1moretimeagain
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,113
Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 12K
- Views: 324K
- Politics
- Messages
- 15,281
- Messages
- 15,281
Trump’s Declaration Allows Musk’s Efficiency Team to Skirt Open Records Laws
Government watchdog groups say they will challenge the Trump administration’s decision to put the initiative under the Presidential Records Act, which shields its work from public disclosure.
Trump’s Declaration Allows Musk’s Efficiency Team to Skirt Open Records Laws
Government watchdog groups say they will challenge the Trump administration’s decision to put the initiative under the Presidential Records Act, which shields its work from public disclosure.
“… “There should be no need for FOIA requests,” Mr. Musk reiterated on social media, referring to the law that gives the public the right to obtain copies of federal agency records: the Freedom of Information Act. “All government data should be default public for maximum transparency.”
But Mr. Musk's cost-cutting initiative, better known as the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, appears to be heading in the opposite direction.
… Katie Miller, an employee for the efficiency initiative, said on X that Mr. Musk’s office “was reorganized under the Executive Office of the President” and was now “subject to Presidential Records.”
That designation has a special legal meaning under a law called the Presidential Records Act. The law shields from the public all documents, communication trails and records from the president, his advisers and staff until five years after that president leaves office.
That law still requires presidents to keep a broad set of written materials created or received by them while executing their duties. Nonetheless, presidents can also dispose of their records after getting a written approval from the archivist at the National Archives, whom a president can remove from office.
On Friday, Mr. Trump fired the nation’s archivist, Colleen Shogan. No cause or reason was cited, Ms. Shogan said in her LinkedIn page post announcing her dismissal. …”
- Messages
- 15,281
“… Presidents have “complete discretion” over presidential records, said Anne Weismann, a law professor at George Washington University who oversaw public records litigations at the Justice Department at the end of her two decades at the department.
… During Mr. Trump’s first term, federal courts recognized the president’s exclusive authority over presidential records by ruling against nonprofits that sought to stop his advisers from using private messengers that automatically delete messages after a certain period.
Critics are concerned that few oversight structures exist if Mr. Trump fails to preserve the records from Mr. Musk’s cost-cutting initiative.
“They are trying to insulate this entity and the enormous power it appears to be wielding from any kind of judicial interference and public scrutiny,” Ms. Weismann said.
If Mr. Trump chooses to get rid of all those records, there is not much recourse, she said, unless Congress decides to overhaul the Presidential Records Act.”
… During Mr. Trump’s first term, federal courts recognized the president’s exclusive authority over presidential records by ruling against nonprofits that sought to stop his advisers from using private messengers that automatically delete messages after a certain period.
Critics are concerned that few oversight structures exist if Mr. Trump fails to preserve the records from Mr. Musk’s cost-cutting initiative.
“They are trying to insulate this entity and the enormous power it appears to be wielding from any kind of judicial interference and public scrutiny,” Ms. Weismann said.
If Mr. Trump chooses to get rid of all those records, there is not much recourse, she said, unless Congress decides to overhaul the Presidential Records Act.”
- Messages
- 15,281
“… Katie Miller, an employee for the efficiency initiative, said on X that Mr. Musk’s office “was reorganized under the Executive Office of the President” and was now “subject to Presidential Records.”
That designation has a special legal meaning under a law called the Presidential Records Act. The law shields from the public all documents, communication trails and records from the president, his advisers and staff until five years after that president leaves office.
That law still requires presidents to keep a broad set of written materials created or received by them while executing their duties. Nonetheless, presidents can also dispose of their records after getting a written approval from the archivist at the National Archives, whom a president can remove from office.
On Friday, Mr. Trump fired the nation’s archivist, Colleen Shogan. No cause or reason was cited, Ms. Shogan said in her LinkedIn page post announcing her dismissal. …”
www.nytimes.com
——
She was fired so Trump and Musk could work in complete secrecy and destroy all records on Trump’s way out the door.
That designation has a special legal meaning under a law called the Presidential Records Act. The law shields from the public all documents, communication trails and records from the president, his advisers and staff until five years after that president leaves office.
