the only precedent is the affirmation of the CURRENT PRESIDENT HAVING AUTHORITY OVER THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT’S RECORDS, IF THE COURT AGREES THAT IT DOES NIT NEGATIVELY IMPACT NATIONAL SECURITY. So for this to happen to Obama’s records, we need:
a current president to sue for obama’s records
a judge to agree that the records sought are not deleterious to nat’l security
It's still putting a huge dent in executive privilege, the fact that they can do this at all is absolutely a huge thing. You can argue semantics all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that executive privilege is no longer protecting a president.
Maybe the ruling would apply to Biden's senate records as well.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judicial-watch-daily-caller-news-foundation-score-victory-in-lawsuit-over-biden-s-senate-records/ar-AARzL3a
Yes.
No, the ruling is specific to the claim that withholding THESE PARTICULAR RECORDS is not in the best interests of the united states
It's precedent, what's to keep another judge from ruling the same over Obama, Bush, Clinton etc.
No you’re not getting it
the only precedent is the affirmation of the CURRENT PRESIDENT HAVING AUTHORITY OVER THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT’S RECORDS, IF THE COURT AGREES THAT IT DOES NIT NEGATIVELY IMPACT NATIONAL SECURITY. So for this to happen to Obama’s records, we need:
a current president to sue for obama’s records
a judge to agree that the records sought are not deleterious to nat’l security
See? It gets us nothing.
It's still putting a huge dent in executive privilege, the fact that they can do this at all is absolutely a huge thing. You can argue semantics all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that executive privilege is no longer protecting a president.