The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
President Trump's "Weaponization" Executive Order
President Trump signed another executive order, titled "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government." It provides, in part:
The prior administration and allies throughout the country engaged in an unprecedented, third-world weaponization of prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process. It targeted individuals who voiced opposition to the prior administration's policies with numerous Federal investigations and politically motivated funding revocations, which cost Americans access to needed services. The Department of Justice even jailed an individual for posting a political meme. And while the Department of Justice has ruthlessly prosecuted more than 1,500 individuals associated with January 6, and simultaneously dropped nearly all cases against BLM rioters.
The order instructs the Attorney General to investigate actions taken by DOJ, the SEC, the FTC, and recommend "appropriate remedial action."
The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of all departments and agencies of the United States, shall take appropriate action to review the activities of all departments and agencies exercising civil or criminal enforcement authority of the United States, including, but not limited to, the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, over the last 4 years and identify any instances where a department's or agency's conduct appears to have been contrary to the purposes and policies of this order, and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and the Counsel to the President, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken to fulfill the purposes and policies of this order.
It does not seem that President Biden gave a pardon to Jack Smith. Or maybe Smith and his team refused to accept pardons.
Smith's work can also be tested under the False Claims Act. If Jack Smith was not in fact holding a lawful position, then he submitted false claims to the federal government. And I think the forum for such a suit would be Fort Pierce. Whether or not private relators are appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause, the United States could bring suit. I do not know if Smith submitted any claims to the state of Florida, perhaps for travel or security concerns. Those claims could also trigger the Florida False Claims Act.
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
Let me know when the S.Ct. rejects Qualified Immunity.
You will be an old man before that happens. Our "freedom loving" conservatives love QI too much.
Google paid $195 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $23660 by working at home for 10 hours a day..
Here→→ https://da.gd/income666
Perhaps a certain political party will now appreciate why lawfare is a bad thing.
But I doubt they will.
When they see the inside of a prison cell, they will understand.
So because Democrats can't be bothered with even the most basic rules like appointing a special counsel according to the law, one of their partisan Democrat attack dogs might go to prison? This is excellent news, because disregarding due process is part of the core Democrat identity now. There will be lots more situations like Smith's.
So because Democrats can't be bothered with even the most basic rules like appointing a special counsel according to the law,
Who says that they didn't? Thomas? Cannon? Or some genuinely unbiased jurist?
Speaking as a longtime FCA relator’s lawyer, there is no way the FCA could be used against Smith, since it requires people to act “knowingly.” You’re more likely to be sanctioned for bringing the claim than he is to be held liable.
Why would a law professor let the text of the statute interfere with his hot take?
That's my impression, too.
Explain to me how what Trump did with classified documents was not a crime worth prosecuting.
OK, Idiot, because he's the Commander in Chief and can de-classify anything he wants, National Pubic Radio's "Fact Checker" even confirmed it, with the qualifying "But in the usual course of......"
And I'll give you what Sleepy/Demented/Parkinsonian Joe did with classified documents, while a Private Citizen, and not an Ex POTUS was not worth prosecuting due to his Sleepiness/Dementia/Parkinsonianism,
I mean, he even forgot to pardon himself, the biggest crook in his whole Biden Crime Family
Frank
Trump did not declassify the documents he took.
How you know? He can declassify in any manner he so chooses.
There is zero record of him declassified them or telling anyone he declassified them. Thus the only way to introduce that evidence in trial would be for Trump to testify. And that would be a prosecutors dream.
That is why the argument that he declassified the documents was never going to make it to trial.
Doesn’t matter. Presidents have implicitly declassified documents before. Your sacred declassification rules are based on EOs, enacted by a previous President, that bind the bureaucrats, but not the President. Otherwise you allow the bureaucrats to control what the President does WTH classified information.
Indeed, that’s part of the problem - many believe that the real reason for the MAL raid was to recapture the binder of documents that Trump formally ordered declassified (they implicate Jay Bratt’s Counterintelligence and Export Control branch in misfeasance, malfeasance, and perfidy, and it was Bratt who originated the entire case, signed the search warrant and original indictment, etc). Four years later, the DOJ is still claiming those documents are classified and not available under FOIA. The order was written, signed, and photographs were taken of the signing.
The legal reality is that the plenary classifier, holder, and declassified of classified information is the sitting President. Reread the EO on classified documents. It clearly exempts the President.
Article II, § 1, Clause 1:
As you've been repeatedly told in the past, though you are too much of a moronic liar to bother respecting, the classification status of the documents for the crimes he was charged with does not matter.
