• acts with no penalty

    From Bernie Cosell@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 6 14:55:01 2022
    I was amused reading in the WaPo yet more evidence of Trump trying to [and probably often successfully] destroy his records, which are supposed to be preserved by the Presidential Records Act (44 USC 22 if I found the right thing). What led me to check it is that the WaPo article mentions several times

    He left the detritus on his desk in the Oval Office, in the trash can
    of his private West Wing study and on the floor aboard Air Force One,
    among many other places.

    And he did it all in violation of the Presidential Records Act, despite being urged by at least two chiefs of staff and the White House counsel
    to follow the law on preserving documents.

    “It is absolutely a violation of the act,” said Courtney Chartier,
    president of the Society of American Archivists. “There is no ignorance
    of these laws. There are White House manuals about the maintenance of
    these records.”

    And what I thought "what difference does it make to pass a law that says
    that the President "must" or "must not" do one thing or another. What are
    they gonna do -- write him a ticket? take him to court? And that led to
    see what the PRA actually says and after all this blather I get to my
    point:

    No place that I could see in the Act does it specify any penalty for anyone {Pres, VP , archivist, etc] for violating it. What's the point of an act
    with zero teeth? Are there other acts like that?

    /Bernie\
    --
    Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
    bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
    --> Too many people, too few sheep <--

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Sun Feb 6 15:52:50 2022
    On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 5:55:04 PM UTC-5, Bernie Cosell wrote:
    I was amused reading in the WaPo yet more evidence of Trump trying to [and probably often successfully] destroy his records, which are supposed to be preserved by the Presidential Records Act (44 USC 22 if I found the right thing). What led me to check it is that the WaPo article mentions several times

    He left the detritus on his desk in the Oval Office, in the trash can
    of his private West Wing study and on the floor aboard Air Force One,
    among many other places.

    And he did it all in violation of the Presidential Records Act, despite
    being urged by at least two chiefs of staff and the White House counsel
    to follow the law on preserving documents.

    “It is absolutely a violation of the act,” said Courtney Chartier, president of the Society of American Archivists. “There is no ignorance
    of these laws. There are White House manuals about the maintenance of
    these records.”

    And what I thought "what difference does it make to pass a law that says
    that the President "must" or "must not" do one thing or another. What are they gonna do -- write him a ticket? take him to court? And that led to
    see what the PRA actually says and after all this blather I get to my
    point:

    No place that I could see in the Act does it specify any penalty for anyone {Pres, VP , archivist, etc] for violating it. What's the point of an act
    with zero teeth? Are there other acts like that?

    It might be used to prevent a reelection.

    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Sun Feb 6 23:01:28 2022
    Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

    I was amused reading in the WaPo yet more evidence of Trump trying
    to [and probably often successfully] destroy his records, which
    are supposed to be preserved by the Presidential Records Act (44
    USC 22 if I found the right thing). What led me to check it is
    that the WaPo article mentions several times

    He left the detritus on his desk in the Oval Office, in the
    trash can of his private West Wing study and on the floor
    aboard Air Force One, among many other places.

    And he did it all in violation of the Presidential Records
    Act, despite
    being urged by at least two chiefs of staff and the White House
    counsel
    to follow the law on preserving documents.

    “It is absolutely a violation of the act,” said Courtney
    Chartier, president of the Society of American Archivists.
    “There is no ignorance
    of these laws. There are White House manuals about the
    maintenance of these records.”

    And what I thought "what difference does it make to pass a law
    that says that the President "must" or "must not" do one thing or
    another. What are they gonna do -- write him a ticket? take him
    to court? And that led to see what the PRA actually says and
    after all this blather I get to my point:

    No place that I could see in the Act does it specify any penalty
    for anyone {Pres, VP , archivist, etc] for violating it. What's
    the point of an act with zero teeth? Are there other acts like
    that?

    See 18 U.S. Code § 2071, which says,

    "(a)Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates,
    obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do
    so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper,
    document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or
    officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office,
    or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be
    fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or
    both.

    "(b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map,
    book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully
    conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the
    same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
    three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be
    disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used
    in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office
    held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the
    United States."

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 6 23:02:30 2022
    According to Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>:
    No place that I could see in the Act does it specify any penalty for anyone >{Pres, VP , archivist, etc] for violating it. What's the point of an act >with zero teeth? Are there other acts like that?

    When the law was passed in 2014 I don't think it occurred to anyone
    that a president might not be inclined to follow the law.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to John Levine on Mon Feb 7 06:19:24 2022
    On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 23:02:30 -0800, John Levine wrote:

    According to Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>:
    No place that I could see in the Act does it specify any penalty for
    anyone {Pres, VP , archivist, etc] for violating it. What's the point
    of an act with zero teeth? Are there other acts like that?

    When the law was passed in 2014 I don't think it occurred to anyone that
    a president might not be inclined to follow the law.

    I thought when the president did it, it's not illegal ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 7 09:35:03 2022
    On 2/7/2022 6:19 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 23:02:30 -0800, John Levine wrote:

    According to Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>:
    No place that I could see in the Act does it specify any penalty for
    anyone {Pres, VP , archivist, etc] for violating it. What's the point
    of an act with zero teeth? Are there other acts like that?

    When the law was passed in 2014 I don't think it occurred to anyone that
    a president might not be inclined to follow the law.

    I thought when the president did it, it's not illegal ?

    I think that last sentence is missing punctuation. There should be a
    smiley after it.

    The current Dept. of Justice policy is that a sitting President cannot
    be prosecuted -- that is a matter for Congress and the impeachment process.

    But once the President leaves office, yes, he can be prosecuted for what
    he did while in office. Except that in this case the law does not
    prescribe any punishment, so the question is moot.



    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to John Levine on Mon Feb 7 14:25:58 2022
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:stpusd$1ld0$1@gal.iecc.com...

    According to Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>:
    No place that I could see in the Act does it specify any penalty for
    anyone
    {Pres, VP , archivist, etc] for violating it. What's the point of an act >>with zero teeth? Are there other acts like that?

    When the law was passed in 2014 I don't think it occurred to anyone
    that a president might not be inclined to follow the law.


    But that begs the question - why pass a law if you think it will never be violated?

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Mon Feb 7 14:31:20 2022
    On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 12:35:06 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:
    On 2/7/2022 6:19 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 23:02:30 -0800, John Levine wrote:

    According to Bernie Cosell <ber...@fantasyfarm.com>:
    No place that I could see in the Act does it specify any penalty for
    anyone {Pres, VP , archivist, etc] for violating it. What's the point
    of an act with zero teeth? Are there other acts like that?

    When the law was passed in 2014 I don't think it occurred to anyone that >> a president might not be inclined to follow the law.

    I thought when the president did it, it's not illegal ?

    I think that last sentence is missing punctuation. There should be a
    smiley after it.

    Should I assume you understand the reference? That's what Nixon said in an interview after having left office.


    --

    Rick C.

    + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bernie Cosell@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 8 23:07:19 2022
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

    } "John Levine" wrote in message news:stpusd$1ld0$1@gal.iecc.com...
    } >
    } >According to Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>:
    } >>No place that I could see in the Act does it specify any penalty for
    } >>anyone
    } >>{Pres, VP , archivist, etc] for violating it. What's the point of an act } >>with zero teeth? Are there other acts like that?
    } >
    } >When the law was passed in 2014 I don't think it occurred to anyone
    } >that a president might not be inclined to follow the law.
    } >
    }
    } But that begs the question - why pass a law if you think it will never be
    } violated?

    AND if it is violated nothing can be done /b\
    --
    Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
    bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
    --> Too many people, too few sheep <--

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)