The first batch of disputed documents is now set to be turned over to the House select committee by Friday.
“The court holds that the public interest lies in permitting…the combined will of the legislative and executive branches to study the events that led to and occurred on January 6, and to consider legislation to prevent such events from ever occurring again,” Chutkan wrote, calling the events of Jan. 6 an “unprecedented attempt to prevent the lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.”
She added, “for the first time since the election of 1860, the transfer of executive power was distinctly not peaceful.”
In Tuesday’s ruling, Chutkan wrote: “At bottom, this is a dispute between a former and incumbent President. And the Supreme Court has already made clear that in such circumstances, the incumbent’s view is accorded greater weight.”
“Plaintiff does not acknowledge the deference owed to the incumbent President’s judgment. His position that he may override the express will of the executive branch appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power ‘exists in perpetuity,’” the judge went on to say. “But Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President. He retains the right to assert that his records are privileged, but the incumbent President ‘is not constitutionally obliged to honor’ that assertion.”