The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
President Biden's Choice To Decline Executive Privilege Before Trump v. Thompson
President Biden's decision to permit the congressional investigation of the 2020 election's aftermath will invariably affect the 2024 election.
On Thursday, the D.C. Circuit decided Trump v. Thompson. Co-blogger Jon Adler wrote about it here. I haven't yet had a chance to review the lengthy discussion of executive privilege. Here, I want to address an important decision leading up to the case.
Earlier this year, the January 6 committee requested certain documents from the Archivist of the United States. Specifically, the committee sought former-President Trump's records concerning January 6, other records concerning Trump's claims about election fraud, and other documents. Trump asserted executive privilege over some of the documents. However, President Biden declined to assert executive privilege of those documents. Here is an excerpt from the White House Counsel's letter to the Archivist:
After my consultations with the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, President Biden has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States, and therefore is not justified as to any of the Documents. As President Biden has stated, the insurrection that took place on January 6, and the extraordinary events surrounding it, must be subject to a full accounting to ensure nothing similar ever happens again. Congress has a compelling need in service of its legislative functions to understand the circumstances that led to these horrific events.
Here, the President made a decision based on what he thought was in the country's best interests, as is his right. Still, I think this choice was more complicated that people might appreciate. Biden was not simply taking a position with regard to a random person. Rather, Biden exercised his legal authority with regard to his most likely opponent in the 2024 election. Biden's decision to permit the congressional investigation of the 2020 election's aftermath will invariably affect the 2024 election. Or more precisely, the decision to decline executive privilege will likely result in the release of documents that may harm Trump, and potentially expose him to civil or criminal liability.
During Biden's decision-making process, he likely considered--at least at some level--how his choice concerning executive privilege would affect his re-election campaign. Politicians are unable to separate the exercise of their power from the next election. Indeed, the risk of appearing to punish his future opponent may have given Biden some pause to publicly disagree with Trump's claims. But ultimately, Biden went ahead with his choice.
Nearly two years ago, I wrote the following two sentences in the New York Times:
Politicians routinely promote their understanding of the general welfare, while, in the back of their minds, considering how those actions will affect their popularity. Often, the two concepts overlap: What's good for the country is good for the official's re-election.
Of course, I was writing about President Trump's first impeachment for abuse of power. The article charged that Trump requested information from the Ukrainian President about Hunter Biden for Trump's"personal political benefit rather than for a legitimate policy purpose."
In the Times, I wrote:
Politicians pursue public policy, as they see it, coupled with a concern about their own political future. Otherwise legal conduct, even when plainly politically motivated — but without moving beyond a threshold of personal political gain — does not amount to an impeachable "abuse of power."
Over the next three years, President Biden will have to make many choices that will directly affect his likely opponent. For example, his administration could choose to charge Trump with inciting a criminal insurrection. (Seth Barrett Tillman and I wrote about that choice here). Or his administration may take a legal position on whether Trump is disqualified pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Seth and I wrote another paper on Section 3 that will be released, shortly). These difficult choices very well could keep Trump off the ballot. Biden would no doubt say he was acting to promote the common welfare. And his supporters--and Trump critics--would likely agree with him. But no individual politician has a monopoly on defining the general welfare. That concept will always be contested.
In these hypothetical circumstances, I do not think Biden would engage in an abuse of power. But many Republicans who felt burned by the first impeachment trial will view the circumstances differently. They will see that President Biden is using his official power to harm his political opponent--in much the same light that Democrats viewed Trump's conduct with respect to Hunter Biden. If the Republicans take the House in 2022, we may see yet another impeachment proceeding for Biden's use of his powers in such a way that harms Trump. In 2020, I warned there was a risk of adopting the abuse of power theory. Soon, we will see the consequences of that decision.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Wasn't Trump impeached because of yada yada...trying to improperly influence elections.....blah blah blah.....or something like that? I can't remember because the entire thing was so lame, but seems like Biden is just doing the same thing here. Where is all the whining about "rule of law" now?
Mental retardation is no laughing matter. Jimmy, please don't tease those with cognitive challenges by pretending to be one of them. Not a classy move there.
We can't all be Democrats, so be sometimes we have to paraphrase them.
"so be sometimes "
So be sometimes, indeed!
Well, if Biden threatens to fire Garland unless he announces an investigation that does not exist, retaliates against career prosecutors who object to his efforts, fires a cabinet member who thinks the whole thing is a "drug deal" and violates a statute to do so while hiring a private attorney with a couple of corrupt bag men to lobby corrupt sources for unverifiable dirt, and then tries to hide it by classifying the whole thing, then I will be first in line to call for his impeachment.
If, on the other hand, Trump is duly indicted and prosecuted according to credible admissible evidence and convicted by a jury of his peers finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then the notion is ridiculous.
As I see it, the political winds are against it. Biden does not want to appear to politicize the DOJ. If you read the progressive press, they are hopping mad about no peep from Garland on prosecuting Trump and fault Garland as being too much of an institutionalist and being too cautious. My suspicion is that absent an iron clad case that would be impossible to ignore, there won't be a federal prosecution of Trump. He is more likely to end up on Riker's Island than the federal pen.
