Appeals court questions Trump push to own presidential records
A federal appeals court is expected to dismiss president Donald Trump’s claim that the Presidential Records Act of 1978 is unconstitutional. trump’s legal team argues that the law is invalid after the DOJ accused him of mishandling classified documents stored at Mar-a-Lago,asserting that presidents historically had control over their records,including selling or giving them away.The Justice Department contends that the law ensures presidential papers are retained by the government to prevent their use against future administrations and to protect national security. Judges, including Obama appointees Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, questioned weather the law’s validity coudl be challenged, with debates focusing on whether presidential records are private property or government-held. The DOJ previously dropped related charges after Trump’s reelection, citing constitutional issues. The case is part of ongoing legal disputes over the separation of powers and the control of presidential records.
A federal appeals court appears likely to dismiss President Donald Trump’s argument that a law ensuring presidential papers are retained by the government is unconstitutional.
Trump’s legal team has argued that the 1978 Presidential Records Act is illegal after the president was accused of violating the law by storing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home. The case continues to play out in a D.C. Circuit court, where a three-judge panel weighed the Justice Department’s arguments on Friday.
Real journalism.Trusted by millions.
Unlimited access to in-depth reporting, expert analysis, and the stories that shape our country.
Already a member? Log in
Two judges on the panel, who were both appointed by former president Barack Obama, Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, argued that the DOJ’s position could place the country in jeopardy. Federal attorneys argued that since George Washington, American presidents “exercised exclusive control and ownership over their presidential records after leaving office,” even giving them away and selling them, a tradition broken after Watergate, when the DOJ contended Congress exceeded its “constitutional authority over the President” and violated the separation of powers by giving the United States “complete ownership, possession, and control” over presidential records.
“Can the president then offer on eBay to sell them, all of our national security secrets to the highest bidder?” Millett pressed back.
“The Presidential Records Act, if unconstitutional, would not be a bar to that,” DOJ attorney John Bailey replied. “Consistent with history and tradition … the president’s papers belong to the president, yes.”
The DOJ argued that leaving official papers in the hands of the government once the president has left office leaves the door open to future administrations weaponizing sensitive information against their political opponents.
“If I had to turn over all of my emails and Teams messages to either my current boss or to the person that’s going to replace my boss and fire me, I would probably rather turn that all over to my current boss,” Bailey said.
Pillard shot back.
“That is … such a sad and such a partisan view,” the judge said. “It’s assuming that the separation of powers doesn’t protect the office of the presidency, but only this president, and it’s just never been the case.”
JUDGE ORDERS DHS TO HALT TAXPAYER-FUNDED ADS FEATURING TRUMP
The DOJ dropped the case targeting Trump’s alleged storing of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after he won reelection. Last year, the Justice Department announced it had concluded that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers, triggering a lawsuit from a watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and several other critics.
That lawsuit is what is now being debated in court.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
