Trump lawyer tells former aides not to cooperate with Jan. 6 committee
Source: Washington Post
An attorney for former president Donald Trump, in a letter reviewed by The Washington Post, instructed former advisers, including Mark Meadows, Kash Patel, Dan Scavino and Stephen K. Bannon, not to comply with congressional investigators who requested documents by Thursday at midnight.
The group of former White House aides were subpoenaed by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection last month, seeking records and testimony.
Another round of subpoenas was issued by the committee Thursday for organizers of the Stop the Steal rally that preceded the riot.
Trumps legal team argues in the letter that records and testimony related to Jan. 6 are protected from disclosure by the executive and other privileges, including among others the presidential communications, deliberative process, and attorney-client privileges.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/07/trump-lawyer-tells-former-aides-not-cooperate-with-jan-6-committee/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert&wpmk=1&wpisrc=al_news__alert-politics--alert-national&pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJjb29raWVuYW1lIjoid3BfY3J0aWQiLCJpc3MiOiJDYXJ0YSIsImNvb2tpZXZhbHVlIjoiNTk2ZDViYWFhZGU0ZTIwN2QyOTZhYmVlIiwidGFnIjoid3BfbmV3c19hbGVydF9yZXZlcmUiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy53YXNoaW5ndG9ucG9zdC5jb20vcG9saXRpY3MvMjAyMS8xMC8wNy90cnVtcC1sYXd5ZXItdGVsbHMtZm9ybWVyLWFpZGVzLW5vdC1jb29wZXJhdGUtd2l0aC1qYW4tNi1jb21taXR0ZWUvP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9YWxlcnQmdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249d3BfbmV3c19hbGVydF9yZXZlcmUmbG9jYXRpb249YWxlcnQmd3Btaz0xJndwaXNyYz1hbF9uZXdzX19hbGVydC1wb2xpdGljcy0tYWxlcnQtbmF0aW9uYWwifQ.r2dSZz_3inTmCG7fBHPG_rRtgZim2At9J2XmP7NOc0I
DURHAM D
(32,617 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)Our legal system based on the concept of the protection of the innocent can be very frustrating at times. But a necessary protection from those such as Trump and his gang of fascists who are intent on establishing a dictatorship if they gain control.
MiniMe
(21,722 posts)He can't claim it any more
BadgerKid
(4,561 posts)To the contrary. Supposedly Events during any presidency Are subject to executive privilege.
onenote
(42,829 posts)It is up to the court to decide whether the particular material in question is entitled to such protection.
Discussed in detail in this thread:https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15891134
bluestarone
(17,105 posts)Stalling is their game. (ALWAYS has been)
wryter2000
(46,130 posts)God, I am sick of these assholes.
C Moon
(12,226 posts)Champp
(2,114 posts)Lock them up.
msongs
(67,496 posts)RFCalifornia
(440 posts)Bev54
(10,088 posts)Who is playing the lawyer and who is playing the client?
Bayard
(22,228 posts)This is the, Sling shit at the wall and see what sticks, technique.
elleng
(131,370 posts)a lot sticks, at least to many of 'the formers.'
mac56
(17,575 posts)Hmmmm
duforsure
(11,885 posts)Like the orange one got with the Mueller investigation. They want special treatment .
Justice matters.
(6,955 posts)3. Attorney-client privileges can't be valid when used to cover up criminal conduct (criminal intents or conspiracy to commit crimes).
onenote
(42,829 posts)Discussed in detail in this thread:https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15891134
Whether the material is entitled to protection in the specific circumstances protected is up to the courts to decide.
Justice matters.
(6,955 posts)DOJ courts can easily assert that fact by looking at testimony under oath in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The crimes are all laid out in there.
Should not take a year to rule that.
Justice matters.
(6,955 posts)Link: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/biden-won-t-invoke-executive-privilege-on-trump-docs-1.5616831
True or false? According to the article, Biden, not the courts, will have some say in the matter.
onenote
(42,829 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)any consequences for him down the road?
onenote
(42,829 posts)including privilege objections, even if the court ultimately rejects the claim.
Me.
(35,454 posts)onenote
(42,829 posts)There are a number of arguments that a lawyer could make in opposition to a Congressional subpoena's validity.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45653.pdf
RFCalifornia
(440 posts)Seriously?
He's not the fucking president anymore!
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)onenote
(42,829 posts)See discussion in this thread:https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15891134
The courts will decide whether the material in question is protected under the specific circumstances presented.
Me.
(35,454 posts)no case for EP
onenote
(42,829 posts)Is there a case that makes it clear that a president can't assert executive privilege with respect to his communications with an adviser who is not a formal government employee?
Me.
(35,454 posts)and according to him, TFG actually has little say about EP...that belongs to Biden and he and his admin has said they won't allow the use of EP. THe only case would be for national security.
onenote
(42,829 posts)"it is argued, such claims may be asserted only by incumbents who are presently responsible to the American people for their action. We reject the argument that only an incumbent President may assert such claims, and hold that appellant, as a former President, may also be heard to assert them." Nixon v. Administrator of General Services
None of us (including Katayal) can predict how the courts will resolve a claim of EP by the former president when the current president argues against EP.
Me.
(35,454 posts)so we will see what we will see
onenote
(42,829 posts)He's not infallible. The guy has lost more cases than he has won at the Supreme Court, by a pretty wide margin.
sinkingfeeling
(51,493 posts)to place blame on someone else.
Grins
(7,258 posts)who wrote the letter. Be interesting to know.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,839 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)to offer to pay out of his pocket all legal expenses incurred due to his request!
he doesn't pay for anything, they'll be stuck
hamsterjill
(15,224 posts)But lets not forget one of the basic tenets of our democracy, that being that if it were you or me who ignored a subpoena, we would be in jail in a heartbeat.
I want these assholes in jail. I refuse to acknowledge that they should receive any treatment other than what ordinary citizens would receive. Im tired of the bullshit and the narrative moving the obvious. What was once considered scandalous is slowly becoming the norm. No, thank you. They need to go to jail.
melm00se
(4,998 posts)"been there/done that"
https://today.law.harvard.edu/can-donald-trump-still-assert-executive-privilege/
Eggleston: The law is actually fairly clear on this, although theres always the issue of whether this new Supreme Court would follow the pretty settled law or not. So, let me give you two answers, the first administrative and the second legal. First, neither the current president nor the prior president has physical custody of the materials from the prior presidents. All of these materials are stored at the National Archives. I dealt with this as the last White House counsel for Obama, when we had the enormous processes of transferring our data out of the White House and to the Archives. If there is a request for what would otherwise be privileged material regarding a prior presidency, representatives of the prior president are supposed to consult with representatives of the current president, and then the current president decides.
When I was White House counsel, that happened from time to time with regard to communications out of the George W. Bush White House. My office would consult with the person that President Bush had designated to represent him for this purpose. During my time as White House counsel, there was never an objection from the prior president to releasing those materials. So, we never actually had to test to the limits of the law.
Separately, theres a Supreme Court case called Nixon v. General Services Administration, the agency that had possession of the records of former President Nixon. Congress had passed a law to allow the GSA to seize and preserve all President Nixons presidential records. President Nixon sued, claiming the act was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the law and basically decided that the current president is the right person to make judgments about the assertion of executive privilege. Thats because under our system, the authority attaches to the office, not the human. President Biden has this power because hes president, not because hes Joe Biden. And when President Trump was in office, he had the power because he was President Trump, not because he was Donald Trump. So, I think the law is pretty well settled. But again, we have many years later a very new Supreme Court.