Let’s get conservatives like Barb Sturdavent, Kamal, and others elected.

Big Al
October 18, 2021
Press play button to listen

What is wrong with The Conservative Party? At least in our neck of the woods they are disorganized. We have great conservative candidates and we need them to win our local elections!

    Oct 18, 2021 18:32 AM

    iT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR COLIN POWELL TO BOOST HIS VITAMIN D, Zn, and take an an ionophor, such as HCQ as prophilactic. (Or Ivermectin.)

      Oct 18, 2021 18:09 AM

      I certainly have boosted my intake of these items. Thanks to Larry.

      Oct 18, 2021 18:55 PM

      Jimmy, I would have to disagree with you that Colin Powel was fully vaccinated.

      This article, published in July, stated that only 25% of persons with Multiple Myeloma were fully protected after 2 shots of mRNA vaccines. (22% were partly protected.)
      i.e. 53% received NO PROTECTION from vaccinations.
      My guess is that Powell’s doctors had not read that paper.
      I recognize that what you don’t know is what gets you in the end.
      (That’s why I consume massive amounts of information.)

      That is also why therapies are more important than vaccines.

        Oct 18, 2021 18:07 PM

        I was quoting the Nature paper from memory…..
        In fact, only 45% of Multiple Myeloma patients developed any immune response to mRNA vaccines, and also the response dropped off with increasing age.
        Powell probably needed more than 2 shots to start and boosters every few months, to have much immunity.
        At that point vaccinations are pretty useless.

    Oct 18, 2021 18:40 AM

    Politicians will always claim they are against inflation. But they are LIARS.
    They know that without inflation they would HAVE to reduce Government spending…..and thus their graft an corruption.

      Oct 18, 2021 18:10 AM

      That is a great comment, CFS

      Oct 19, 2021 19:36 AM

      Rather than call them liars, I would say that, for politicians, printing more money is much easier than to effectively takle inflation.

    Oct 18, 2021 18:52 AM

    As I have been saying in this forum for several year China is the real enemy.

    While the August test of the Chinese hypersonic missile was not extensively reported, I suspect it WAS KNOWN to intelligence agencies…….otherwise, why did Trump establish a Space Force ?
    (Senile Joe should be condemned for disbanding the Space Force, of course.)

    More worrying to me is the Chinese use of a beam weapon to take out a satellite, because the US is so dependent on GPS and satellite communication in its armed forces.

      Oct 18, 2021 18:11 AM

      I have certainly followed our lead on the Chinese Issue, CFS. And, I continue to follow our lead on it.

      Oct 18, 2021 18:25 PM

      The s 400 can take down a low orbit satellite, and s 500s are being built now.

    Oct 18, 2021 18:01 AM

    Since many Chinese Nukes are MIRVed, and thus difficult to take out once separated in flight, I don’t think hypersonic delivery (also difficult to take out in flight) is all that big a deal, unless they park the missiles in orbit.
    The problem with missiles coming from orbit is, of course, identifying the attacker for retaliation.
    i.e. losing MAD as a deterrent.

      Oct 18, 2021 18:20 PM

      Russian hypersonics change direction in flight, we cant stop them as a flight path can not be predicted.

      China just tested a hypersonic that went around the planet before coming within ten? meters of its target.
      We wouldnt know from which direction it was coming, Russia has the option of sending missiles over the poles and hitting us from the south.
      All our defense is aimed north.

      Right now, our missile tech is considered to be 10 years behind Russia, China.

    Oct 18, 2021 18:17 AM

    It was clear that Israel achieved herd immunity to the original covid-19, prior to the delta mutation.
    Statistics indicate that the US has NOW achieved herd immunity to covid-19 including the delta mutation.
    There is a PROBLEM WITH CONTINUED VACCINATIONS in that this tends to enhance mutations, while giving some protection against hospitalization.

    The really worrying problem, however, is whether the spike protein itself in vaccines will cause permanent blood clotting problems. This is THE UNKNOWN.

    Oct 18, 2021 18:08 PM

    At the apex of political liars:

    She is also fairly stupid, even if glib.
    We really have reached a point in time when vaccines may now, IN GENERAL, be doing more harm than good.

    Oct 18, 2021 18:17 PM

    One of my problems with Christianity as practiced in the Western world, is how easy it is to twist some of the reported sayings of Christ into destructive Socialism.

    Of course, if the vaccines “came from God” they would not have been flawed and based on the spike protein.
    But then, Nancy knoweth not of which she speaks.

      Oct 18, 2021 18:29 PM

      Study Published On NIH Website Finds ‘No Discernable Relationship’ Between Vaccine Status And COVID Cases, Says Infection Rate May Be Higher Among Fully Vaccinated

      Oct 19, 2021 19:40 AM

      At least she probably does not understand the topic as well as some of us on this site understand it.

