The Duke
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2022
- 32,072
- 39,329
- 2,788
It's over! I thought FBI had to have 2 years of law school? Apparently they have never studied precedents of former presidents and Vice Presidents taking things home with them. There are many, many listed in this court case here where the judge ruled Clinton got to keep the tapes he made:
"
NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as
“Presidential records,”
The president does have broad and sweeping powers when it comes to presidential records and classifications. Only the president does, and it's much more than any FBI or NARA, or SOS, or DOJ have.
"
The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained
authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents"
Just read all the precedents where former presidents and VP's got to keep things or delete or destroy things.
Like this one:
Armstrong v. Bush , 721 F. Supp. 343, 347
(D.D.C. 1989).
"
NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as
“Presidential records,”
The president does have broad and sweeping powers when it comes to presidential records and classifications. Only the president does, and it's much more than any FBI or NARA, or SOS, or DOJ have.
"
The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained
authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents"
Just read all the precedents where former presidents and VP's got to keep things or delete or destroy things.
Like this one:
Armstrong v. Bush , 721 F. Supp. 343, 347
(D.D.C. 1989).
Last edited: