Judge to Trump: Your presidential power does not exist in perpetuity; presidents are not kings.

By Curt_Anderson

November 9, 2021 9:13 pm

Category: Law

(5.0 from 13 votes)

Judge Rejects Trump’s Bid to Keep Papers Secret in Jan. 6 Inquiry
In a 39-page ruling, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that Congress’s constitutional oversight powers to obtain the information prevailed over Mr. Trump’s residual secrecy powers — especially because the incumbent, President Biden, agreed that lawmakers investigating the Jan. 6 riot should see the files.

Mr. Trump “does not acknowledge the deference owed to the incumbent president’s judgment. His position that he may override the express will of the executive branch appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power ‘exists in perpetuity,’” Judge Chutkan wrote. “But presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president.”

Mr. Trump retained the right to assert that his records were privileged, she added, but Mr. Biden was not obliged to honor that assertion.

Cited and related links:

nytimes.com

Comments Start Below

The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of SelectSmart.com.

Comments on "Judge to Trump: Your presidential power does not exist in perpetuity; presidents are not kings."

by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 4:19 am

Trump's claim is a reasonable claim to make.

"A 1977 Supreme Court ruling in a dispute between former President Richard Nixon and the National Archives said former presidents retain some ability to assert executive privilege."

This is the kind of issue that probably should be taken to the Supreme Court.

All that said, Judge Chutkan let her TDS slip. Obviously, you didn't catch it because you're still suffering.

~~~
by islander on November 10, 2021 4:48 am

Hate wrote: "A 1977 Supreme Court ruling in a dispute between former President Richard Nixon and the National Archives said former presidents retain some ability to assert executive privilege."

What that means is, "the Supreme Court stated in 1977 that a former president might sue, not that he would ever win. That’s why we make the distinction that even if a former president can assert executive privilege, they can’t do so meaningfully. In other words, a former president can make a claim that something is covered by executive privilege, but only with the support of the incumbent president."

justsecurity.org

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 4:58 am

All I said is that the Trump team raised a legitimate issue.

If I still owned my house, I'd bet it that Trump will lose this in the end but it's important that this issue of Executive Privilege and the Separation of Powers be settled by the highest authority.

Blue MAGA progressives here, po especially, went bonkers when the Courts sided with Trump on Separation of Powers issues. But we have a Constitution here, as much as lunch mobbers want to pretend we don't.

Next year at this time, MAGAs will be going crazy when courts are siding with the flatulent fool over Separation of Powers.

~~~
by islander on November 10, 2021 5:15 am

We know Trump raised an issue. If by using the term "legitimate issue" you mean something other than the obvious fact that he can raise an issue I'm not sure what your point is.

""tonight, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected his suit, saying that the decision to exercise executive privilege resides with the office, not the people who have held that office in the past. Her decision was scorching. It quoted his tweets inciting the insurrection, took down his arguments one by one, and concluded: “Plaintiff does not acknowledge the deference owed to the incumbent President’s judgment…. His position that he may override the express will of the executive branch appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power ‘exists in perpetuity,’.... But Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.” She concluded: “The court…holds that Plaintiff’s assertion of privilege is outweighed by President Biden’s decision not to uphold the privilege.”

But she went further. Trump’s lawyers had tried to argue that the committee was simply on a fishing expedition and had no legitimate legislative reason to look into the insurrection. Judge Chutkan responded with an acknowledgement of just what Congress might want to consider in the wake of the insurrection. It might want to enact or amend criminal laws “to deter and punish violent conduct targeted at the institutions of democracy, enacting measures for future executive enforcement of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against any Member of Congress or Officer of the United States who engaged in ‘insurrection or rebellion,’ or gave ‘aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,’” she wrote. Coming from a federal judge, this is a significant indictment of the actions of those leaders who engaged in the events of January 6." *

*H.C.R.
heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 5:45 am

isle,

You need to stop filling your brain with Heather Cox Richardson and her ilk. It's frying your brain with demented hate.

