OA759: The "Socks" Case - Don't Take Legal Advice From Judicial Watch! (feat. Kel McClanahan)
Added 2023-06-13 05:28:20 +0000 UTCRepublicans are saying that the "Clinton sock drawer case" - Judicial Watch v. NARA - means that Trump didn't violate the Espionage Act and can just declare anything he wants to be a "personal" record.
That's nonsense, of course.
This is an unpaid post on Patreon.
Notes
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Archives and Records Administration, 845 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.D.C.2012)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15818036517066124081
Donate to National Security Counselors!
https://donate.democracyengine.com/NationalSecurityCounselors/contribute
OR
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=QQY2ZQMWC6PX6
Comments
I agree -- there was a LOT of new information in this episode that enlarged my understanding of the issues and the law.
Ann Sharp
2023-06-17 04:08:33 +0000 UTCWow, I heard my name and you are very welcome! Love how you analyze all this with such tongue-in-cheek humor. Thank you!
Constance Ripp
2023-06-14 15:53:45 +0000 UTCWell then you’re either going to like or not like our next episode :)
Opening Arguments
2023-06-14 00:42:53 +0000 UTCThis was the best one yet. No other podcast has gone into this type of specific document information. It all makes so much more sense. BUT now I'm a lot more worried about Aileen Cannon.
C’mon
2023-06-14 00:41:58 +0000 UTC
