It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: Xcalibur254
Jonathan Turley. I would hazard a guess that Twitter algorithm is feeding you what you want and excluding opposing opinions.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
Did they get the docs in the kids bedroom???
Cause you know the magistrate specifically told them to search the kids bedroom?
originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MidnightWatcher
Allowing a former President's claim of executive privilege above the sitting President's decision is certainly not a precedent listed anywhere previously that I can find.
originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MidnightWatcher
Allowing a former President's claim of executive privilege above the sitting President's decision is certainly not a precedent listed anywhere previously that I can find.
originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MidnightWatcher
While he is President yes.
After he is President, the sitting President gets to make the determination regarding a former President's claim of privilege. Which is noted in the judges decision(that the current President has not weighed in), although she completely ignored that he current President made a determination in May as noted in the letter included in the filing.
originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MidnightWatcher
While he is President yes.
After he is President, the sitting President gets to make the determination regarding a former President's claim of privilege.
A former president can try to assert executive privilege to maintain the privacy of certain records, but those claims may be overruled by the current president. That's what happened when Trump tried to block the House select Jan. 6 committee from obtaining records held by the Archives. The Biden White House refused to block it, and the Supreme Court determined Trump could not stop it.
In the 1977 case Nixon v. GSA, the Supreme Court ruled that a former president may not successfully assert executive privilege "against the very executive branch in whose name privilege is invoked," as the National Archives explained in its May 2022 letter to Trump's attorney, which became public this week. In Nixon v. GSA, Nixon challenged a new Presidential Recordings and Materials Act, passed because of Watergate, as a violation of the separation of powers and his own privacy rights. Nixon lost that case.
An earlier case, United States v. Nixon, established that executive privilege is not absolute, and does not shield a president from handing over records in a criminal prosecution. The special prosecutor in charge of the case wanted Nixon's taped discussions with his aides. The Supreme Court determined that Nixon's concerns were outweighed by the needs of the investigation.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: MidnightWatcher
But Trump has no possessory claim over those documents. They became property of the US government on January 20th, 2021 per the PRA.
So even if he still had executive privilege, which has not been determined by the courts, those documents would be handed over to NARA upon conclusion of the special master's review.
The only things Cannon's decision succeeds in doing is A.) Stalling the case and B.) Establishing that there are in fact five chief executives of the United States instead of just the one outlined in the US Constitution.