I wrote a comment on an earlier post here couple of days ago on what the Presidential Records Act actually says about executive privilege. The PRA does allow a president to take home certain personal documents and gives 3 examples, but in general and for each of these examples a personal document must be one that has "no relation to or …
I wrote a comment on an earlier post here couple of days ago on what the Presidential Records Act actually says about executive privilege. The PRA does allow a president to take home certain personal documents and gives 3 examples, but in general and for each of these examples a personal document must be one that has "no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President" or is a personal diary that is "not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business"
The definition of a Presidential Record any document that "is created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." That definition obviously INCLUDES any document covered by executive privilege because the privilege only applies to certain KINDS of advice from individuals whose function is to advise the president.
In terms of the Presidential Records Act, "executive privilege" simply means that if successfully argued, the Archivist will continue to keep the record secret from the public. The FBI is not "the public" but simply a part of the Executive branch.
Records belonging to an agency are also not Presidential Records. That doesn't make them personal. It means they belong to the agency. Taking them is just as much theft as is taking a Presidential Record belonging to the National Archives on behalf of the American people.
Trump's attorneys haven't said document X is covered by Presidential Privilege, just hinted (nudge nudge wink wink) that it MIGHT be. That is not possible for documents created by an agency. The only possibility is that DURING trump's administration the intelligence community swooped in and classified some document that could be considered covered by the privilege or might be personal, like his medical records; trump certainly never objected to that at the time and also has never asserted it even through his lawyers, much less by affidavit. Even if they did, and trump "declassified" them by some magic wand they STILL are Presidential Records and there is a very specific procedure for a former president to claim they should be kept secret. There is no HINT that such documents are personal, belonging to the President.
The main question I have at this point is how Cannon arrived at the idea that they might be. Her "opinion" definitely does not explain it. Did she not READ the PRA? Is she so filled with cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias that she couldn't even SEE the relevant parts of the Act? To venture on a conspiracy theory, is this part of the Federalist Society's attempt to undermine public belief in the rule of law? It is certainly having that effect.
I wrote a comment on an earlier post here couple of days ago on what the Presidential Records Act actually says about executive privilege. The PRA does allow a president to take home certain personal documents and gives 3 examples, but in general and for each of these examples a personal document must be one that has "no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President" or is a personal diary that is "not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business"
The definition of a Presidential Record any document that "is created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." That definition obviously INCLUDES any document covered by executive privilege because the privilege only applies to certain KINDS of advice from individuals whose function is to advise the president.
In terms of the Presidential Records Act, "executive privilege" simply means that if successfully argued, the Archivist will continue to keep the record secret from the public. The FBI is not "the public" but simply a part of the Executive branch.
Records belonging to an agency are also not Presidential Records. That doesn't make them personal. It means they belong to the agency. Taking them is just as much theft as is taking a Presidential Record belonging to the National Archives on behalf of the American people.
Trump's attorneys haven't said document X is covered by Presidential Privilege, just hinted (nudge nudge wink wink) that it MIGHT be. That is not possible for documents created by an agency. The only possibility is that DURING trump's administration the intelligence community swooped in and classified some document that could be considered covered by the privilege or might be personal, like his medical records; trump certainly never objected to that at the time and also has never asserted it even through his lawyers, much less by affidavit. Even if they did, and trump "declassified" them by some magic wand they STILL are Presidential Records and there is a very specific procedure for a former president to claim they should be kept secret. There is no HINT that such documents are personal, belonging to the President.
The main question I have at this point is how Cannon arrived at the idea that they might be. Her "opinion" definitely does not explain it. Did she not READ the PRA? Is she so filled with cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias that she couldn't even SEE the relevant parts of the Act? To venture on a conspiracy theory, is this part of the Federalist Society's attempt to undermine public belief in the rule of law? It is certainly having that effect.