What Are This Bunch Trying To Pull

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (58 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image88
    Sharlee01posted 23 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/16130669.jpg
    Here we go again!

    BREAKING NEWS 2 hour(s) ago .
    "DNI to give lawmakers 'assessment' of potential risk leading to Mar-a-Lago raid
    Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines as well as other officials will give an "assessment" to top lawmakers about “the potential risk” to national security posed by former President Trump keeping top secret documents at Mar-a-Lago.

    Haines sent a letter to Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) to inform them about the decision.

    Reps. Maloney and Schiff both released the following joint statement:

    “We are pleased that in response to our inquiry, Director Haines has confirmed that the Intelligence Community and Department of Justice are assessing the damage caused by the improper storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The DOJ affidavit, partially unsealed yesterday, affirms our grave concern that among the documents stored at Mar-a-Lago were those that could endanger human sources. It is critical that the IC move swiftly to assess and, if necessary, to mitigate the damage done—a process that should proceed in parallel with DOJ’s criminal investigation," they wrote.

    Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report.  https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/trump … ch-records

    REALLY, Really?    I have one thing to say --- WHY DID THIS ALL TAKE OVER A YEAR AND A HALF? What a crock of crap.

    AND WHY IN THE heLL DId"NT THE ARCHIVES IN JAN  OR THE DOJ IN JUNE 2022 NOT TAKE ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS. FROM TRUMPS HOME?

    These agencies had access to the document, they could have taken the entire mess of them.

    Anyone that is buying into this crap, has little to no brains. Just saying

    Now, what do you say? Got a tongue for relevant current news?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I confess I don't understand any of this.  I thought that we had decided that possession of classified information was alright, and that it could be kept however one might wish.

      Certainly information on private servers connected to the internet or on personal phones is a lot less secure than paper locked in a safe and surrounded by secret service personnel.  And we decided that classified information on private servers and phones did not warrant investigation even though the destruction of hard drives was a good indication that there was more than we already knew.  It just wasn't worthy of investigation then...why is it now, and why is such a big deal being made of it given our history of ignoring much worse in the past?

      Could it be (say it softly) political in nature rather than a matter of legality or risk?

  2. Sharlee01 profile image88
    Sharlee01posted 23 months ago

    Yes, it is alright to keep classified information, if one is a Democrat in Washington. It is perfectly alright, and all that may be involved with that classified information. And yes it is suitable to keep in on a leaky home server.
    It is also acceptable for anyone who was involved with this classified info to obtain immunity from prosecution. And pretty much half of our society feel this is an unwritten rule... But it is not. Hence the problem.

    Common sense tells me that both the archives and the DOJ could have taken every single document on their visits, We are at this point being told to believe these documents were so dangerous in Trump's possession. He has had them for two years... He did not have anything to do with packing them and certainly cooperated with the DOJ subpoena. In reality, Trump still has boxes in his basement. So odd that all boxes were not taken in the raid. He most likely has been set up for these crooks to go back in and find planted documents. At this point, I could never be convinced that this was a total setup. Like I said all boxes could have been removed on two occasions.

    In my view, we are once again witnessing a witchhunt. A ploy to once again smear Trump.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      "Common sense tells me that both the archives and the DOJ could have taken every single document on their visits."

      They were working with Mr Trump and his lawyers all along which I thought many were happy about. They could not just go in and root around his home, that is until they realized he wasn't turning everything over and hence the search warrant was sought and executed.  In my estimation, Mr Trump stonewalled them for a good year.  At that point he was a regular citizen and should have been treated as such. My problem with the DOJ is that they coddled and held his hand for way too long.  But I suppose they were covering all bases in terms of the potential for  violence to break out. Ultimately they followed their own protocol, that is meaningless to a lot of Mr Trump supporters though, absolutely any move DOJ made would be considered persecution.

    2. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Again, Sharlee, you are making more excuses for Trump. Trump clearly has hamhanded classified documents, but it always someone else's fault.

      Why is he the only president in 40 years that could not get the basics regarding this matter done correctly?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        "Why is he the only president in 40 years that could not get the basics regarding this matter done correctly?"

        How do you know?  Which other president has suffered through the intense scrutiny and "investigations" that Trump has?  Which President was subjected to two impeachment attempts (with their attendant "investigations") and that awful "collusion with Putin to fix the election" and it's years long failed investigation? 

        No other president has had the full fury of the FBI, the CIA and Congress thrown at them for years and years.  Why is it surprising that following in the footsteps of beloved Democrat presidential candidates is suddenly illegal, or that Trump is demonized for doing what that Democrat did with impunity?

