NYT To Challenge OMB For Withholding Emails | Talking Points Memo

TPM Article Topics
1

The fraught relationship between the Trump administration and the New York Times has reached another level.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1282664
1 Like
2

Your move again, Judge Jackson …

16 Likes
3

Isn’t there something, something about executive privilege can’t be used cover up a crime? So what will Judge Berman Jackson do, set up a special master?

21 Likes
4

Can one of the lawyers that post explain possible outcomes here?

3 Likes
5

On Friday night, the Times reported that the Trump administration is withholding 20 emails discussing the congressional freeze on Ukraine military aid between a top aide to acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and an official at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

This thing just strikes me as a bit weird, in the sense that Mulvaney is both acting CoS and head of OMB. It’s as if his left hand is e-mailing his right hand. I get it though. Sometimes there are so many crimes to keep track of, you’ve got to put it on paper. Who hasn’t sent a memo to self?

In any case, when eventually forced to release the documents, I expect it’ll be a bunch of black pages, full of nothing but redactions.

Because they’re innocent, I tell you. Just much to humble to brag about it.

25 Likes
6

IMHO all reputable news sources should join in and constantly beat the drums on this matter.

And Democratic Senators should daily speak of Moscow Mitch’s hold on 400 bills, mostly bipartisan, hostage on his desk.

The Dim Reaper should reap what he’s sown.

…the disclosure of this material would “inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views that is necessary for effective government decision-making.”:lying_face:

Inhibiting the frank and candid exchange of views is a hallmark of this mis-administration
:expressionless::flushed::roll_eyes::crazy_face:

26 Likes
7

Since only one person’s view matters, ‘‘the frank and candid exchange of views’’ = Donald’s talking to himself

2 Likes
8

Trump lawyers in the courtroom:

“Obstruction! – er, I mean – Objection, your honor.”

15 Likes
9

Delays, for starters.

2 Likes
10

",” Hardy wrote to the Times that the disclosure of this material would “inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views that is necessary for effective government decision-making.”

Say what ?

"“They’re digging their own grave,” the former federal prosecutor said during a discussion on MSNBC’s AM Joy. “The walls are going to come tumbling down with … these emails that ultimately are going to see the light of day.”

25 Likes
11

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

20 Likes
12

:laughing:

2 Likes
13

Donnie’s claim of a “perfect phone call” vs. imperfect emails makes him a liar. But we already knew he was a liar.

6 Likes
14

The Flack’s Creed.

3 Likes
15

And, when does one more thing that’s being hidden gain daylight and voila it’s a new day. Who is it that needs more information? This is not going to move the Rethug needle one little teensy tiny bit.

1 Like
16

The Trumpistas working for for Donald more and more are making up law as they go along. One thing is for sure, none of these so called “public servants” including Trump are doing anything for the benefit of the American people.

17 Likes
17

I’m reminded of when Nixon sued the Post for the Pentagon Papers. I have my fingers crossed that the result will be the same for this administration and these so-called public servants but with the courts packed with unqualified ideologues I’m not confident we’ll see these emails at all.

3 Likes
18

And “effective government decision-making” isn’t.

4 Likes
19

Razzle dazzle them…

1 Like
20

Possible Outcomes (not in order of likelihood):

  1. Judge Jackson finds executive privilege does not apply and orders full production of the documents; the Trump Administration appeals to the Second Circuit; Second Circuit affirms; it then gets in line for SCOTUS.

  2. Judge Jackson accepts the Trump Administration’s massively over-broad concept of executive privilege as encompassing whatever might be embarrassing (highly unlikely) and allows them to withhold the documents in full; see above, with the Times as appellant.

  3. Judge Jackson reviews the documents (no need for a special master for only 20 docs) and orders production of some of them in full and some of them in part, applying the previously accepted narrow view of executive privilege. Wash, rinse, repeat on appeal.

19 Likes