info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Sep 28, 2022, 3:20:46 PM9/28/22
to
When it comes to the National Archives, history has a funny way of repeating
itself. And legal experts say a decade-old case over audio tapes that Bill
Clinton once kept in his sock drawer may have significant impact over the FBI
search of Melania Trump's closet and Donald Trump's personal office.
The case in question is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and
Records Administration and it involved an effort by the conservative watchdog
to compel the Archives to forcibly seize hours of audio recordings that
Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.
For pop culture, the case is most memorable for the revelation that the 42nd
president for a time stored the audio tapes in his sock drawer at the White
House. The tapes became the focal point of a 2009 book that Branch wrote.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected
Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the
Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from
a former president.
But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that
preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct
relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump
took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's
discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and
solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
"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," Jackson wrote in her March
2012 decision, which was never appealed.
"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the
disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be
difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would
have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his
personal records," she added.
You can read the full ruling here:
The judge noted a president could destroy any record he wanted during his
tenure and his only responsibility was to inform the Archives.
As to whether records a president concluded were personal can be forcibly
seized after he leaves office, the court concluded it was unreasonable to
force NARA to go get the tapes
"Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government's possession,
defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from
President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them," Jackson
noted. "Defendant considers this to be an 'extraordinary request' that is
unfounded, contrary to the PRA's express terms, and contrary to traditional
principles of administrative law. The Court agrees."
That defendant was the same Justice Department that authorized the raid on
Trump's estate. You can read their arguments a decade earlier here:
Jackson also concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision
lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If
the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney
general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a
civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted.
The search warrant the FBI enforced sought two types of records: classified
materials and records created during the Trump presidency. Trump has been
adamant the records he took to Mar-a-Lago were both declassified and deemed
personal by him.
Some government lawyers reached out privately to Just the News in recent days
questioning the use of the FBI to collect presidential records, citing
Jackson's ruling and suggesting it was a civil and not criminal matter where
deference to Trump is required by law.
On the classification issue, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama
signed executive orders — which remain in force to this day — declaring that
presidents have sweeping authority to declassify secrets and do not have to
follow the mandatory declassification procedures all other government
officials do.
The Jackson ruling and the declassification powers have left some experts
worried the FBI raid was heavy-handed under the current laws.
Kevin Brock, former assistant FBI director for intelligence, told Just the
News the bureau's search warrant was overly broad and went beyond what the
FBI manual for agents recommended. "Specificity is important in order to
protect fourth amendment rights from exuberant government overreach designed
to find whatever they can," he told Just the News.
Brock added he did not believe DOJ and FBI had authority to criminalize the
retention of presidential records.
The warrant "apparently makes a novel legal assertion that any presidential
record kept by a former president is against the law," Brock said. "You have
to wonder what the other living former presidents think about that. They have
the right and, apparently, clear desire to remain silent."
Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch who was on the losing end of the
Clinton sock drawer case, said he believes Jackson's ruling could have a
profound impact on the coming legal battles over the Trump search.
"The government, the lawyer for the Archives, said, 'You know what? If
documents are in the former President's hands, where they're presumptively
personal, we just, you know, we presume they're personal,'" Fitton said.
"The Justice Department previously had told us in response to a question
about Bill Clinton: 'Tough luck, it's his.' But they changed their mind for
Donald Trump?" he asked. "… The law and court decision suggests that Trump is
right. And frankly, based on this analysis, Trump should get every single
document they took from him back. It's all personal records."
--
Let's go Brandon!
itself. And legal experts say a decade-old case over audio tapes that Bill
Clinton once kept in his sock drawer may have significant impact over the FBI
search of Melania Trump's closet and Donald Trump's personal office.
The case in question is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and
Records Administration and it involved an effort by the conservative watchdog
to compel the Archives to forcibly seize hours of audio recordings that
Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.
For pop culture, the case is most memorable for the revelation that the 42nd
president for a time stored the audio tapes in his sock drawer at the White
House. The tapes became the focal point of a 2009 book that Branch wrote.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected
Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the
Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from
a former president.
But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that
preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct
relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump
took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's
discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and
solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
"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," Jackson wrote in her March
2012 decision, which was never appealed.
"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the
disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be
difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would
have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his
personal records," she added.
You can read the full ruling here:
The judge noted a president could destroy any record he wanted during his
tenure and his only responsibility was to inform the Archives.
As to whether records a president concluded were personal can be forcibly
seized after he leaves office, the court concluded it was unreasonable to
force NARA to go get the tapes
"Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government's possession,
defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from
President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them," Jackson
noted. "Defendant considers this to be an 'extraordinary request' that is
unfounded, contrary to the PRA's express terms, and contrary to traditional
principles of administrative law. The Court agrees."
That defendant was the same Justice Department that authorized the raid on
Trump's estate. You can read their arguments a decade earlier here:
Jackson also concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision
lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If
the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney
general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a
civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted.
The search warrant the FBI enforced sought two types of records: classified
materials and records created during the Trump presidency. Trump has been
adamant the records he took to Mar-a-Lago were both declassified and deemed
personal by him.
Some government lawyers reached out privately to Just the News in recent days
questioning the use of the FBI to collect presidential records, citing
Jackson's ruling and suggesting it was a civil and not criminal matter where
deference to Trump is required by law.
On the classification issue, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama
signed executive orders — which remain in force to this day — declaring that
presidents have sweeping authority to declassify secrets and do not have to
follow the mandatory declassification procedures all other government
officials do.
The Jackson ruling and the declassification powers have left some experts
worried the FBI raid was heavy-handed under the current laws.
Kevin Brock, former assistant FBI director for intelligence, told Just the
News the bureau's search warrant was overly broad and went beyond what the
FBI manual for agents recommended. "Specificity is important in order to
protect fourth amendment rights from exuberant government overreach designed
to find whatever they can," he told Just the News.
