Trump's January 6th gaps and 15 boxes of documents taken to Mar a Lago are a problem for investigators. We may never know what Trump did in those hours.
"The congressional committee has its work cut out for its investigators if they want to get to the bottom of who said what during those critical hours. They may never really find out. What’s certain is that for those house, its was more 'John Barron' in charge than the man who was elected president."
All the reason to throw the book at Trump and seek the maximum charges allowed under the law for breaking that law. If we don't, expect every other President we elect to "John Barron" everything that they wouldn't like reflected in the record.
This is not really new. It may be difficult to prove all of your suspicions but I'm sure some violations have occurred in every administration including Trump's.
This one of those instances where I was trying to see the silver lining of the Trump administration, where we'd see incidents like this (widely reported at the time), see that the laws and incentives were basically inert, and add to the list of "stuff to fix" for when some sane people came back into power.
Given that Congress still has yet to fix the Electoral Count Act - something that should have been done on Week 1 - I seem to be the only person who was paying attention AND thought that we should plug those holes.
I guess whether I like it or not, some Americans and a significant majority of Congress are perfectly fine choosing kings to rule over us and pretend that they are somehow accountable for their actions in office.
You probably aren't the only person paying attention. You have some good ideas. I do not think anything will change for the better until there are congressional term limits. Concerning the records act, I do not believe it is enforceable considering all the methods we have for communicating. It is mostly useless. Formal arguments and finished products should be archived. Not post-it notes and emails seeking opinions from someone's niece in Cleveland.
A stronger and more consequential Records Act is definitely enforceable.
In my work with healthcare firms, there are very strict rules about the channels you can use to transmit patient health information (PHI). Those channels can be monitored and guarded for both archival and security purposes. If you're caught using alternative channels to transmit PHI, you just committed a data breach and are responsible for notifying the patients about what happened, fixing any issues your breach may have caused (such as paying for identity protection services, and monetary compensation), and even fines from the government, if the case is egregious.
If you want to be President or work in the White House, you agree that you will be communicating in your official capacity (which as the President is 24/7, 365 days a year, for four years) ONLY via those channels. No WhatsApp, Signal, etc. It doesn't matter what you're saying, if you're in the White House and using something different, automatic hefty fine and/or termination of your job (for everyone who is not President or First Lady).
If we DON'T do this, then we (the electorate) lose whatever accountability over the folks WE choose as President, because we lose the consequence that Presidential malfeasance WILL be discovered because their every communication is logged and archived.
This is entirely doable - the question is whether we have the political will to see it implemented AND enforced. Given voters' tribal loyalties, I might as well be shouting at clouds (and not the kind made out of servers).
This is not directly related to politics, but I believe medical costs could be reduced noticeably without all the privacy BS. My only concern is that access to my DOB, SSN, phone number, address and method of payment be off limits. The results of my colonoscopy or other exams and procedures can be published in the NY Times. People who insist on running up the cost should pay for it through a surcharge. Other rules are similarly costly. My physician has to pay a clerk to document that I am reasonably cognizant and informed of all the stuff required by regulation.
I can't speak to your colonoscopy, but there are good arguments for having a secure-by-default infrastructure in place, which is where I bump into most of the HIPAA-related stuff I get into. Especially in the age of identity thieves and state-level actors looking to disrupt things. Fortunately, the increase in cost of protecting things like your colonoscopy is effectively negligible, once you have the infrastructure in place to protect SSN, DOB, and credit card information.
That's not to say that the processes couldn't be improved, and that's an active area some folks are working on. I just got off a call with a client a few hours ago, where we're trying to get their startup off the ground that does exactly that. Doctors aren't a fan of all the processes either, and inefficient and burdensome processes limits the number of patients they can see in a day, which directly impacts the bottom line.
So, you want a recording crew to accompany the President at all times. I believe your expectation of collecting evidence of POTUS malfeasance is naive.
If a recording crew were feasible, I'd be 100% for it. (Maybe automatic filming drones in about a decade?)
In the meantime, we have no excuse for not implementing a robust document retention standard. If companies across the country can manage, then so can the White House.
New or not, whether or not it's happened in other administrations, it displays a reckless disregard for history and a definite belief that he was above the law. Seriously, this is much the same thing Republicans were screaming at Hillary Clinton for.
The Secretary of State has no authority to compromise Top Secret documents. On the other hand, the President can declassify and make public any classified document.
I agree that lawbreaking is not a good thing. However, there is no penalty associated with the Presidential Records Act. It's just another example of Congressional posturing in an effort to show they are useful. They failed once again.
I suppose Congress could attempt another impeachment and continue the political theater instead of balancing the budget and protecting the borders.
"On the other hand, the President can declassify and make public any classified document."
The President can do that. However, in the current Mar-a-Lago case, Trump was not President with those powers. Only a former President who once had those powers. Trump can't claim any classified documents discovered in his house are declassified if he didn't declassify them before leaving office.
Good point. If that's the case, it puts him in the same category as Hillary Clinton and Sandy Berger and he should be punished as severely as they were.
While I'd like to see Trump (and Clinton and Berger) be prosecuted to the fuller extent of the law, I suspect that nothing will happen here. If Trump gets the same sentence as Berger ($50K fine, two years of probation, 100 hours of community service, ineligible for a security clearance for 3 years, and a misdemeanor on his record), I'd take the win and declare limited success.
