If Form 1023

[Ken]

According to Robert Barnes and some other constitutional lawyers, a President can do whatever with the documents. Many presidents kept items that was classified at the time. Clinton kept his audio tapes that contained classified info in his sock drawer. A federal judge ruled 10 years ago that a president gets to decide what is his documents, not some archivist.

Well, if you are right then Trump has nothing to worry about and he'll have his case dismissed.

[Sliceitup]

According to Robert Barnes and some other constitutional lawyers, a President can do whatever with the documents. Many presidents kept items that was classified at the time. Clinton kept his audio tapes that contained classified info in his sock drawer. A federal judge ruled 10 years ago that a president gets to decide what is his documents, not some archivist.

There are a lot of presidential documents, but the majority of them will belong to the archives after the presidency. But even more importantly, the president does not own national security documents. Those are documents that are property of the government.

I read a bit of Robert Barnes writing on this subject and he seems to be confused about the fact that Trump is no longer president. Trump no longer has the Executive Power. That power doesn’t just go with him in his post presidency days. He can’t continue to make the same decisions that he did when he was President.

[Bootstrap]

According to Robert Barnes and some other constitutional lawyers, a President can do whatever with the documents. Many presidents kept items that was classified at the time. Clinton kept his audio tapes that contained classified info in his sock drawer. A federal judge ruled 10 years ago that a president gets to decide what is his documents, not some archivist.

Well, if you are right then Trump has nothing to worry about and he'll have his case dismissed.

Those audio tapes were interviews that Clinton gave to historian Taylor Branch, discussing Clinton's presidency from 1993 to 2001. Clinton kept the audiotapes of these interviews in his sock drawer. That's nothing like the records in Trump's case.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2023 ... not-compa/

And Robert Barnes is not making an innocent mistake here, this is blatant misrepresentation. Judicial Watch tried to sue to get these audio tapes. The National Archives had told Judicial Watch that the materials were personal records that did not fall within the Presidential Records Act’s purview. Judicial Watch took it to court and lost.

Trump is welcome to keep his personal records. There is no dispute about that.

That's different from this kind of thing:

The classified documents TRUMP stored in his boxes included information
regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United
States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military
attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack. The unauthorized
disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States,
foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources and the continued
viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.

I don't think Clinton had anything remotely like that in his sock drawer after his presidency. And if he had, I think he would have returned it upon request. Like basically everyone else.

[Jazman]

According to Robert Barnes and some other constitutional lawyers, a President can do whatever with the documents. Many presidents kept items that was classified at the time. Clinton kept his audio tapes that contained classified info in his sock drawer. A federal judge ruled 10 years ago that a president gets to decide what is his documents, not some archivist.

Hmmm not sure about that last assertion there... Based on what Bill Barr said recently and what the lawyers at this Dispatch podcast said, it's actually the opposite. The pres does Not get to decide, especially after he's out of office, and the archivist Does have more power / responsibility over docs, especially after pres is out of office.

But maybe we're both misreading the bits and pieces of media material we have on this matter?

[Ken]

According to Robert Barnes and some other constitutional lawyers, a President can do whatever with the documents. Many presidents kept items that was classified at the time. Clinton kept his audio tapes that contained classified info in his sock drawer. A federal judge ruled 10 years ago that a president gets to decide what is his documents, not some archivist.

Hmmm not sure about that last assertion there... Based on what Bill Barr said recently and what the lawyers at this Dispatch podcast said, it's actually the opposite. The pres does Not get to decide, especially after he's out of office, and the archivist Does have more power / responsibility over docs, especially after pres is out of office.

But maybe we're both misreading the bits and pieces of media material we have on this matter?

You are correct.

Under the law, all records related to the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT are considered public records and must be retained and turned over to the National Archives. In other words, any records generated as part of the job of being president and making presidential decisions.

That does not mean that presidents have no personal life and that everything they say and do while president that is unrelated to their duties in office are public records. If a president happens to buy a book or magazine while on vacation for personal reading, that isn't a public record. And if the president receives a private letter or note from his wife, that isn't a public record. Unless it relates to some public policy decision in which case it might be. And if he calls his mother to wish her a happy birthday, the transcript of that call isn't a public record.