That law still requires presidents to keep a broad set of written materials created or received by them while executing their duties. Nonetheless, presidents can also dispose of their records after getting a written approval from the archivist at the National Archives, whom a president can remove from office.
On Friday, Mr. Trump fired the nation’s archivist, Colleen Shogan. No cause or reason was cited, Ms. Shogan said in her LinkedIn page post announcing her dismissal. …”
Trump’s Declaration Allows Musk’s Efficiency Team to Skirt Open Records Laws
Government watchdog groups say they will challenge the Trump administration’s decision to put the initiative under the Presidential Records Act, which shields its work from public disclosure.
——
She was fired so Trump and Musk could work in complete secrecy and destroy all records on Trump’s way out the door.
- Messages
- 15,281
“… the PRA directs the President, “[t]hrough the implementation of records management controls and other necessary actions,” to “take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that [presidential] activities ․ are adequately documented and that such records are preserved and maintained as Presidential records.” Id. § 2203(a).
… this court's two key PRA precedents, Armstrong v. Bush (Armstrong I ), 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991), and Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President (Armstrong II ), 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
In Armstrong I, the plaintiffs, fearing that then-President George H.W. Bush was mishandling presidential and federal records from the tail end of the Reagan Administration, alleged that Bush's “inten[tion] to delete material from the White House computer systems” ran afoul of the PRA and other statutes. 924 F.2d at 286. We dismissed those claims, holding that given “the intricate statutory scheme Congress carefully drafted to keep in equipoise important competing political and constitutional concerns,” id. at 290, “the PRA precludes judicial review of the President's recordkeeping practices and decisions,” id. at 291.
Two years later, the case returned to our court, this time focusing (in part) on guidelines issued by the White House to distinguish between presidential and federal records. The plaintiffs alleged that the guidelines violated FOIA and the Federal Records Act because they classified federal records, generally subject to immediate public release, see 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA record publication provisions), as presidential records, which, pursuant to the PRA, do not become eligible for release until five years after the President leaves office (or later if the documents contain certain sensitive material), see Armstrong II, 1 F.3d at 1290–91 (comparing the two regimes).
We rejected the government's argument that Armstrong I barred this claim, explaining that the case “does not stand for the unequivocal proposition that all decisions made pursuant to the PRA are immune from judicial review.” Id. at 1293. Quite to the contrary, when determining whether the Executive's definition of “presidential records” subverts FOIA by labeling as “presidential” those federal records that are otherwise subject to immediate public release, we have authority to “review guidelines outlining what is, and what is not, a ‘presidential record.’ ” Id. at 1294.
CREW and the White House have very different views about the implications of Armstrong I and II for this case. CREW interprets Armstrong II as authorizing courts to review “the Executive's ability to exempt an entire class of records (those created on message-deleting applications) from the PRA's reach.” Appellants' Reply Br. 23. By contrast, the White House argues that the Armstrong decisions prohibit courts from reviewing any “claims that the President failed to comply with requirements of the [PRA].” Appellees' Br. 8. But we need not resolve that debate because even CREW agrees that when it comes to compliance with the PRA, courts have no jurisdiction to review the President's “day-to-day operations.” Appellants' Reply Br. 23.
As Armstrong I makes clear—and Armstrong II nowhere casts in doubt—when enacting the PRA, “Congress ․ sought assiduously to minimize outside interference with the day-to-day operations of the President.” Armstrong I, 924 F.2d at 290. That, however, is precisely what CREW now asks us to do. Determining whether White House personnel are in fact complying with the directive to conduct all work-related communication on official email would require just the kind of micromanaging proscribed by Armstrong I. …”
… this court's two key PRA precedents, Armstrong v. Bush (Armstrong I ), 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991), and Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President (Armstrong II ), 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
In Armstrong I, the plaintiffs, fearing that then-President George H.W. Bush was mishandling presidential and federal records from the tail end of the Reagan Administration, alleged that Bush's “inten[tion] to delete material from the White House computer systems” ran afoul of the PRA and other statutes. 924 F.2d at 286. We dismissed those claims, holding that given “the intricate statutory scheme Congress carefully drafted to keep in equipoise important competing political and constitutional concerns,” id. at 290, “the PRA precludes judicial review of the President's recordkeeping practices and decisions,” id. at 291.
