence, meeting a March 3 deadline. "Yesterday, the Select Committee received additional production of records from the National Archives," a House of Representatives Select Committee aide said. "This included records that the former President attempted to keep hidden behind claims of privilege."
Trump had tried to block the release of the visitor logs, but President Joe Biden rejected his claim that they were subject to executive privilege, "in light of the urgency" of the committee's work and Congress' "compelling need." read more
Several courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have also ruled against the Republican ex-president's efforts to block the release of various records to the committee.
(snip)
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-archives-turns-over-trump-white-house-visitor-logs-jan-6-committee-2022-03-04/
I know there has been discussion about Nixon's court battles, both during and post-Presidency, where the courts have upheld the government's ownership of its documents and effects (including recordings). However there was one decision in 1998 that upheld the assertion that some of the material on the recordings were private conversations (with family, etc) and thus should be returned (to what would be the estate of Nixon).
By MICHAEL G. WAGNER
April 1, 1998 12 AM PT
TIMES STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON
The long-running legal battle over Richard Nixons secret White House tapes hit another milestone Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled that 820 hours of the recordings are personal. A spokesman for the estate said they probably will be destroyed.
As a result, conversations captured by Nixons elaborate taping system--including intimate chats between the president and his family, talks with his physician and some private political conversations--may never be available to historians.
The contentious fight over the rightful resting place for Nixons tapes and papers has spanned 24 years, since his resignation in 1974 after the Watergate scandal.
Though the issue of the Watergate tapes first reached the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1970s, it is still not over. In November, a trial is scheduled to determine how much Nixons estate should be paid for the 880 tapes and 42 million pages of documents the government confiscated after he left office.
(snip)
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-apr-01-mn-34946-story.html
So apparently "carve-outs" happen and that is probably what may need to happen to separate out "personal" documents/effects, but anything that is "Classified" (any level) should not be subject to any privilege arguments.
EndlessWire
(6,522 posts)But, you can't blame people for feeling that USSC is now just a rubber stamp for whatever Trump wants. And, they now have to appeal this Judge's ruling for sure, just to try to avoid setting a precedent--which nowadays carries little weight..
It doesn't seem to matter that under PRA the motion is filed in the wrong court.
If it were true that he stole someone else's papers, then they can be identified and shown to the court.
VMA131Marine
(4,138 posts)The incumbent has the right to override any claim of executive privilege made by a predecessor. The alternative is chaos, which is what Trump is aiming for.
kentuck
(111,088 posts)...to anyone?
She seems like she got out of her lane?
MyOwnPeace
(16,926 posts)She's a 'FEDERALIST!" How could that possibly happen?!?!? Oh, wait, let's ask Alito!
Bayard
(22,062 posts)The theft, and improper storage there of.
Indict him.
Irish_Dem
(47,014 posts)American military and intelligence personnel may be at risk.
And the GOP is going to slow walk this thing.
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)I'd bet on that.
kentuck
(111,088 posts)I don't think he will get involved. But, it is such a mess, who knows?
GoCubsGo
(32,080 posts)He has already denied it. Which is why this decision is so fucking ludicrous. As for him taking this to court, that will not likely happen, as he wisely is trying to stay out of this. He is trying to depoliticize DOJ after the mess Trump and Barr made of it. I suspect that NARA can make a case for themselves in the appeal.
gab13by13
(21,321 posts)President Biden did what he was authorized to do by law, he waived "his" executive privilege. The thing is that Trump never asked for executive privilege, the judge just offered it on her own.
EndlessWire
(6,522 posts)usonian
(9,786 posts)allegorical oracle
(2,357 posts)EndlessWire
(6,522 posts)under the Espionage Act, and not the PRA.