#BREAKING -SCOTUS to Trump: DENIED House Select Committee on Jan6th gets documents, also more subpoenas UPDATED with SCOTUS’ 4 page Kavanaugh statement (I feel less smart after reading it)
In an unsigned “short” SCOTUS Ruling which denied Trump’s request to shield various documents from the House Select Committee
See the January 19, 2022 8:45PM update at the bottom on this article
SCOTUS to Trump DENIED
Today, the Supreme Court roundly rejected former president Trump's mission to shield the release of documents/records, that the House Select Committee is seeking.
The ruling - which was unsigned is a one-paragraph order - setting aside the fact thatJustice Clarence Thomas, dissent, stating he would have granted Trump’s request. (insert eye roll) you can read the full text of SCOTUS’ order here —it is probably one of the most abbreviated rulings in recent memory…
The application for stay of mandate and injunction pending review presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied.
The questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns.
The Court of Appeals, however, had no occasion to decide these questions because it analyzed and rejected President Trump’s privilege claims “under any of the tests [he] advocated,” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F. 4th 10, 33 (CADC 2021), without regard to his status as a former President, id., at 40–46. Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision. Id., at 33 (noting no “need [to] conclusively resolve whether and to what extent a court,” at a former President’s behest, may “second guess the sitting President’s” decision to release privileged documents); see also id., at 17 n. 2. Any discussion of the Court of Appeals concerning President Trump’s status as a former President must therefore be regarded as nonbinding dicta. Justice Thomas would grant the application. Statement of Justice Kavanaugh respecting denial of application.
Background -I mean someone kind of said:
Oh that’s just an adorable but persuasive argument it is NOT… see December 30, 2021 Article where I walked you through the House Select Committee on Jan6th arguments
See the December 24, 2021 article -where I explained the numerous flaws in Trump’s argument…
…the PRA uses specific language, not the least of which is the National Archives of the US is responsible for records of former presidents —furthermore the PRA also states that the National Archives, specifically the Archivist “shall release records requested by either House of Congress or a committee acting within its jurisdiction” importantly here “if the information is necessary and not otherwise available”… in Trump’s brief he argues:
And should you be inclined you can reread the following previous articles;
But if you seemed surprise then I regret to inform that perhaps you should reread my research, spelling errors and all <snort> And frankly this might be the shortest article I’ve written… It’s not like I didn’t tell my readers to calm down that Trump’s arguments are beyond flawed and SCOTUS would likely deny his request given two separate district courts rejected Trump’s arguments and then the US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court rulings. That I couldn’t see how SCOTUS would grant Trump’s request - but meh whadda I know
Updated because you should also take note of who the House Select Committee on Jan6th just subpoenaed- furthermore the rational for the subpoenas is, delish
Both individuals were present on the Capitol grounds on January 6th.
Both individuals participated in events prior to January 6th promoting unsupported claims about the election, including;
November 14th, 2020 Million MAGA March in Washington, D.C. and
December 12th, 2020 Stop the Steal rallies, also in Washington, D.C.,
Both of these events turned into a violent and bloody street brawl. And both individuals openly called for the “destruction of the Republican Party for failing to overturn the election”
Bitcoin and Foreign money you say?
..According to public reports, both Fuentes and Casey received tens of thousands of dollars in Bitcoin from a French computer programmer, funds the FBI has scrutinized to assess whether funds from this donor were linked to the Capitol attack or otherwise used to fund illegal activity
January 19, 2022 -8:45PM update below
Apologies I was wrapping up work and trying to get dinner on the table for my family -see SCOTUS’ 4 page order and while it largely reiterates the Order previously embedded in the original article - a point of clarifications there are two cases before SCOTUS - I’ve taken the liberty of embedding each case docket below:
Docket/Case No. 21A272 (originally filed on December 23, 2021) this is the “emergency stay” filed by Trump regarding the USCA-DC Ruling
As you’ll note today’s SCOTUS decision was a decisive one - meaning 7:2 with Thomas dissent and Kavanaugh’s “interesting” obsequious word salad - which reads in part:
“…The Court of Appeals suggested that a former President may not successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, at least if the current President does not support the privilege claim. As this Court’s order today makes clear, those portions of the Court of Appeals’ opinion were dicta and should not be considered binding precedent going forward….”
Kavanaugh’s word salad continues with an odd and rather circuitous and at times non-logical meandering “in Defense of Trump” —he admits that even if Trump failed to articulate any of the four factors generally used to grant/deny a TRO and/or preliminary injunction - I’ve read his statement four times and I can’t make heads or tails of his arguments beyond “hey Brett your reading of Nixon isn’t exactly what the Court stated…but you do you…you obsequious sycophant”
“…I respectfully disagree with the Court of Appeals on that point. A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim. Concluding otherwise would eviscerate the executive privilege for Presidential communications.
Yet some how Kavanaugh managed to repeatedly contradict himself and it’s clear (even as a casual observer) that Kavanaugh truly believes Trump is above the law and that the Presidential Privilege should be strengthened - yet once again Kavanaugh fails to actually acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances that Trump’s Domestic Terrorist put on our Capitol. And yes for the record SCOTUS is considered part of the expansive US Capitol Complex.
Also if you don’t know “dicta” which is in fact legalese shorthand for Obiter dictum - but dicta is meant in the singular firm- Black’s law dictionary
…[a] statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative because of the dignity of the person making it.”
In non-legalese, dicta simply means - when used in a judicial opinion, dicta refer to statements made by the court about the law that wasn’t necessary for the court to decide the case… (this can apply to merit arguments too) which is odd because as you’ll note Kavanaugh repeatedly contradicted himself on pages 3 & 4 -especially considering Trump absolutely violated his oath of office by delaying the deployment of the DC National Guard - 187 minutes - and you betcha the House Select Committee on Jan6th is absolutely focused on the 187 minute delay. Hence why I find Kavanaugh’s statements the height of political hypocrisy…
…the consequences for the Presidency would be severe. Without sufficient assurances of continuing confidentiality, Presidents and their advisers would be chilled from engaging in the full and frank deliberations upon which effective discharge of the President’s duties depends.
..it could be argued that the strength of a privilege claim should diminish to some extent the years pass after a former President’s term in office.
In all events would provide substantial protection for Presidential communications, while still requiring disclosure in certain circumstances. The Court of Appeals concluded that the privilege claim at issue here would not succeed even under the Nixon and Senate Select Committee tests.
House Select Committee on Jan6th
Statement is exactly on point and I have nothing spicy or constructive to say about their statement beyond the prerequisite: Res ipsa loquitur
And now you should be fully up to speed on today’s SCOTUS ruling and the newest batches of subpoenas from the House Select Committee on Jan6th - also the Senate Republicans can F all the way off - why are Republicans hell bent on making voting so much harder? And why is it Republican controlled State legislators are equally hell bent on limiting Voters access to Vote. I mean I could make a cogent argument that the Republicans are racist and the voting restrictions are disproportionately targeted toward non-white voters. And frankly that makes me super angry because I took a lot of shit for sounding the US Census Alarm…
Also I kind of think you should perhaps reread the USCA-DC December Order/Memorandum - as you’ll note Judge Patricia Millett, opined that the main question: “whether a federal court can, at the former President’s behest, override President Biden’s decision not to invoke privilege and prevent his release to Congress of documents in his possession that he deems to be needed for a critical legislative inquiry.” —further Judge Millett concluded, that Trump had failed to provide any reason for the D.C. Circuit to “override President Biden’s judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the Political Branches over these documents.”