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?
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?
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?
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 248 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 44:12:49 |
Calls: | 5,496 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 11,665 |
Messages: | 5,041,803 |
Posted today: | 2 |