"The congressional committee has its work cut out for its investigators if they want to get to the bottom of who said what during those critical hours. They may never really find out. What’s certain is that for those house, its was more 'John Barron' in charge than the man who was elected president."
All the reason to throw the book at Trump and seek the maximum charges allowed under the law for breaking that law. If we don't, expect every other President we elect to "John Barron" everything that they wouldn't like reflected in the record.
Nixon’s 18-minute tape gap comes to mind.
This is not really new. It may be difficult to prove all of your suspicions but I'm sure some violations have occurred in every administration including Trump's.
https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/trump-and-toothless-presidential-records-act
This one of those instances where I was trying to see the silver lining of the Trump administration, where we'd see incidents like this (widely reported at the time), see that the laws and incentives were basically inert, and add to the list of "stuff to fix" for when some sane people came back into power.
Given that Congress still has yet to fix the Electoral Count Act - something that should have been done on Week 1 - I seem to be the only person who was paying attention AND thought that we should plug those holes.
I guess whether I like it or not, some Americans and a significant majority of Congress are perfectly fine choosing kings to rule over us and pretend that they are somehow accountable for their actions in office.
You probably aren't the only person paying attention. You have some good ideas. I do not think anything will change for the better until there are congressional term limits. Concerning the records act, I do not believe it is enforceable considering all the methods we have for communicating. It is mostly useless. Formal arguments and finished products should be archived. Not post-it notes and emails seeking opinions from someone's niece in Cleveland.
A stronger and more consequential Records Act is definitely enforceable.
In my work with healthcare firms, there are very strict rules about the channels you can use to transmit patient health information (PHI). Those channels can be monitored and guarded for both archival and security purposes. If you're caught using alternative channels to transmit PHI, you just committed a data breach and are responsible for notifying the patients about what happened, fixing any issues your breach may have caused (such as paying for identity protection services, and monetary compensation), and even fines from the government, if the case is egregious.
If you want to be President or work in the White House, you agree that you will be communicating in your official capacity (which as the President is 24/7, 365 days a year, for four years) ONLY via those channels. No WhatsApp, Signal, etc. It doesn't matter what you're saying, if you're in the White House and using something different, automatic hefty fine and/or termination of your job (for everyone who is not President or First Lady).
If we DON'T do this, then we (the electorate) lose whatever accountability over the folks WE choose as President, because we lose the consequence that Presidential malfeasance WILL be discovered because their every communication is logged and archived.
This is entirely doable - the question is whether we have the political will to see it implemented AND enforced. Given voters' tribal loyalties, I might as well be shouting at clouds (and not the kind made out of servers).
This is not directly related to politics, but I believe medical costs could be reduced noticeably without all the privacy BS. My only concern is that access to my DOB, SSN, phone number, address and method of payment be off limits. The results of my colonoscopy or other exams and procedures can be published in the NY Times. People who insist on running up the cost should pay for it through a surcharge. Other rules are similarly costly. My physician has to pay a clerk to document that I am reasonably cognizant and informed of all the stuff required by regulation.
I can't speak to your colonoscopy, but there are good arguments for having a secure-by-default infrastructure in place, which is where I bump into most of the HIPAA-related stuff I get into. Especially in the age of identity thieves and state-level actors looking to disrupt things. Fortunately, the increase in cost of protecting things like your colonoscopy is effectively negligible, once you have the infrastructure in place to protect SSN, DOB, and credit card information.
That's not to say that the processes couldn't be improved, and that's an active area some folks are working on. I just got off a call with a client a few hours ago, where we're trying to get their startup off the ground that does exactly that. Doctors aren't a fan of all the processes either, and inefficient and burdensome processes limits the number of patients they can see in a day, which directly impacts the bottom line.
So, you want a recording crew to accompany the President at all times. I believe your expectation of collecting evidence of POTUS malfeasance is naive.
If a recording crew were feasible, I'd be 100% for it. (Maybe automatic filming drones in about a decade?)
In the meantime, we have no excuse for not implementing a robust document retention standard. If companies across the country can manage, then so can the White House.
New or not, whether or not it's happened in other administrations, it displays a reckless disregard for history and a definite belief that he was above the law. Seriously, this is much the same thing Republicans were screaming at Hillary Clinton for.
The Secretary of State has no authority to compromise Top Secret documents. On the other hand, the President can declassify and make public any classified document.
I agree that lawbreaking is not a good thing. However, there is no penalty associated with the Presidential Records Act. It's just another example of Congressional posturing in an effort to show they are useful. They failed once again.
I suppose Congress could attempt another impeachment and continue the political theater instead of balancing the budget and protecting the borders.
"On the other hand, the President can declassify and make public any classified document."
The President can do that. However, in the current Mar-a-Lago case, Trump was not President with those powers. Only a former President who once had those powers. Trump can't claim any classified documents discovered in his house are declassified if he didn't declassify them before leaving office.
Good point. If that's the case, it puts him in the same category as Hillary Clinton and Sandy Berger and he should be punished as severely as they were.
While I'd like to see Trump (and Clinton and Berger) be prosecuted to the fuller extent of the law, I suspect that nothing will happen here. If Trump gets the same sentence as Berger ($50K fine, two years of probation, 100 hours of community service, ineligible for a security clearance for 3 years, and a misdemeanor on his record), I'd take the win and declare limited success.