National Lies Archives
This, too, shall be revealed.
(Photo Courtesy Wikipedia)
January 20
Today, the nation received a mountain of documents filling the public space with lies, deceptions, false claims, plots, coverups. (1)
Now what?
Across the ‘Mall,’ Sen. Amy Klobuchar, during debate on the Voting Rights Act, enumerated for her colleagues the number of times (160) the Senate filibuster rule has been suspended “to get things done.” (2)
Now what?
‘When the going gets tough, the tough get going,’ were the words formerly indicted AG John Mitchell was said to have uttered as he left his office in July, 1973. Observers say Mitchell used the ‘back fire stairs exit’ as FBI agents were coming in the front door, document seizure warrants in hand.
Mitchell was fleeing public opprobrium.
He carried a brief case.
45 is claiming/commanding a public venue — lies and all. There is no brief case, there are no emails.
And for all to witness, so have the Republican Party and 45 allies claiming/commanding a legislative chamber.
The release of documents by the National Archives is the consequence of a paragraph — an opinion, not a decision — written by 8 members of the US Supreme Court, claiming that the plaintiff — the legislative branch, the US Congress — has a ‘compelling interest,’ acting on behalf of the people, to view the documents. All this while an ongoing suit by 45 to block the documents is being deliberated.
Unlike 1973, when the Court was challenged to decide on the request by then Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox to release the White House tapes, in 2022 the Court is being challenged to release documents requested by the Special Congressional Committee investigating the “riot of January 6.”
In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Special Prosecutor’s request to see the White House tapes (United States vs. Nixon). In 2022 the Supreme Court has rendered an opinion that the National Archives documents can be viewed by the Committee while a suit claiming executive privilege in release of the documents as evidence is ongoing.
Is this it?
-Rachel Maddow, TRMS, MSNBC, January 20
Speaking from her ersatz barn in Western Massachusetts — technical difficulties required a remote feed — Maddow threw out the burning question, is this it?: is 45’s effort to quash the evidence gathering of the House Select Committee done once and for all?
45’s lawyers have claimed that ‘executive privilege’ shielded the Office of the President from requests of this nature. With this paragraph, 8 members of the Supreme Court have stated, ‘not so fast.’ Add to this that the Committee’s effort to make their case quickly moved from District Court, Appeals Court and now (the paragraph) to the Supreme Court and one can agree that the momentum Maddow observed was newsworthy.
8 Supreme Court Justices have stated, Enough.
The temptation to conclude that the release of the National Archives documents is a blow to 45’s defense of ‘executive privilege’ was dispelled later by Maddow’s guest and legal contributor Linda Greenhouse.
Greenhouse is no fan of the current Supreme Court (3) so her answer to Maddow’s question, ‘is this it?’ was a tentative but sincere “it seems so.”
And yet on the topic of ‘executive privilege,’ Greenhouse was not so sanguine. Following is a loose retelling of the segment:
‘Whether this paragraph is a response to the defense claim of Executive Privilege is not the issue. What the Court is being presented with is which side, which argument, the defense’s or the plaintiff’s, is more compelling.
The defense — the Executive Branch — argues its right to protection under executive privilege; the plaintiff — Congress — argues the right of elected officials representing the people of the US to gather information about a violent assault on the nation’s Capitol. The opinion today written by the 8 justices concurs that the plaintiff’s argument and the public’s interest are more compelling than the defense’s argument.
Hardly the closure Maddow was seeking. Invoking the caveat, ‘I am not a lawyer, but we have tonight on our show one of the country’s top legal correspondents and an authority on the Supreme Court, Linda Greenhouse,’ Maddow echoed the frustration of her audience:
Aren’t we done yet? When will this end? When will we move on?
What the Justices’ paragraph reveals is what is not said, and Greenhouse explored the ‘other side’ of ‘It seems so.’
Beyond addressing which side has a more compelling interest, the Executive Privilege argument wasn’t tested nor commented on by the Justices, and in this case that could be tricky for both sides. Recall that the paragraph from the Supreme Court is an opinion, not a decision: a platform for presenting arguments, not a ‘final verdict.’
Consider that if the Executive Privilege argument doesn’t carry, defendants have lost ‘political/influence cover,’ which for some 45 allies is more important than immunity from prosecution.
And consider that if 45’s legal team’s use of “qualified executive privilege,” carries, then ‘executive privilege’ can not legally be used as evidence that obstruction was in play. The Committee will have to look elsewhere to find evidence of intent to conspire in the overturn of an election result.
Using ‘Executive Privilege’ ain’t it.
‘It seems so.’
Consider that January twentieth’s opinion reveals that every deliberation, every legal maneuver of the defense has a single goal — to sustain the lie that the election was ‘stolen.’
Consider that Greenhouse’s assessment and Klobuchar’s recitation on the Senate floor are not simply a case of synchronicity: more than executive privilege and legislative maneuvers are in play.
Consider that ‘more than compelling,’ public frustration also plays a role.
And consider that a rally here… a rally there…45 continues the lie.
January 25
1-NYTimes, January 20
2-https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/1/video-the-right-to-vote-in-this-country-is-non-negotiable-on-the-senate-floor-klobuchar-emphasizes-need-to-update-senate-rules-to-protect-our-democracy
3-https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/books/review/linda-greenhouse-justice-on-the-brink-supreme-court.html?referringSource=articleShare
