They also argue that this information could effectively prevent another similar event from happening again.
But for Trump, the transfer of hundreds and hundreds of pages from the National Archives to the select committee is an affront that threatens “enormous consequences” that could “forever change” the dynamics of power in the United States.
“It is naive to assume that the fallout will be limited to President Trump or the events of January 6, 2021. Every Congress will point out something unprecedented about ‘this president’ to justify a request for presidential records,” Binnall wrote.
He continued, “In these hyperpartisan times, Congress will increasingly and inevitably use this new weapon to perpetually harass its political rival. “
The heart of Trump’s argument on Tuesday is familiar and he used, at least in part, in the 2020 Supreme Court case Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP.
In this case, where the US House of Representatives requested Trump’s tax returns, the line between executive privilege and separation of powers was put to the test. The High Court ultimately concluded that when resolving disputes between the legislative and executive branches, a request for private information from the executive means that Congress must use that information to fulfill its original purpose: to legislate.
Corn Mazars did not fully answer questions about executive privilege claims. This case is unique in this regard.
Trump insists the committee is not asking for the records for legislative purposes, but rather to criminally investigate him, try him, and use him as a kind of guinea pig to see precisely how far the powers of Congress can go.
“The president’s unique constitutional positions mean Congress cannot view him as a ‘case study’ for general legislation. [Jan. 6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson’s] The request blatantly flouts this rule by admitting that the Committee’s request is to “identify lessons learned and recommend necessary laws, policies and procedures, rules or regulations … in the future”, effectively treating President Trump as a subject of debate. test, ”Binnall wrote.
When U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump’s previous attempt to prevent the National Archives from forwarding the documents to Congress, she dressed the 45e chair down. Chutkan ruled that if Trump was welcome to invoke executive privilege, as was his right, whatever leftover power might be bestowed on him as president of yore, that didn’t mean his powers were absolute.
Chutkan found he couldn’t fully overrule the committee’s investigative power, and especially when outgoing president Joe Biden failed to claim executive privilege over sensitive documents.
“His position that he can override the express will of the executive seems to be based on the idea that his executive branch” exists in perpetuity, “” Chutkan wrote of Trump. “But presidents are not kings, and the plaintiff is not president.”
Trump’s lawyer was quick to retort Tuesday: “Presidents are not kings, but the power of Congress is not unlimited, no matter what the presidential diktat.
And in a blow to President Biden, Binnall continued: “When the Supreme Court noted that executive privilege exists for the benefit of the Republic, it meant the interest of the people in a functioning government, not the whims of the sitting president who may be unable to see past his own political considerations.
Trump, he added, is not trying to forgo disclosure of records because of “certain wrongdoing, because such wrongdoing never happened,” Binnall wrote.
On the contrary, the abject failure of the request to identify the proposed legislation and why the president’s information will advance such legislation is evidence that the committee’s request has an inappropriate law enforcement objective as its fundamental nature is clearly for law enforcement purposes, ”he said.
Considering Tuesday’s call, Chad Oldfather, a law professor at Marquette University Law School, told the Daily Kos in an email Tuesday that it was “difficult to predict precisely how that would turn out because it t is an area where there is not much law in the sense of past judicial decisions that one can rely on to give precise direction.
“The reason is that for the most part in the past, Congress and the President have been able to resolve these issues without needing to go to court. And one of the reasons they were able to work it out was that both parties to such requests shared an understanding that the other party was acting in good faith, ”Marquette wrote. “That kind of understanding is, of course, nowhere to be found.”
Oldfather also noted the irony of the arguments presented to the appeals court.
“One of the arguments of the Trump team is that allowing Congress to succeed with such a broad demand would shift the balance of power too much. But the same can be said of the overly aggressive claims of executive privilege, which the Trump administration has always made. The overbreadth concerns on both sides are real, and the trick for a court is to figure out how to draw a principled line, ”Oldfather said.
Principles aside, Trump, for now, rigorously maintains that the committee’s demands are “haughty.”
“If this Court were to accept the district court’s rationale, it would erode and possibly destroy both the underlying separation of powers issues. Mazars and executive privilege. In their place, Congress would be vested with unprecedented and unconstitutional inquisition power, ”Binall wrote.
And as he has so often done, Trump once again appeared ready to rely on delay as a legal tactic.
“Unlike the irreparable harm that President Trump will suffer in the absence of provisional measures, the defendants would not suffer any harm by delaying production while the parties challenge the validity of the claim. There will be no further presidential transition for more than three years; Congress has time to allow the courts to review this expedited appeal while it continues to legislate, ”Binnall wrote.
Oral pleadings are scheduled before the Court of Appeal for November 30. At that time, judges will consider whether or not to maintain the temporary freeze applied to the National Archives, even if Trump’s executive privilege claims are considered.
If the appeals court decides to lift that hold, Trump will likely file another appeal, sending the case back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A representative for January 6 the committee did not immediately respond to the request for comment on Tuesday.