10 ms·
Archive and historians sue White House, seek to preserve presidential records
- nof1 6y agoIncredibly important that we have this record as a democracy
- bioinformatics 6y agoI agree. No one in government should be bleaching servers and deleting emails or wiping phones.
- untog 6y agoOf all the places to use that absurd made up concept of "bleaching a server"... Hacker News ain't it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- malandrew 6y agoConsidering that one piece of software that was used in the incident alluded to was called BleachBit, it's an appropriate use of words AFAICT.
- untog 6y agoDo people often refer to 'bleaching' when they use BleachBit? I've never heard it used.
- bigbubba 6y agoI don't think I've ever heard of that particular software in any other context so... hard to say?
- zests 6y agoAnother elected official used the term 'bleaching' or 'acid washing' or something. Don't quote me on this but I seem to recall a fact checking agency rating the statement as "false" because "bleach was not used, it was software called bleachbit". It was a culture war microcosm.
- naniwaduni 6y agoYou may be thinking of this post: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-facts/ https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-fact... ?
- zests 6y agoI am disappointed that this is downvoted on HackerNews of all places. Many of us understand the implications of running a personal email server in your basement/closet. All elected officials should be held to whichever standard we decide to set for them.
- brink 6y agoThe comment was flagged. I assume that it had something to do with Hillary's personal server?
- busterarm 6y agoHN is pulling its best Vancome Lady impression in this thread. LA LA LA LA LA
- kencausey 6y agoYou can counter that by clicking the time after the poster's name and then clicking the 'vouch' button.
- shrimpx 6y agoHow much karma do you need for that to be available?
- kencausey 6y agoI'm sorry, I don't know. But you are probably right that it does require some, perhaps 500?
- KineticLensman 6y agoI don't see a vouch button and I'm at 2450 ish
- ASalazarMX 6y ago
- nickff 6y agoWhy? I'm not trying to be facile, but I imagine most of the documents will never be read, and the most popular ones will either be self-serving or foolish. FDR made a point of leaving as little documentation as he possibly could, during a pivotal time in history, and it doesn't seem to have done any damage.
- bigbubba 6y agoMost of the documents may never be read, but the only way to preserve the valuable documents is to preserve all the documents, lest you lose the valuable ones during your hasty initial evaluation of document worth. Furthermore the worth of some documents may only become apparent in contexts that are not presently known or considered. Sometimes the worth of a document only becomes apparent many years later.
- nickff 6y agoI am an avid reader of history, but I don't find the detailed facts especially valuable. Can you come up with some examples of what real value (aside from entertainment/ammunition) these sorts of documents have? Having read about a number of previous presidents, I cannot think of any specific example made a difference; you might argue that the 'weight of evidence' makes a difference, but I'd be skeptical of that too.
- bigbubba 6y agoAn uncontentious example: Documents created by the Third Reich helped prosecute war criminals.
- nickff 6y agoI don't think the Trump administration is going around destroying census data and prison records. I'm also highly skeptical of the idea that any of the Nuremberg defendants would have gone free without 'private office' documents. As an example, Karl Doenitz was convicted on (somewhat dubious) charges that had nothing to do with Concentration Camps or PoW treatment.
- irrational 6y agoIncredibly important that we have this record for court cases.
- tossaway4123 6y agoOne of the things that makes a democracy (rule of the people) a democracy is that the executive is a servant rather than a king. A servant who doesn't need to hide anything, because all they're doing is what we want... right? Every President before the current one seemed to understand this principle pretty well... except for that Nixon guy. The real problem of democracy nowadays is, who is "we"? Trump seems to think of "we" like the royal "we", not even "we, my Republicans" and definitely not "we, the 300+ million living in the US" as a President would in a perfect world.
- kasey_junk 6y agoEvery president in recent history has been sued for record retention reasons. Here is a case against Obama for instance https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/transparency-first-100-days-presidential-records-and-communications https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/tran...
- lsaferite 6y agoDid we read the same article? You frame that link as a case against Obama, insinuating that his administration was trying to hide presidential records. What part of the linked article supports that exactly? > The Obama administration already has had several opportunities to indicate its approach in this area, and initial indicators are good—with room for improvement. > One of President Obama's "Day One" executive orders revised the implementation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA), revoking a Bush executive order that unduly restricted access to presidential records and reinstating the pre-Bush regime for implementing the Act.
- sonotathrowaway 6y agoWhataboutism only really works with relativism, because no honest account could seriously equate Obama and Trump’s approach toward democracy and the rule of law.
- kasey_junk 6y agoMy point was only that every President deals with litigation about the records placed in the Presidential Records Act. Obama was more progressive on this point (but was notably not progressive on FOIA requests). It’s effectively SOP for public records watchdog groups to sue Presidents at the end of their terms to ensure the Act is followed because its largely toothless without that action.
- thursday0987 6y agoyou're only allowed to be mad about this if you are mad about "Her Emails (TM)" /s obviously
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- HenryKissinger 6y agoI wonder how much of the documentation involved exists only on paper vs. only in digital format. Digital is easier to destroy, so there would be an incentive for WH staff managers with less than honorable motivations to avoid leaving a paper trail as much as possible.