The president and his/her staff do have discretion to decide which is which but they do need to follow the law in doing so. And there are staff at the National Archives who's job it is to provide advice and guidance on this subject if there is ambiguity or uncertainty.

[Josh]

I’m glad we have Ken, Esq. to explain the ins and outs of Presidential records laws, the Logan Act, security clearances, and how to handle classified documents.

[Bootstrap]

In another thread, I just posted this list of the accountability mechanisms for the DOJ and FBI.

Here's the irony: In this thread, the House Oversight Committee is making all kinds of claims that the DOJ and FBI are "unaccountable". But the House Oversight Committee really is basically unaccountable, except to the House itself - and ultimately to the voters. They don't have any of the accountability mechanisms that the DOJ and FBI have.

And that means that they have much more motivation to play politics. Ultimately, winning votes is what keeps them in power. And winning votes is precisely what the DOJ and FBI do not need to do.

They need to do this:

• Internal Inspections and Audits: The DOJ and FBI have internal inspection and audit offices that conduct reviews and evaluations to assess compliance with policies, procedures, and regulations. These internal entities monitor the agencies' activities and identify areas for improvement or potential misconduct.
• Office of the Inspector General (OIG): The DOJ has an independent OIG, which conducts independent audits, investigations, and inspections to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct within the department. The OIG also provides oversight of FBI operations and investigates allegations of misconduct or impropriety involving FBI personnel.
• Congressional Oversight: The DOJ and FBI are subject to oversight by the United States Congress. Congressional committees, such as the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, hold hearings, request documents, and exercise subpoena powers to examine the agencies' activities, policies, and performance. Members of Congress can raise concerns, request investigations, and propose reforms based on their oversight responsibilities.
• Judicial Oversight: The actions of the DOJ and FBI can be subject to judicial review. Courts can evaluate the legality and constitutionality of their actions, including search warrants, surveillance programs, and other investigative techniques. If misconduct is identified, courts can suppress evidence, dismiss cases, or take other appropriate actions.
• Civil Liberties and Privacy Protections: The DOJ and FBI are required to respect civil liberties and privacy rights while carrying out their duties. Laws such as the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provide legal safeguards for individuals' rights, and violations of these rights can be challenged in court.
• Whistleblower Protections: Both agencies have established mechanisms to protect whistleblowers who report misconduct, waste, or abuse. Whistleblowers can make protected disclosures without fear of retaliation and are afforded certain legal protections.
• External Review Boards and Commissions: In some instances, independent review boards or commissions may be established to investigate specific incidents or issues involving the DOJ or FBI. These external entities can provide impartial assessments and recommendations for improvement.

[Sliceitup]

I’m glad we have Ken, Esq. to explain the ins and outs of Presidential records laws, the Logan Act, security clearances, and how to handle classified documents.

I’ve already thought to myself that he sure knows a lot about a lot of different things. At the same time I’d much rather see his information (which is usually based on actual facts) rather than snarky comments that add little to the conversation or anyone’s understanding of it.

[Josh]

But the House Oversight Committee really is basically unaccountable, except to the House itself - and ultimately to the voters. They don't have any of the accountability mechanisms that the DOJ and FBI have.

And that means that they have much more motivation to play politics. Ultimately, winning votes is what keeps them in power. And winning votes is precisely what the DOJ and FBI do not need to do.

In a democracy, being accountable to the voters is accountability.

Unelected bureaucrats are accountable to no one except each other, and the voters can’t vote them out.

You say “winning votes” like it’s a bad thing. Boot, do you think we should have a democracy or not?

[Josh]

I’m glad we have Ken, Esq. to explain the ins and outs of Presidential records laws, the Logan Act, security clearances, and how to handle classified documents.

I’ve already thought to myself that he sure knows a lot about a lot of different things. At the same time I’d much rather see his information (which is usually based on actual facts) rather than snarky comments that add little to the conversation or anyone’s understanding of it.

I mean, whether it’s the Logan Act or the historical position of the church on usury, he’s right there.

Or maybe it’s the topic of how Holdemans should use church funds to lend to schoolteachers to help them buy a car? He’s right there too. He knows more about Holdemans than I do!