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

          No, I don't know with certainty that Trump was the only one with this problem but there is no reason to believe that if it had occurred with the last 6 Presidents it would have been ignored. The issue is being made only because it is Trump?

          You all still buy in on the Trump persecution complex? He is playing you like a fiddle. So, every federal agency of the US government is Deep State and are all out to get Trump? Now, what is the real possibility of that being true, I mean really?

          Clinton was impeached and he did not become a "jerk" because of it. Trump is, to say it nicely, unorthodox, but I have a less pleasant and more descriptive word.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            "So, every federal agency of the US government is Deep State and are all out to get Trump?"

            How many Congress members supported Trump when he first hit the scene?  2?  0?  And you ask if the tools (or drivers) of Congress are out to get him after he declared he would "clean up the swamp"?

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

              And what do we have now in Trump? A kingmaker, the vast majority of Republican congressmen in denial and accommodating his incessant lying and whining. Our side never liked nor trusted him and he sow those seeds with his abrasive campaigning. He had until 2019 control of the House? and Senate. Sounds like a lot of support to me.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                Which Democrat ever supported even one action began or supported by Trump?

                But it is true that many Republicans did, at least in public, as he DID represent the party.  Of course as soon as the door closed behind him that support vanished.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  How many Republicans got on board with Obama's agenda in 2009?

                  We are Democrats, we are not going agree with Republicans no more than they agree with us.

                  Seems like he has plenty of support to me, political fortunes rise and fall based upon a kiss bestowed to his ring. Look at the primaries....

      2. Sharlee01 profile image88
        Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

        I am not making any excuses. Several times, I have mentioned that it appears to have been against the law for Trump to have taken documents. What I have shared was my opinion. I find it very odd that all documents were not taken on the three occasions that Government agencies were there in Trump's home. And what I find even more inexcusable - is the DOJ's claims that Trump poses a security risk by having documents. Why have they waited almost two years to make such a big push to retrieve these documents?  There are many attorneys claiming Trump had every right to take the documents, just as many that are saying he did not have the right. So who is being truthful?

        This is an out ploy in my opinion. And will go nowhere as the Jan 6th fiasco did.  I am sticking to my view.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          I'm pretty certain this takes precedence..
          https://www.archives.gov/presidential-l … 8-act.html

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
            Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            What:
            The Presidential Records Act (PRA.)
            When:
            Created during the Reagan Administration,1978. Amended in 2014.
            How:
            Provides a way to handle Presidents' and Vice Presidents' official records, (the records of their Administrations,) that were either created or received after January 20, 1981.
            Why: 
            1. To change the legal ownership of official records from private to public.
            2. To establish a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage the records of their Administrations.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
                Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the *archivist is consulted, AFTER the President leaves office.

                *"...once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal has been obtained in writing."

                Regarding the material he LEAVES there.

                If he takes them home, the records of his administration automatically become unclassified.
                That was his understanding based on what he was told at the Whitehouse after inquiring about it.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  "If he takes them home, the records of his administration automatically become unclassified."

                  This is just not true.  Presidents do have wide powers to declassify documents, but they are supposed to go through a detailed procedure to do so. It does not appear that he went through any such process.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    He took them home. Where is the problem in that? They saw them there six weeks prior. Why did they not tell him to bring them back to the Whitehouse?

        2. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

          "I find it very odd that all documents were not taken on the three occasions that Government agencies were there in Trump's home. And what I find even more inexcusable - is the DOJ's claims that Trump poses a security risk by having documents. Why have they waited almost two years to make such a big push to retrieve these documents?  There are many attorneys claiming Trump had every right to take the documents, just as many that are saying he did not have the right. So who is being truthful?
          ------
          I hear your opinion but disagree. How is that Trump has the right to keep documents considered top secret and beyond in his basement? What is the threat to national security with this material not properly secured?

          The delay is that the authorities tried to be nice and give him time to return all the documents so that they could be properly archived. He resisted, stonewalled and came up with the insane idea that he had a right to keep them.

          Common sense tells you that highly designated security documents, disclosure of which threatens national security, can not be left in someone's basement, anyone's basement and that includes Donald Trump. And he knew better, regardless of the bull that he continues to feed his naive followers.

        3. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Was the search and seizure for any documentation from the White House or for classified documents only?  My understand is that it was for classified documents in spite of your discussion of any and all documents.

    3. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      "In my view, we are once again witnessing a witchhunt. A ploy to once again smear Trump."