    Oct 18, 2021 18:23 PM

    Nancy is going on a fishing expedition using all Trump’s Presidential archive material…….normally protected for 50 years or more.
    Trump filed suit to stop this today. 10/18/21
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIDONALD J. TRUMP, in his capacity asthe 45th President of the United States,The Mar-A-Lago Club1100 S. Ocean Blvd.Palm Beach, FL 33480,Plaintiff,v.BENNIE G. THOMPSON, in his officialcapacity as Chairman of the United StatesHouse Select Committee to Investigatethe January 6th Attack on the UnitedStates Capitol,2466 Rayburn House Office BuildingU.S. House of RepresentativesWashington, D.C. 20515,THE UNITED STATES HOUSE SELECTCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THEJANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THEUNITED STATES CAPITOL,U.S. House of RepresentativesWashington, D.C. 20515,DAVID S. FERRIERO, in his officialcapacity as Archivist of the United States,National Archives and Records Administration700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20408, andTHE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20408,Defendants.Civil Action No.21-2769 Case 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 1 of 26

    2COMPL INT1. Plaintiff President Donald J. Trump brings this civil action seekingdeclaratory and injunctive relief under the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C.§§ 2201–2209 (“PRA”), 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44(f)(3), the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28U.S.C. § 2201, Executive Order No. 13489, and the Constitution of the United States.INTRODUCTION 2. The United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January6th Attack on the United States Capitol (the “Committee”) has decided to harassPresident Trump and senior members of his administration (among others) bysending an illegal, unfounded, and overbroad records request to the Archivist of theUnited States. This self-described “sweeping”1 request is almost limitless in scopeand effectively seeks every presidential record and communication that couldtenuously relate to events that occurred on January 6, 2021. The request also seeksrecords with no reasonable connection to the events of that day. In a political ploy toaccommodate his partisan allies, President Biden has refused to assert executiveprivilege over numerous clearly privileged documents requested by the Committee.The Committee’s request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishingexpedition openly endorsed by Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate! See Select Committee Issues Sweeping Demand for Executive Branch Records ,United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on theUnited States Capitol (Aug. 25, 2021), Case 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 2 of 26

