[Photo: National Security Agency, Ft. Meade, MD via Wikimedia]

The Full-Fitton: Trump’s Funny Math with the Federal Records Act

As I laid out here, you really don’t need to get further than the second paragraph of Trump’s response to DOJ’s bid for a stay on Judge Aileen Cannon’s injunction against using seized evidence of obstruction and Espionage Act violations to find evidence of a crime. In that paragraph, Trump confesses that the FBI did seize documents marked as classified — and therefore documents responsive to a May 11 subpoena — from Mar-a-Lago on August 8; that’s tantamount to a confession to obstruction.

I want to look at another funny thing he does, before I move to the subject of his gaslighting (whether these documents are genuinely classified or not, which is irrelevant to the crimes under investigation).

Trump is trying to stall the Espionage and obstruction investigation into him. But he’s also attempting to either claw back documents into his own possession, or to bottle them up at the Archives under separate legal challenges. As such, he’s adopting Tom Fitton’s argument — based on a very different set of Bill Clinton records that weren’t seized from his home via a lawful warrant but were instead FOIAed — that he designated many of these documents as personal records while still President, so they don’t even have to be in the Archives.

Critical to that argument is that documents are either Presidential Records or personal records, and the latter don’t have to be in the Archives, and so (he makes several huge logical jumps) they can’t be used in a criminal prosecution against him.

The PRA further distinguishes records as either Presidential or personal. 44 U.S.C. § 2201. Presidential records are defined as: documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. 44 U.S.C. § 2201(2).

The PRA expressly excludes personal records from the definition of Presidential records. See id. § 2201(2)(B). Personal records are defined as “documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, [sic] of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” Id. § 2201(3). The PRA thus “distinguishes Presidential records from ‘personal records’” and “requires that all materials produced or received by the President, ‘to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.’” Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Archives & Recs. Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 291 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting 44 U.S.C. § § 2203(b)). “The categorization of the records during the Presidency controls what happens next . . . . The statute assigns the Archivist no role with respect to personal records once the Presidency concludes.” Id. (emphasis added). “The PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only ‘assumes responsibility for the Presidential records.” Id. (quoting 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f)(1)). “[T]he PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President.” Id. at 301 (describing categorization decision by former President Clinton as not within the discretion of the Archivist as the subject materials “were not provided to the Archives at” the end of the Clinton presidency).

Critically, the former President has sole discretion to classify a record as personal or Presidential. See Jud. Watch, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d at 301 (“Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President.”). The power of the Archivist is not greater than that of the President. Specifically, the PRA states “the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.” 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f)(1). This section should not be interpreted as weakening a President’s authority under the Act. See Jud. Watch, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d at 300 (“[T]he plain language of section 2203(f) of the PRA does not say . . . that the Archivist must assume custody and control of all materials that fall within the definition of Presidential records.”).

Accordingly, all of the records at issue in the Government’s motion fall into two categories: (1) Presidential records, governed exclusively by the Presidential Records Act; and (2) personal records, the determination of which was in President Trump’s discretion. See id. To the extent President Trump may have categorized certain of the seized materials as personal during his presidency, any disagreement as to that categorization is to be resolved under the PRA and cannot possibly form the basis for any criminal prosecution. [my emphasis]

He’s not wrong about the Presidential Records Act reserving personal records. The category of personal records might even exempt documents pertaining to his coup attempt from storage at the Archives (though if Trump had made that designation, then he could not exempt them from subpoena under a claim of Executive Privilege, nor could he later claim those records memorialized his official acts).

(3) The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof,2 of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—

(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;

(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and

(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

If these documents hadn’t been seized via a lawful warrant authorizing the seizure of everything stored with documents bearing classification marks, the government might have a tough fight to get them.

This is also the reason why Trump wants the Archivist excluded from any Special Master proceeding — so Trump can persuade someone, in secret, that he actually designated such records personal and such a claim would stand up under the PRA, without leaving a record for such time as FBI subpoenaed the very same documents as personal documents.

But Trump chose to hoard classified records and as a result, the FBI was forced to get a warrant and seize records more broadly.

Still, as far as it goes, the Fitton argument is that everything is either a Presidential Record or a personal record, and the latter don’t belong in the Archives, and that should trump (heh) their seizure with a lawful warrant that authorized the seizure of everything stored with or in the same place as documents marked as classified.

Except in the paragraph immediately before the Fitton argument, Trump concedes that’s not right. Before you split things into Presidential and personal records, you need to split them into Presidential and Federal Records.