If Trump is prosecuted by anyone, even a Republican in Georgia, Republicans who control the House will conclude that justifies impeaching Biden in retaliation. Everyone better get used to that. It's how movement-conservative Republican politics works. Screw the nation, we've got to teach the Democrats that nobody can impeach a Republican president, no matter what he does. That's what Blackman is up to with this OP, by the way:
If the Republicans take the House in 2022, we may see yet another impeachment proceeding for Biden's use of his powers in such a way that harms Trump. In 2020, I warned there was a risk of adopting the abuse of power theory. Soon, we will see the consequences of that decision.
As usual, you push only one side of the story. Democrats decided long ago "Screw the nation, we can't have fair or honest media or other institutions". Witless the collision hoax.
"Witless the collision hoax."
U drinking bro?
No, apparently you are, or just hiding in a cave. Or else you'd be aware that all the collusion hoaxes imploded.
Only in your fevered mind.
Not really it is all document in Mueller's Report and reports from a Republican controlled Senate. Also, additional information has come out now that former President Trump cannot suppress information. Get up to speed on things.
Yes, further information demonstrating that they were hoaxes has come out, though it was obvious early on.
Trump-Russia Steele dossier analyst charged with lying to FBI
Mind, the FBI knew at the time they were being lied to, and concealed it from the FISA courts.
You're not so silly or partisan that you think that charge rests solely on the Steele dossier, right?
Setting aside (a) what he's been charged with lying about (hint: not collusion); and (b) that he hasn't been convicted, you know that collusion doesn't rely on the dossier, right? Read the Mueller Report. Read the bipartisan SSCI report.
Collusion relied on the dossier. And on the Alfa Bank hoax. And other Clinton campaign lies.
What do you mean by collusion here?
I mean the Rubio-led Intelligence Committee, with someone as conservative as Tom Cotton, issued a unanimous report that went farther than Mueller on how Russian intelligence contacts with senior Trump campaign people. Like whatever you want to say about Trump-Russia: “hoax” is just laughably false.
I understood us to be discussing "collusion", not "contacts".
I'm using collusion as shorthand here; as Mueller explained, "collusion" is not a defined legal term. But there was solid evidence that Russia wanted Trump to win, that Russia took active steps to help Trump win, that Trump¹ was aware of the aforementioned, and that Trump welcomed and encouraged it. (And then, of course, ran cover for Russia afterwards.)
¹I use this broadly to include his campaign, family, etc.
It's not that they wanted Trump to win, so much as that they didn't want Hillary to win decisively. They were just attacking the perceived front runner. As soon as Trump won, they switched to attacking him, (Some of those post-election anti-Trump protests were actually organized by Russia!) because they didn't actually prefer him, they just wanted whoever was President to be weak.
If they'd thought Trump was ahead, they'd have been attacking him before the election, too.
Brett, are you arguing collusion requires specific intent?
Seems to me the Russians just wanting chaos doesn't let the Trump folks that coordinated and got info from them off the hook.
"Brett, are you arguing collusion requires specific intent?"
Well, duh. "Collusion" doesn't mean that somebody does something to benefit you. Every definition of it I'm aware of requires you to be working with somebody, to some (wrongful) end, and knowingly so.
You'll have to take that personal evidence-free opinion of yours up with the non-/bi-partisan investigations that found otherwise.
No, the collusion hoax was propagated by a bunch of witless tools in the media. Although probably the Swamp creatures who originated the hoax and used it to push an improperly predicated, error-filled secret wiretap warrant are worse.
Or maybe the Russian government and intelligence agency were actively working to make Trump president. At the same time his campaign chief was secretly giving briefings to a listed Russian spy. At the same time Trump's private attorney was taking multiple covert trips to Moscow to secretly negotiate a massive business deal with Kremlin officials. At the same time Trump was regularly lying about his Russian business dealings before the cameras when asked specific questions. At the same time Trump's son was gleefully accepting (in writing) what he thought was secret Russian help for his daddy's campaign. At the same time a minor Trump campaign official was drunk & bragging to a foreign diplomat that he knew the Russians were about to release dirt on Clinton.
And - yes - at the same time Trump asked his fixer Cohen to secure a sex tape held by Russian sources. Cohen asked a Russian businessman named Giorgi Rtskhiladze to make the deal and reported back on its success. Both testified before Mueller's grand jury and you can find the incident mentioned on pages 27 and 28 of Mueller’s 448-page report. To be fair, Rtskhiladze believed the tape was a fabrication by criminal elements behind the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, but - yep - the sex tape was real too.
In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find ANYTHING in Steele's report that wasn't 75-100% true, though the rumors he collected were sometimes slightly off. For instance, he heard Cohen was sneaking into Prague to discuss the campaign, not sneaking into Moscow to negotiate a business deal. About the only thing substantially unproven are Steele's allegations about financial connections between Trump & Russia. When Trump's dealings are openly examined I expect Steele will be vindicated there as well.
This "collusion hoax" shtick is the actual hoax, perpetuated on some very dim-witted, uninformed and very gullible dupes. But - hey - if they weren't easily-conned chumps, they would be Trump voters, would they?