Beyond that irrefutable fact that destroys your several paragraphs of absolute bullshit, his lawyers did not raise that claim in any of their motions.
Nobody believes that. Not even Dr. Ed is that stupid.
Doesn’t matter. Presidents have implicitly declassified documents before. Your sacred declassification rules are based on EOs, enacted by a previous President, that bind the bureaucrats, but not the President. Otherwise you allow the bureaucrats to control what the President does WTH classified information.
Indeed, that’s part of the problem - many believe that the real reason for the MAL raid was to recapture the binder of documents that Trump formally ordered declassified (they implicate Jay Bratt’s Counterintelligence and Export Control branch in misfeasance, malfeasance, and perfidy, and it was Bratt who originated the entire case, signed the search warrant and original indictment, etc). Four years later, the DOJ is still claiming those documents are classified and not available under FOIA. The order was written, signed, and photographs were taken of the signing.
The legal reality is that the plenary classifier, holder, and declassified of classified information is the sitting President. Reread the EO on classified documents. It clearly exempts the President.
Article II, § 1, Clause 1:
The Executive Power is vested in the President. It doesn’t say that the power to declassify can be limited by the bureaucrats, or by a previous President’s EOs. His power there is plenary. The power of the bureaucrats to set declassification rules is derivative.
The case against Trump does not hinge on whether the documents were classified or not. This is a common misunderstanding.
Yup, that's why they staged the photo with the word "classified" displayed so prominently.
As a technical matter it doesn't. As a PR matter, it absolutely did.
Uh huh. And Biden pardoned himself in his mind earlier today.
Doubtful; Biden has advanced cognitive decline.
Does this mean that the President can veto a bill, pardon people, fire subordinates, or do anything else that he has the power to do, just by thinking it and not telling anyone about his decision?
Besides, the laws Trump was indicted on (along with his two co-defendants still facing charges) don't specify that the documents or information had to be officially classified. The law only mentions "national security information" that poses a threat to the U.S. were adversaries to get a hold of it, or something like that. Declassifying a document doesn't make it safe to leave it in a bathroom at Mar-a-lago.
Does this mean that the President can veto a bill, pardon people, fire subordinates, or do anything else that he has the power to do, just by thinking it and not telling anyone about his decision?
No. Unless it's Trump
Again. Who gets to determine what is National Security Information? The bureaucrats? Or the sitting President. Here we had the sitting President determining that it was just fine if he took those documents with him. And we had bureaucrats, a year or two later, determine that, no, he couldn’t.
Let me add that his possession of those documents only became problematic, when the Biden Administration revoked his equivalent of a security clearance (never before done to a former President), at the behest of Adam Schiff, who claimed that he was unreliable. The same (then) Rep Schiff who repeatedly lied to the American people about RussiaGate and Russian interference, and repeatedly mishandled classified documents himself by, among other things, leaking them to the press.
More debunked Bruce Hayden lies. Yawn.
You have no credibility.
Bruce, why are you such a lying cunt?
The jury, you pathetic excuse for a lawyer.
Every word of this, again, is a lie. It's a lie factually — this never happened — and legally — it has nothing to do with the offense charged.
That's untrue. It's true that there are no specific forms required for declassification, but it requires some sort of overt act. The "I can declassify documents in my head and not tell anyone about it, and they're instantly declassified" is not a serious claim.
But the above is also irrelevant, since classification status was not an element of the offense charged.
Who does the President have to display this "overt act" to?
Does the Constitution or legislation you're getting this from specify?
"Explain to me how what Trump did with classified documents was not a crime worth prosecuting."
Simply put, because half of DC isn't in prison. Including Pence and Biden. (Who, by the way, had better scour every property he owns or has occupied for improperly retained documents, if he has the slightest sense of self preservation remaining.)
His classified document conduct is common enough in DC that the law is practically a candidate for desuetude.
Not to excuse his stupidity in thinking he'd get the same treatment as everybody else, of course. By the time he left office the first time he should have been on notice that he wasn't going to get the "important person" exemptions most of these laws have in practice.
His classified document conduct is common enough
It's been pointed out to you that no, it's not. He intentionally lied and hid and moved the docs to avoid giving them back. That's not normal.
But you have selective memory for being corrected on this website.
Yeah, try to pretend it's not normal. The abnormal thing is that they actually went after him, instead of leaving him alone.
Kinda moot now, though.
What he did is not normal. Everyone else either voluntarily found and turned stuff over, or at the worst gave stuff back when asked. Nobody else conspired to hide it.
" The Department of Justice even jailed an individual for posting a political meme."
What the heck is this supposed to mean?