    3President Trump and his administration. Our laws do not permit such an impulsive,egregious action against a former President and his close advisors.3. On August 25, 2021, the Committee sent sweeping requests fordocuments and records to the Archivist of the United States seeking information fromthe Executive Office of the President (“EOP”) and the Office of the Vice President(“OVP”).SeeLetter from Bennie G. Thompson to David S. Ferriero (Aug. 25, 2021)(attached hereto as Exhibit 1). These requests were signed by Chairman of theCommittee Bennie G. Thompson. Among many other items, these requests reiteratedthe requests made in the March 25, 2021, correspondence from multiple committeesof the House of Representatives to the White House and the Archivist.See Letterfrom Congressional Committees to Ron Klain and David S. Ferriero (Mar. 25, 2021)(attached hereto as Exhibit 2).4. The Committee’s requests are unprecedented in their breadth and scopeand are untethered from any legitimate legislative purpose.5. The Committee’s boundless requests included over fifty individualrequests for documents and information, and mentioned more than thirtyindividuals, including those working inside and outside government during theunreasonably overbroad time period covered by the request. Aside from being overlybroad and seeking records protected by numerous legal privileges, these requests arealso unduly burdensome because of the substantial time required to conduct anadequate review of the voluminous records sought by the Committee.Case 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 26
    46. For example, among the myriad other documents requested, theCommittee has asked for:[a]ll documents and communications relating in any way to remarksmade by Donald Trump or any other persons on January 6, includingDonald Trump’s and other speakers’ public remarks at the rally on themorning of January 6, and Donald Trump’s Twitter messagesthroughout the day.Similarly, and even more invasive, the Committee requested, “[f]rom November 3,2020, through January 20, 2021, all documents and communications related toprepared public remarks and actual public remarks of Donald Trump.” Issued publicstatements are one thing, but the notion that Congress is somehow entitled to ask forand review any and all private conversations, remarks, or drafts of public statementsconsidered by the President of the United States and his close advisors, withoutlimitations on (among other things) subject matter, would destroy the very fabric ofour constitutional separation of powers and invade fundamental privileges designedto maintain the autonomy and functioning of the Executive Branch.See Trump v.Mazars USA, LLP , 140 S.Ct. 2019, 2032 (2020) (“[Executive] privilege safeguards thepublic interest in candid, confidential deliberations within the Executive Branch; itis ‘fundamental to the operation of Government.’”) (quotingUnited States v. Nixon ,418 U.S. 683, 708 (1974)).7. The Committee has also asked for “[a]ll documents and communicationswithin the White House on January 6, 2021 relating in any way to,” among others,the President, the Vice President, over two dozen of the highest-ranking officials inthe Federal government (including the National Security Advisor and his Deputy,Case 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 4 of 26
    5and the White House Counsel and his Deputy), any Member of Congress orcongressional staff, or the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, theDepartment of Homeland Security, the Department of the Interior, or any element ofthe National Guard. This single request demands access to any number of records towhich the Committee is in no way entitled. Such records have nothing to do with theevents of January 6th, the scope of the Committee’s authority as defined in H.R. 503,or any conceivable legislative purpose, and many of the records are clearly protectedby executive privilege and other privileges.SeeH.R. 503, 117th Cong. (2021)(attached hereto as Exhibit 3). Those records seek documents and communicationsthat could include, but are not limited to, conversations with (or about) foreignleaders, attorney work product, the most sensitive of national security secrets, alongwith any and all privileged communications among a pool of potentially hundreds ofpeople.8. The Committee’s request also asks for “[a]ll schedules for anyindividuals identified . . . above on January 6, 2021, and all documents relating tosuch meetings, including memoranda, read-aheads, and summaries of suchmeetings.” Again, the idea that the Committee should be free to reviewany and all materials related to any and all presidential communications, deliberative-processconversations or documents, or meetings involving national security and foreignaffairs, the vast majority of which do not relate to the Committee’s charter, makes amockery of our tri-partite government of checks and balances.Case 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 5 of 26
    69. The Committee further seeks access to other vast swaths of information,including all documents and communications related to the 2020 election, from April1, 2020, through January 20, 2021, among the President, his private counsel, hisChief of Staff, his Campaign Managers, other senior campaign officials, and over fortyother advisors. Such requests have no reasonable connection to the Committee’scharter or to any legitimate legislative purpose.10. The Committee also requested information about personnel changes inthe Departments of Defense and Justice, the FBI, the CIA, and the Department ofHomeland Security, despite the fact that any and all members of these departmentsand agencies serve at the pleasure of the President, and any personnel changes inthese Departments are at the sole discretion of the Executive and his designees.11. Plaintiff first challenges as contrary to law the Committee’s self-assumed authority to ignore the constitutional limits on Congress’s power toinvestigate. Article I of the Constitution does not contain an “Investigations Clause”or an “Oversight Clause.” It gives Congress the power to enact certain legislation. Accordingly, investigations are permissible only insofar as they further somelegitimate legislative purpose. As the Supreme Court recognized in shooting downanother congressional fishing expedition directed at President Trump’s records, suchlegitimate legislative purposes do not include “law enforcement” powers “assignedunder our Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary,” inquiry into privateaffairs, or “to expose for the sake of exposure.”Mazars , 140 S.Ct. at 2032. Althoughcongressional investigations are due significant deference from the courts,McGrainCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 6 of 26