      I don't think there is any doubt this is true.  Liberals have tried, over and over, to remove their opponent and have failed miserably every time - this is just another effort.

      Idiots.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        The presidential records act says that a president isn't allowed to leave the white house with records , Mr Trump clearly did. And yet this is a witch Hunt?

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          I think that for many Americans the "witch hunt" part of this is the public display of sending a SWAT team to issue a parking ticket.

          For some Americans the raid may be the 'cherry on top' but for many more, it is the 'straw that broke the camel's back, (there ya go Cred, two in one sentence).

          That thought isn't making light of the claimed national defense importance of the documents, (yet), it is describing a perspective of the raid as just one more witch hunt.

          If there isn't a dead body buried in the redacted parts it will make Pres. Trump a martyr.

          GA

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            Unfortunately I am at the point in this witch hunt where if there isn't a dead body there, there will be after a Democrat committee gets hold of the papers.  Or even before, given the weaponization of the FBI.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image88
              Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

              I am of the same mind --- Over it, done with this kind of deceitful actions out of Washington.  Like I have said at this point I will vote for anyone that the Republicans put up. No pros and cons this time around, just straight-up Republican. This Government corruption and bias need to end, like now.

          2. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            GA,

            From what I recall, it was Trump that made the raid public to gain sympathy from his adoring lemmings.

            Tell me if I am wrong, but this outcome, the raid, was unnecessary? Trump had been asked by the authorities after his term to return ALL classified materials. He had been returning scraps and such, piecemeal. These requests have been going on for some time. Contrary to his belief, being the idiot that he is, those documents did not belong to him.

            If folks are going to continue to excuse him and his behavior, they remain dead to me and their concerns do not rise over their heads. The issues surrounding camels or dromedaries is neither here nor there. What were we to do, Ignore the violations while classified information was in boxes in his basement?  How could we handle the issue delicately with Trump trumpeting for all to see and hear?

            Why do we have to find a body? Trump should not have taken this material in the first place and should have promptly returned it all when asked. That, in itself  is a violation of the law, whether we find a corpus delecti or not.

            I will certainly not make any exception to law and protocol merely to accomodate Trump.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              "What were we to do, Ignore the violations while classified information was in boxes in his basement? "

              That's what we did last time someone was found with classified information.  What has made it different this time?  Outside of being Trump rather than a Democrat, of course?

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                Enlighten me if you please, When was a Democrat was involved in a situation similar to what we have with Trump now?

                It is not just the possession of classified information but Trumps lack of cooperation when asked to return it. Tell me of a situation with a former Democratic president when such was the case?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  What?  Have we already shelved and forgotten the Clinton scandal with classified documents on her private server and telephone?  And you speak of Trumps lack of cooperation - how does it compare with ordering the destruction of hard drives, with a hammer no less?

                  But, of course, Clinton doesn't count because of her political affiliation, right?

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    A State Department investigation into  Hillary Clinton’s private email account found no widespread effort by her aides or other staffers to mishandle classified information.

                    The three-year-long investigation by State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security concluded that 38 individuals committed a total of 91 security violations involving emails sent to or from Clinton’s private server.

                    Case closed.

            2. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              I do not think the 'raid' was necessary. I do not think FBI agents in tactical gear and rifles needed to be stationed at the entrances. I do not think the purposeful appearance of flashing lights 'swooping in' to keep evidence from being destroyed and criminals escaping out of side entrances was necessary.

              Service of a search warrant? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not what we're talking about.

              GA

            3. Sharlee01 profile image88
              Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

              "Why do we have to find a body? Trump should not have taken this material in the first place and should have promptly returned it all when asked. That, in itself  is a violation of the law, whether we find a corpus delecti or not."

              I think once again you have selective thinking. You certainly thought much differently in regard to Hillary. Enough said on that subject.

              "I will certainly not make any exception to law and protocol merely to accomodate Trump".

              But you did for Hillary, did you not?   

              It is very obvious you have not taken a deeper dive in regard to the laws on this matter. It has become sketchy if Trump took any documents he should not have taken. We may want to wait and see what he took and if he was protected by the law. My God, we have been down this road how many times?  We have no idea if Trump will be indicted. If he is he will have a trial, and he has the right to present his case. Maybe we let this play out before  we make statements like this --- "If folks are going to continue to excuse him and his behavior, they remain dead to me and their concerns do not rise over their heads."

              I must say this all looks very put up, a shabby political ploy. As were all the many that lead to nothing.