All government records (classified or otherwise) fall into two basic categories, either under the PRA or the Federal Records Act (“FRA”). “The FRA defines a class of materials that are federal records subject to its provisions, and the PRA describes another, mutually exclusive set of materials that are subject to a different, less rigorous regime. In other words, no individual record can be subject to both statutes because their provisions are inconsistent.” Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 1 F. 3d 1274, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

That is, he admits his two-category sorting is false.

And then he just drops the FRA, never to mention it again.

Even setting aside the example of Mike Ellis — who on January 8, 2021, was discovered to have brought a compartmented NSA document to the White House and, at first, “refused to return the document, retained it for the White House archives, and, based on what the NSA employee saw, placed the document in a container that did not meet the security storage requirements for such a sensitive program” — there would be a number of other documents, classified and not, that were brought to the White House but which remained agency records. Another category of agency documents, for example, are those pertaining to the Russian investigation, which should never have been at the White House in the first place, but which Trump wants to own for all time by simultaneously claiming he declassified and then made personal records of them.

None of those records would fit into Trump’s neat binary.

So he just ignores that and goes full-Fitton and hopes Aileen Cannon will ignore that bit.

Go to emptywheel resource page on Trump Espionage Investigation.

image_print
25 replies
  1. WilliamOckham says:

    In the comments to your last post, I was about to point out the FRA sleight of hand that Trump’s lawyers pulled. Fortunately, I refreshed the page and saw that you already have discussed this at length. Also, I think Trump’s lawyers might want to pull back from the whole “did he or did he not” declassify any records because Joe Biden can wave that magic classification wand and make all these records classified right now, no matter what Trump claims he did back then.

    • BobCon says:

      “I think Trump’s lawyers might want to pull back from the whole “did he or did he not” declassify any records because Joe Biden can wave that magic classification wand and make all these records classified right now, no matter what Trump claims he did back then.”

      For any important documents they had records on, I pretty strongly suspect this has already happened, probably starting back in 2021. And in general classified or otherwise critical documents and their copies tend to be very well catalogued. They know when something went to Trump and whether it was retrieved.

      I don’t want to say it’s universal — there may well be random notes or paragraphs torn out of a memo which escaped cataloguing. But if copy 3 of an important NSC memo on some country’s weapons program was still listed as unretrieved after Inauguration Day, the wheels of bureaucracy would turn to make sure the master copy was evaluated and proper classification was reasserted over every copy. Trump’s threats about declassification were public in 2020, so they knew the risks.

      • Zirc says:

        “For any important documents they had records on, I pretty strongly suspect this has already happened, probably starting back in 2021. And in general classified or otherwise critical documents and their copies tend to be very well catalogued. They know when something went to Trump and whether it was retrieved.”

        I sure hope so, but with DJT, I’m not convinced it was so. He was/is deliberately sloppy with records. The cover sheets and the missing documents that went with them are even more evidence of that.

        Zirc

        • SMF88011 says:

          When we were at LANL, we kept track of individual documents and all copies. When a document left our site and/or destroyed, we kept detailed information on those things. A lot of paperwork but was worth it.

        • skua says:

          Are you thinking that DJT needed to do work to maintain the cataloging of the classified materials?

          I’ll suggest that the cataloging and keeping track of those materials were done by public servants. And they would very likely have records of who last had any specific classified document released to them and when it was released to that person.
          In general like a library-book loan system but with the FBI chasing down missing books and long prison terms for non-returns or copyright breaches.

  2. Bobby Gladd says:

    Great stuff today.

    I too read the entirety of the Trump legal crew response to the DOJ request for a stay. Ugh.

    FTZWS. Flood The Zone With Shit. Resonates with the Doctor Peter Navarro Principles of Pleadings.

  3. pH unbalanced says:

    So just to be clear, a “personal records” designation and an “Executive Privilege” designation are mutually exclusive? By definition?

    Does that mean that this filing could be used to demonstrate waiver of EP on these documents? (Not that he ever really had it, of course.)

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      A government record, whether a presidential record under the PRA, or a federal record, under the FRA, cannot also be a personal record. Those are three different classifications, two of which are controlled by federal law.

