Friday, April 03, 2026

DOJ: Trump Doesn’t Have to Turn Over Presidential Records

The Justice Department has issued a legal opinion arguing that President Donald Trump does not have to turn over his presidential records to the National Archives at the end of his administration as required by the Presidential Records Act of 1978.

Bathroom at Mar-a-Lago Filled with Stolen Classified Documents

Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 10:43 AM | 15 COMMENTS | permalink

More

This is a big deal and it's flying below the radar"Trump's DOJ just gave him a huge gift in the form of a legal opinion declaring that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional.

Let's be clear: that's nonsense. We'll break it down [image or embed]

" CREW (@citizensforethics.org) Apr 2, 2026 at 4:44 PM

Comments

Dummkopf Trumpf illegally hoarded classified documents when he was thrown out of power on 20 Jan 2021. Soon after re-seizing power on 20 Jan 2025, he fired the National Archivist.


Worthless conservative Republican mouth-for-hire T. Elliot Gaiser argued in his insipid legal opinion that Dummkopf Trumpf doesn't have to turn over presidential records to the National Archives after leaving office since the Supreme Court justices don't and Congress can't order them to do it.

Political legal hack T. Elliot Gaiser:

"The geriatric draft-dodging morbidly obese pedophilic warmonger and Israeli/Russian asset need not further comply with the dictates of Congress."

#1 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-04-02 11:16 PM

I'm shocked to learn that the most corrupt DoJ ever would protect the most corrupt President ever.

#2 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2026-04-03 10:50 AM

The DOJ's opinion is Trump's opinion, nothing else.

He may have done this too soon; it might actually work it's way through the Courts before he leaves, and he may not be happy about the result.

He might get something like 3400 counts of Fraud this time.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2026-04-03 11:27 AM

Where's JeffJ to tell us the Presidential Records Act of 1978 was "horribly legislated?"

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-04-03 11:28 AM

The most transparent administration ever.

Given the DOJ's track record of legal issues I am going to say this will be another L for Lewzer.

#5 | Posted by Nixon at 2026-04-03 11:31 AM

Where's JeffJ to tell us the Presidential Records Act of 1978 was "horribly legislated?"

#4 | Posted by snoofy

If Trump manages to steal the midterms he'll be back to tell us it was legal and justified.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2026-04-03 11:32 AM

See ya in court.
If you thought the eye rolling from SCOTUS over his birthright citizenship arguments was loud, this one should blow his eardrums.

#7 | Posted by morris at 2026-04-03 11:59 AM

@#3 ... The DOJ's opinion is Trump's opinion, nothing else. ...

Agreed.

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-04-03 12:15 PM

... President Donald Trump does not have to turn over his presidential records to the National Archives at the end of his administration ...

On one hand, at least he seems to be implying that there will be an end to his administration.

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-04-03 12:17 PM

"We conclude that it is not."

That's nice. And not unexpected.

But Corky is right .. the President and his cronies do NOT get to decide whether or not that something is or is not constitutional.

That's the job of the Supreme Court to adjudicate. A completely separate branch of government. His job is to Faithfully enforce the Law. Not undermine the Law.

So. See you in Court. Again. Again. And Again.

And so it goes ...

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-04-03 12:21 PM

Yet another sortie in Operation Divert From Epstein Files!

#11 | Posted by MBlue at 2026-04-03 01:52 PM

HE RAPED CHILDREN

#12 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-04-03 01:57 PM

Re 12

And then went on to rape a Nation.

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-04-03 02:00 PM

The Justice Department has issued a legal opinion

That's nice.

But the DOJ doesn't create legislation, that's the job of congress.

This is nothing more than Trump playing king.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-04 02:12 PM

The crux of the matter is "policy" vs "law."

For example, the DOJ has a "policy" called the "60-day rule," which discourages taking overt law enforcement actions against a politician, such as indictments or arrests, within 60 days before a federal election, in order to appear impartial.

The Trumpf junta wants favorable policies in place to protect him, circumnavigating Congress.

Had the DOJ not had its long-standing "policies" about investigating politicians or POTUSes, no Special Counsels would ever be required-- just a standard AUSA would suffice seeking an indictment against a defendant.

No law prevented an investigation of a sitting POTUS by an AUSA and a Grand Jury, a policy did.

SC Robert Mueller and Jack Smith were both hamstrung with DOJ policies that narrowed the bandwidth of their investigations into Dummkopf Trumpf.

#15 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-04-04 03:17 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

SCOTUS Eviscerates Voting Rights Act (33 comments)

ICE Agent who Killed Renee Good in Minneapolis Gets Cushy New Job (32 comments)

Melania: 'Fire Jimmy Kimmel' (30 comments)

'Catastrophic Price Shock' Coming (30 comments)

Trump Administration Secures New Indictment Against Comey (29 comments)

Trump Portrait to Be Added to US Passports in Unprecedented Move (27 comments)

King Charles III to Address Joint Meeting of US Congress (24 comments)

Russian Superyacht Sails Through Strait of Hormuz (20 comments)

Florida's Gerrymandering Proposal (15 comments)

Jeffries: Trump Impeachment Not a Priority If Dems Win House (14 comments)