Thank you for laying it out --short, simple sentences -- so their is little room for ambiguity. You have much more patience than I am.
What you're throwing against the wall is not pasta that will stick, but a bunch of stuff that no serious person actually believes. For example, no serious person thinks that the pee tape is "75-100% true", and your own example is more like 67% false -- sure, Cohen didn't travel to Prague, and he didn't talk about the campaign, but he did travel internationally! His cell phone probably pinged somewhere!
1. There was a sex tape.
2. Trump asked Michael Cohen to deal with it.
3. Michael Cohen asked Giorgi Rtskhiladze to secure it.
4. The Russian did (though he believed the tape was a fake)
Those are facts from grand jury testimony. You have no response to them, just like you have no answer to any of the other facts listed above. And please remember, that is only a very partial list. For instance, we still have Trump's son-in-law asking the Russians (during the transition) if he could use THEIR secure communications lines to talk to Moscow. As jaded as they are, even the Russians were astounded by that.
There was more than enough grounds to investigate Trump, with or without Steele. Your "collusion hoax" bullshit means nothing more than your handlers find you easy to dupe. It's not my business, but you might want to develop a little self-respect: No one should be that easy to con.
The investigation will never be completed. The Republicans will shut it down after they take the Congress in 2022. Today there are no Republicans like Archibald Cox, Leon Jaworski, William Ruckelshaus, or Elliot Richardson.
It isn't an investigation. It is a political hatchet job disguised as being a legitimate inquiry.
". . . the decision to decline executive privilege will likely result in the release of documents that may harm Trump, and potentially expose him to civil or criminal liability."
You know how I know Trump is guilty?
Because Prof. Blackman couldn't even fathom the possibility that Trump is innocent and include, ". . . may harm Trump, and potentially expose him to civil or criminal liability OR EXONERATE TRUMP AND SHOW HIM IN A POSITIVE LIGHT."
You do understand that "may harm" already includes the possibility of not being harmed, right? That the potential to expose somebody to criminal or civil liability includes the possibility of the exposure not happening?
That if you say "maybe", you've already got "or not" covered?
"May harm" does imply a non-necessary contingency, for which the contrary could also be the case.
So, while "may harm" and its negation may be a true binary dilemma, the negation of "may harm" could be true while at the same time having no impact on the truth value of "exonerate" or "show him in a positive light".
He could suffer no harm while also not being exonerated or shown in a positive light.
Innocent until proven guilty. This came up in the Mueller context: Our legal system doesn't exonerate people, it merely fails to convict, which, so far as the government is concerned, is the same thing.
Failing to indict is not the same as failing to convict.
You who call Hillary a felon suddenly scruple about the legal predicate to even investigate Trump.
How many times did the FBI give an immunity agreement to a Trump staffer for testimony or evidence production that would normally be compelled by subpoena or search warrant, like they did for basically all of Clinton's staff?
Right: zero times. They got secret wiretaps, or early-norning search warrants, instead.
Clinton admitted to things like leaving her SCIF open so that her uncleared maid could clean up. She claimed that portion marking of classified information was just a bullet item where (A) and (B) were mysteriously omitted. She directed staff -- in writing -- to remove protective markings from a document and transmit it via unapproved channels. And that is just one aspect of her blatant criminal endeavors.
There is a hideous, destructive double standard here, but it's not the one you claim.
I don't buy your take that the FBI acted abnormally with Trump. You don't seem to have any idea what normal protocol for the FBI is. You have no statistics, just a feeling you're really passionate about.
The only provable abnormal behavior was Comey releasing the results of the Clinton e-mail investigation before they were complete.
As for Clinton's e-mails, there's a reason the more savvy on the right have shut up about them: the Trump admin and their burner phones and intentional use of personal e-mails. Hill's got nothing on them.
The way the FBI treated Trump was an only slightly exaggerated version of normal -- exaggerated because he posed a threat the the Swamp. The way the FBI treated Clinton was the abnormal part. Targets of an investigation don't normally get immunity for producing evidence of what they did.
I forget, did Trump avoid the use of government email entirely and tell people to instead send official email to a server next to his bathroom? Of so, did that include pseudonymous emails from Barack Obama using a pseudonymous personal account? How do the accusations against Trump compare to precedents like https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9821959/Joe-Biden-kept-private-emails-using-pseudonyms-send-receive-correspondence.html ?
Trump's admin was vastly less secure than anything Hillary did. https://qz.com/984309/a-list-of-the-donald-trump-administrations-security-breaches-so-far/
And your dailymail article is similarly strategically myopic.
Did you even read the examples from that crock of shit? Waiting 18 days before firing Flynn? Discussing North Korea's antics with the Japanese PM? An encounter that was "not illegal or against official protocol"?
Versus illegally running all one's official business emails through a privately managed server that was almost certainly hacked by at least one foreign intelligence service, and that definitely processed classified information -- up to top secret -- without accreditation or authorization?
What Clinton did -- personally, not in the person of an underlying -- is more susceptible to blackmail by Russia than anything on that list.
Lets look at what you skipped over, eh?