Brock added he did not believe DOJ and FBI had authority to criminalize the
retention of presidential records.
The warrant "apparently makes a novel legal assertion that any presidential
record kept by a former president is against the law," Brock said. "You have
to wonder what the other living former presidents think about that. They have
the right and, apparently, clear desire to remain silent."
Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch who was on the losing end of the
Clinton sock drawer case, said he believes Jackson's ruling could have a
profound impact on the coming legal battles over the Trump search.
"The government, the lawyer for the Archives, said, 'You know what? If
documents are in the former President's hands, where they're presumptively
personal, we just, you know, we presume they're personal,'" Fitton said.
"The Justice Department previously had told us in response to a question
about Bill Clinton: 'Tough luck, it's his.' But they changed their mind for
Donald Trump?" he asked. "… The law and court decision suggests that Trump is
right. And frankly, based on this analysis, Trump should get every single
document they took from him back. It's all personal records."
--
Let's go Brandon!
BeamMeUpScotty
Sep 29, 2022, 5:58:12 PM9/29/22
to
On 9/26/22 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> When it comes to the National Archives, history has a funny way of repeating
> itself. And legal experts say a decade-old case over audio tapes that Bill
> Clinton once kept in his sock drawer may have significant impact over the FBI
> search of Melania Trump's closet and Donald Trump's personal office.
>
> The case in question is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and
> Records Administration and it involved an effort by the conservative watchdog
> to compel the Archives to forcibly seize hours of audio recordings that
> Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.
>
> For pop culture, the case is most memorable for the revelation that the 42nd
> president for a time stored the audio tapes in his sock drawer at the White
> House. The tapes became the focal point of a 2009 book that Branch wrote.
>
> U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected
> Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the
> Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from
> a former president.
>
> But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that
> preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct
> relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump
> took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's
> discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and
> solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
>
Ironic since Democrats tell me I'm Crazy for pointing-out the exact same
> When it comes to the National Archives, history has a funny way of repeating
> itself. And legal experts say a decade-old case over audio tapes that Bill
> Clinton once kept in his sock drawer may have significant impact over the FBI
> search of Melania Trump's closet and Donald Trump's personal office.
>
> The case in question is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and
> Records Administration and it involved an effort by the conservative watchdog
> to compel the Archives to forcibly seize hours of audio recordings that
> Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.
>
> For pop culture, the case is most memorable for the revelation that the 42nd
> president for a time stored the audio tapes in his sock drawer at the White
> House. The tapes became the focal point of a 2009 book that Branch wrote.
>
> U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected
> Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the
> Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from
> a former president.
>
> But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that
> preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct
> relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump
> took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's
> discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and
> solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
>
thing in the Constitution, that the President has the power of the
executive NOT the Bureaucrats filling chairs and getting paid to shuffle
papers on behalf of the President.
> "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," Jackson wrote in her March
> 2012 decision, which was never appealed.
>
> "Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the
> disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be
> difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would
> have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his
> personal records," she added.
>
the expectation of that power. Based on the courts interpretation.
It also means these TRUMP records can't even be compared to Hillary's
illegal classified files since Hillary was NEVER PRESIDENT and never had
the POWER of the PRESIDENCY to use to manipulate files and personal
material when in the Oval Office.
It leaves Hillary subject to the espionage act but TRUMP can't be
charged with any espionage act offenses because TRUMP as President has
the totality of the power of the executive Branch.
-That's karma-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Help save America, support the "Send a WEALTHY Democrat to a Communist
Homeland" fund, that's working hard to encourage less violence and hate
inside America's Borders
Help make Martha's Vineyard an immigrant paradise and give the Wealthy
Democrats the Communism they want, all at the same time... Two Birds
one stone.
NoBody
Oct 1, 2022, 9:25:29 AM10/1/22
to
On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 21:05:01 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
Interesting that libs were fine with this then and now cry for Trump's
head. Typical hypocrites.
wrote:
head. Typical hypocrites.
Ubiquitous
Oct 10, 2022, 3:31:19 PM10/10/22
to
eventually got around to visiting Florida after the hurricane hit?
Ubiquitous
Oct 10, 2022, 3:39:43 PM10/10/22
to
Did you see the lack of reaction to what "Doctor" Jill Biden wore when they
eventually got around to visiting Florida after the hurricane hit?
eventually got around to visiting Florida after the hurricane hit?
Siri Cruise
Oct 10, 2022, 6:08:39 PM10/10/22
to
In article <Sti1rtv$sib0$1...@dont-email.me>,
records, but his Jedi Mind Trick to declassiy them worked.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Chen sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and
> >>solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
So not only are all classified documents Don Fatso's personal
> >>discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and
> >>solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
records, but his Jedi Mind Trick to declassiy them worked.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Chen sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
Mighty Wannabe
Oct 10, 2022, 6:22:37 PM10/10/22
to
BeamMeUpScotty wrote on 9/29/2022 5:58 PM:
>
>
> It also means these TRUMP records can't even be compared to Hillary's
> illegal classified files since Hillary was NEVER PRESIDENT and never
> had the POWER of the PRESIDENCY to use to manipulate files and
> personal material when in the Oval Office.
>
Hillary is a woman. Women are entitled to do silly things. Look at the
>
>
> It also means these TRUMP records can't even be compared to Hillary's
> illegal classified files since Hillary was NEVER PRESIDENT and never
> had the POWER of the PRESIDENCY to use to manipulate files and
> personal material when in the Oval Office.
>
way they dress and paint their faces. Women are free to do that but men
cannot.
Therefore, Hillary is innocent of all charges.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJL4UGSbeFg
0 new messages