“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.”
“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.” https://t.co/60axuC6XBl
— Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) November 10, 2021
Trump White House records can be turned over to House Jan. 6 (Washington Post)
A federal judge in Washington ruled late Tuesday that hundreds of pages of Trump White House records can be turned over to a congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol despite the former president’s objections.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan clears the way for the release of government records requested by Congress beginning Friday. Attorneys for former president Donald Trump immediately appealed and moved to bar release of the documents by the National Archives pending a ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The House panel and the Justice Department “contend that discovering and coming to terms with the causes underlying the January 6 attack is a matter of unsurpassed public importance because such information relates to our core democratic institutions and the public’s confidence in them,” Chutkan wrote in a 39-page opinion. “The court agrees.”
“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,” Chutkan said, echoing language used by fellow jurist Ketanji B. Jackson in 2019 in rejecting Trump’s request to toss out a congressional subpoena seeking testimony by his White House counsel Donald McGahn.
Speaking of having a sound legal footing before going after Steve Bannon and others who would defy Congress, it is at least possible that Garland & Co. will be influenced by the decision Judge Tanya Chutkan handed down on Tuesday night, in which she flatly rejected Donald Trump’s claims that his executive privilege extends beyond his term in office. “Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,” wrote the Judge. Ouch, that smarts.
The Judge did give Trump a small victory, finding that certain personal communications are beyond Congress’ purview, and need not be turned over to the 1/6 Committee. That’s pretty hollow, though, and is not really what the former president cares about. So, he promptly appealed the ruling, in hopes that he will eventually find a judge willing to completely set aside past precedent when it comes to executive privilege.
Meanwhile, NARA has already said it will hand the requested records over to the Committee on Friday morning unless instructed not to by a court. So, beyond trying to revive the underlying case, Trump has about 48 hours to find a judge who will give him an injunction (24 of which are a national holiday), otherwise the whole thing is largely moot because the Committee will already have the documents it wants.
The ruling also kicks the legs out of Bannon’s stated reason for defying the subpoena, namely that he’s protected by Trump’s executive privilege. So again, this could be what the DoJ needs in order to start moving forward.
Baud
?
trollhattan
Aww, Li’l Donny ran into a judge he couldn’t buy. Pity.
Anonymous At Work
While it’s a bitch-slap to his face, next step is Trump to request stay pending appeal. Likely to be granted because once disclosure is made, an appeal on the merits becomes moot (i.e. hold off on disclosure since if an appeals court disagrees with trial judge, the appeal will be too late to stop disclosure).
From there, Trump appeals to Supreme Court and requests on the merits, maybe in a year or two ruling. Then, if all else fails, finds some other grounds to put off disclosure until after January 4, 2023 when, he hopes, GOP takes House and disbands the inquiry entirely.
SiubhanDuinne
O/T, watching a little bit of the Rittenhouse trial and holy shit but the judge is ? in the tank for the defence. Just appalling (IANAL).
As for the defendant himself, I’d like to bitchslap that fucking little punk-ass snotweasel from here to the moons of Jupiter.
West of the Rockies
The infuriating slow-walk on 1/6 investigation and prosecution could have the benefit of keeping Republican criminality on the minds of voters come 11/22, but we will need meaningful punishments by then.
SiubhanDuinne
@Anonymous At Work:
Yes, that’s the terrifying fear, isn’t it? We simply must keep control of the House in 2022.
MJS
@Anonymous At Work: At some point, someone is going to have to take one for the team by leaking these documents. Or an attorney is going to have to draft something that gives cover to the National Archives’ release of the documents before all appeals are heard. We cannot continue to be the only side playing by the rules.
VOR
There are a few factors at play. First, Trump’s legal help is not good because, as I once read about him, he won’t listen, he won’t stop talking, and worst of all, he won’t pay. Second, his MO is to delay and delay and run up the costs to outlast the other party. Ok, he probably can’t outspend the US Government, but he can delay. He already appealed and may appeal all the way to SCOTUS. If the GQP takes the House and Senate in 2022 then it’s a different ball game.
weasel
Did anyone else have the thought that the former guy is going to reads this, “Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.” and conclude, “Therefore I am King!”
WaterGirl
Today’s electoral-vote.com
Bolding mine.
Major Major Major Major
What a great quote
Another Scott
@VOR: “TFG is not President. The President has denied asserting these EP claims. Case dismissed, with prejudice.
NEXT!”
Easy, peasy.
(sigh)
Cheers,
Scott.
MJS
@WaterGirl: I really hate to be so negative, but I’d bet a lot of money on Trump finding a judge who will ignore precedent and place an injunction on this before Friday morning. I hope I’m wrong.
trollhattan
@SiubhanDuinne:
“punk-ass snotweasel” FTW.
Twenty bucks says he has a goddamn George Zimmerman poster in his teen bedroom.
We sadly knew the judge was shit when he forbade prosecution from using “victim” to describe the dead and injured, because that’s not sufficient suffering apparently to cross the threshold. Now, had the snotweasel called them “racist” then victims it is.
NB Snotweasel would have been eight or nine when Trayvon Martin was non-murdered to death. Think he didn’t get his first stiffy learning about the death?
Baud
@MJS:
He already lost that battle. The appeal s court will likely stay the disclosure until the appeal can be done, but that’s expected.
raven
MJS
@Baud: Okay, but the premise of the piece WaterGirl linked to is faulty then, right? The Committee is not going to have the documents on Friday morning.
Mike in NC
All media references to Donald Trump and Steve Bannon should include the words “career criminals” just to set the record straight.
Baud
@MJS:
Probably not.
Major Major Major Major
@SiubhanDuinne:
What I’ve seen from Twitter lawyers is that the judge hasn’t been doing anything especially odd.