- ericbarrett 6y agoTop White House staff are widely reported to use WhatsApp, Telegram, and other private, non-archivable communications methods. This is illegal[0], of course, but as Congress has abdicated jurisdiction over the Office of the Executive they are not facing consequences. [0] https://www.co-equal.org/guide-to-congressional-oversight/congressional-oversight-of-executive-branch-records-preservation https://www.co-equal.org/guide-to-congressional-oversight/co...
- xyzzyz 6y ago> Congress has abdicated jurisdiction over the Office of the Executive they are not facing consequences. Haven’t they already done so earlier when the exact same issue came up during Hillary Clinton’s private email server affair?
- flatline 6y agoThe abdication to of power to the Executive has been going on longer than that. Personal IT device use has been too, things have only gotten worse since the Clinton email server debacle - which I did think was a big deal at the time, but in today's political landscape seems almost innocuous.
- xyzzyz 6y agoRight, but I mentioned Hillary Clinton email server not just as a general example of abdication of power to executive, but rather because it was pretty much about the same thing as we are discussing here. White House officials using non-official channels and apps for communication is wrong, but it was just as wrong when Hillary Clinton did it, and she didn’t face any consequences for that , or when these emails got missing instead of getting archived.
- golemotron 6y agoThis press release queued up and posted every four years.
- shadowgovt 6y ago[citation needed]
- pmoriarty 6y agoThere's been an argument that was made all throughout the Trump administration that there were honorable people in that administration who stayed on instead of quitting because they sought to minimize the damage that Trump did. Well, now's their chance to prove that they were sincere by saving what they can of these records.
- shadowgovt 6y agoUnfortunately, most of them were ferreted out and fired when they committed the error of breaking kayfabe by questioning or contradicting the President in public. The ones who remain do not have career track records that suggest they are the kind of honorable people who would save a document from the fire.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y agoSo would you support the same Trump supporters in those positions now doing the same to the Biden admin? If not, how is it any objectively different beyond your perspective that “your side is right/good, and the other side is wrong/evil”? Or is it more reasonable that you do your job and set your own politics aside because a peaceful and unobstructed transition of power is a key to a free society? That we should not celebrate or reward unelected partisans internally sabotaging elected representatives?
- jacobush 6y agoYes? Official records should be conserved.
- joshstrange 6y agoParty affiliation and morality are separate things. People can want someone in the administration to act morally and not shred/destroy documents while disagreeing on policy and wanting someone else in that position.
- pmoriarty 6y ago"would you support the same Trump supporters in those positions now doing the same to the Biden admin?" I would absolutely. Every administration's records should be saved.
- site-packages1 6y agoPreservation of materials regardless of admin is paramount to democracy.
- pingpongchef 6y agoThanks for presenting this. I suspected this might be a problem across administrations rather than Trump-specific.
- economusty 6y agoAgreed. We all need to keep in mind the fact that no matter which party you root for every single one of the political class is corrupt. Politics is non-theistic religion at this point.
- shadowgovt 6y agoI'd even say it's a bit more complicated than that: corruption is in the eye of the beholder in a lot of cases. Some cases are clear; some are not. Pork barrel spending, for example.
- pmoriarty 6y ago"I won't bore you with the mechanisms under the hood on the various systems." No, please bore us. Some evidence that a lot of destruction of Presidential records happened in the Obama administration would be welcome too.
- youareostriches 6y agoI’m sure he wants us to “do our own research”, which really just translates to watching conspiracist youtube channels and paid right wing pundits.
- adnzzzzZ 6y agoNo one has to prove anything to you, you know? People can just say things that happened in their lives and others listening can choose to believe them or not.
- tandr 6y ago> when the law (as amended in 2014) requires "a complete copy" to be preserved, including digital links and attachments. I can see this as the reason why Twitter does not delete presidential twits - they don't want to break the law.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hanniabu 6y agoIt shouldn't be an issue because he's using his personal account and not tweeting from @potus.
- dragontamer 6y agoBecause the President conducted official business from his personal account (firing officials, announcing new executive orders, etc. etc.), that makes his personal account part of the official record.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoCourts have already ruled that realDonaldTrump is an official account (he conducts government business on it) in a case forbidding Trump from blocking critics on his account.
- bigbubba 6y agoI don't see it. Twitter could retain an archive of those tweets, while simultaneously not publishing those tweets on their website (''deleting'' them.)
- bdowling 6y ago> why Twitter does not delete presidential twits - they don't want to break the law. The law requires that the President retain and preserve records. [0]. It does not require anything of third parties like Twitter. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/2203 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/2203
- andrewclunn 6y agoEmails go poof and tapes disappear. Just blame "user error;" aint no shady shit here. Rub the record like an Asian foot job, if you know what I mean. Gonna wipe that shit like it's an election machine.
- paulpauper 6y agoA lot of greyed-out comments. Just stopping by to lurk.
- kencausey 6y agoIt is perhaps a tall order for a post of this type, but try to focus on comments of substance.