Donald Trump's tweets: Are they presidential statements or not?

[GMDino]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/14/trumps_tweets_are_they_presidential_statements_or_not/

Quote:Even the US Department of Justice can't decide

They are the most dissected, repeated and analyzed statements in the world – but are Donald Trump's tweets formal statements by the President of the United States, or his own personal reflections?

It seems that no one can agree: even the US Department of Justice, which has represented the short messages from his @realDonaldTrumpaccount as "official statements" in one lawsuit and "personal use of social media" in another.

The same confusion reigns within the White House itself with former press secretary Sean Spicer saying on the record in June that the short-form message are "considered official statements by the president of the United States"; whereas chief of staff John Kelly dismissed them earlier this week as personal reflections.

"They are what they are," Kelley said when asked about Trump insulting North Korean leader Kim Jong-un once again over Twitter. "Believe it or not, I do not follow the tweets. I find out about them."

The distinction matters since one comes with the imprimatur of the United States government and the other is just personal reflection, albeit from a very influential individual.

The distinction also has legal implications, as a number of lawsuits have indicated, with the courts being asked to decide on everything from whether people's legal process rights have been usurped by a Trump tweet, to whether a travel ban affecting millions is legal, to whether Trump's social media team is legally entitled to block accounts.

As with many other aspects of his presidency, the problem stems from Trump's willingness to knowingly and repeatedly blur the traditional lines between his position as head of the Executive Branch and that of a private citizen.

Split personality
Whereas President Barack Obama – the first president to deal with the impact of social media – made a clear distinction between his personal Twitter account and the @POTUS official handle, Donald Trump has eschewed that approach.

The Donald's personal account not only includes the vast majority of the @POTUS account posts but also his own personal comments that, famously, frequently comprise taunts and insults covering everyone from sports stars to world leaders.

Despite repeated efforts by White House staff to control his use of the platform, and persistent public pleas from lawmakers to limit the amount and frequency of public statements, Trump refuses to temper his behavior or give different consideration to the office of the presidency to his personal views.

However, the longer Trump keeps the distinction purposefully blurry, the more likely the law courts will decide the issue. In one case, the Department of Justice (DoJ) is being sued by the James Madison Projectfor refusing to say whether it has records that state whether President Trump is a target of, or a witness to, an investigation.

The Washington DC district court specifically asked in that case that the US government provide it with "insight on… the President's tweets and what they are, how official they are, are they statements of the White House and the President."

In a response [PDF], the DoJ argued on Monday that: "The government is treating the statements upon which plaintiffs rely as official statements of the President of the United States."

Which is clear. But then in a separate lawsuit brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute on behalf of Twitter users that have been blocked by the @realDonaldTrump account, the DoJ has argued the exact opposite.

Personal use only
In this case, which is before a New York district court, the argument has been made that Trump's "personal" account is a violation of their First Amendment rights since posts made to the account are "official statements."

Not so, says the DoJ, which argued [PDF] that it is not appropriate for the court to insist that Trump unblock those users since it would not only "flout the separation of powers" but that a "First Amendment claim may be directed only at state action, not the president's personal use of social media."

The Knight Institute has been quite open about the fact that it intends to push the case as far as possible up the US legal system and noted that it is the court's constitutional right – and duty – to decide what the law is.

The Department of Justice is right now doing what all defendants in lawsuits attempt to do: argue whatever points they think will make it most likely that the lawsuit will be dismissed before it gets to trial or judicial decision.

And that approach may work – for now. The official position is that Trump's tweets are official presidential statements, except for when that causes problems at which point the argument is made that they are just personal statements.

So long as those cases never make it to the final determination stage, the strange blurry world of President Donald Trump can persist. But as with many other aspects of his presidency – such as the use of his hotels by government representatives, or the extent of his powers as president over immigration – the institutional barrier-breaking can only persist for as long as it takes legal processes to catch up.

What happens when a Supreme Court determination directly conflicts with Donald Trump's personal preference? Who knows but it would strangely fitting if a constitutional crisis was caused over something so shallow as a Twitter account.

[*michaelsean*]

I don't know but he should do like Obama and have two. Or just stop altogether.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2017, 09:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know but he should do like Obama and have two.  Or just stop altogether.

He does have two.  Mostly the official account is just retweets from his personal account.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-21-2017, 10:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: He does have two.  Mostly the official account is just retweets from his personal account.

Oh well then don't retweet the personal account on his presidential one.  

[GMDino]

(11-21-2017, 10:10 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh well then don't retweet the personal account on his presidential one.  

That would be a good step.  Also not trying to make proclamations from his personal account would be good.  Sadly he always posts to that one first.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-21-2017, 10:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: That would be a good step.  Also not trying to make proclamations from his personal account would be good.  Sadly he always posts to that one first.

