Wrong again: From the Supreme court. Here buddy! https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13 1. The Armstrong Decisions In Armstrong I, a group of researchers and historians filed a lawsuit to prohibit President George H.W. Bush from erasing material stored on the White House computer systems during the last two weeks of the Reagan Administration. Armstrong v. Bush, 721 F. Supp. 343, 347 (D.D.C. 1989). The plaintiffs sought: (1) a declaration that the documents at issue, which had been stored on a back-up computer system, were federal and presidential records under the FRA and the PRA; (2) an injunction prohibiting the destruction of these documents; and (3) an order directing the government to classify and preserve the documents as required by the FRA and the PRA. Id. The district court determined that under the APA, a court could review the President’s compliance with the PRA and the FRA. Id. at 348. (“[T]he APA empowers a private plaintiff to seek judicial review of presidential performance under these statutes.”). On appeal, the D.C. 12 Circuit reversed, holding that the PRA precluded judicial review of the “President’s recordkeeping practices and decisions” because such judicial review “would upset the intricate statutory scheme Congress carefully drafted to keep in equipoise important competing political and constitutional concerns.” Armstrong I, 924 F.2d at 290–91. The court deferred to the legislature’s balancing of two competing policy goals: on one hand, the “public ownership of presidential records and ensur[ing] the preservation of presidential records for public access after the termination of a President’s term in office;” and on the other hand, “minimiz[ing] outside interference with day-to-day-operations of the President and his closest advisors and [] ensur[ing] executive branch control over presidential records during the President’s term in office.” Id. at 290. 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.” Id. at 290
More here: https://casetext.com/case/armstrong-v-bush-4 Congress balanced these competing goals by requiring the President to maintain records documenting the policies, activities, and decisions of his administration, but leaving the implementation of such a requirement in the President's hands. See 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a). For example, although the FRA authorizes the Archivist to promulgate guidelines and regulations to assist the agencies in the development of a records management system, the PRA lacks an analogous provision. The Archivist also lacks the authority under the PRA to inspect the President's records or survey the President's records management practices. Finally, the PRA does not require the Archivist to provide Congress with the annual reports on the President's recordkeeping policies and practices that he must submit for agencies. Moreover, the PRA accords the President virtually complete control over his records during his term of office. Although the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records and the Archivist may inform Congress of the President's desire to dispose of the records, neither the Archivist nor the Congress has the authority to veto the President's disposal decision. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487 at 13, 1978 U.S. CODE CONG. ADMIN. NEWS at 5744. Instead, the provision authorizing the Archivist to notify Congress "is solely for notification though the Congress would have its traditional means of voicing objection to particulars in the proposal directly to the President, or ultimately by passing legislation to block the destruction of certain records." Id. In light of such cautious authority for the Archivist and Congress to question the President's disposal decisions and the lack of any authority to interfere with his records management practices, it is difficult to conclude that Congress intended to allow courts, at the behest of private citizens, to rule on the adequacy of the President's records management practices or overrule his records creation, management, and disposal decisions. Cf. Banzhaf v. Smith, 737 F.2d 1167, 1169 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (en banc).
"Moreover, the PRA accords the President virtually complete control over his records during his term of office." What part of "his records" don't you understand? Those were never his records. Those were never presidential records to segregate into personal records. Your absurd argument was thoroughly debunked in that other thread. No legal expert outside of maga la-la land believes the "socks" case exonerates your scumbag. Posting it here doesn't make it any more valid. Learn to read. And we all can tell how willfully ignorant you are concerning the matter, anyway, by when you call it "from the Supreme Court." No, that was not a Supreme Court case. It was a case decided by a district court.
You wish. But let's put all that aside for the moment. Answer the question I asked you in that other thread: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? Why is it OK with you that donald trump took government secrets, secrets which in the wrong hands would get our soldiers and intelligence personnel killed, secrets which in the wrong hands would greatly hurt America's defense capabilities, secrets which in the wrong hands would harm our allies.... secrets which were strewn all over the place in Mar-a-Lago where many foreign visitors go to and fro.... WHY IS THAT OK WITH YOU? I already know the true answer. Let's see if you can muster up a bit of honesty for once in your life.
No, he hasn’t read it. He’s too busy taking his supposedly savvy legal advice from Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch who isn’t even an attorney. It is well documented that Fitton is the one who has advanced the notion that Trump is covered under the PRA because of the Clinton Socks Case. He is also responsible for the ludicrous declassification defense. It’s funny how fast they all became criminal defense lawyers when Trump started getting indicted. Oh…and constitutional law experts as well.
