SCOTUS to DECIDE DJT's release of Jan. 6 records to the 1/6 Committee

[Lycanthrope]

I don't know what the right decision should be (I'm lousy at legal things), but I have a feeling that the court will be on Trump's side. It's just the make-up of the court right now.

Yep. And in Trump's mind they owe him.

 

[Lycanthrope]

The SC will refuse to consider Trump’s request.

I read that it reads like it was written by Mrs. Jones’ 5th grade civics class.

Trump obviously can’t attract SC lawyers. He has no valid argument and he has a long standing reputation of not paying lawyers and then stabbing them in the back.

Maybe more than anything, no serious attorney wants to be connected to Trump. It would be professional suicide.

The SC will vote hands down and quickly.

Hope you're right.

I wouldn't bet on it, however.

 

[Peter]

What is his argument for not allowing them to see this information?
He was President at the time so a public servant and as such what he does should be available for public scrutiny or at the very least committee scrutiny.

Presidents have had all sorts of judgement calls put under the microscope so why does Trump think he's immune from that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope..

Not so sure about that. It might be different for a writ of certiorari than for a request stay of the DC Circuits ruling pending the ability for a full appeal.

If the court refuses review with prejudice, then there is no reapplication and the rejection of the stay request is final. Although, IIRC, the individual can still petition for a writ, it just means the lower courts decision will be in force pending the SCOTUS decision to review the case or not.

On the other hand if the request is rejected without prejudice and new request can be made, but it has to be for a different reason. Given that the original request was 195 pages and probably used the kitchen sink method of throwing everything they could think of into the request, the acceptance of a second request that just repeats stuff in the first request is unlikily.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

The following of course is just my personal opinion...

First consider there is a duality that exists as the President of the United States and the person that occupies that position. As such there are official actions and considerations taken in the role of President, then there actions and consideration taken as the individual. While the man (or woman) occupying the position are the same individual, what they do changes depending on what the actions are. So at times the individual can be functioning as the President, and at other times not.

Executive Privileges has a very valid function in terms of separation of powers between the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. Executive Privilege is an important tool to ensure the President, when functioning in the interests of the office, has access to communications and advice from trusted advisers as to policy, law, and possible outcomes of various actions. However Executive Privilege applies to the functioning of government and not to personal acts not related to the interests of the Chief Executive fulfilling their duties to the office. So while the individual may be President, not all their actions pertain to fulfilling those duties.

Therefore there are 3 situations that can results from a logic tree:

• Functions of the Office of President - Protected by Executive Privilege
• Illegal Actions - Whether functioning as President or as an individual - Not Protected by Executive Privilege
• Personal Actions not related to the functions related to the Office of the President - Not Protected by Executive Privilege

The first two are easy in that Executive Privilege protects the function of the Executive Branch when acting as the President, but does not cover illegal activities in any case. However the duality of the 3rd situation is the one in question. That being does Executive Privilege apply to non-Presidential actions? In the case of January 6th the personal actions situation applies because Trump and his advisers were not acting on the valid functions of the Office of the President and the American people, they were acting in an attempt to change the outcome for Donald J. Trump. The Office of the President would persist, however the individual changes over time. While Trump was President, the actions leading up to and involving January 6th were a function of his individual desire to remain in the position of President and not a function of the Office of the President. A subtle distinction.

Therefore, again in my opinion, Executive Privilege does not apply to individual activities aimed at the functioning of a reelection campaign.

WW

 

[ouch]

What is his argument for not allowing them to see this information?

A severe guilt trip. Executive Privilege 'infinity'.

Presidents have had all sorts of judgement calls put under the microscope so why does Trump think he's immune from that?

King Trump

 

[Risky Thicket]

The SC will refuse to consider Trump’s request.

I read that it reads like it was written by Mrs. Jones’ 5th grade civics class.

Trump obviously can’t attract SC lawyers. He has no valid argument and he has a long standing reputation of not paying lawyers and then stabbing them in the back.

Maybe more than anything, no serious attorney wants to be connected to Trump. It would be professional suicide.

The SC will vote hands down and quickly.

Hope you're right.

I wouldn't bet on it, however.

I too hope I am right. At the same time I have to say that I wouldn't bet anything on it.

 

[Common Sense 1]

A "Hitler" type guy might end up loving this SC.

Trash posting again? More silly "Hitler" babble.