  4. Amicus says:

    It’s a crap response and fails to answer DOJ’s legal arguments. But we should not lose sight of the fact that we are now talking about a universe of some 100 documents bearing classification designations. Certainly, Trump and his attorneys ought to be able to make some sort of specific claims about those documents (beyond admitting culpability that he had them) in support of a contention that they are personal records, or were declassified, or are subject to claims of attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. But there is nothing. Not only is there no declaration there are no statements of counsel that provide any basis for alleging any of those things with respect to this narrow universe of documents. We have instead “To the extent, President Trump may have categorized,” which is about the same as my saying to the extent that I am the Pope. It’s all “if wishes were horses.” DOJ has supplied apposite law and facts. Trump has provided neither.

  5. Howard Appel says:

    A simpler, shorter and just as accurate analysis would be ( and useful for all occasions): TRUMP IS A LYING SACK OF SHIT, EVERYTHING IS SAYS IS A SELF-SERVING LIE AND ANYONE WHO WORKS/REPRESENTS HIM IS THE SAME.

  6. joeff53 says:

    Cannon will toss the government a bone to show she’s “reasonable.” Time to start sussing out how 11th Circuit will respond when the government’s stay motion gets to Atlanta.

  7. DryHeat says:

    “[T]here would be a number of other documents, classified and not, that were brought to the White House but which remained agency records.”

    When you say they “remained agency records” I assume you are relying on 44 USC 2201(2)(B) — which says “Presidential records” does not include “official records of an agency.” Is that right?

    I have asked others if there is a reason DOJ has not raised this distinction in regard to classified reports from intelligence agencies. The responses range from thinking it doesn’t apply to hoping there is some tactical reason.

    Do you have any thoughts on that?

  8. WilliamOckham says:

    I just re-read Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President and the situation is even worse for Trump than you lay out here. The decision about whether a record is a presidential record or a federal record is determined by whether or not it originated from an agency that is subject to FOIA. Because every document with classification markings identifies which agency is the originator that means the DOJ will be able to immediately identify all of the documents in question that are federal records (and that’s almost certainly all of them).

    These lawyers don’t seem to be very good at their jobs.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      WilliamOckham, this sounds so straightforward that I’m wondering why DOJ did not include it in their motion to stay. (Unless I missed it.)

    • M Smith says:

      C’mon now. Just because they’re always trumping stuff up doesn’t mean they’re bad at their jobs, that pretty much is their job.

    • emptywheel says:

      Oh, they’re very good at their jobs.

      Their jobs are to gaslight and litigate in the political sphere and give hand-picked judges just enough to rule for them.

      Unclear whether their wild success will continue at 11th C and SCOTUS.

  9. Doctor My Eyes says:

    Indeed, it appears such ‘classified records,’ along with the other seized materials, were principally located in storage boxes in a locked room at Mar-a-Lago,…

    The phrase “it appears”, I guess is supposed to stand in for “we hereby swear and certify under penalty of law”. Opening that speculative sentence with “indeed” I’m afraid falls short of making the rest of the sentence any more definitive. Trump certainly would like legal determinations to be based on what he can make “appear” to be so, and in this case, that might be enough. The question “appear to whom?” arises.

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        Just a second, in calling this a dispute over storage, is Trump acknowledging that the government has a right to tell him how to store his personal records?

        I’m having trouble holding so many contradictory facts in my head at the same time. Let’s see, this is a dispute over storage of unclassified personal records owned by Trump and more or less kept under lock and key with guards. As far as we can tell, they’ve never been seen by any unauthorized people. One would think Trump’s lawyers would have been offended at the subpoena of such privately owned personal records and certainly bristled at any notion of negotiating for their return. Why did they promise that they had returned all these personal, unclassified records to people who have no right to them? So many questions.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          I think, and this is Trump world we’re talking about, that Trump is claiming he has the authority to declare as either personal or presidential, any document which crosses his desk, regardless of what agency/entity generated it. Something like “I touched it, so it’s mine.”

          Dudes a loon.*

          *Sorry to any loons, either birds or crazy people, who I may have offended by comparing them to Donald Trump.

  10. Paulka says:

    Just an observation: It is not a good thing to have the following in a motion for a client you are trying to defend when that client’s name is Trump-“Material on foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities seized at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago”

  11. OldTulsaDude says:

    I suspect that Judge Eileen Cannon would read that last line with orders replacing hopes and to replacing will

  12. pseudonymous in nc says:

    Notorious steroid enthusiast Tom Fitton is all over the arguments being made by a) Former’s lawyers; b) the judge. It’s a testament to how Judicial Witch-hunt is as much of a cancer on American politics as FedSoc.

Comments are closed.