As you know, I despise Trump. I think he's despicable.

What separates us is that you're as rational about Trump as a member of the KKK is about blacks and Jews.

What the Trump team is doing with Executive Privilege and the Separation of Powers is necessary. It's good for America.

He'll almost certainly lose but his loss will have been adjudicated properly in the American way. We are not the Taliban, though your side often emulates it.

It's time for you to fight for sanity. Being deranged can't possibly feel good.

~~~
by islander on November 10, 2021 6:03 am

Hate wrote: "As you know, I despise Trump. I think he's despicable".

Why do you despise him ?

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 6:11 am

Why do you despise him ?

If I had $100 for every time I've been axed this, I be rolling in $100 bills.

In fact, I think that many of the times I've answered the question you are the one who axted it?

Trump is a narcissist. He's a bully. He's rude. He's ungracious. He's a tyrant.

Why don't you like Trump?

~~~
by islander on November 10, 2021 7:25 am

Hate wrote: ” Trump is a narcissist. He's a bully. He's rude. He's ungracious. He's a tyrant.

Why don't you like Trump?”

I’ve know a few people like that, thankfully not that many. I didn’t like them but I can’t say that I hated or despised them. I’d just wanted to distance myself from them and have as little as possible to do with them. I wouldn’t want to give them authority over me or anyone else and I definitely wouldn't want to make any one of them the most powerful person on earth.

~~~
by Donna on November 10, 2021 8:03 am
Wow Bill, it sounds like you have a bad case of TDS yourself.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 8:11 am

isle,

These days, the most powerful person in the world is Xi Jinping.

Let's me say, for what must be the two dozenth time at least, I was appalled to vote for Trump both times I did it. Your side gave me Hillary and "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" who's subsequently revealed that he used to be an 18 wheeler driver, as an alternative.

I will add that one reason to believe that OrangeMan could be elected in 024 is that I suspect that there are more people around like me. When it comes to it, but only as a last resort, they'll vote for Trump.

~~~
by Donna on November 10, 2021 8:24 am
Even though they have TDS.

But I get it. I'm sure that there are lots of Biden voters who have BDS.

~~~
by islander on November 10, 2021 8:29 am

So in your own mind "it's somebody else's fault" that you choose to support and enable Trump...Interesting.

I can only say this, Hate; it’s hard to question the fact that in matters like this (supporting and enabling Trump) you always seem to exhibit very poor judgment.

I suspect that it stems from your (unfortunately) being trapped into having to live in a state of perpetual cognitive dissonance.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 8:29 am

Wow Bill, it sounds like you have a bad case of TDS yourself.

Well, now, that's the point, ain't? I've been saying, since Trump was elected, I dislike Trump every bit as much as you TDSers do.

I don't go crazy about it. As one of five years of examples, I opposed the second impeachment because it was voted on before an investigation was attempted.

My guess is that Trump won't be proved to be guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors when the 1/6 Commission has finished its work, but if he is, and the House chooses to impeach him again...and if the Court permits it and if the Senate conducts an impeachment trial, I'll support it.

One symptom of TDS is to be enthusiastic about denying due process to Trump. I despise Trump. I think he's despicable. But, I don't support lynch mobs, even if it's Trump who'd be strung up.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 8:41 am

BDS. Yeah, Donna, no doubt.

There's some BDS but the symptoms of BDS are very different than the symptoms of TDS.

Watching MSNBC and CNN, to this day to a degree, if you have TDS, you are apoplectic...and, if you're over 50, you should wear Depends.

I watch Fox and there's definitely BDS there but the people who have it need Depends because they're laughing so hard...at the former 18 wheeler driver...and, at you who still support him. Yesterday, the flatulence jokes were a dime a dozen. The air was thick with them.

People with TDS scowl. People with BDS smirk.

A closer equivalent to TDS is Obama ODS.