West of the Rockies
@raven:
Mercy? Wouldn’t mind hearing a judge say in the snotty voice associated with English judges of yore, “You shall hang by the neck until you are dead, dead, dead!” (Maybe not with this guy, but Bannon and Pompeo and Trump, for starters.)
Roger Moore
@MJS:
He can’t just go judge shopping. He needs to appeal the current judgment.
SiubhanDuinne
@trollhattan:
Not taking that bet. He probably has a little shrine erected to GZim.
SiubhanDuinne
@Major Major Major Major:
Well. It might not be unusual, but it sure seems prejudicial to this NAL.
West of the Rockies
@Major Major Major Major:
I cannot imagine having an intimate relationship with a judge if they conduct themselves like that off-bench, too. The “I am all-wise and wonderful” thing would get old immediately.
VOR
@Another Scott: IANAL, but Trump appointed a lot of Appeals Court judges during his term. He appointed 54 vs. 55 appointed during Obama’s two terms. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/13/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/
Plus 3 members of SCOTUS. Now one might think having been appointed by a given President might be grounds for recusal, but I wouldn’t count on it
He doesn’t need them to rule for him, just stay the lower court’s ruling until a convenient future date, like February 2023.
JoyceH
@Baud:
It may be usual, but is it required? If it’s not required, I think the appeals court ought to just not stay the disclosure and make the whole thing moot. Look, we all know and they all know that Trump’s claim of privilege is bogus. Because he’s NOT the president and even if he were, even sitting presidents can’t use a privilege claim to cover up evidence of criminal conduct. We ALL know that what Trump is doing is just attempting to delay the inevitable. So why doesn’t the court refuse to become a party to the delay and just cut the knot right now?
Leto
@Major Major Major Major: we see as many judges as people see actual military life. We see as many judges as people see operating rooms. Or any other sequestered proceeding. I get what he’s saying, but it’s also dumb.
catclub
and yet McGahn has never testified, even though subpoena was upheld. If I remember correctly.
running out the clock works for Trump.
Major Major Major Major
@West of the Rockies: yeah I’ve always wanted to meet one IRL.
You know, in the not-bad way.
Anonymous At Work
@VOR: The Unholy Trinity of Roberts, Bretty-Boy, and Barrett have an eye on hypocrisy when it comes to ruling FOR Trump but AGAINST Biden or Obama or Democrats in Congress. Ruling for Trump in this case means that Biden can legit stonewall anything that (vomit) Speaker McCarthy does.
On this case, the stakes are stark enough that they can’t protect Trump from disclosure but allow McCarthy to go after Hunter Biden without being explicitly partisan. SCOTUS cannot function if explicitly partisan since it cannot enforce its own decisions but would rely on partisan elected officials to do so.
Leto
@catclub: He testified back in June… of this year. So he did testify, but it became totally irrelevant. They’re doing the same thing here because it works.
rikyrah
“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.”
clap clap clap clap clap
catclub
@Leto: Thanks!
WereBear
I have been busy building a podcast. And now can hear me. And Sir Tristan. Who likes talking into the mike.
So now I have the cat podcast with the cat co-host. I don’t think there are others.
Pickle Loves Podcasting
Omnes Omnibus
Well, I am glad all of you experts have it all sussed.
ETA: What Popehat said…
WaterGirl
@Omnes Omnibus: I would love to hear your take on the content of the two sources I supplied – the Washington Post and electoral-vote.com
Cameron
Open Thread Pandemic Take: https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/laughter-in-the-time-of-cholera
geg6
@Anonymous At Work:
He has one day to get this done. Not impossible, with a great legal team, but pretty difficult especially taking in the time it takes to shop for the right judge. Sadly, TFG does not not have a great legal team.
WaterGirl
@geg6:
Fixed that for you.
hells littlest angel
Trump (aided by some anonymous staffer who paid some — but not enough — attention in school): “Therefore, the plaintiff is king. QED.”
burnspbesq
@Anonymous At Work:
I wouldn’t assume that Trump will get a stay pending appeal.
The four-factor analysis is substantially the same as the analysis for granting a preliminary injunction, and Trump is SOL on at least three of them. I would argue that he’s SOL on irreparable harm; any harm is to the office of the presidency, not to any individual, and praise Jesus Trump ain’t Preznit no more.
burnspbesq
@West of the Rockies:
How about 41 months in the Federal slammer? That significant enough for ya? Cuz that’s what the first guy sentenced on charges that involved violence against the Capitol Police got.
PAM Dirac
@geg6:
It’s 6:30 pm on Wed and tomorrow the courts are closed due to Veteran’s Day, so did they get a stay or not. If not, how would they get one before Friday morning?
randy khan
@Anonymous At Work:
I don’t have any inside information, but I expect the Court of Appeals will make short work of this. As the opinion makes pretty clear, Trump’s arguments bordered on embarrassing, and ignored a bunch of Supreme Court cases.
The wild card is the Supreme Court, of course, but remember that Trump isn’t President any more and nobody can unappoint them, so they don’t need to help him out. In many ways it’s a perfect case for the Court to use to say “See, we’re not crazy ideologues.” (Trump may not understand this, but you can be sure they do.) And they can do it simply by deciding not to hear the case or by not granting a request to stay the district court decision.
randy khan
@geg6:
I think it’s likely that a request for a stay would go to three judges chosen at random (or the next ones up in a rotation); from what I understand, it’s pretty hard to pick your judge at the appeals court level.
Also, if they haven’t asked for the decision to be stayed already, that’s pretty bad tactical planning, not that I expect anything less from this bunch.
frosty
@WaterGirl: ‘fess up, WG. You just wanted to see this quote a few more times!
WaterGirl
@frosty: Maybe. :-)
Ken
Three for three, then.