NARA MAY HAVE PRE-EXISTING LEGAL OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DOCUMENTS COVERED BY AILEEN CANNONS ORDER
By islander September 7, 2022 2:39 pm Category: News (0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post
Judge Cannon may have taken on something that is way over her head!
"On Monday, Aileen Cannon told the government that it can only access 11,282 documents legally owned by the National Archives and currently possessed by DOJ to do an assessment of the damage Trump did by storing those records in a poorly-secured storage closet and desk drawer.
Well learn more in coming days about how the government will respond to Cannons usurpation of the Presidents authority over these documents.
But I want to note that there may be competing legal obligations, on NARA at least, that may affect the governments response.
NARA has been responding to at least four pending legal obligations as the fight over Trumps stolen documents has gone on:
A series of subpoenas from the January 6 Committee that the Supreme Court has already ruled has precedence over any claims of privilege made by Trump
Two subpoenas from DOJs team investigating January 6, one obtained in May, covering everything NARA has provided to the J6C, and a second one served on NARA on August 17; these subpoenas would also be covered under SCOTUS ruling rejecting Trumps privilege claims
Discovery in Tom Barracks case, whose trial starts on September 19 (DOJ informed Barrack they had requested Trump White House materials from NARA on April 5)
A subpoena from Peter Strzok in his lawsuit over his firing and privacy act violations
For all of them, NARA has a legal obligation that precedes Judge Cannons order. So if any of the material owned by NARA that Cannon has enjoined for Trumps benefit is covered by these subpoenas and the Barrack discovery request, it will give NARA an additional need to intervene, on top of the fact that Cannon has made decisions about property owned by NARA.
I dont hold out hope that the August 8 seizure has much pertaining to either January 6 investigation. Given that none of the boxes include clippings that post-date November, its unlikely they include government documents from the same period.
Plus, given the timing, I suspect the more recent subpoena from Thomas Windom to NARA pertains to materials turned over to NARA by Mark Meadows after the Mar-a-Lago search. Because Meadows originally turned those communications over to J6C directly, they would not have been covered by the prior subpoena, which obtained everything NARA turned over to J6C, which wouldnt have included Meadows texts.
Meadows submission to the Archives was part of a request for all electronic communications covered under the Presidential Records Act. The Archives had become aware earlier this year it did not have everything from Meadows after seeing what he had turned over to the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021. Details of Meadows submissions to the Archives and the engagement between the two sides have not been previously reported.
It could be a coincidence, but within a week of the August 8 search on Mar-a-Lago, much more started coming in, one source familiar with the discussions said.
The possibility that some of the documents seized on August 8 would be discoverable in Barracks case is likely higher, particularly given the news that Trump had hoarded at least one document about a foreign governments nuclear-defense readiness. Barrack is accused of working to influence White House policy on issues pertaining to UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar that might be implicated by classified documents. If the date of clippings in a particular box reflect the age of the government documents also found in that box, then about 18 boxes seized in August (those marked in purple, above) include records from the period covered by Barracks superseding indictment.
That said, whether any such materials would count as being in possession of DOJ is another issue. They are currently in possession of team at DOJ that significantly overlaps with the people prosecuting Barrack for serving as an Agent of the Emirates without telling the Attorney General.
Strzoks subpoena may be the most likely to cover materials either turned over belatedly or seized on August 8 (though his subpoena was scoped, with DOJ involvement, at a time after the FBI was aware of Trumps document theft). It asks for:
Records concerning Sarah Isgurs engagement with reporters from the Washington Post or New York Times about Peter Strzok and/or Lisa Page on or about December 1 and 2, 2017.
Records dated July 1, 2017 through December 12, 2017 concerning or reflecting any communications with members of the press related to Peter Strzok and/or Lisa Page.
Records dated July 1, 2017 through December 12, 2017 concerning or reflecting text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Records dated July 1, 2017 through August 9, 2018 concerning Peter Strzoks employment at the FBI.
That materials covered by this subpoena made their way at some point to Mar-a-Lago is likely. Thats because of the obsession with records relating to Crossfire Hurricane in the days when Trump was stealing documents virtually all of those would concern Strzoks FBI employment."
For those who want to be well informed, click on the link to read the rest:
The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "NARA MAY HAVE PRE-EXISTING LEGAL OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DOCUMENTS COVERED BY AILEEN CANNONS ORDER":