Using Mar-a-Lago as an al fresco situation room
Using a non-secure Android phone
Revealing [to FOX News, natch] that the CIA had been hacked
Also, you seem to have a number of things straight wrong about the Clinton server. Nothing was top secret at the time, nothing was hacked, no one was susceptible to blackmail.
The way to look less foolish is to Google what you think you know to see if someone notes that it's a lie. Because you seem to read a lot of media that puts propaganda before truth, and read it with your critical thinking faculties turned off.
Michael P : ".... (assorted email gibberish) ...."
1. Your "almost certainly hacked by at least one foreign intelligence service" is a transparent lie. There remains zero evidence anyone ever hacked Ms Clinton's server.
2. Your "illegally running all one's official business emails...(etc)" is a lie. There was nothing illegal about Clinton using private email for public business, as witnessed by the fact that both Secretary of States before her did the same thing, and private email for public business was common in the Trump administration as well
3. Your "definitely processed classified information -- up to top secret -- without accreditation or authorization.." is a lie. What happened to Clinton (and Condoleezza Rice & Colin Powell as well) is this : Messages they thought were unclassified were later upgrade to classified on subsequent review.
4. Oh, and your "definitely processed classified information" shtick is a lie twice-over if applied to Clinton. With two or three exceptions, all the messages later upgraded to classified were sent by others and only received by Clinton. People who clownishly insist Clinton should have faced charges must also believe hundreds (or thousands) of others must have also faced jail - including Rice & the late General Powell. There is no legal distinction between normal .gov email, Clinton's server or Powell's AOL account in handling classified messages.
5. Your "more susceptible to blackmail by Russia" twaddle is almost certainty a lie as well. The Russians pulled out all stops to install their boy Trump as president. If they had Clinton emails we'd have seem them.
I leave you, Michael P, with two facts from the Mueller Report: During the campaign, Trump stood before the cameras and asked the Russians to hack Clinton's email. Per Muller's findings, within four hours Russian Intelligence made two attacks on her home computer in Chappaqua, NY. By all evidence they failed.
But that was nothing. The Russians had hacked Clinton associate John Podesta and secretly stolen a trove of email messages -Then sat on them for five months. When did they start releasing them? Less than one hour after the Access Hollywood story broke (grab'em by the p***y). Their boy was in trouble; thet rushed to help.
"2. Your "illegally running all one's official business emails...(etc)" is a lie. There was nothing illegal about Clinton using private email for public business, "
There was, in fact, nothing illegal about her using private email for public business, so long as she refrained from communicating classified information over it, configured it to back up to the official system, and on leaving turned over all archived work related emails. None of which she did. In fact, avoiding doing all those things was the obvious purpose of her having used a private server!
"3. Your "definitely processed classified information -- up to top secret -- without accreditation or authorization.." is a lie. What happened to Clinton (and Condoleezza Rice & Colin Powell as well) is this : Messages they thought were unclassified were later upgrade to classified on subsequent review."
No, she was also established to have handled classified information which was classified at the time.
There is no such thing as a "classified message". There is classified information, and there are documents that contain this classified information. These are required to be labelled (both overall and usually per section/paragraph) with the classification of the information inside.
Failing to correctly label documents as containing classified information is a security violation, although one that is often ignored. However, if you ever looked at the stuff that was found in Clinton's server, you'd see that much of it was labelled at the time - such as the satellite imagery, where the classification was on the image itself.
Although classification guidelines can (and do) change, that is not what happened. What happened with the information on Clinton's email server is that classified information, up to TS/SCI, was sent to a system that was not authorized to receive it.
There was never any post-discovery "upgrade" of the classification. That isn't even a concept that makes sense.
I've also heard that since Clinton was SoS, she could declassify stuff at will. This is incorrect. As the President's proxy in the State Department, Clinton was responsible for approving the department's Classification Guidelines documents - the guides that lay out what information is considered classified and at what level. To declassify something, she would need to have either have changed the classification guides then filed the proper paperwork to clear the specific documents in question, or filled out a different set of paperwork and undergone review to declassify the specific documents.
However, this would still only apply to documents generated by the State Department. Even if they contained the same information, documents created by a different agency containing information determined to be classified by that agency cannot be declassified by the receiving agency, even if the receiving agency's rules are different.
So things not generated by the State Department - such as satellite imagery - could not be declassified by State.
At the point where an email with classified information has been sent to Clinton's server, you potentially have nothing more than a data spill. These happen a lot, and unless the same person keeps causing them, they are not considered a big deal. All it requires is that the recipient alert the appropriate security team, who will come and secure the server and do any cleanup required.
But failing to report the spill is an automatic violation - a severe one that will almost always cause someone to lose their clearance (and thus job). Failing to report and deleting things yourself is a double-no-no that will end your career and possibly get you a jail term as well.
Additionally, secure systems are set up to be unable to transfer classified information to unsecure ones without extensive human interaction. Whomever it was that set it up so Clinton's secure emails could be sent to her private server at all committed a crime, as did anyone that directed the work. Security violations like attaching unapproved devices to a secure network are treated quite seriously.