~~~
by Curt_Anderson on November 10, 2021 8:42 am
"If I still own my house..." --HtS

But you don't still own your house. If you had committed a crime while living there and left incriminating evidence in the attic, you could not stop the police from doing a search of the house asserting your "rights" as the former homeowner.

Your rights as a former resident are comparable to Trump's rights as a former president.

~~~
by Donna on November 10, 2021 8:43 am
How has due process been denied to Trump?

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 9:14 am

He was tried, in an impeachment trial without evidence, produced by a legitimate investigation, being presented.

I don't know about you, but po supported that...and was enthusiastic about it.

~~~
by Donna on November 10, 2021 9:23 am
There was plenty of evidence collected through the numerous depositions and subpoenas that were conducted - no different than when the Republicans led the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 10:16 am

That's crap, po. If that were true, there'd be no need for this 1/6 Commission.

~~~
by Donna on November 10, 2021 10:21 am
What I said is not crap, and the object of the 1/6 commission isn't impeachment.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 10:30 am

Of course not but if all important facts were known, by the time the House Kangaroos held court, we wouldn't be investigating now.

I normally don't go on the nuthin, sumthin trail, but your argument defines nuthin!

~~~
by Donna on November 10, 2021 10:35 am
People who love our country and who love democracy want to get to the bottom of how Jan 6th insurrection happened. The rest apparently believe in whistling past the graveyard.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 11:40 am

Whoa Nelliebelle!

Except for Nancy not allowing GOPs the members they wanted on the Commission, I'm in favor of the investigation. What I opposed was the vote before this work was done.

I suspect that some people being subpoenaed will resist and that's as it should be. The courts will require them to testify and they will, including, as Curt points out, Kayleigh with her boob job.

~~~
by Donna on November 10, 2021 11:47 am
Pelosi was perfectly in her right to exclude those members because they were hostile to the commission. The Republicans would have acted no differently.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2021 11:55 am

po,

If anything comes out of the investigation, getting something done about it will be more difficult because Nancy stacked the deck. She had the right. But, her decision was shortsighted in my opinion.

I don't expect anything to come out of this, but if it does...

~~~
by islander on November 10, 2021 3:04 pm

Hate wrote: "Of course not but if all important facts were known, by the time the House Kangaroos held court, we wouldn't be investigating now."

The impeachment trial had a limited purpose, do you know what it was? If not, I'll tell you. It was to determine whether Trump himself was guilty of inciting a riot and Mitch McConnell acknowledged, despite voting to acquit him, that he was guilty.

This 1/6 congressional investigation has a much broader purpose and I think, you're intelligent enough to to know the difference between the two, although I do have to wonder sometimes. If, however, you do indeed know the difference then you'd know why all the important facts that pertain to this investigation would not have been brought out in the impeachment trial.

~~~
by Curt_Anderson on November 10, 2021 10:39 pm
Judge again rejects Trump’s effort to delay Jan. 6 committee’s bid for his White House records
For the third time in two days, a federal judge has shot down former President Donald Trump’s effort to block Jan. 6 investigators from accessing his White House records.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan said in a ruling late Wednesday that she would refuse to stay her own decision — just one day earlier — denying Trump’s request for an injunction that would block the House’s Jan. 6 select committee from gaining access to some of his White House papers.
politico.com

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 11, 2021 4:02 am

Mitch McConnell acknowledged, despite voting to acquit him, that he was guilty.

You're a fool, isle.

MITCH EFFIN VOTED THAT TRUMP WAS NOT GUILTY. That's the point.

Actions speak louder than words.

We went through this on the old forum. Mitch made the statement you, as Swampcult Blue MAGA progressives do, misquote, before the Senate trial, and I told everyone that he was signalling that he believed that Trump had a vague connection to the 1/6 events but couldn't be impeached over the January 6, mostly peaceful protest.

And, as per usual, I was bang on!!!!!

What I can't figure out with you, isle, is if you simply outright lie or if you're so much a prisoner of your subjectivity that you can't push beyond it to see reality.

I'll give you the benefit and try to conclude that the latter's the case.