 

[redbeer]

Well, as predicted, it's happened. The Supreme Court will now decide if he 1/6 Committee is allowed to review DJT's records related to the 1/6 assault on our Capitol. I hope that this decision is speedy. A nervus time for all who support our Democracy. Will DJT be given an 'above the law' pass by the Republican majority SCOTUS or will SCOTUS decide that DJT watch what the Committee finds for all Americans and our Democracy moving forward?

Trump asks Supreme Court to block release of Jan. 6 records

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Donald Trump turned to the Supreme Court Thursday in a last-ditch effort to keep documents away from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol led by his supporters.

Trump's attorneys asked the Supreme Court to reverse lower court rulings against the former president, who has fought to block the records even after President Joe Biden waived executive privilege over them. The federal appeals court in Washington previously ruled the committee had a “uniquely vital interest” in the documents and Trump had “provided no basis" for it to override Biden and Congress.

The records include presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts, handwritten notes “concerning the events of January 6” from the files of former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and “a draft Executive Order on the topic of election integrity," according to a previous court filing from the National Archives.

Hope they do, and when they find nothing, they will simply make stuff up from thin air, as they've been doing. Then a lot of people are going to be in real trouble, for this opens pandora's box for all these crooked democrats.....this will come back to haunt them, down the road....get ready.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Went with undecided, this is a bit of an awkward place for the Supreme Court to be.

You would think there is little ground for the Supreme Court to say Biden is wrong on records pertaining to Trump's presidency that have nothing to do with matters of national security but the court was stacked with handpicked protectionist judges.

In reading what I can find on both decisions so far, Washington district court and D.C. Circuit court, there seems to be little legal standing for Trump.

Just unsure that matters to the present disposition of the Supreme Court.

 

[ouch]

Hope they do, and when they find nothing, they will simply make stuff up from thin air, as they've been doing. Then a lot of people are going to be in real trouble, for this opens pandora's box for all these crooked democrats.....this will come back to haunt them, down the road....get ready.

I agree that DJT's documents etc should be reviewed by the 1/6 Committee. Wouldn't it look even better if DJT would go along with their request that would put him in a much better light if he wasn't hiding something concerning 1/6?

 

[jpevans]

Not so sure about that. It might be different for a writ of certiorari than for a request stay of the DC Circuits ruling pending the ability for a full appeal.

If the court refuses review with prejudice, then there is no reapplication and the rejection of the stay request is final. Although, IIRC, the individual can still petition for a writ, it just means the lower courts decision will be in force pending the SCOTUS decision to review the case or not.

On the other hand if the request is rejected without prejudice and new request can be made, but it has to be for a different reason. Given that the original request was 195 pages and probably used the kitchen sink method of throwing everything they could think of into the request, the acceptance of a second request that just repeats stuff in the first request is unlikily.

WW

WhatI hear is that it was basically the same brief used & rejected in the Court of appeals, the same losing brief & is very amature in content.
The SCOTUS is very concerned that America views them as hyper partisan & will avoided looking that way (on this case), what with Roe v Wade coming up on the block. They don't feel that they owe the former guy anything more than a thank you for signing on to Moscow Mitch's pick.

 

[Callen]

On one hand I think they will refuse to hear the appeal and let the lower courts opinion stand. However, I think the may take it up because there is no settled law on when, or if, executive privilege ends. Does it rest solely with the sitting President or can a former President claim it? Deciding that may be tempting to them but I'm not sure what is in the appeal. If it doesn't expressly challenge that point then I don't think they will take it up. It's a political hot potato.

 

[The AntiDonald]

I hear you Emily, but I think that Drumpf's case is too weak (according to Neil Katyah) & I feel that they will pass on ruling on it.

The court really does not need to rule on it. They know there is no dispute between the executive branch and legislative branch. The congress has asked for the documents and the WH has said they agree.

Donald Trump is not part of the executive branch. It's really this cut and dry. Beside the fact that executive privilege cannot be used to cover up crime.

If the court rules for Mr. One and Done in this case, they will lose whatever credibility they have left, and that's not much at this point. Considering what they have done and are about to do with abortion. They've already stepped in enough shit.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Went with undecided, this is a bit of an awkward place for the Supreme Court to be.

You would think there is little ground for the Supreme Court to say Biden is wrong on records pertaining to Trump's presidency that have nothing to do with matters of national security but the court was stacked with handpicked protectionist judges.

In reading what I can find on both decisions so far, Washington district court and D.C. Circuit court, there seems to be little legal standing for Trump.

Just unsure that matters to the present disposition of the Supreme Court.