    7v. Daugherty,273 U.S. 135, 178 (1927), that deference has limits. InWatkins v.United States,354 U.S. 178 (1957), the Supreme Court held that, while “[t]he publicis of course entitled to be informed concerning the workings of government, [t]hatcannot be inflated into a general power to expose.” 200. Similarly, this Courtlater held that if a congressional subpoena “is issued solely for sake of exposure orintimidation, then it exceeds the legislative function of Congress.”Hentoff v. Ichord,318 F. Supp. 1175, 1182 (D.D.C. 1970). Inquiries, like the one Congress is engaged inhere, conducted “for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to punishthose investigated are indefensible.”Mazars , 140 S.Ct. at 2032.12. No investigation can be an end in itself; there is nothing in theoverwhelming majority of the records sought that could reasonably be justified as ameans of facilitating the legislative task of enacting, amending, or repealing laws.The “informing function” that Congress possesses under Article I “is that of informingitself about subjects susceptible to legislation, not that of informing the public.”Millerv. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 531 (9th Cir. 1983) (citingHutchinson v.Proxmire , 443 U.S. 111, 132-33 (1979)).13. Nevertheless, the Committee has requested an extremely broad set ofpotentially millions of presidential records, which assuredly include informationwithin the scope of various components of executive privilege, including but notlimited to the presidential-communications, deliberative-process, attorney-client, andattorney-work-product privileges, and which include law enforcement information,national security information, and information relating to sensitive intelligenceCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 7 of 26
    8sources and methods. Condoning such requests would allow Congress to “exert animperious controul over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’sexpense, just as the Framers feared.”Mazars , 140 S. Ct. at 2034.14. Ultimately, the Committee is attempting to damage the republic itself,and the citizens of the United States, for executive privilege “safeguards the publicinterest in candid, confidential deliberations within the Executive Branch; it is‘fundamental to the operation of Government.’” Id . at 2032 (quotingNixon , 418 708). Courts have “recognized a ‘great public interest’ in preserving ‘theconfidentiality of conversations that take place in the President’s performance of hisofficial duties’ because such confidentiality is needed to protect ‘the effectiveness ofthe executive decision-making process.’”In re Sealed Case (Espy) , 121 F.3d 729, 742(D.C. Cir. 1997). For this reason, presidential conversations “are presumptivelyprivileged.”Nixon v. Sirica , 487 F.2d 700, 716 (D.C. Cir. 1973)). Because theCommittee’s requests seek to expose confidential and privileged information whilelacking “a legitimate legislative purpose,” this Court has the power to declare therequests invalid and to enjoin their enforcement. Plaintiff is entitled to that relief.15. On September 24, 2021, during the pendency of good-faith discussionsbetween Plaintiff’s counsel and the Biden Administration concerning the potentialfor reasonable accommodations to the Committee, the Biden White House madepublic statements that it would not object to the production of certain records createdduring the Trump Administration that are unquestionably subject to constitutionallyprotected privileges.See The White House, Press Briefing by Press Secretary JenCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 8 of 26
    9Psaki and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Sept. 24, 2021, On October 8, 2021, the Biden White House notifiedthe Archivist that it would not be asserting executive privilege over certaindocuments identified as responsive to the Committee’s request.See Letter from Dana A. Remus to David S. Ferriero (Oct. 8, 2021) (attached hereto as Exhibit 4). That sameday, pursuant to the PRA, associated regulations, and Executive Order No. 13489(the “Executive Order”), President Trump notified the Archivist that he has made aformal assertion of executive privilege with respect to a limited number of documentsas well as a protective assertion of executive privilege over any additional materialsthat may be requested by the Committee.SeeLetter from President Donald J. Trumpto the Archivist of the United States (Oct. 8, 2021) (attached hereto as Exhibit 5).Then, the Biden White House notified the Archivist the same day that it would notassert executive privilege over the documents identified in President Trump’sOctober 8 letter and instructed the Archivist to provide the privileged documents tothe Committee “absent any intervening court order” thirty days after notifyingPresident Trump.See Letter from Dana A. Remus to David S. Ferriero (Oct. 8, 2021)(attached hereto as Exhibit 6).16. On October 13, 2021, the Archivist notified President Trump that,“[a]fter consultation with Counsel to the President and the Acting Assistant AttorneyGeneral for the Office of Legal Counsel, and as instructed by President Biden” theCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 9 of 26
    10 Archivist has “determined to disclose to the Select Committee” all responsive recordsthat President Trump determined were subject to executive privilege on November12, 2021 “absent any intervening court order.”See Letter from David S. Ferriero toDonald J. Trump (Oct 13, 2021) (attached hereto as Exhibit 7).17. Notably, the Biden Administration’s waiver of executive privilege is amyopic, political maneuver designed to maintain the support of its political rivals andis not based on any discernable legal principle. In fact, the Biden administration’sunprincipled political accommodation is directly contrary to long-standing SupremeCourt precedent that “information subject to executive privilege deserves ‘thegreatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice.’”Mazars , 140 S.Ct. at 2024 (quotingNixon , 418 U.S. at 715). Nevertheless, this waiver is irrelevantinsofar as the Committee’s request serves no valid legislative purpose and is thusunconstitutional.18. As it relates to any materials being sought in situations like this, wherefundamental privileges and constitutional issues are at stake and where a committeehas declined to grant sufficient time to conduct a full review, there is a longstandingbipartisan tradition of protective assertions of executive privilege designed to ensurethe ability to make a final assertion, if necessary, over some or all of the requestedmaterial.See Protective Assertion of Executive Privilege Regarding White HouseCounsel’s Office Documents , 20 Op. O.L.C. 1 (1996) (opinion of Attorney GeneralJanet Reno). In the event this Court does not declare the requests invalid andunconstitutional, this protective assertion will ensure President Trump’s ability toCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 10 of 26
    11decide whether to make any further conclusive assertions of privilege following a fullreview of all of the requested materials.SeeLetter from William P. Barr, AttorneyGeneral, to President Donald J. Trump, at 1-2 (May 8, 2019) (attached hereto asExhibit 8).19. In sum, Plaintiff files this action requesting that the Court invalidatethe Committee’s requests and enjoin the Archivist from turning over the records inquestion. At a bare minimum, the Court should enjoin the Archivist from producingany potentially privileged records until President Trump is able to conduct a fullprivilege review of all of the requested materials.P RTIES 20. Plaintiff Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the United States.President Trump brings this suit solely in his official capacity as a former Presidentunder the PRA, associated regulations, the Executive Order, the DeclaratoryJudgment Act, and the Constitution of the United States.21. Defendant Bennie G. Thompson is the Chairman of the United StatesHouse Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United StatesCapitol. He is sued in his official capacity.22. Defendant United States House Select Committee to Investigate theJanuary 6th Attack on the United States Capitol is a select committee of the UnitedStates House of Representatives. After the 2020 election, the Democratic Partycontrolled Congress and created the Committee pursuant to House Resolution 503 toinvestigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to theCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 11 of 26

