Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Tell us about the laws in the last 15 years. Please don't cherry pick.The 2012 case arose when the organization Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit seeking Clinton’s documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Litigation ensued to pressure the National Archives into retrieving the materials. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that control over presidential records rests squarely in the hands of a former president:
“The National Archives does not have the authority to designate materials as ‘presidential records.’ It lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.”
The judge adopted the very argument made in court by the Justice Department:
“(Seizing the records) is an ‘extraordinary request’ that is ‘unfounded, contrary to the Presidential Records Act’s express terms, and contrary to the traditional principles of administrative law’.”
Show me precedent in the last 15 years that would change that opinion, John! That's the way it works in our legal system. Rulings are made. Precedents are established. That precedent was established by a liberal judge to protect Bill Clinton. Don't you just love it when the things that you on the left do come back to bite you in the ass?Tell us about the laws in the last 15 years. Please don't cherry pick.
Trump has no right to them, no right to ignore subpoenas, and every right have a warrant and seizure served on him.
With all due respect, John? FactCheck.org doesn't set legal precedent. An actual JUDGE did that! Would you care to show me where that precedent was changed?Did President Trump have the legal right to have government documents he would not give back to the US government?
According to a fact-checking website, FactCheck.org, former presidents are not allowed to take possession of official records 1. The Presidential Records Act (PRA) governs the maintenance of presidential records and requires that all records created by presidents be turned over to the National Archives at the end of their administrations 1.
In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of records from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence 1. Some of the other records that NARA had received earlier from the Trump administration had been torn up by the former president and, in some cases, taped back together by records management officials at the White House 1.
Tom Fitton, president of the conservative nonprofit Judicial Watch, claimed that the law allowed Trump to “take documents when he left the White House” 1. However, experts told FactCheck.org that Fitton’s claim is, at best, very misleading, bordering on false 1.
In August 2022, Donald Trump’s lawyers indicated that he unlawfully retained official government documents after losing the presidential election and not handing the papers over to national archivists 2.
Fact Check does rule, Oldestyle, while you do drool. It is far more worthy than you.With all due respect, John? FactCheck.org doesn't set legal precedent. An actual JUDGE did that! Would you care to show me where that precedent was changed?
FacCheck.org is leftard astroturfing, doofus.Fact Check does rule, Oldestyle, while you do drool. It is far more worthy than you.
So since they "rule"...you of course can cite the precedent that has changed since the Clinton ruling?Fact Check does rule, Oldestyle, while you do drool. It is far more worthy than you.
Fact Check is far more accurate than almost any poster on this Board.
My, visions of sugarplums dancin' in yer head while you project Biden's crime on the "Neo-GOP" whatever that is. I've never participated in any party meetings, planning devices, or anything else. I became a Republican when I married so as not to cancel my late husband's vote. I see that you picked up Joe Biden's nasty and vicious claim that all of President Trumps voters were fascists. I think he will have a little trouble with explaining to St. Peter why he blamed millions of innocent people for doing what he gets votes for his lies that are repeated in and again by the sycophant press that is frequently seen interpreting some balderdash he just threw up on the table, when actually, he is not mentally healthy enough to make common sense to the American people. I try my best to vote for those who prefer less government than we are burdened with and who are honest in money matters, with respect for the land, sea, and air environment.We are. We see the budding fascist of the Neo-GOP running cover for their Criminal Presidents' violent attempt to overturn the free and fair election of the 50 States in 2020. The rebel states didn't even resort to sending a mob to attack Congress after Lincoln's victory in 1860, so yeah biggest GOP scandal in history.
Don't mess with Texas!!!!!!!!!!!!!My, visions of sugarplums dancin' in yer head while you project Biden's crime on the "Neo-GOP" whatever that is. I've never participated in any party meetings, planning devices, or anything else. I became a Republican when I married so as not to cancel my late husband's vote. I see that you picked up Joe Biden's nasty and vicious claim that all of President Trumps voters were fascists. I think he will have a little trouble with explaining to St. Peter why he blamed millions of innocent people for doing what he gets votes for his lies that are repeated in and again by the sycophant press that is frequently seen interpreting some balderdash he just threw up on the table, when actually, he is not mentally healthy enough to make common sense to the American people.