I will say this in favor of the SC. So far, they have ruled against Trump nearly every time on election related matters. Mostly refusing to hear the cases. I don't see this as much different. The appeals court has done their work for them.

 

[BlueTex]

On one hand I think they will refuse to hear the appeal and let the lower courts opinion stand. However, I think the may take it up because there is no settled law on when, or if, executive privilege ends. Does it rest solely with the sitting President or can a former President claim it? Deciding that may be tempting to them but I'm not sure what is in the appeal. If it doesn't expressly challenge that point then I don't think they will take it up. It's a political hot potato.

Of course executive privilege SOLEY rests with the sitting president. Good lord... Are you suggesting an UNELECTED for president has power over a SITTING president?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course executive privilege SOLEY rests with the sitting president. Good lord... Are you suggesting an UNELECTED for president has power over a SITTING president?

I disagree, I can see Executive Privilege applying to previous administrations as it pertains to the functioning of government and the Office of the President. However it wouldn't apply to non-Presidential functions such as reelection campaign activities.

However the call to invoke Executive Privilege would rest with the current President which is currently the law. If the current President and ex-President disagree, the current President's direction take precedence. Unless the ex-President can obtain a court order.

WW

 

[Callen]

Of course executive privilege SOLEY rests with the sitting president. Good lord... Are you suggesting an UNELECTED for president has power over a SITTING president?

The point is that this has never been challenged in the courts. The Constitution, as I understand it, does not stipulate that privilege only applies to a sitting President, not a former President, as a matter of fact I'm not sure it addresses the issue at all. As I say it has never been legally challenged so the Supreme Court may want to rule on that. If so I believe they will rule that only a sitting President claims it.

 

[BlueTex]

The point is that this has never been challenged in the courts. The Constitution, as I understand it, does not stipulate that privilege only applies to a sitting President, not a former President, as a matter of fact I'm not sure it addresses the issue at all. As I say it has never been legally challenged so the Supreme Court may want to rule on that. If so I believe they will rule that only a sitting President claims it.

So where in the constitution would a FORMER presidents executive privilege originate? The founders would roll over in their graves that anyone would grant a FORMER president power of the executive branch. The court and court of appeals have already addressed the ridiculous notion...

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Constitution, as I understand it, does not stipulate that privilege only applies to a sitting President, not a former President, as a matter of fact I'm not sure it addresses the issue at all.

Executive privilege isn’t in the Constitution.

WW

 

[redbeer]

I agree that DJT's documents etc should be reviewed by the 1/6 Committee. Wouldn't it look even better if DJT would go along with their request that would put him in a much better light if he wasn't hiding something concerning 1/6?

They're not going to find anything, but it doesn't matter for the Jan 6 Commission is not looking for truth, they are only looking to assassinate Trump at all costs. Yet, giving them permission will come back to bite the democrats down the line, so yes, let them see it.

 

[Callen]

Executive privilege isn’t in the Constitution

I knew there was nothing definitive, thanks for the info . All the more reason for the Supremes to want to establish a precedent at their level....shut this down once and for all. I can't imagine them ruling in Trump's favour though.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I knew there was nothing definitive, thanks for the info . All the more reason for the Supremes to want to establish a precedent at their level....shut this down once and for all. I can't imagine them ruling in Trump's favour though.

The United State Code is very clear. The sitting President is the authority to establish EP on documents for prior administrations, however it does provide for court order as a variable option. We'll have to see what basis the SCOTUS uses for either (a) rejecting the appeal, (b) hearing the case and siding with the current administration, or (c) hearing the case and siding with the previous administration.

WW

 

[ouch]

They're not going to find anything, but it doesn't matter for the Jan 6 Commission is not looking for truth, they are only looking to assassinate Trump at all costs. Yet, giving them permission will come back to bite the democrats down the line, so yes, let them see it.

If DJT would have fully cooperated and called for an Independent investigation on 1/7/21 there may not have been any need for a 1/6 Committee such as it is today. In fact, any 'normal' president would have stood in support of an investigation into an assault on our Capitol.

 

[Hughinn]

Seeing as how no court has allowed the law enforcement agencies of significant record to delve into Hillary Clinton's criminal enterprise, it's difficult to say it they'll allow this.

On one hand, it could be good.

On the other, if they do, it's just another glaring example of the democrat party stranglehold on the oligarchy that truly rules America is truly solidified. And the democrat party cabal of criminals, cronyism and corruption will continue to be shielded by the government institutions that are supposed to be unbiased.