Well at least if he didn't mix the two, then his proclamations from his personal account could be called just that and there wouldn't be this legal gray area.  I think if someone just mentions that, he will do it.  He's pretty good about falling in line like that.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2017, 10:21 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well at least if he didn't mix the two, then his proclamations from his personal account could be called just that and there wouldn't be this legal gray area.  I think if someone just mentions that, he will do it.  He's pretty good about falling in line like that.

You forgot the   on your post.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-21-2017, 10:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: You forgot the   on your post.

I always think those ruin it.  If people can't pick it up you didn't do it well enough.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2017, 10:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I always think those ruin it.  If people can't pick it up you didn't do it well enough.

I'd usually agree...but when it comes to the POTUS people are so harline in their views on him I think it blurs their perceptions of such statements.  

[*bfine32*]

Any action by the President should be considered Presidential. I personally hate his tweets and feel it trivializes the Office of the President; however, there are a great many Americans that applaud them. I can't always get everything I want.

[Benton]

It will (most likely) be up to courts to decide, at least as far as open records go.

My short opinion is, yes, they are.
M longer opinion is, it doesn't matter if Trump makes statements about how much coffee he drinks on a hot mic or if he has a really nicely printed letter about the dangers of drinking too much caffeine, both are statements by the POTUS. If he makes them in any public form, they're official statements. That's the nature of the office. If he wants to have personal reflection, then keep a diary, or hire a hooker.

[Goalpost]

I don't think he needs to tweet and sound juvenile at times. That's what I think the name calling is.

I do think he does it though to jab at the MSM, irritating them.

[Matt_Crimson]

The answer to the question depends on the definition itself. So..... what is a presedential statement?

[Benton]

(11-21-2017, 02:35 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The answer to the question depends on the definition itself. So..... what is a presedential statement?

Generally taken as nonbinding POTUS opinions. They can vary from issuing condolences to declaring war (remember, they're nonbonding, he can say just about whatever he wants).

Where they're important is they're used by employees of every branch of government as direction, as well as foreign countries to determine our intentions. 

The POTUS — and even his staff — don't have time to communicate to everyone in his branch, let alone all the branches and military. So if the President Tweets out something like 'We should hire short people; I make great ladders!" then federal employees take that as word from their boss to hire short people. It's not a mandate or a change in hiring policy... but it's a sign it could be.

Same with foreign relations. If the POTUS gets on television and says Constantiopolis is a horrible place full of stupid people, he'd never vacation there, other countries may take that as a sign the executive branch might not be friendly with that country and avoid dealing with it. 

Words mean a lot, even more so for some, which is why it's unfortunate our current President choses his without care.

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-21-2017, 02:57 PM)Benton Wrote: Generally taken as nonbinding POTUS opinions. They can vary from issuing condolences to declaring war (remember, they're nonbonding, he can say just about whatever he wants).

Where they're important is they're used by employees of every branch of government as direction, as well as foreign countries to determine our intentions. 

The POTUS — and even his staff — don't have time to communicate to everyone in his branch, let alone all the branches and military. So if the President Tweets out something like 'We should hire short people; I make great ladders!" then federal employees take that as word from their boss to hire short people. It's not a mandate or a change in hiring policy... but it's a sign it could be.

Same with foreign relations. If the POTUS gets on television and says Constantiopolis is a horrible place full of stupid people, he'd never vacation there, other countries may take that as a sign the executive branch might not be friendly with that country and avoid dealing with it. 

Words mean a lot, even more so for some, which is why it's unfortunate our current President choses his without care.

I guess I'm confused about how this is a debate. If Donald Trump is tweeting something that is not in the form of a question or of general fact, then isn't that a presedential statement considering its an "opinion"? 

If Trump tweeted "We should go to war with North Korea" I don't see how that's any different from him reading it from a teleprompter or a piece of paper.

[Benton]

(11-21-2017, 05:11 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I guess I'm confused about how this is a debate. If Donald Trump is tweeting something that is not in the form of a question or of general fact, then isn't that a presedential statement considering its an "opinion"? 

If Trump tweeted "We should go to war with North Korea" I don't see how that's any different from him reading it from a teleprompter or a piece of paper.

It's not, to most folks. But to the people who have to deal with the fallout (department heads, ambassadors, spokesmen, etc), pretty much the only card they've got left is to say "well, that's not his official stance" whenever he does something super stupid. Or illegal. Or unethical. Like their only hope when the emoluments clause is finally challenged following him spending tens of millions of taxpayer money at his private businesses, or using White House resources to promote his brand. At least then they can say 'well, he wasn't using official channels when his spokes people encouraged shopping Trump.' 

[6andcounting]

They are presidential statements unless Trump explicitly states otherwise:

While not at all presidential I must point out that the Sloppy Michael Moore Show on Broadway was a TOTAL BOMB and was forced to close. Sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 28, 2017

[Mike M (the other one)]

Good to see nothing changes around here.
Sorry for not being around, but I've been kinda busy playing with stocks.