If other people knew that the email address they were sending to was on an unauthorized server, then they, too, would be liable for the classified information leaks. It doesn't matter if that was hundreds of people.
Same way, it doesn't matter if the message had only one recipient or millions. Anything that goes to an unauthorized location is a spill, and all recipients that have a clearance are responsible for reporting it.
So:
Clinton's email server was not authorized to handle secure data.
Clinton's email server was not authorized to be connected to secure networks.
Clinton's email server did receive classified data.
The users of Clinton's email server viewed (and in some cases forwarded) the classified data.
The users of Clinton's email server did not report the data spill.
The 'admin' of Clinton's email server knowingly deleted classified data from the server without authorization.
For anyone else, this would have resulted in criminal charges. Far less that this results in criminal charges and jail time for people every year. Clinton certainly escaped felony charges that other people would have faced.
The main reason "savvy" people on the right don't talk about this much anymore is twofold.
First, Clinton is done in politics. All she does is claim the election was stolen and cry over her loss.
And second, it's become obvious at this point that the True Born Leftists will never admit the facts.
Brett Bellmore : "No, she was also established to have handled classified information which was classified at the time"
First of all, there were only three examples of any email in question that had any classification markings. They had a few tiny "c" letters in the margin, but lacked any of the other marks that are supposed to signal a classified document. Even Comey in high-drama righteous mode admitted the documents wasn't properly labeled.
He said they weren't properly marked as classified pursuant to federal guidelines and manuals, didn't have a classification header, and didn't list the original classifier, the agency and office of origin, the reason for classification, or the date for declassification. Instead they included only a single “(c)” for “confidential” on one paragraph lower down in the text.
Oh, also: At least one of those emails was subsequently declassified after further review.
Let's pause here & try to properly understand the impenetrable confusion of the classification process. This serves as a very good example. The document was to prep Clinton for a call to Joyce Banda, the new president of Malawi who assumed office after her predecessor passed away. The sentences (first classified improperly with a little "c", and then unclassified) read in its entirety, “Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.” Government secrets, huh?
Back to business : You also seemed to have purposely ignored the fact that out of ALL the emails in question (later upgraded to classified), only two or three originated with Clinton. The mistake or misunderstanding (if any) of their mishandling originated with someone else in the State Department in all the rest. (And no, none of the little "c" emails were among the exceptions).
Even granting your "point" was bullshit to begin with, Brett, that still adds embarrassing insult to embarrassing injury. Nothing you said holds up.
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-director-comey-emails-were-not-properly-marked-as-classified
I sometimes wonder what a Trumpian lickspittle means by the "Swamp". Is it unethical officials acting in their own favor on public policy? Does he mean monied interests having a front seat at all government decisions? Does he mean public officials completely ignoring any ethical restriction?
Because by any of those definitions, the Trump Administration was the most corrupt since Nixon.
But I don't think the average Trump bootlicker cares the slightest about ethics, corruption, integrity or transparency in government. All "Fighting the Swamp" means to him is the gleefully entertainment he felt when his reality TV star president showed contempt for the presidency or the United States government as a whole.
It was each "yee-haw" slap-your-knees moment when a smirking Trump wiped his lard butt on the high office he held. That's all "fighting the swamp" ever meant to them....
Toranth : "There was never any post-discovery "upgrade" of the classification. That isn't even a concept that makes sense"
Sorry, dude, you're the one clueless. Let's pick apart a sampling of your astounding ignorance:
(1). We'll start with the statement above, which is factually untrue. In fact, not a single message in question was thought classified by its sender or properly labeled as classified. Your wacko "point"
seems to presuppose it's impossible to be mistaken or confused about classification status of information.
Hell, maybe you think the rules are all clear and there is some crystalline platonic ether where information exists spinning in some perfect external state. God alone knows if you're really so dumbass stupid as to believe such a counterfactual thing.
I bet every day hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of pieces of info are reclassified either up or down. What does that do to your clownish statement? In my comment above, I give an example of declassifying. One of the most "sensitive" of the emails in question concerned so-called secret information in Iraq. Upon hearing this message had been reclassified, Clinton noted every fact in the email had been announced at a public Pentagon press briefing two weeks earlier. What does that do to your buffoonish axiom?
Your point has to be the most completely stupid thing I've ever read! It goes against all facts. It goes against simple basic common sense. It goes against human nature itself.
(2) You spend an endless amount of time discussing Clinton's ability to declassify, when EVERYONE says this was about classification mistakes. The exact same thing happened during Rice and Powell's time at State: Messages sent by private email were later reviewed and their classification status upgraded. What does that do to your droning theories?
(3) More complete obliviousness from you: "At the point where an email with classified information has been sent to Clinton's server, you potentially have nothing more than a data spill".
Amazing. You drone on, consciously trying to appear like you know what you're talking about, completely clueless that horse is already out of the barn by the scenario you describe.
The person sending that message by unsecure email has already mishandled classified information. As I note above, there is no legal or security distinction between Clinton's server, Colin Powell's AOL account and normal State Department email. They are all unsecured. You seem to think this only becomes an issue upon reaching Clinton's server. This makes zero sense, but then you're you (to stoop to insult).