~~~
by islander on November 11, 2021 5:43 am

Hate,

Here is Mitch McConnell doing and saying exactly I said he did.

Watch and listen to the whole thing...What the Justice Department and the 1/6 Congressional committee is now doing is what McConnell said should be done...McConnell voted not guilty because he didn't think a former President was eligible to stand trial by the Senate since Trump was no longer President.
youtube.com

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 11, 2021 6:40 am

Thanks for producing McConnell's remarks.

You may remember that, at the time, when I heard McConnell choose the word "responsible," not "guilty" to describe Trump's connection to the events of January 6, I correctly, surmised that Mitch understood that Trump could not be impeached over the gathering at the Capitol. Did you notice, right at that same time, McConnell separated himself from the House's contention that Trump's role was to "incite?"

As you know, I'm not a fan of Mitch. He is as deeply entrenched in the evils and excesses of the Swamp as is any member of the GOP.

But, in this speech, understanding that he knew that Trump could not be impeached but was "responsible," at least in the broad sense, for the ugliness of that day, Mitch speaks for me.

I despise Trump. I think he's despicable. And, if I worked for days on an articulation of my own understanding of what happened that day, I couldn't have approached McConnell's definition of Trump's "responsibility," but not guilt.

Mitch did a little fancy footwork in the second part of the speech, attempting to argue that impeachment was no longer appropriate. It doesn't matter if I disagree there or not.

But, in splitting the atom to distinguish between Trump's responsibility and guilt? He nailed it.

And, as I said at the time, I agree.

It seems to me that the ability McConnell, and I, have to make that distinction illustrates what it means to find Trump objectionable but not to suffer from TDS.

TDSers wanted to get out the metaphysical noose. I could see that that was not called for. So could Mitch McConnell.

~~~
by islander on November 11, 2021 7:31 am

That’s quite a word salad you prepared there, Hate. Plenty of disconnected and fractured thoughts all tossed together to say What ?

Just to say that you now admit that I didn’t lie? And you agree with me now that you were wrong when you said, ”I told everyone that he was signalling that he believed that Trump had a vague connection to the 1/6”

A vague connection? LoL! I don't think so.

Here are McConnell’s exact words:

” There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.

The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president.

And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth.”

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 11, 2021 7:50 am

isle,

C'mon man, gimme a break.

I repeated what I've been saying since January 6. As the events were taking place, I denounced them. I watched Trump's speech that day and the rally. Certainly, Trump did nuthin to discourage people who were determined to go bonkers. But, unless there was a well oiled conspiracy that has yet to be revealed, Trump's guilty of nothing...as Mitch said.

I agree with Mitch, though you seem to be incapable to appreciate his nuance.

Mitch was very careful to separate himself from the majority in Congress, even some in his own party, who declared that Trump owned effin GUILT over what took place at the Capitol. And, I agree with him perfectly.

This TDS phenomenon fascinates me. It's stunning to me what it does to a person's brain.

I have no doubt at all that you possess the intellect to think about Trump with nuance. That, in the end, you can't, can only be splained by the paralysis brought on by your derangement.

~~~
by Donna on November 11, 2021 8:08 am
Bill, the guy you voted for seems awfully nervous about the White House documents that Biden approved to be released for the Jan 6 investigation. I'm betting that there's some very incriminating stuff in there, because he's apoplectic that the court ruling that he has no executive privilege to stop them from being released.

