Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 61,871
But before we get too deep into Indictment itself let us recall the Clinton documents case which did contain alleged classified audio tapes. In the end Judicial Watch was denied access to these documents. I post for you here some of the words of Judge Amy Berman Jackson who presided in that case in 2012, some of which may be claimed by the defense in Trump's case with the Presidential Records Act:
In the Court’s view, plaintiff reads too much into this statement. 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, see 44
U.S.C. § 2203(b)
Thus, the PRA requires the President to “maintain records documenting the
policies, activities, and decisions of his administration,” but “leav[es] the implementation of such
a requirement in the President’s hands.” Id., citing 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a). The court underscored
that Congress “presumably relied on the fact that subsequent Presidents would honor their
statutory obligations to keep a complete record of their administrations.”
The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained
authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must
notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the
authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13
(1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. 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.
In the Court’s view, plaintiff reads too much into this statement. 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, see 44
U.S.C. § 2203(b)
Thus, the PRA requires the President to “maintain records documenting the
policies, activities, and decisions of his administration,” but “leav[es] the implementation of such
a requirement in the President’s hands.” Id., citing 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a). The court underscored
that Congress “presumably relied on the fact that subsequent Presidents would honor their
statutory obligations to keep a complete record of their administrations.”
The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained
authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must
notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the
authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13
(1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. 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.