(4) And we have this : "Whomever it was that set it up so Clinton's secure emails could be sent to her private server at all committed a crime.." Geez, you must ooze shit from your pores, your so full of it. For the umpteenth time: All the emails in question were thought by their senders to be unclassified. That includes the two or three Clinton sent, and the much larger number she received. And that fact makes your pompous gibberish about a "crime" nonsense. The government does not charge people who make classification mistakes with crimes. If they did, they'd have to built more prisons.
Every. Single. Thing. You. Said. Was. Wrong.
Embarrassingly, stupidly, cluelessly wrong.
The email from Jacob Sullivan tells Clinton that “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds by ordering “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
... From an email chain where Clinton quite clearly directed her staff to violate security policies. You are, indeed, embarrassingly, stupidly, cluelessly wrong.
Every once in a while, I am amazed at the confidence at which ignorant people spout off.
What you are revealing is that you do not understand classified handling requirements or practices. On the other hand, electronic transfer of classified data and upgrade/downgrade practices was my job for over a decade. I know exactly what I'm talking about, while you - as your repeated misuse of the terminology and demonstrated lack of understanding of the requirements shows - clearly do not.
Also, your repeated mentions of other people are not relevant to whether or not Clinton did anything in violation of the rules. This is the most classic form of whataboutism you can get.
Let me try one more time to explain the rules to you in words you might understand.
Information is classified, not documents. Documents are marked for the convenience of the reader, but it is not the marking that makes the information classified. It does not matter if the document is marked or not, it is required to be handled appropriately for the information inside.
There are these things called "classification guides" that explain what sorts of information is classified, and at what level. It is each clearance holder's responsibility to know the classification guidelines for the data they handle. They are briefed on this when they get their clearance, and yearly afterwards during the normal training cycle.
The classification "upgrade" you claim happened is not a claim that even makes sense, unless you claim that the classification guides were changed (and no, they weren't). What happened was that people determined that yes, the information in those emails and attachments was classified, and was not properly marked. Again, it was classified the entire time even though it wasn't marked.
It does not matter, either, that the information may have been foolish to classify - open source reporting is often classified because, in combination, it can reveal things the US government would prefer not to have known.
All that matters is that at the time, the information was classified.
Note: None of this includes the satellite imagery attachments (at least one of which was forwarded to a non-cleared non-government individual) which had TS//[SCI] written on the image directly.
As I said, whomever sent the information committed a security violation by sending the data to a person/place not authorized to receive it. If they knew, it was a major violation.
Clinton committed a major security violation by not reporting the data spill - and no one is excused by improper markings, especially if (as Clinton was the Classification Authority for State) she signed off on having taken training to teach her to know better.
Then, once the data spill is known, deleting the data is another security violation - and the most severe one. You do not ever delete or destroy evidence before your security office can investigate and figure out how bad the problem is. For normal people, this is the one step that turns it from "maybe lose clearance" into "probably go to jail".
Incidentally, there is no "horse out of the barn" exception to violation of classification guidelines. Every time there is classified data leaked to the press, all the various agencies remind their employees that even if it is in print in the public press, it is still classified information. You may think this is foolish, but your ignorant opinions don't change the rules that have been around for decades - and still are.
You are so ignorant, so astoundingly clueless, you don't even understand the basic concepts involved - yet you persist in attempting to pretend your delusion is actually reality. Even Behar demonstrates better understanding of law then you do of classified handling requirements!
“the decision to decline executive privilege will likely result in the release of documents that may harm Trump, and potentially expose him to civil or criminal liability”
Biden's decision, by itself, couldn't lead to those results.
Something substantive in the contents of the documents would also be required.
"Something substantive in the contents of the documents would also be required."
Yes and there's nothing there. If there was, it would have been leaked years ago. It's like Trump's tax returns. The media knew that there was nothing there. They also knew that he couldn't release them himself, so they were able to run the "implication" of something being there for years.
Documents created in January 2021 would have been leaked years ago?
Also, of course it is a complete lie that Trump "couldn't release them himself."
Biden's decision, by itself, couldn't lead to those results.
Something substantive in the contents of the documents would also be required.
Selective releases would accomplish the political dirty trick
Release those documents that are embarrassing, while keep sealed those documents with exonerating information.
A very enjoyable parlor game. Dems aren't after facts, just opo research.
Prof. Blackman, do you think this kind of consideration about a potential future election opponent is what led the benevolent Trump to not in fact "lock her up"?
I've occasionally remarked that there's a tacit corrupt agreement among politicians, especially Presidents, that they will not prosecute their predecessors, and in return expect not to be prosecuted on leaving office.
I don't think Biden plans on being to one to break that bargain, but, who knows? At his age he might not be worried about personal consequences that far out.
Or maybe he thinks that politicians should not have corrupt agreements...
Well, that's a laughable suggestion, on the evidence.
There is also that feature of American government called the Constitution of the United States, which normally requires a trial and conviction before locking someone away.
(Offer not valid for unruly tourists on January 6th.)
Yes, pretrial detention was invented after Jan 06, 2021.
It truly is incredible how ignorant people can be about the reality of the criminal justice system.
