HERE IS WHAT (SOME OF) YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR: I HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING LAST WEEK ABOUT TRUMP’S EFFORTS TO DEMOLISH THE EAST WING OF THE WHITE HOUSE, AND IT’S *FAB*ULOUS!
This is a 48-page transcript (it’s the one that I paid over $300 to get – Notes from the Front members, it’s in your inbox now) and it is chock-full of goodness!
If you liked administration lawyer Mr. Hamilton for entertainment value, you are going to loooove Mr. Roth!
First, OMFG! They are talking about the laws that the administration is suggesting allow Trump to demolish the East Wing, and check out this exchange with the Court and the government’s lawyer (don’t have coffee in your mouth when you read this):
THE COURT: Well, where do you see in 105 the authority to the president to take down the East Wing and put up a new East Wing? Where do you see that in the specific language of 105 which is very specific about what the funds are being used for?
MR. ROTH: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Where do you see it?
MR. ROTH: So we think it’s found in “alteration and improvement.” We think “alteration and improvement” are capacious enough terms to include improving, you know — replacing —
—
I… can’t… even.
And you already saw this, which I posted earlier:
THE COURT: And your best effort to demonstrate to this Court that the Congress intended this to be used for a purpose of this size and proportion on an icon that’s a national institution is what? Is what?
MR. ROTH: Well, Your Honor, I think that I would point to the OLC opinion. Obviously, a pool is different.
THE COURT: The ’77 —
MR. ROTH: Yeah.
THE COURT: The Gerald Ford swimming pool? You
compare that to ripping down the East Wing and building a new East Wing? Come on.
MR. ROTH: I’m not comparing —
THE COURT: Be serious.
—
But to get back to the beginning, the Court starts out explaining to each party what the Court wants each party to cover during the hearing, which will consist of 20 minutes for the Plaintiffs, then 20 minutes for the Defendants, and then 5 minutes for Plaintiffs’ rebuttal. The Court explains that it wants Mr. Roth (the administration’s attorney), to address:
“First, the president’s constitutional authority to construct the ballroom. I appreciate that the Government chose not to focus on this issue in their brief. That’s your choice. But if you’re not arguing the president is acting pursuant to his constitutional authority, I want you to state clearly — emphasis on the word “clearly” — where the president gets the authority to demolish the East Wing and construct the ballroom.”
I’m guessing that you can see right off the bat that things are not going to go well for poor Mr. Roth. “That’s your choice.” 😂
Then the Court goes on:
“I’d like the parties — and especially the Government — to explain what’s going on in plain English, why this Rube Goldberg contraption gives the president authority to destruct and construct the ballroom with private funds.”
You *know* that when the Court *starts out* talking about an administration thing as a “Rube Goldberg contraption”, well, the handwriting seems to be on the wall.
Then the Plaintiffs’ lawyer starts their 20 minutes with this exchange:
MR. HEUER: Thank you, Your Honor. Tad Heuer on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I do want to start by addressing standing briefly, because the Government’s mentioned —
THE COURT: Don’t spend any
MR. HEUER: Excellent, Your
THE COURT: And don’t worry
—
“AND DON’T WORRY”!! 😂
The administration leans a *lot* on how if they have to halt construction, particularly of the “below grade” portion of the project (i.e. the bunker), it will leave an unsightly mess, and, oh yeah, compromise presidential security.
Says Plaintiffs’ lawyer Mr. Heuer:
“Finally, I’d note that the defendants will not be harmed by a temporary pause that allows them to follow the law. Their claim that they need to continue construction to avoid leaving what they call a, quote, “unsightly excavation site” is bold indeed. Equity does not reward the party for creating the very problem it, then, invokes to avoid relief. And the Trust is not asking the Court to enjoin construction of the bunker or to compromise presidential security. That is not the aim. As the Court knows, we were not even aware that that was a factor and a feature here until the defendants filed their opposition to the TRO in December. The Trust is simply asking the Court, as in our proposed order, to enjoin construction of the ballroom until the defendants follow the law.”
You will see toward the end of the hearing that Judge Leon is actually giving Mr. Roth hints about what things Mr. Roth should address, and then, as Mr. Roth wraps up, this:
MR. ROTH: Your Honor, did I address all the questions that Your Honor had at the outset?
THE COURT: You did the best you could.
😂 😂 😂 I laughed so hard when I read that I almost couldn’t breathe!
Gotta love it!
Notes from the Front members: The full 48-page transcript is in your inbox now.
To preserve original source documents before they can be tampered with (remember the 16 documents that mysteriously disappeared from the Epstein files?), and protect myself from claims of improper republication, and trolls, I don’t publicly share documents I find, I make them available privately to Notes from the Front members. Often these are non-public documents for which I have had to pay out of my own pocket in order to share them with you. Others of them may be public but I find the source originals for you and include explanations and insights based on my decades of law practice and as a law professor, with a side of snark. ;~)
You can join below for immediate access to this and other documents, the archives, our private chat, etc.. – it’s $5 a month which both keeps the trolls out, and helps to cover my expenses for our private dropbox, for purchasing transcripts and documents to share with you, etc..
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/i-have-the-transcript-of-the-hearing
Source