Thread by @JeffRoushPoetry

The DC Court of Appeals opinion released today that shoots down Trump’s increasingly frivolous executive privilege claim is another excellent piece of legal writing and reasoning. Worth a full read if you have time, but distillation follows here. (Thread)

cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opini…

First, the upshot: Trump has no right to have his documents withheld. He has 14 days to appeal, and he will, to the Supreme Court. While the Court has a disturbingly partisan streak right now, bowing to a wholly specious argument seems a bridge too far for most of the Justices.

In terms of the legal arguments, Trump’s position deserves little more than “Motion for injunction denied, because this claim of executive privilege is meritless.” But the Court isn’t writing for Trump; it’s writing for posterity when this country has to decide what it will be.

So the opinion provides a description of what happens, in important detail. The events of January 6, and Trump’s words to the crowd that followed his instruction to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell.” Context matters. “These are unique and extraordinary circumstances.”

The Court goes through a careful analysis, laying out carefully why Trump has no right to withhold the documents. There are essentially five points, which the Court delineates in powerful detail.

1. Executive privilege. The privilege belongs not to a person, but to the executive branch. Biden—not Trump, is the head of that branch. And Biden made a careful, reasoned assessment of the documents and their importance. He is entitled to use his judgment to waive any privilege.

2. Rights of Congress. Congress has broad investigative powers related to legislative needs. The committee has shown its need to understand what happened, so it can prepare legislation to help ensure it doesn’t reoccur. A literal attack on the electoral process is a big deal.

3. Relevance. The committee has demonstrated that the documents—records specific to discussions of January 6 and the election—are relevant to the purpose for which they are sought. These are specific, targeted documents.

4. Importance. The documents sought provide information and insight not available elsewhere. Not hard here: when the issue is a plot from within, documents from the former president are the only source that can give the insights needed.

5. Harm. Trump is suing in his capacity as former president, and alleges no personal or specific harms that would result from releasing these documents. His lawyers gamely provide hypotheticals, but nothing even close to enough to overcome the need for these documents.

As a bonus, Trump argued that the request is “unduly burdensome.” That’s a production defense standard; lawyers always claim it. But the burden of producing is on the National Archives. Even if producing these documents were burdensome (it’s not), it isn’t even his burden.

In short: Trump provides no valid argument for any right to prevent the production of these documents to the committee. This is an attempt to delay the inevitable, with a dash of desperation for relevance and limelight thrown in. And the Court thoroughly dismantled his claims.

Finally, the Court does a great job of maintaining focus throughout the analysis on the importance of the event. Legal analysis of executive privilege can move into unhelpfully arcane territory. The opinion avoids that trap, and ends with a spotlight on why this matters.