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                I am not excusing Hillary, as Faye mentioned there was a full investigation and a conclusion in her case. We are trying to get the same point with Trump's.

                We are waiting and seeing, but meantime, the show goes on,

                Unlike Trump, I expect institutions to operate on factual data as professionals and not base investigations on personal vendettas.

                Seems like I have read that many of the documents at Trump's residence that were recovered had top secret designations, am I imagining things? That does not pass the test as to giving the President license to do as he will as the documents definitely have informational value.

                Instead of ignoring the rules he should have availed himself of myriads of administrative staff that were qualified to properly direct him as to how things are to be done properly.... in his haste and his impulsive and arrogant nature he brought this crisis upon himself.

                That is my opinion

                1. Sharlee01 profile image88
                  Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  What I see that really sticks out are two things
                  One - Trump clearly took documents that he was working to return.
                  Two- The FBI could have cleaned every document out of that basement on June 3 when they visited with a subpoena.   

                  And I posted the law about what presidents are allowed to do with documents and what they are not allowed to do.

                  This is a waiting game. If he took documents without knowing he was breaking the law, he can pull a Hillary. Wonder if that would fly? If I remember correctly Hillary was not ever raided or indicted on her illegal server or what was called careless handling of Top Secret information in her emails, and on her server.   A source that covers my Hillary accusations. I don't want my words to be called misinformation.
                  https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases … ail-system

                  If Trump did what Hillary did, he would be in jail. Will he be given the same consideration?

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    "The FBI could have cleaned every document out of that basement on June 3 when they visited with a subpoena."   

                    You're assuming that every document was in one place.

                    "If Trump did what Hillary did, he would be in jail."

                    Well, no because Hillary was never found guilty  of any wrongdoing.
                    "Clinton turned over roughly 33,000 emails from her private server in 2014, and the State Department probe found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”

                    Maybe your guy will see the same end. Who knows.  Would you have rather seen the archives continue to give him more latitude? Having it stretch into 2 years 3 years or more in terms of handing over everything that was missing?

          3. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            the PRA makes clear that the former president has no claim, none, to keep the documents for himself. They are not his documents to take, or keep, or negotiate the transfer of. He had no valid claim to possess the documents.  The FBI search only happened after months of resistance and delay by Mr Trump and his team. If you ask me, he was coddled and treated with kid gloves the entire time.   There was absolutely no reason for the delay.

            1. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              I could, (if I knew more), agree with all of your points and still hold that the 'raid', as conducted, was unnecessary. You've probably seen that explanation by now.

              GA

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          President apparently had, in his possession, classified documents.  That is what is being complained about and investigated, not that he had any records at all.

          And it was made clear, years ago, that possession of classified information was not a problem and was to be ignored.  At least if the person is a Democrat; I guess that if a Republican that matter was still undecided.

          Until now; it appears that only Democrats can maintain classified documents, not Republicans.  Or perhaps it is only the Republican named Trump.  Or Republicans whose name begins with a "T".

        3. Sharlee01 profile image88
          Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

          So sick of hearing that line --- Then they should arrest him! If they could they would. There are several very well-respected attorneys that say differently, So who should we believe?  here is the actual law that Govens at this point.

          Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978
          The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents, and subsequently NARA, must manage the records of their Administrations.  The PRA was amended in 2014, which established several new provisions.

          Specifically, the PRA:

          Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.
          Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.
          Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
          Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
          Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.
          Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.
          Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.
          Establishes a process by which the President may restrict and the public may obtain access to these records after the President leaves office; specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years.
          Codifies the process by which former and incumbent Presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege prior to public release of records by NARA (which had formerly been governed by Executive order 13489).
          Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489.
          Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts:  any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account.  (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)
          Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records.

          After reading this law, it leaves me with lots of questions about what Trump took, and if he did have the power to decide the fate of documents

          Maybe once again --- (and we here on this forum have been through many so-called investigations.) We need to wait and see what comes next.

          I can't stand the hang 'em high before we see even an indictment So far, in all the dramas we have seen no indictments. Just a lot of insult directed at Trump.  One would think some would become tired of insulting this man, just because they can. And some wonder why there is a great divide.

          I fall back on a long-ago quote GA made, it went something like this --- Just glad I am not one of them. 

          I have always felt that was a great line that pretty much says it all in a few words.  The bitterness around here lately is palpable.

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            The law..

            "Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office".