Two years later, the case returned to our court, this time focusing (in part) on guidelines issued by the White House to distinguish between presidential and federal records. The plaintiffs alleged that the guidelines violated FOIA and the Federal Records Act because they classified federal records, generally subject to immediate public release, see 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA record publication provisions), as presidential records, which, pursuant to the PRA, do not become eligible for release until five years after the President leaves office (or later if the documents contain certain sensitive material), see Armstrong II, 1 F.3d at 1290–91 (comparing the two regimes).
We rejected the government's argument that Armstrong I barred this claim, explaining that the case “does not stand for the unequivocal proposition that all decisions made pursuant to the PRA are immune from judicial review.” Id. at 1293. Quite to the contrary, when determining whether the Executive's definition of “presidential records” subverts FOIA by labeling as “presidential” those federal records that are otherwise subject to immediate public release, we have authority to “review guidelines outlining what is, and what is not, a ‘presidential record.’ ” Id. at 1294.
CREW and the White House have very different views about the implications of Armstrong I and II for this case. CREW interprets Armstrong II as authorizing courts to review “the Executive's ability to exempt an entire class of records (those created on message-deleting applications) from the PRA's reach.” Appellants' Reply Br. 23. By contrast, the White House argues that the Armstrong decisions prohibit courts from reviewing any “claims that the President failed to comply with requirements of the [PRA].” Appellees' Br. 8. But we need not resolve that debate because even CREW agrees that when it comes to compliance with the PRA, courts have no jurisdiction to review the President's “day-to-day operations.” Appellants' Reply Br. 23.
As Armstrong I makes clear—and Armstrong II nowhere casts in doubt—when enacting the PRA, “Congress ․ sought assiduously to minimize outside interference with the day-to-day operations of the President.” Armstrong I, 924 F.2d at 290. That, however, is precisely what CREW now asks us to do. Determining whether White House personnel are in fact complying with the directive to conduct all work-related communication on official email would require just the kind of micromanaging proscribed by Armstrong I. …”
- Messages
- 823
JCTarheel82
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,167
Yeah, we all saw where that one was headed. Trump identifies with fellow corrupt politicians and businessmen so efforts to suck up to him can be very fruitful.
Mulberry Heel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,683
True, but as I said they won't realize that until it's too late. Watching the initial layoffs of experts, scientists, doctors, professors, etc. at the University of Nebraska will no doubt bring them great joy. And then their local hospital will close, although they'll probably still find some way to blame the Democrats.
- Messages
- 15,281
“President Donald Trump on Monday imposed a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports into the United States with no exceptions or exemptions.
Although the United States gets most of its steel from Canada, Brazil and Mexico, the tariffs are largely — albeit indirectly — aimed at China.
“This is a big deal — making America rich again,” Trump said in announcing the tariffs, according to a pool report.
America imports very little steel directly from China, by far the world’s largest producer of steel. Steel tariffs of 25% launched in Trump’s first administration and continued by former President Joe Biden resulted in American importers shifting to other sources.
Yet Chinese steel does make its way into the United States secondhand. Some is purchased by foreign countries and reshipped to the US. And some of it is mislabeled and resold through various channels. …”
Although the United States gets most of its steel from Canada, Brazil and Mexico, the tariffs are largely — albeit indirectly — aimed at China.
“This is a big deal — making America rich again,” Trump said in announcing the tariffs, according to a pool report.
America imports very little steel directly from China, by far the world’s largest producer of steel. Steel tariffs of 25% launched in Trump’s first administration and continued by former President Joe Biden resulted in American importers shifting to other sources.
Yet Chinese steel does make its way into the United States secondhand. Some is purchased by foreign countries and reshipped to the US. And some of it is mislabeled and resold through various channels. …”
- Messages
- 2,175
Most of the comments for that post is just fElon gargling.