Lawfare Live: Trump's Trials and Tribulations, March 21
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июн 2024
- On March 21 at 4 p.m. ET, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic will sit down with Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes and Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff for this week’s episode of “Lawfare Live: Trump’s Trials and Tribulations.”
Material supporters will receive a link to join the webinar and will be able to ask questions during the livestream. It will be livestreamed on RUclips for all other viewers.
You can help make this coverage possible by becoming a monthly material supporter of Lawfare at our Patreon page. Or make a one-time donation to support Trump Trials coverage.
Watching closely from the UK and my god is it depressing to see all these cases spluttering along at such a snails pace.
In the US, lawyers are really passionate about linguistic gymnastics so there is no limit to the depths or heights that they can take an ethical or moral issue and make it into a nonsensical argument.
Great show. I enjoy getting your emails and reading the in depth articles that come along with them. I hope your channel starts to get more views. Also my question is, I’ve read a few articles that say that two of Judge Cannons law clerks have quit halfway through their one year clerkship in the last six months and that she’s gone from being a great boss to someone who is micromanaging and condescending as soon as she got this case. How much is her delays and the oddity of her orders related to her clerks quitting?
Has Mr Trump or his legal team ever managed to itemize the actions that would NOT be covered under presidential immunity? Or does he consider every decision he makes, every act he performs, and every word he speaks whilst President to be outside the authority of the law? And if so, has he successfully addressed the implications of such a proposition?
That would be yes and no! He wants complete life time immunity. And of course he has not thought about how that would affect his predecessors and the current president!
I get that Cannon's order is bizarre, "unheard-of", "strange" but it seems more important to me that her two proposed jury instructions are both flat-out wrong from every (logical) point of view. I'd like to see more emphasis on (and proposed actions in response to) her judicial wrongness. This isn't an interesting situation with an eccentric judge - this is a judge conducting and proposing to conduct BAD, inaccurate, counter-judicial acts. The documents in question are NOT diaries. This is a corrupt and manipulative judge inventing a reason to sift a mile of sand in order to delay justice, setting up false options as a smoke screen for her own incompetence and wrong-headedness. She needs to be recused. NOW.
Can one “be recused”?
@@graysonric Also, I just heard this good discussion of the Cannon order & what can be done about it/her -- about 25 minutes in ruclips.net/video/v38yEP7sS-Q/видео.htmlsi=xP-2pn0-pOV7r9CB
The PRA described the general characteristics of personal records, and identifies three specific categories of records that meet those requirements. One of those categories includes diary like materials. The other two include documents related to election campaigns, and documents related to membership in a political party. However it doesn’t restrict personal records to those three categories. If a record satisfies the general characteristics of personal records it’s legitimate to classify it as a personal record.
Of course the classified documents don’t satisfy the general requirements.
Roger is a fantastic ventriloquist
Fun Fact: He's the actor that played the role Max Headroom...maybe? I am open to being wrong.
There were two sets of tapes associated with the interviews of Clinton. There were the tapes recorded during the interviews. These were retained by Clinton. The interview would later record his memories of the interviews, at least partly during the drive home. These were retained by the interviewer.
If the president is given absolute immunity, does this also mean that the vice president also has absolute immunity? Can the vice president then do nefarious things to take control of the office of president without accountability? It is interesting that without the Trump ( who appears to have a dark triad personality) effect, we would never need to ask this inane questions.
I assume as soon as the vice president becomes president, even if through nefarious means, he/she immediately becomes immune from prosecution per trump’s reasoning.
The idea of Natalie as chair doesn't work does it? In my experience of such things, it's not usual for the chair to have to ask (34:41) a participant if she can speak, especially when the humble participant who is talking only got to speak by in the first place by talking over the other participant, who had the floor at the time!
Is there an ability to present ALL the ways Trump says he had a right to take the documents?
Wow. Slippery? My god, such misrepresentation in an official brief - to the Supreme Court?!
Promise of wi-fi on commercial jets is a lie
Of course Jack Smith is doing everything in unbiased good faith.
I'm trying to imagine Citizen Trump as a diarist. Implausible....
Clinton didn't ask you're full of it ....absolutely matters moving to Trump, always you want to change the rules / laws in Trump's case.
Can you translate this for English readers?
@@graysonricI suspect he's an AI bot in which case English may not be his strong suit. It's all just word salad as far as his programming is concerned.
Get Roger some caffeine. Hurry! Even when he has something of value to say, it's a slog to wait for it. Have some compassion for your poor audience. Help! Please.
No evidence the documents were ' highly sensitive '.
No evidence that water is wet.
The classified documents were classified by experts on classification, using what are termed as classification guides, which identify what types of information should be considered sensitive. For the purposes of an indictment, they can be considered as containing sensitive information when they were created. It will be up to the prosecution, at trial, to show that material in them was still sensitive while Trump possessed them.
The quote from the sox case judge was " if he says they're personal who am i to say they're not ", if good enough to clear Clinton good enough to clear Trump.
The PRA says they're not - agency records are not documents that can be considered "personal" under the PRA.
PRA he can declassify at will .
Your sentence seems to have two subjects.
The PRA says nothing about declassification. The case also claims nothing about the classification of the documents in question. The Espionage Act is about the retention of sensitive national defense information, and not classified records. A record can contain sensitive national defense information without being classified. A spy’s notebook would be a personal record with sensitive national defense information.
The PRA says nothing about declassification.
You have no argument if a DUCK for Clinton A DUCK for Trump.
Actually, no, because as the presenters have been at pains to try to explain, the PRA definition of "personal records" can be plausibly read to include the Clinton recordings, but cannot in any plausible way be read to include agency reports, which is what the documents at issue in the Trump case are.
No. There are enough differences between Clinton’s tapes and the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago that it will require a separate ruling to determine whether they are personal records under the PRA. There’s also the separate question as to whether a former President’s personal records are exempt under the Espionage Act. Things that affect the determination as to whether the Mar-a-Lago documents are personal records:
1. Judicial Watch v. NARA was never appealed. It’s possible that another judge could reverse parts of Judge Amy Comey Barrett’s ruling and be sustained on appeal.
2. The PRA defines a legitimate personal record as basically one that wasn’t used in the performance of the duties of the President. There was no evidence that Clinton’s tapes were used in the performance of such duties. There’s evidence t the Mar-a-Lago documents were used in the performance of those duties.
3. The PRA only notes one way for a President to indicate that they consider a record to be personal. That way is to separate the personal record as soon as reasonably possible after creation or acquisition from the Presidential Records. Clinton kept his tapes in the living quarters of the White House, well away from the White House’s office space where Presidential records were stored. The sock drawer, in particular, was away from the office space. Trump’s records were stored in the office space until he left office.
4. Clinton’s tapes were not produced using means that were government subsidized. He owned the tape recorder, bought the tapes, and made the recordings during what he considered personal time. An argument can be made that they were never governmental property. Trump’s classified records were produced by governmental employees, using computers, networks, storage, and printers that were owned by the government. They started out as governmental property.
5. The computer systems used by the White House staff are managed by NARA. As such they started out in NARA’s possession, while Judge Barrett notes that Clinton’s tapes were never in NARA’s possession.
6. The other Mar-a-Lago records were produced by agencies and departments of the Federal government. As such they originated as Federal Records. I haven’t heard of any ruling that the use of Federal Records by the President results in them no longer being considered federal records. I consider it likely that they are still covered by the Federal Records Act.