            No, Mr Trump had absolutely no authority to decide the Fate of government documents.
            Will he be brought up on any charges? Who knows. To me it looks like they are giving him every leniency possible.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image88
        Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

        I am so sick of these kinds of actions out of our FBI and DOJ.  They certainly did nothing to the bunch that planned and produced the biggest scam thus far --- Russia Russia Russia. Most involved got immunity and were never even questioned. And the FBI higher-up agents told agents to drop the investigation on the Hunter Biden laptop.

        This needs kind of irrefutable investigations need to stop. I know Trump will fight tooth and nail. This bunch ultimately will be beaten in the end.

  3. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months ago

    "Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on Sunday  noted  that Mr. Trump “should have turned over all” of the classified documents authorities said he kept after he left the White House.

    “I understand he turned over a lot of documents. He should have turned over all of them"

    He makes a lot of sense.  Just plain common sense

  4. Sharlee01 profile image88
    Sharlee01posted 23 months ago

    I think it wise for all that are conversing about this law to read it. Facts are important

    Specifically, the PRA:

    Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.

    Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.

    Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.

    Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records
    .
    Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.

    Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.
    Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.

    Establishes a process by which the President may restrict and the public may obtain access to these records after the President leaves office; specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years.

    Codifies the process by which former and incumbent Presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege prior to public release of records by NARA (which had formerly been governed by Executive order 13489).

    Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489.

    Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts:  any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account.  (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)

    Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records.

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago

    Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records

    Defines the term of Presidential records.

    Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.

    Places the responsibility for the custody and management of the old President's records with the new President.

    Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.

    Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the *archivist is consulted after the President leaves office.

    * "...once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal has been obtained in writing."

    Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.

    Establishes that Presidential records left at the Whitehouse automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.

    Establishes a process by which the President may restrict access
    to these records after the President leaves office. It also establishes a process by which the public may obtain access to these records.

    *specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration,

    * ... allows the President to invoke restrictions, (no more than 6,) to public access for up to 12 years.

    Codifies the process by which former and incumbent Presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege prior to public release of records by NARA.

    Gives Congress, Courts and Administrations special access to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period for former and incumbent Presidents.

    Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts: any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account.

    Prevents an individual who is related to the review, the ability to retain, remove, destroy or  have access to original records if he or she has been convicted of a crime.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago

    National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Standards for Guidance on Maintenance and Storage of Electronic Records ... LEFT AT THE WHITEHOUSE by the previous president.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
      Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      The President is not to destroy the records from his administration. NARA does not say that he cannot take them home to avoid making them public.

      Check It! Trump did not have to be raided. He was cooperating!
      Six weeks earlier he had shown the record-checkers where everything was, and told them to call him if they needed anything, and then he left them there. And then six weeks later when he was out of town, they break in, order the staff to stand outside for nine hours in the hot sun, and then ransack the place, including Melania's closest!

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago

    Reality show, much?

  8. Sharlee01 profile image88
    Sharlee01posted 23 months ago

    Actually, I will repeat the same thing I  shared with Faye. We have no idea what the archives did. We have seen an email communication in May of 2021, and then a leaked letter the archives sent Trump's attorney. We have not any kind of factual information on any other communication between Trump and the archives other than the few things we have seen in the recent media. We have literally not seen anything the archives received from Trump's attorney, have we? Maybe the archives and the DOJ feel they would add some dates and info to the facts. The other side's facts. In the end, I want to know the facts. A few pertinent questions. Did he personally choose documents that were packed? Who actually packed these boxes?  Did he as he claim declassify the boxes?

    I want to see the communications between the Archives and Trump's lawyer. I also hope to see the tapes of the two visits where documents were retrieved. Did the FBI stick to the warrant on what they were allowed to search?  Most of all I want to hear Trump and his account of what happened with these documents. What was he told by his aids in regards to taking documents? 

    We know too little, and this is all becoming a fish story, getting bigger every day.

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    - well, my papers said the raid was in connection to this:

    https://www.insider.com/hillary-clinton … uit-2022-8

  10. Sharlee01 profile image88
    Sharlee01posted 22 months ago

    I am so pleased to see a Federal judge order appointment of a special master to review seized Trump records   The special master will review records seized in the FBI raid of Trump's home.

    This is a step in the right direction in my view. A form of fair justice. We now have the first step to obtaining the "other side" case.  I think this is a positive move on the judge's part.

    Many at this point may have lost confidence in the DOJ and will have a second non-bias opinion in regard to the documents.

    I have come to not trust the current  AG/ DOJ, and feel that a pair of second eyes are needed.  It certainly puts my mind to rest.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)