FBI executes search warrant at Mar-a-Lago

Another example. Keep 'em coming.

 

You're laughing because you can't answer his question. That's pretty sad.

 

Still looking??

 

Are you?

 

Really? I'm not going to waste my time explaining to him what the responsibilities of the FBI are. It's a waste of time.

 

That wasn't the question

 

Pay attention. I answered his stupid question. I'm not going to answer it again.

 

Aaron Rupar
@atrupar

Rudy Giuliani tells Newsmax that Trump was just trying to preserve documents by putting them in a safe place.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1560464469230342144?

 

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13


@Winston1 @seabrookcajun @rockwallfan as well, what do you make of this judge's ruling? They seem to concur with the Supreme Court Cases I linked days ago. This case is when Bill Clinton left office......

THE COURT: What does “assume custody and control” mean in your view? What do you want them to do? [

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: Because they are also required to make them available to the public, “assume custody and control” would be to take control of the records or have somebody else take control of the records . . . .

THE COURT: How do they take control? . . . He issues a press release[:] I’ve got them . . . . Then what? What are they supposed to do? 24

[PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: As I said, there are many options.

THE COURT: Tell me one.

[PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: One option is they can call President Clinton and ask . . . .

THE COURT: Okay. He says no. Now what?

[PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: They write a nice letter. They maybe use one of these enforcement mechanisms. Maybe they try something else. Id. at 43:18–44:12. Throughout the hearing, plaintiff remained unable to identify any avenue for relief or to specify the terms of the order it was seeking:

THE COURT: What enforcement mechanism, what thing, what power can they exercise under the statute that I can order them to do that makes your injury redressable?

[PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: Once the records are determined to be [P]residential records there is an obligation to assume custody and control of them. How – and I will just say, once again, how they go about doing that – Judicial Watch is not challenging how. *** And once the determination is made [that they are] [P]residential records, it opens the door. It leaves for the possibility that [A]rchives will go out and get the records. It leaves the possibility that they’ll use one of their enforcement mechanisms or they may use other avenues to get them. ***

THE COURT: We’re talking about very mushy unenforceable orders at this point . . . . I just don’t think I could issue an order that says ‘try your best.’ Then how would anybody be able to ascertain whether they’ve complied[?]

And the nail in the coffin:

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.

 

I contend, as @Jmg frequently sates, these "issues" have been long going on and only now that it is Trump have people seemed to realize this...

Challenging elections
Presidents taking documents
Presidents declassifying whatever they want
Etc...

As time goes, we keep finding more and more ruling from judges on the matter that back then, seemed to be normal operation.

Please note I have linked rulings. Not articles of opinion with TDS verbiage.