The Clinton Socks Case: Reality vs. Trump Fantasy.

In the above “Truth Social” post Trump claims the “Clinton Socks Case” established that the search of his home for classified documents was illegal and everything should be returned. His attorneys have cited the case in proceedings related to Trump appointee Judge Cannon designating a “special master” to review the material seized. Notably, those proceedings ended with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals strongly repudiating Cannon’s decision on grounds she had no jurisdiction to even consider the case.

At issue in the Clinton Socks Case (which you can read HERE) was whether certain records were “presidential” or “personal” as defined by the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The case is more formally known as Judicial Watch v. National Archives & Records Administration (NARA).

In this case President Clinton commissioned a historian to record his impressions of his presidency as it went along. Clinton used the tapes later to help him write his autobiography of his two terms. The case gets the informal “Clinton Socks” designation used by Trump because Clinton supposedly kept some of the tapes in his socks drawer for a time.

The PRA defines “presidential records” which the act says the National Archives must take custody of:

The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

The PRA also defines “personal records” that the National Archives is not required to take custody of:

The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes-

(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business.

So the question here is whether the recordings are more similar to documents used for a president’s official duties, or more similar to diaries, journals or other things not used when transacting government business.

Therein is the first critical distinction to the Trump case. The documents Trump took, and stored at his resort, included highly classified national defense documents. There can be no credible claim that such is not used when transacting government business. Clinton’s claim that his recordings were more like a diary, or “functional equivalent” is much stronger.

Which gets to the second critical distinction to the Trump case. The National Archives agreed with Clinton. NARA agreed that the tapes were personal documents. NARA made no such determination regarding the Trump documents. After all, for NARA to accept the notion that classified national defense documents were “personal” records akin to a diary would be flatly absurd.

Judicial Watch demanded that the court reverse NARA’s determination that the recordings were personal, not Clinton’s determination that they were. Judicial Watch urged the court to compel NARA to reverse its decision, designate the tapes as “presidential records,” seize the tapes, and thus make them available to Judicial Watch under a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request. As the above noted caption for the case indicates, the defendant was not Clinton, it was NARA.

The court declined to do so, stating that NARA’s determination was not subject to judicial review.

From this decision Trump argues that a president’s determination that records are personal, rather than presidential, is unfettered. While there is no record of any such decision to begin with, Trump’s attorneys have argued that the mere act of taking them to Mar-a-Lago was in effect a designation that classified national defense documents were “personal” under the statute. In reality, the court found that:

“The PRA does not bestow on the President the power to assert sweeping authority over whatever materials he chooses to designate as presidential records without any possibility of judicial review.”

As explained, in the “Clinton socks” case the issue was not whether the President’s designation could be reviewed, it was whether NARA’s decision could be reviewed.

There is another critical distinction between the Clinton Socks case and that of Trump. In the Trump case a grand jury issued a subpoena legally requiring that Trump turn over all documents with a classified designation on them. Trump:

1. Failed to do so.
2. Obstructed justice by trying to hide some of the documents in his desk. He had them moved from the storage room to his personal office, after receiving the subpoena.
3. Under penalty of perjury lied about it, stating that all documents responsive to the subpoena had been provided.

It was evidence of that obstruction of justice that led the FBI to get a legally issued search warrant and search the President’s home.

Trump is lying to you about the Clinton Socks Case. Do your best to put on your shocked face.