Presidential Records Act

So I assume it was already the case back then that he never used email.

What did he do? You know, we're hearing all the about all the records he tore up in violation of the Presidential Records Act.

What about what about the paper trail within the Trump organization? Did he make sure it never touched him or it was sparse? No, no, no.

It's.

Their timeline is not the same as Congress's timeline.

We can return to Merrick Garland if you want, but that's just a quick point.

OK, but so on on, you know, this whole Presidential Records Act, first of all, there's going to be a big competition for who gets the official naming rights.

I think maybe you've got maybe you won with your with your flush gate and that's going to be worth a lot of money.

Appeals Court Questions Justice Department on Records A panel of appeals court judges on Friday appeared deeply skeptical of Justice Department claims that a decades-old federal law requiring the White House to preserve presidential records too unconstitutional.

The Presidential Records Act enacted in 1978 states that White House records are government property and must be saved, turned over to the National Archives after President Lee's office, and for the most part, eventually be made public.

But the Trump administration has said that Congress overstepped its authority by ordering the executive branch to save its records, prompting a lawsuit from the American Historical Association and watchdog groups.

The issue may ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.

Friday's hearing before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit highlighted President Trump's belief that White House records should essentially be treated as the president's personal property.

Over more than an hour, John Bailey, a government lawyer, argued that the entire Presidential Records Act was an unconstitutional intrusion and on the presidency.

The law, he said, had become obsolete in the polarized and partisan times we live in.

He imagined a future president posting his or her predecessor's records online to embarrass the former president's staff or advisors with holding advice out of fear it could be scrutinized later.

Our military paperwork to other countries was showing off classified stuff to reporters.

When you and I have talked about it, this really probably was to try to cover up a crossfire hurricane and get any documents that he had, which he was allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act.

Still today, people like Raskin, who were dancing on Donald Trump's grave prematurely, are pretending like ilan omar is the target of an undue doj weaponization while donald trump was righteous in that in that raid can you compare the two raids the processes that those rate because i would assume that the raid on trump did not take as long to collect the information on because you just said the biden administration doj probably started this investigation on omar but we also know that trump was only out of office for what a year when they raided his house so they did that one on the fast track compare those two if you don't mind

Here's the comparison with the Mar-a-Lago raid.

He

had Bruce Reinhart recused six weeks prior because of a 2017 Facebook post by this magistrate judge crashing President Trump.

This judge is clearly biased against President Trump, yet six weeks later, he magically lets that bias go away, and he signs this unprecedented home raid on a former president for presidential records Trump was allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act.

Compare that to Ilhan Omar.

That's just the start.

It declared the Presidential Records Act unconstitutional.

It said the government can seize state voter rolls and hand them to immigration agents.

And in August, it stretched executive privilege to cover outside advisors, shielding people who don't even work for the government from having to testify.

course.

The Presidential Records Act is an unprecedented and unconstitutional intrusion on the presidency.

Congress's decision to seize the post-Watergate moment to impose radical transparency on one branch and one branch only cannot be reconciled with the Constitution's separation of powers or our nation's history and tradition.

Starting with George Washington, presidents exercised exclusive control and ownership over their presidential records after leaving office.

no constitutional justifications for the enactment?

Or...

Congress has not justified the Presidential Records Act.

It has not justified the significant intrusion on the presidency.