Leftists are laughably uninformed, but it's pointless to explain anything to them. They won't change their mind when they learned something that overturns their beliefs.
Since there's no point in explaining things to them, the best thing to do is to just fucking rip them out of power. They're already the enemy; they're already not amenable to facts and reason; so might as well accept it and go win.
Not responsive.
This one, presumably.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-convicted-election-interference-2016
Deceiving people into casting invalid votes is not a “political meme”. Political memes intend to persuade people to vote for this or that candidate.
I’m not endorsing the characterization, just explaining the reference.
Noscitur was presumably explaining, not endorsing.
But seems to me that if you get a conviction under normal order, at that point there's enough actors involved it becomes quite hard to argue there was no legitimate case there.
But others don't seem to find it that hard.
But seems to me that if you get a conviction under normal order, at that point there's enough actors involved it becomes quite hard to argue there was no legitimate case there.
All of those other actors were in on it or "compromised" somehow.
Wasn't that hard to argue that there wasn't a legitimate case, after all.
I don't think it was proved that anyone was deceived into casting an invalid vote. It was all a big joke.
You should have stopped after three words; the rest is all false. Maybe you should try getting your news from legitimate sources rather than truthsocial and Breitbart.
It's the MAGA lie/talking point about the guy convicted for telling Democrats to vote via text message, which the evidence showed was not intended to be a joke.
Thanks to the responses from people on both sides of the "we are better under Trump" divide. Recall the case but not that framing of it, not fully in the weeds to Trump speak.
Aaaaaand the word "lawfare" goes missing from Blackman's vocabulary, surprising no one.
Wow.
It's not enough that the boss was able to weasel out of a slam dunk conviction.
Blackman is now constructing arguments to throw Smith in jail for daring to go after the boss in the first place.
It didn't take long for Blackman to go full Fascist... hmm according to some of the folks here I guess that makes Blackman a Communist now!
And so the lackey goes from loudly complaining about the last President’s not enforcing a Supreme Court order during his last 48 hours to advising the despot (who just issued a 75-day order on the same subject) about the best ways he can use the forms of the law to get at the members of the previous administration.
Mister Blackman has never gone this low before.
More: You threaten like a dockside bully.
Cromwell: How should I threaten?
More: Like a minister of state, with justice.
Cromwell: Oh, justice is what you’re threaened with.
More: Than I am not threatened.
— Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
Mr. Blackman can no more comprehend why Mr. Smith does not seem visibly threatened today than Mr. Cromwell, the 16th Century holder of the 16th Century equivalent of the sort of office the ambitious Mr. Blackman seems to be seeking (and advertising his availability for, along with his qualifications including the necessary moral flexibility), could back in Henry VIII’s time. Great man, that Henry VIII. I’m sure our present leader admires him very much.
False Claims Act, LOL. Cute.
This sounds like a long, drawn-out investigatory process with lots of discovery requests and motions for high-priced DC counsel to argue in Court.
Maybe Jack can get a discount rate, or find a billionaire sugar daddy.
"Smith's work can also be tested under the False Claims Act. If Jack Smith was not in fact holding a lawful position, then he submitted false claims to the federal government."
If Smith subjectively believed he was lawfully employed he wins under the rule of United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc..
But, just to be clear — although it's not relevant under Supervalu — Smith's belief to that effect would've been objectively reasonable also. There's binding Supreme Court precedent as well as binding DC Circuit precedent.
Isn't Jack Smith's real risk that Trump - along with the others he charged - files a claim against him personally for reimbursement of all legal fees. If he was not legally appointed then he was not legally allowed to do this. The feds clearly aren't going to have his back.
There are two questions here: Can Trump get his legal fees paid? If so, by whom?
Ordinarily legal fees are not awarded in criminal cases. Trump could ask Judge Cannon for sanctions. A sanctions award would likely be overturned on appeal. Reasonable minds can differ on the validity of his employment. Most of the reasonable minds are on Smith's side. As for a separate lawsuit, under Florida law the tort of malicious prosecution requires proof of lack of probable cause.
Who pays? Almost certainly the government, unless Judge Cannon rules that Jack Smith personally committed sanctionable misconduct. Under the Westfall Act government employees have a right to be defended and indemnified by the government for claims related to their official acts. If the Attorney General refuses to defend Jack Smith he can petition the court under 28 USC 2679(d)(3) to have the government take over the case.
What if the government attorney assigned to the case effectively represents Mr. Trump’s rather than his nominal client’s interests? These sorts of rules assume parties, and particularly government officials, who are at least somewhat law-abiding.
I think that like the Sir Thomas More of the play, Mr. Smith may be taking a moral position, not a pragmatic one.