    12events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol. The Committee is sued in itsofficial capacity.23. Defendant David S. Ferriero is the Archivist of the United States. He issued in his official capacity.24. Defendant National Archives and Records Administration is the federalgovernment agency that stores documents and materials created in the course ofbusiness conducted by the United States federal government.JURISDICTION ND VENUE 25. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because this case arisesunder the Constitution and laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Courthas jurisdiction to grant both declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C.§§ 2201 and 2202. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 2204(e)and 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).26. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because asubstantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim haveoccurred, and are occurring, in this District. Venue is also proper pursuant to 44U.S.C. § 2204(e).F CTU L B CKGROUND 27. After the 2020 election, the Democrats in Congress created theCommittee pursuant to House Resolution 503 in a misguided attempt to intimidateand harass President Trump and his supporters under the guise of investigating theevents of January 6, 2021. House Resolution 503 provides the Committee with theCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 12 of 26

    13power to investigate the activities of intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies,and the Armed Forces surrounding January 6th, and provides that the Committeewill issue a final report on its activities.SeeExh. 3. Notably, this resolution neverdiscusses the EOP nor does the Committee’s charter permit an investigation into theExecutive Office of the President’s deliberations and response to the events thatoccurred on January 6th.Id.28. It would make no sense for the Committee’s charter to encompass suchan investigation. As has been widely reported, the FBI hasnotfound evidencesupporting the Democrats’ contention that the events at the Capitol on January 6were part of some organized plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election.2 Likewise, as has been reported, the FBI has “so far found no evidence” that formerPresident Donald Trump or “people directly around him were involved in organizingthe violence.”Id. If anything, the FBIhasfound that a small group of individualsplanned to breach the Capitol prior to January 6. A subsequent joint report by theSenate Homeland Security and Rules Committees blamed “intelligence and securityfailures,” not the President or any of his advisers, for what happened at the Capitolthat day.3 And Congress has already conducted a thorough investigation of this entirematter during its failed impeachment effort.2 Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch,Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S.Capitol attack was coordinated – sources , Reuters (Aug. 20, 2021, 10:43 PM),” Staff of S. Comm. On Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and S.Committee on Rules and Administration,117th Cong., Examining the U.S. Capitol Attack: A review of the Security, Planning, and Response Failures on January 6,Case 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 13 of 26

    1429. The Committee’sultra vires request purports to be made “pursuant tothe Presidential Records Act (44 U.S.C. § 2205(2)(C)),”seeExh. 1. The PresidentialRecords Act (“PRA”) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2209, governs the official records ofPresidents and Vice Presidents. The Archivist and the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) are charged with working with the President to administerand store presidential records after the President leaves office.See generally44U.S.C. §§ 2202-2208.30. The PRA defines “presidential records” as follows:documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof,created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, ora unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whosefunction is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conductingactivities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of theconstitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of thePresident.44 U.S.C. § 2202. Prior to the end of his term of office, President Trump specified thataccess to his presidential records would remain restricted for a period of twelve years,as permitted by law. 44 U.S.C. § 2204.31. Section 2205(2)(C), the portion of the PRA cited by the Committee inissuing its records request to the Archivist, provides one of three exceptions to thePRA’s access restrictions. It provides that “Presidential records shall be made (last visited Oct. 18, 2021). It is indisputable that during the President’sspeech at the Ellipse on January 6 the President stated that his supporters should“peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard.” Nonetheless Committeemembers have claimed that the President’s speech is what incited the violence onJanuary 6th.Case 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 14 of 26

    15available . . . (C) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any committee or subcommittee thereof if such records containinformation that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwiseavailable.” 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2)(C). Importantly, while Congress has purportedlyarrogated to itself the power to request documents in certain instances under thestatute, all congressional requests must still comply with the United StatesConstitution, the separation of powers principles contained in that governingdocument, and have “valid legislative purpose.”32. The PRA gives the Archivist the power to promulgate regulations toadminister the statute. 44 U.S.C. § 2206. Pursuant to those regulations, the Archivistmust promptly notify the President of a records request for records made during histerm of office as well as the incumbent President. 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44. Once the Archivist notifies the former and incumbent Presidents of the Archivist’s intent todisclose records, either President may assert a claim of constitutionally basedprivilege against disclosing the record within thirty calendar days after the date ofthe Archivist’s notice.Id. The incumbent or former President must personally makeany decision to assert a claim of constitutionally based privilege against disclosing aPresidential record or a reasonably segregable portion of it.Id. 33. If a former President asserts the privilege claim, the Archivist consultswith the incumbent President, as soon as practicable and within thirty calendar daysfrom the date that the Archivist receives notice of the claim, to determine whetherthe incumbent President will uphold the claim.Id. If the incumbent PresidentCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 15 of 26
    16upholds the claim asserted by the former President, the Archivist does not disclosethe presidential record unless the incumbent withdraws his decision or a court directsthe Archivist to disclose the record.Id. If the incumbent President does not upholdthe claim asserted by the former President, the Archivist discloses the Presidentialrecord sixty calendar days after the Archivist received notification of the claim unlessa court order in an action in any federal court directs the Archivist to withhold therecord.Id. Finally, the Executive Order provides that the Archivist shall notify theincumbent and former Presidents of his determination to release certain records atleast thirty days prior to disclosure of the records, unless a shorter time-period isrequired in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations.Exec. Order No. 13489.34. Pursuant to this regulatory and statutory framework, the Archivistnotified President Trump on August 30, 2021, that he intended to produce certaindocuments in response to the Committee’s expansive request. On October 8, 2021, theBiden White House notified the Archivist that it would not be asserting executiveprivilege over certain documents identified as responsive to the Committee’s request.See Exh. 4. That same day, pursuant to the PRA, associated regulations, and theExecutive Order, President Trump notified the Archivist that he has made a formalassertion of executive privilege with respect to a small subset of documents as wellas a protective assertion of executive privilege over any additional materials that maybe requested by the Committee.SeeExh. 5. Then, the Biden White House notifiedthe Archivist the same day that it would not assert executive privilege over theCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 16 of 26
    17documents identified in President Trump’s October 8 letter and instructed the Archivist to turn the records over to the Committee thirty days from the date ofnotifying President Trump of Biden’s decision, subject to a determination by thisCourt pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 2204(e).See Exh. 6. On October 13, 2021, the Archivistnotified President Trump that, “[a]fter consultation with Counsel to the Presidentand the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, and asinstructed by President Biden” the Archivist has “determined to disclose to the SelectCommittee” all responsive records that President Trump determined were subject toexecutive privilege on November 12, 2021, “absent any intervening court order.”See Exh. 7.35. Plaintiff has identified numerous, insurmountable challenges with theprocess of reviewing presidential records supplied to him by the Archivist. Often,documents are not unitized and are provided out of sequence. This results in thereviewer being unable to determine whether certain documents are part of a singlerecord or are otherwise unrelated and could lead to substantial confusion by membersof the Committee and its staff and inadvertent production of non-responsive records.Similarly, the identified custodian and/or author of certain records may be materiallydifferent from the actual author or custodian of the record. Given the short timeperiods for review under the PRA, it is unlikely that Plaintiff and his staff will be ableto ensure that the records being produced to the Committee are what they purport tobe. This could lead to inadvertent disclosure of records subject to privileges for whichthe document was not reviewed. Therefore, unless there is an opportunity for aCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 17 of 26
    18complete review of all records determined to be responsive by NARA, Plaintiff willsuffer additional irreparable harm.36. The current President’s decision to waive executive privilege for his ownpolitical benefit will undoubtedly cause sustainable injury and irreparable harm tofuture presidential administrations.37. President Trump now commences this lawsuit seeking to enjoin theCommittee’s records request and prevent the Defendants from enforcing or complyingwith the request with respect to the privileged documents and any additionaldocuments the Archivist seeks to turn over to the Committee.LEG L B CKGROUND ND CL IM FORJUDICI L DETERMIN TION ND DECL R TORY JUDGMENT38. Most fundamentally, the Committee’s request lacks a valid legislativepurpose and thus violates the Constitution and separation of powers. The SupremeCourt inMazars set forth a four-part, non-exclusive balancing test to analyze theconstitutional propriety of congressional requests directed to presidential records.Satisfaction of theMazars standard is a threshold issue that the Committee cannotovercome. First, the Supreme Court cautions courts to “carefully assess whether theasserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the Presidentand his papers.”Mazars , 140 S.Ct. at 2035-36. Further, the Court noted that“Congress may not rely on the President’s information if other sources couldreasonably provide Congress the information it needs in light of its particularlegislative objective. The President’s unique constitutional position means thatCongress may not look to him as a ‘case study’ for general legislation.”Id. Case 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 18 of 26

    19Importantly, 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2)(C) generally mirrors these requirements andprovides that presidential records “shall be made available . . . (C) to either House ofCongress, or,to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction , to any committee orsubcommittee thereof if such records contain information that isneeded for theconduct of its business and that isnot otherwise available .” (emphasis added).Likewise, 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44 effectively repeats and mirrors these requirements.Indeed, the Committee’s requests fails to satisfy the relevant constitutional,statutory, and regulatory frameworks.39. The “legitimate legislative purpose” requirement stems directly from theConstitution. “The powers of Congress . . . are dependent solely on the Constitution,”and no express power in that instrument allows Congress to investigate individualsor to issue compulsory process.Kilbourn v. Thompson , 103 U.S. 168, 182-89 (1880).The Constitution instead permits Congress to enact certain kinds of legislation.See ,e.g., Art. I, § 8. Thus, Congress’s power to investigate “is justified solely as an adjunctto the legislative process.” Watkins v. United States , 354 U.S. 178, 197 (1957).40. “Oversight” and “transparency,” in a vacuum, are not legitimatelegislative purposes. “[T]here is no congressional power to expose for the sake ofexposure.”Id. at 200. “No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and infurtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.”Id . at 187.41. Second, the Supreme Court inMazars noted “courts should insist on asubpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislativeobjective.” 140 S.Ct. at 2036. Thus, the Supreme Court has noted that where, as here,Case 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 19 of 26
    20a plaintiff issues broad requests that “ask for everything under the sky,” the burdenshould not be placed on the President of “critiquing the unacceptable discoveryrequests line by line.”Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 387-88 (2004).Courts should therefore be wary of requiring the President even to assert theexecutive privilege in response to broad requests.Id .42. Third, “courts should be attentive to the nature of the evidence offeredby Congress to establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose.”Mazars , 140 S.Ct. at 2036. Where Congress contemplates legislation that “raisessensitive constitutional issues, such as legislation concerning the Presidency . . . it isimpossible to conclude that a subpoena is designed to advance a valid legislativepurpose unless Congress adequately identifies its aims and explains why thePresident’s information will advance its consideration of the possible legislation.”Id. 43. The Committee has utterly failed to come forward with such evidencehere to satisfy the standard; there is no specific legislative need for the privilegeddocuments and materials requested, much less a “demonstrably critical” one.SenateSelect Comm., 498 F.2d at 731.44. What the Committee appears to seek here is a “precise reconstruction ofpast events,” not because there are “specific legislative decisions that cannotresponsibly be made without” it, but simply for the sake of the information itself.Id .at 732-33. That purpose does not clear the high bar required to overcome an assertionof executive privilege. The “informing function” Congress possesses under Article I“is that of informing itself about subjects susceptible to legislation, not that ofCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 20 of 26
    21informing the public.”Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 531 (9th Cir.1983) (citingHutchinson v. Proxmir e, 443 U.S. 111, 132-33 (1979));see also Assertionof Executive Privilege Concerning the Dismissal and Replacement of U.S. Attorneys ,31 Op. O.L.C. 1, 8 (2007) (“Broad, generalized assertions that the requested materialsare of public import are simply insufficient under the ‘demonstrably critical’standard.”). The Committee has not identified any “specific legislative decisions thatcannot responsibly be made without access” to the privileged materials.Senate SelectComm., 498 F.2d at 733.45. Additionally, because Congress must have a legitimate legislativepurpose, it cannot exercise “any of the powers of law enforcement.”Quinn v. UnitedStates , 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955). Those powers “are assigned under our Constitutionto the Executive and the Judiciary.”Id . Put simply, Congress is not “a lawenforcement or trial agency,” and congressional investigations conducted “for thepersonal aggrandizement of the investigators” or “to punish those investigated” are“indefensible.”Watkins , 354 U.S. at 187. Our tripartite system of separated powersrequires that “any one of the[] branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon thepowers confided to the others, but that each shall by the law of its creation be limitedto the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other.”Kilbourn , 103 U.S. at 190-91.46. Further, when a request for information is issued by a single committee,a legislative purpose is not legitimate unless it falls within that committee’s jurisdiction. “The theory of a committee inquiry is that the committee members areCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 21 of 26
    22serving as the representatives of the parent assembly in collecting information for alegislative purpose.”Watkins , 354 U.S. at 200. Congress therefore must “spell outthat group’s jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity . . . in theauthorizing resolution,” which “is the committee’s charter.”Id . at 201. The committee“must conform strictly to the resolution.”Exxon Corp. v. FTC , 589 F.2d 582, 592 (D.C.Cir. 1978). And when an investigation is “novel” or “expansive,” courts will construethe committee’s jurisdiction “narrowly.”Tobin v. United States , 306 F.2d 270, 275(D.C. Cir. 1962).47. By contrast, the Committee has read its own charter— “to investigateand report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the events of January6, 2021, at the United States Capitol”— expansively, and apparently believes it hasbeen given a free pass to request a sweeping set of documents and records, whichunquestionably contain information protected from disclosure by the executive andother privileges, including but not limited to the presidential-communications,deliberative-process, and attorney-client privileges.48. Finally, theMazars court instructed that “burdens imposed by acongressional subpoena should be carefully scrutinized, for they stem from a rivalpolitical branch that has an ongoing relationship with the President and incentivesto use subpoenas for institutional advantage.”Mazars , 140 S.Ct. at 2036. Theseburdens are not sufficiently diminished by the fact that the President is no longer inoffice. The Supreme Court has “reject[ed] the argument that only an incumbentCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 22 of 26
    23President may assert” separation-of-powers claims.Nixon v. Administrator of Gen.Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 439 (1977).49. Executive privilege “safeguards the public interest in candid,confidential deliberations within the Executive Branch; it is ‘fundamental to theoperation of Government.’ As a result, information subject to executive privilegedeserves ‘the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice.’”Id. at 2032 (quotingNixon , 418 U. S., at 708, 713). “Human experience teaches thatthose who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor witha concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of thedecisionmaking process.”Nixon , 418 U.S. at 705. As the Supreme Court hasrecognized, “[a] President and those who assist him must be free to explorealternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in away that many would be unwilling to express except privately.”Id. at 708.50. The President has identified a limited number of records allegedlyresponsive to the Committee’s request that are covered by numerous privileges,including the presidential communications privilege, and the deliberative processprivilege, among others. Moreover, the request seeks documents protected by theattorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. The Committee hasfailed to explain or even articulate any need for the information it has requested,much less a demonstrated, specific one worthy of piercing executive privilege andother privileges. And nothing in the Committee’s request meets the high bar ofCase 1:21-cv-02769 Document 1 Filed 10/18/21 Page 23 of 26

    Oct 18, 2021 18:01 PM

    I find this format challenging to post with.

    Oct 18, 2021 18:47 PM



    Oct 18, 2021 18:02 PM

    The Proshares Bitcoin ETF starts trading tomorrow.

    Oct 18, 2021 18:15 PM

    Ron Unz has a great article on the history of the USS Liberty.

    What a shameful and disgusting episode of US history, not to mention Israelie history.

    May Johnson and those in his administration and the Isaeliars responsible for this forever rot in Hell.

    And any kid considering joining the US military sure need to read this. This is what your gooberment will do to you without a second thought.

      Oct 18, 2021 18:20 PM

      Sad, sad story – and more examples of Dem cowardice.

      Oct 18, 2021 18:09 PM

      Ron Keeva Unz (born September 20, 1961) is the editor-in-chief and publisher of The Unz Review, a website that promotes antisemitism, Holocaust denial. A former businessman, Unz unsuccessfully ran for governor in the California .
      The purpose of the Liberty piece was, of course, to generate hatred of Israel.

      Israel was wrong in trying to sink the Liberty, but Israel WAS AT WAR, FIGHTING FOR ITS VERY EXISTENCE at the time. The Liberty was a communications SPY ship.
      Yes, Israel started the war with a pre-emptive strike, I know.

    Oct 18, 2021 18:26 PM

    Never know if my comment will post or disappear.

    Oct 19, 2021 19:30 AM

    Jim McKinney, I have a question, which you might be able to answer about Desert Storm.
    Please don’t take this the wrong way, as I am not trying to malign Colin Powell,
    but trying to seek knowledge.
    I believe General Powell was Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert Storm.
    It has always stuck me that Desert Storm was ended prematurely,
    before Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard was destroyed.
    I believe this was not a decision made by Norman Schwarzkopf, but came from above.
    Would that order have come directly from President Bush, which I assumed it did,
    or from politically-oriented Colin Powell, whom I assume was advising Bush ?
    I guess I should read Schwarzkopf’s autobiography, if he wrote one.

    Oct 19, 2021 19:05 AM

    Here is biden’s EO requiring vaccination of government employees:

    I still cannot find any executive order for American companies or citizens in general, requiring vaccinations.

    There is a section in the Reconciliation Bill, but this has not yet been passed.

    Oct 19, 2021 19:26 AM

    trump just tweeted:

    Donald J Trump
    Wonderful to see Colin Powell, who made big mistakes on Iraq and famously, so-called weapons of mass destruction, be treated in death so beautifully by the Fake News Media. Hope that happens to me someday. He was a classic RINO, if even that, always being the first to attack other Republicans. He made plenty of mistakes, but anyway, may he rest in peace!

    CFS: I believe this was both wrong AND stupid.
    (If you can’t say good things about a person during the mourning period, you should stay silent.)
    Also I was monitoring satellite images at the start of Desert Storm and I saw chemical trucks physically drive out of Iraq into Syria.
    People have often talked about Saddam acquiring nuclear material, but I have always assumed Powell was referring to chemical weapons of mass destruction, as it is indisputable that Saddam had knowledge, chemical materials, and capability in this regard.

      Oct 19, 2021 19:14 AM

      agreed CFS

      Oct 19, 2021 19:30 AM

      I also agree with you CFS

    Oct 19, 2021 19:29 AM

    They want you jabbed not healthy or not remidied with theraputics…jabbed…why?…if you are not suspecting something is real wrong by now go back to kindergarten and start over💩…..Any fake doctor not saying this truth is lying regarding everything to you…period…Like the guest docs here….liars…earning money from the corrupt system and preying on b…lmao…sorry b butt you love it!…glta 🤡🔊

      Oct 19, 2021 19:34 AM

      Some of the comments here lead me to believe that the booster is probably not a good idea and probably not really necessary.

        Oct 19, 2021 19:22 AM

        Big Al, I believe it depends on your comorbidity factors.
        It is a risk-reward problem.
        I believe, without doubt, short term, a vaccine boosts antibodies specific to the spike protein.
        This should reduce the chance of hospitalization and death.

        On the other hand it is also known that the vaccine does not stay localized close to the injection site.
        Neither is it known what the long term implications of the vaccine are.

        It is thought that the spike protein can cause damage to cell walls, which can induce blood clotting..
        Travel of blood clots throughout the body is known to be potentially dangerous.

        How much clotting, where it occurs individually, and potential for damage are the unknown factors.
        Given that it is man-made bioweapon, designed to damage, worries me.
        Hell will freeze over before I would take a booster shot, BUT I DO HAVE THERAPEUTICS AND PROBABLY WILL BE TAKING THOSE FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. (or until covid-19 disappears.)

        Oct 19, 2021 19:29 AM

        Just a thought Al but it might not be a great idea to take medical advice from internet trolls.

        Remember, Larry has claimed vaccines have never done any good, thats insanity.

        Fully vaccinated Gibralter, 0 deaths no overwhelming hospital staff, Russia, no vaccines and 1000 a day dead from covid.
        One reason I mention Russia is Larrys claim the covid deaths are so high in the states is a financial reward for saying deaths are due to covid.
        No such reward in Russia.

        Israel, has been so mis informed its confusing and therefore unreliable, thats why I use Gibraleter, no reports, no confusion.

        Its really simple, vaccines work.
        Yes, some people have an adverse reaction, remember an adverse reaction includes a soar injection site, death, yup happens, happens with flu shots too and as I posted, with asprin.

        It is true pharmacitical companies are out to make money, imagine that in a capitilist system.

        If people like Larry scare you, dont take the vaccine, pray hard you dont die of covid, it is a horrible way to go.

        By the way, I took a shingles vaccine too, didnt die.
        I know people with shingles, ALL wish they had got the vaccine.

        Get medical advice from medical professionals, not the internet.

    Oct 19, 2021 19:35 AM

    released prior to the covid propaganda non-demic….pretty smart analysis….99.98% survive this non-demic even with the hospitals doing most of the killing from CDC approved sanctioned death care….Remdesivir, Respirator, Vancomycin…Each one alone is a killer…Together the WHO CDC NIH have done miracles..lmao…glta

    Oct 19, 2021 19:42 AM

    Oct 18, 2021
    U.S. covid
    Deaths: 1,890
    7-day avg: 1,631
    Deaths7-day average