It's pure special pleading. When it's not their people, they don't care. When it is, they only care about making an exception for their people; they wan to leave the system that has so enraged them intact.
It's pretty bad.
You’re not hurting the people you’re supposed to be hurting, they’re supposed to be shooting BLM not us, leopards faces, etc.
"Why didn't George Floyd just comply?" vs. "How dare they ask 'General' Flynn questions about his secret conversations with the Russian ambassador without first warning him that lying was illegal?"
It's not remotely special pleading to expect similar treatment of the January 6th suspects and, say, Darrell Brooks or Timothy George Simpkins.
No, there you switched to cherry picking. Comparing a general group to specific anecdotes is a tell you're shoveling bullshit.
What fraction of BLM rioters are being held indefinitely in pre-trial detention? Compare that to Jan 6th suspects.
Your side is the one that is all about letting people walk around until trial, except when your political opponents are involved. Then you act like gulags would be a mercy.
You clearly don't know how many from the summer are in jail.
And the burden is on you.
So...way to fail, I guess?
No, the burden is on you to support your claim of special pleading. You won't, because you can't.
The answer (for the 2020 Floyd riots) was about 50 rioters faced pre-trial detention, the longest of which was "several months" - out of more than 16,000 arrested.
Lol. If you think January 6th is bad…wait til you find out about the criminal justice system in the United States. You’ll be apoplectic.
You might be a moron if you think something other than "the criminal justice system in the United States" is jailing those suspects.
Or maybe you're just far more jaded about the leftist takeover than most of us.
Do...do you think our criminal justice system doesn't jail suspects?!
I don't even know how to respond to this. It's so willfully obtuse I'd say you're just lying/trolling if I didn't know how genuinely delusional certain people are about the criminal justice system in America.
How should you respond?
"I am sorry that I was so eager to score rhetorical points that I acted like an asshole by implying that something other than the US criminal justice system was indefinitely detaining the January 6th suspects."
Alternatively, fill in the blank: "I stand by what I wrote. The US criminal justice system is even worse than the oppressive ______ system that is keeping these suspects in jail."
Dude. Go intern for a public defender and get back to me. You’re just out of your element on this one.
Are the January 6th suspects being jailed by the US criminal justice system, or by the Communist mole people from Mars?
You're really angry at a thing you know *nothing* about. And aren't interested in learning.
It'd be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
At this point, it's pretty clear that you are not just playing dumb. You might want to take a break.
The fact is there were investigations of politicians for years. Many have legitimate purposes and also have the side benefit of bloodying up opponents.
What marked the difference that resulted in former President Trump's first impeachment is that he was so blatant in his attempt. As a candidate Trump said he could shoot someone on the street and still be elected. He clearly thought that to be true. Also remember that while most Republican voted not to remove him from office, several said he was wrong, but voted the way they did because he had learned his lesson.
I think Prof. Blackman set up a false equivalency in comparing Trump impeachment #1 and the denial of EP.
On the other hand, to be sure, the next republican president may release stuff from both the Obama and Biden reigns.
And if there's anything in there that can land them in prison, he should.
I have some sympathy for Gerald Ford's situation, and the concern that the nation's healing is more important than punishing one wrongdoer. He claimed that was the decision he struggled with, and even if you believe he decided incorrectly - that holding Nixon to account would have been more beneficial long-term - it's a tough choice to make. I hope those future Presidents are up to the task.
It seems to me that President Biden makes a valid point when he concludes that "the insurrection that took place on January 6, and the extraordinary events surrounding it, must be subject to a full accounting to ensure nothing similar ever happens again. Congress has a compelling need in service of its legislative functions to understand the circumstances that led to these horrific events."
If, as Josh Blackman speculates, this leads to impeachment proceedings against Biden, so be it. Does anyone doubt that the MAGA wing of the Republican party in the House will try to impeach Biden when they think they have control, regardless of what he does about the Trump documents?
This notion that Republicans vote in lockstep with the rest of their party like Democrats typically do has no basis in history or reality, yet, for some reason, people still push that idea as if it were common knowledge.
What are you talking about? Since Obama Republican defections and even hall passes are vastly more rare than Dems.
McConnell just worked out a debt ceiling rube goldberg procedure so that the government wouldn't crash while the GOP could stay in lockstep!
Really? How did that Obamacare repeal work out for Repubs?
Those weren't real votes. GOP leadership didn't have the balls to work to get those to pass.
But you knew that.
Justice Garland agrees with you.
Does anyone doubt that there are more grounds to impeach Joe Biden than there ever were to impeach Donald Trump? Or that the only reasons the House of Representatives has not done so are because (a) Biden is their "big guy" and (b) a lot of them are also improperly influenced by Biden's Chinese backers?
What grounds do you see?
Of course, you do not deny the charges.
What charges?
You didn’t list any.
Yes. Everyone with any knowledge of facts or law.
Yes. Everyone sane.
"the insurrection that took place on January 6, and the extraordinary events surrounding it, must be subject to a full accounting to ensure nothing similar ever happens again."
What insurrection took place on January 6? There was no insurrection.
Seems like the court disagrees with you.