One of the things that's already been exposed by insiders is that the Jan 6 video where Trump told his unhinged mob to "go home" (well after they had already broken into the Capitol building and after it was clear that they failed to stop the electoral vote count) required at least three takes because he kept going off script and refusing to tell his mob to stop rioting.

~~~
by islander on November 11, 2021 8:25 am

” But, unless there was a well oiled conspiracy that has yet to be revealed, Trump's guilty of nothing...as Mitch said.”

Ahh the discomfort that must be going on in your head by having to live in your subjective reality of perpetual of cognitive dissonance.

You know what McConnell said. You saw and heard him, but you have to believe he didn’t say it. You accomplish that by fooling yourself into believing two contradictory things. You know that Mitch is correct when he said Trump is responsible (guilty) for inciting the 1/6 insurrection but at the same time you have to believe Trump isn’t guilty and Mitch never clearly explained how and why Trump was responsible (guilty) for inciting the 1/6 insurrection!

You simply refuse to accept the fact that McConnell’s not guilty vote in the impeachment trial had nothing to with whether Trump was responsible (guilty) of inciting the riot, but rather, was simply due to the fact that he didn't think, “constitutionally” a former President was eligible to stand trial by the Senate and since Trump was a private citizen and no longer President, the senate didn’t have the authority to find him guilty of anything.

~~~
by Curt_Anderson on November 11, 2021 8:39 am
"Actions speak louder than words." --HtS

Do you know whose actions really speak louder than their words? Trump's.

His actions through his lawyers' legal maneuvering and stall tactics to stop any investigations or testimony into his presidency are telling. Nobody goes to that effort and expense to hide something unless there is something incriminating that they're hiding.

~~~
by islander on November 11, 2021 9:30 am

Just to help you along Hate, this is the meaning of the word guilty:

adjective

culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing.
"he was found guilty of manslaughter"

Once again, as Mitch said, ” There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.”

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 11, 2021 10:08 am

Donna,

We'll see what comes out of the 1/6 investigation. One thing that I've noticed about TDSers is that they are ever hopeful. Were I a bettin man, I'd bet against fireworks. Nothing of real significance has emerged yet...and all of the media, Fox included, would blast that trumpet.

I don't agree with your characterization of Trump on this. What's going on now is the legal maneuvering over presidential privilege and the separation of powers that all current and past occupants of the Oval Office have engaged in.

Still, as Fleetwood Mac sang, Don't Stop Thinkin about Tomorrow.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 11, 2021 10:10 am

"You know that Mitch is correct when he said Trump is responsible (guilty) for inciting..." -isle

Bahahahahahahaha.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 11, 2021 10:14 am

"Do you know whose actions really speak louder than their words? Trump's.

His actions through his lawyers' legal maneuvering and stall tactics to stop any investigations or testimony into his presidency are telling." -Curt

This is standard, every day, garden variety separation of powers stuff. They all do it. Both parties.

But, as I said to Donna, don't stop thinking about tomorrow...

~~~
by Donna on November 11, 2021 10:15 am
Unlike some of the more hopeful Democrats, I don't think that Trump will do prison time. But I do think you're being predictably naive about why he and most Republicans in Congress are doing everything in their power to hide information from the investigators.

~~~
by HatetheSwamp on November 11, 2021 10:36 am

Donna,

I've thought this through. Like you, I think that Trump's despicable. But, not having TDS and the ever hopeful-ism that comes with it,...

... I'm positive, if Trump's guilty of the evils you imagine, he's also despicable enough to cover his tracks well enuff never to be caught.

You're still the one who's conveniently naīve.

~~~
by Donna on November 11, 2021 4:26 pm
Well, unlike you, I don't call people "deranged" if they think Biden is unfit to be president. Words have specific meanings. You don't get to make up your own definitions. Of course you can but you make yourself look ridiculous when you do that.

Btw, the whole "derangement syndrome" thing started with "Hillary Derangement Syndrome" which was used to describe people who believed that Hillary Clinton was operating an international child trafficking ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor in Washington D.C.

~~~

Go To Top

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear.

Judge to Trump: Your presidential power does not exist in perpetuity; presidents are not kings.

Articles by category: