U.S. Supreme Court spurns Trump bid to keep Capitol attack records secret | Reuters
By: Lawrence Hurley (Reuters)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Lawrence Hurley4 minute read1/3 U.S. President Donald Trump looks on at the end of his speech during a rally to contest the certification of the 2020 U.S. presidential election results by the U.S. Congress, in Washington, U.S, January 6, 2021. REUTERS/Jim Bourg/File Photo Read More Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com Register WASHINGTON, Jan 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected former President Donald Trump's request to block the release of White House records sought by the Democratic-led congressional panel investigating last year's deadly attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters. The decision means the documents, held by a federal agency that stores government and historical records, can be disclosed even as litigation over the matter continues in lower courts. Only one of the court's nine members, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, publicly noted disagreement with the decision. Trump's request to the justices came after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Dec. 9 ruled that the businessman-turned-politician had no basis to challenge President Joe Biden's decision to allow the records to be handed over to the House of Representatives select committee. Trump and his allies have waged an ongoing legal battle with the committee seeking to block access to documents and witnesses. Trump has sought …
visit seeded article for remaining content
Tags
Who is online
596 visitors
Trolling, taunting, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed.
A decision that Trump is not going to be happy with.
Three things that can not remain long hidden, the sun, the moon and the truth.
I'm looking forward to hearing the contents of the WH records on this.
Not just the records but the tapes that were made that his aids rejected.
Yes, exactly.
Is it really so difficult to post the entire seed rather than post this....
The source for that is blocked by China, as is others I can't open, and It's frustrating as hell not being able to read the article and then waste my time seeking an alternative source.
Reuters does that brother and a few other sites... yeah it's an annoyance.... I can imagine from your side a real PITA...
When you fetch the article that is how it comes back, Buzz. Asking what the problem is before bitching about it would seem appropriate.
Thank you, Kavika. I've been faced with the same thing on many of the articles I post, Kavika, but I open the articles and copy and post the whole thing on NT.. Sorry it's so much trouble for others, after all, I'm probably the only member on this site who has a problem with it,
Geez Buzz, then DON'T waste your time.
Your practice of critiquing members for how they post seeds is tiresome.
Why chastise? Sheesh.
The reason Fetch works this way is because Reuters contacted Perrie and demanded that NT not copy its content. What Fetch is doing is that which Reuters allows.
Ok everyone lets get back on the tropic of the article.
I don't think anyone except you and Perrie were aware of that. If so, I will be careful if I should in future post a Reuters story, and continue to seek elsewhere for the continuation of such articles to conclusion.
Judas Priest, and I thought I was a grumpy old man.
Which avatar should I use?
Try this one Buzz -
That's how I picture another poster actually.
We all have out peeves.
LOL. That's a really mean guy.
Well, I adore cats but that cartoon that Tessy posted is me in about 4-5 years
Never TG, never!
I'm not a fan of children
But, but, but, I thought whatshisname and his criminal enterprise of an administration were above the law.
They also said the mandates on healthcare workers could stand yet the mandates on business they denied.
tucker called Kavanaugh a Liberal.
I wonder what little Tucker will have to say about this 7 to 1 decision.
His bowtie will be spinning and he may start levitating.
"If a President does it, it isn't illegal." Tricky Dick. Didn't work out so well for him either, though he did escape prison.
I was surprised the SC acted so quickly.
The lower court set the ground rules and it seems that SCOTUS agreed.
True, but this SC is a little more difficult to read, except Thomas. He will always side on the most extreme right view of just about anything. I agree with him occasionally, but it is a rare occasion
Thomas votes the way his wife tells him. She is a GOP extremist, and Thomas would never dream of going against what his wife thinks is right. That is how it works with Thomas, and has since the day he was sworn in to the SC.
There are some that think the office should be protected over anything, including illegal activity.
But, only if they are in the gop. If not, no way...
That is normally a very convenient argument at the time. It is not the general consensus among constitutional attorneys.
I don't think any POTUS is above the law and I got super pissed at Clinton when he kept lying thru his teeth about Monica and then had the audacity to go on live TV and blame everything on Ken Starr. Ken Starr didn't force Monica to polish Clinton's knob
I knew he was a liar when he said he never inhaled....
I believe that's the only reason whatshisname [thank you, Tessy] would run again. The Constitution states a sitting president can be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors by impeachment process, but I don't believe the SC has ever addressed whether a sitting president can be criminally prosecuted. He doesn't give a shit about his constituents [his 'foundation' has raised enough funds to pay the legal expenses for close to 200 of his cult members], he doesn't give a shit about the country, and he's a global political joke. While he's probably afraid to lose again, staying out of jail is a bigger draw for him. He's about to sell his kids down the river. The wheels of justice turn so slowly, it gives me heartburn.
the mango maniac has the highest priced criminal minds in law defending him.
Doesn't me, and I agree with them, I'm surprised it wasn't unanimous....
No one is above the law even a sitting president.... (although a sitting president does have a lot of exceptions in his official capacity as president, still, he isn't above the law)
Personally, I think we have a good Supreme Court...
I'm beginning to develop a little more respect for the SCOTUS. Now let's see how they handle Roe v Wade and voting rights.
I think they will handle it intelligently and dispassionately and bring the US into line with the rest of the worlds position on it.... There are people on both sides that are going to be unhappy no matter what and offer hyperbolic emotional reactions...
But I think the decision will be well thought out and concise... and best of all make sound legal sense...
From the first day that Trump took office, I told my wife that I wish I was paid to fix the holes that Trump would be putting in the walls of the WH. Overtime galore!
Once the smoke clears, the team at Mar-a-Lago are going to be busy this winter...
I wish I had stock in the spackle company for those repairs
Trump will try to use illegal Eastern European labor.
He's going to import more nude "models"????
SCOTUS told Trump to pound sand. Good deal.
The Donald thought he owned SCOTUS.
As Dulay said, Trump is probably going ballistic.
I can't wait until his children flip.
Same here.
Ha, that will be interesting to see. Kinda like Comedy Central.
trump family values.
Seems SCOTUS owned him.
The moosh noosh is shocked, so shocked that all he would say was covfefe.
He'd flip on his kids in a NY minute.
I would think that Trump is apoplectic about now. ''His'' Supreme Court turned against him in his mind.
MY SCOTUS DID WHAT!!!!
gee, I guess trump's SCOTUS employees forgot to return their loyalty pledges and non-disclosure agreements.
Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing.