Trump lawyer tells former aides not to cooperate with Jan. 6 committee

[former9thward]

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.

Trump’s 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]

1. So cute that stupid thinks he is the boss of them. nt

[olegramps]

33. They will take every advantage of our legal system to delay any judgment.

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]

2. Executive privilege only applies to the current President

He can't claim it any more

[BadgerKid]

13. Not sure... someone posting a ruling

To the contrary. Supposedly Events during any presidency Are subject to executive privilege.

[onenote]

20. Not exactly. Former president has standing to make the claim.

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]

3. Judge needs to decide this i'm sure.

Stalling is their game. (ALWAYS has been)

[wryter2000]

4. And go to jail to think about it for a while

God, I am sick of these assholes.

[C Moon]

5. Why would anyone believe this clown? Take a look at the people he used and threw off to the side.

[Champp]

6. Republican traitors try to hide their evil shit

Lock them up.

[msongs]

7. one suspects executive privilege is not valid when trying to overthrow the govt nt

[JohnSJ]

14. Exactly.

[RFCalifornia]

18. Or the person claiming it isn't the "executive" anymore nt

[Bev54]

8. Attorney/client privilege??

Who is playing the lawyer and who is playing the client?

[Bayard]

9. I believe

This is the, Sling shit at the wall and see what sticks, technique.

[elleng]

11. right, and considering the origin,

a lot sticks, at least to many of 'the formers.'

[mac56]

10. Why wouldn't they be eager to testify and prove how innocent TFG is?

Hmmmm

[duforsure]

12. This may be a tactic to try to get a special deal

Like the orange one got with the Mueller investigation. They want special treatment .

[Justice matters.]

15. 1. Executive Privilege only applies to the current President.

2. Executive Privilege is moot when it's invoked to cover up criminal conduct (criminal intents or conspiracy to commit a crime).

3. Attorney-client privileges can't be valid when used to cover up criminal conduct (criminal intents or conspiracy to commit crimes).

[onenote]

22. Executive privilege can be claimed by a past president.

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.]

28. I stand corrected on that.

It can't be invoked to cover up a criminal intent to nullify an election by using lies without any evidence and a conspiracy to abuse power.

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.]

41. President "Biden will have some say in the matter."

Trump no longer is in office. As the former president, he cannot directly assert privilege to keep witnesses quiet or documents out of the hands of Congress. As the current president, Biden will have some say in the matter.

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. Biden will have some say. The courts will have the final word.

[Me.]

16. An Attorney Telling People Not To Comply With A Legal Subpoena?

any consequences for him down the road?

[onenote]

23. No. An attorney is entitled to advise client to raise objections to a subpoena

including privilege objections, even if the court ultimately rejects the claim.

[Me.]

25. But...Is It Legal To Tell Them THey Don't Have To Show Up For The Deposition?

[onenote]

29. No obvious answer to that when its a Congressional subpoena

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]

17. What "executive privilege" ??????

Seriously?

He's not the fucking president anymore!

[monkeyman1]

19. dumb ass think's he is ? fake seal,fake office, from the desk of fake idoit !! blah,blah, balh !

[onenote]

24. Addressed many times: a former president has standing to claim executive privilege

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.]

26. Bannon Left THe WH IN '17

no case for EP

[onenote]

30. Do you have a citation for that?

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.]

34. Neal Katayal Said So, Thus I'll Stick With THat

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]

36. The Supreme Court has made clear that a former president can claim EP

"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.]

37. My MOney Is On Neal

so we will see what we will see

[onenote]

38. I'm fascinated by the fascination with Kayatal on this board

He's not infallible. The guy has lost more cases than he has won at the Supreme Court, by a pretty wide margin.

[sinkingfeeling]

21. So, charge them all with sedition and I bet they'll provide documents in an atempt

to place blame on someone else.

[Grins]

27. Odd they didn't say who the lawyer was...

…who wrote the letter. Be interesting to know.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

31. This is contempt of Congress

Link to tweet

[whistler162]

32. I thinkit is quite generous of Trump

to offer to pay out of his pocket all legal expenses incurred due to his request!

[Me.]

35. AS If

he doesn't pay for anything, they'll be stuck

[hamsterjill]

39. I know they get away with everything.

But let’s 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]

40. Here is one take from someone who as

"been there/done that"

https://today.law.harvard.edu/can-donald-trump-still-assert-executive-privilege/

HLT: Former President Trump has said he will assert executive privilege to prevent records related to the January 6 attack on the Capitol being turned over to Congress. Can he do that?

Eggleston: The law is actually fairly clear on this, although there’s 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, there’s 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 Nixon’s 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. That’s because under our system, the authority attaches to the office, not the human. President Biden has this power because he’s president, not because he’s 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.