Just a mob trying to halt the electoral certification process in order to keep the clear loser of an election in power.
"Here, the President made a decision based on what he thought was in the country's best interests, as is his right."
Didn't you forget the /s?
This is either silly or an attempt to poison the well:
> If the Republicans take the House in 2022, we may see yet another impeachment proceeding for Biden's use of his powers in such a way that harms Trump.
The Trumpistas have already declared they will do so, if they gain power.
The amoral, sensible thing to do is to cripple Donnie's run in some way anyway. It literally doesn't matter - they'll whine and cry that he is if he does anything other than simply abdicate, anyway. But Biden actually is a moral believer in democracy, so ironically, we're about to lose it.
It was a nice country while it lasted. Too bad the shitstains are going to win.
You mean cripple it, like, by inventing a completely false story about Trump colluding with Russians and then peddling that false story through an intermediary to the FBI? And then continuing to push this for 4 straight years, despite knowing that it is actually a hoax?
Just like Blackman talking about consequences to originalism if it doesn't provide a rationale to kill Roe.
Just an observation, like how it'd be a shame if your store burned down.
Biden getting impeached is guaranteed. Any misstep will lead to it, and if not the Rs would just make up something.
Electing already-impeachable, senile figureheads is ultimately inevitable when media and large corporations collude with one political party in a very fascistic effort to suppress facts and open debate. In fact, that kind of collusion is almost a necessary precondition for that kind of result.
Ah, so suddenly you see collusion. And no Mueller report needed, just your own sense of a vast conspiracy!
You really are going all in on the gaslighting today. The Congressional hearings where Democrats badgered Big Tech executives to censor conservative viewpoints are not so easily memory-holed. Neither are the admissions that "fact checking" services are ultimately opinion rather than objective fact, and that censorship was therefore based not on fact but on partisan opinions.
If corporations are colluding with a political party, then why would there have been the need for public "hearings where Democrats badgered Big Tech executives?"
Also, since when is "horse dewormer treats a respiratory virus" a "conservative viewpoint"?
The Congressional hearings where Democrats badgered Big Tech executives to censor conservative viewpoints are not so easily memory-holed.
Conservative viewpoints? I didn't see that.
Methinks you're falling into this tweet:
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no...no not those views
Me: So....deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
Flashback to when Laura Ingraham put Paul Nehlen on a graphic of censored "conservative" voices.
You think Twitter didn't lock a major newspaper out of its Twitter account for weeks just before the election?
You think Twitter didn't prevent people from linking to a legitimate news story simply because of what it said?
You think Facebook doesn't delete posts over election integrity concerns, skepticism of vaccine mandates, opposition to racist school policies, and more?
You are falling into the trap of thinking that your opponents really are the straw men you imagine in your arguments.
In 2020, I warned there was a risk of adopting the abuse of power theory. Soon, we will see the consequences of that decision.
To be fair, this 'abuse of power' theory was discussed in February 1868, during the impeachment of POTUS Andrew Johnson. That ship sailed 150 years ago. To assert this is somehow 'novel' to 2020 is not entirely accurate.
What has changed (e.g. declined greatly) is the virtuousness of American political leadership since then. Also, the scope of government authority has exponentially increased since that time, making for more opportunities for corruption (legal, ethical, moral). And we are seeing this corruption play out right in front of our eyes, every day.
Is it any surprise that this is where we find ourselves, as a nation?
I find the Dem's lack of principles... amusing.
I find your reasoning... lacking.
The dems destroy an institution (the filibuster, executive privilege, etc) to achieve a short-term gain...
Then complain when they suffer from the blow-back
Conservatives abuse an institution, and then gleefully destroy it when Dems manage a limited workaround.
The right are the ones that want to throw out elections if people vote wrong. And originalism if it doesn't get them the outcomes they want.
Dems are the institutionalists around here.
What matters is that Democrats are victors in the culture war. There just aren't enough bigoted rubes and superstitious clingers left in modern America to give Republicans any chance at medium- to long-term success in America. Every group -- the guns nuts, the anti-abortion religious kooks -- that aligned with the conservative electoral coalition is doomed, too.
Thank goodness.
The Democrats will soon learn the difference between a Constitutionally permitted act and a wise act. There are lots of stupid, self-defeating-in-the-long-run acts that are perfectly valid both Constitutionally and legally.
I don't buy that Biden's opinion about section 3 of the 14th Amendment can have any effect. Any determination about Trump's eligibility would need to be made by a court -- and I believe he can only be disqualified if he is convicted in criminal court of an offense that involves violation of his oath of office.
Any determination about Trump's eligibility would need to be made by a court
Where does it say that?
I believe he can only be disqualified if he is convicted in criminal court of an offense that involves violation of his oath of office.
Sure, and I suspect you also believe many other things that are factually incorrect. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinions.
It's fine to argue that the impeachment was unfounded, or ill-advised, or even Satanic, but not to make stuff up.
The abuse of power article of impeachment did not charge that Trump "requested information", and the text Blackman quotes does not appear in the linked document -- not even the phrase "legitimate policy purpose" is in there. It does contain this text though
If you want to argue against the legitimacy of the impeachment, argue with that.