The scandal is in the White House, dear, not even anywhere close to middle America where good folks don't throw mud at each other to win power, but go to work, do their jobs, raise children, and care for their home's tranquillity. Whatever or no never.
Genuinely trying to figure out why you think this is at all relevant.The 2012 case arose when the organization Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit seeking Clinton’s documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Litigation ensued to pressure the National Archives into retrieving the materials. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that control over presidential records rests squarely in the hands of a former president:
“The National Archives does not have the authority to designate materials as ‘presidential records.’ It lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.”
The judge adopted the very argument made in court by the Justice Department:
“(Seizing the records) is an ‘extraordinary request’ that is ‘unfounded, contrary to the Presidential Records Act’s express terms, and contrary to the traditional principles of administrative law’.”
Are we following THAT precedent, Marener?
The judge's ruling is what is critical, Marener.Genuinely trying to figure out why you think this is at all relevant.
Your “precedent” has nothing in common. Judicial Watch engaged in civil litigation, asking the courts to force NARA to take back tapes that they didn’t even want.
Trump’s case is the DoJ enforcing a grand jury subpoena to demand documents to enforce criminal law. They have nothing in common.
That's about as clear cut a decision as you could ever have! “The National Archives does not have the authority to designate materials as ‘presidential records.’ It lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.”The judge's ruling is what is critical, Marener.
The 2012 case arose when the organization Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit seeking Clinton’s documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Litigation ensued to pressure the National Archives into retrieving the materials. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that control over presidential records rests squarely in the hands of a former president:
“The National Archives does not have the authority to designate materials as ‘presidential records.’ It lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.”
The judge adopted the very argument made in court by the Justice Department:
“(Seizing the records) is an ‘extraordinary request’ that is ‘unfounded, contrary to the Presidential Records Act’s express terms, and contrary to the traditional principles of administrative law’.”
The judge’s ruling has nothing to do with the case.The judge's ruling is what is critical, Marener.
The 2012 case arose when the organization Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit seeking Clinton’s documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Litigation ensued to pressure the National Archives into retrieving the materials. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that control over presidential records rests squarely in the hands of a former president:
“The National Archives does not have the authority to designate materials as ‘presidential records.’ It lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.”
The judge adopted the very argument made in court by the Justice Department:
“(Seizing the records) is an ‘extraordinary request’ that is ‘unfounded, contrary to the Presidential Records Act’s express terms, and contrary to the traditional principles of administrative law’.”
What "crime" is it that the DOJ is basing their subpoena on? Do you think that Grand Jury was shown the legal precedent regarding Clinton? Since the defense isn't allowed to present the other side then it's a good bet that they were not! They were told that Trump had no right to those documents because NARA was requesting them. That opinion isn't supported by legal precedent.The judge’s ruling has nothing to do with the case.
NARA may lack the authority to seize anything from anyone, but the DoJ doesn’t.
Trump didn’t receive a subpoena from NARA. He received a grand jury subpoena from the DoJ. Your judicial watch case is civil. Trump’s is criminal. This isn’t administrative law. This is criminal law.
The “legal precedent” your citing is irrelevant and it’s not a precedent.What "crime" is it that the DOJ is basing their subpoena on? Do you think that Grand Jury was shown the legal precedent regarding Clinton? Since the defense isn't allowed to present the other side then it's a good bet that they were not! They were told that Trump had no right to those documents because NARA was requesting them. That opinion isn't supported by legal precedent.
It's irrelevant? Why? It's about as clear cut as you can get. Not a precedent? To be blunt, Marener? Just because it's a precedent you don't like doesn't make it any less of a precedent.The “legal precedent” your citing is irrelevant and it’s not a precedent.
The DoJ is basing their subpoena on the espionage act. You know, the one that says you can’t have highly classified documents at your house.
One more time, NARA wasn’t requesting the documents. The DoJ was.
I’d already explained why your court case is irrelevant.It's irrelevant? Why? It's about as clear cut as you can get. Not a precedent? To be blunt, Marener? Just because it's a precedent you don't like doesn't make it any less of a precedent.
The espionage act? That's what you're basing your subpoena on? And you just claimed the Clinton precedent was irrelevant? Name the last time the espionage act was invoked!
nationalaglawcenter.org
You can't rebut fact check. And now Marener owns Oldestyle as well. This is over.So since they "rule"...you of course can cite the precedent that has changed since the Clinton ruling?
