3 ms·
First, you really want to read the link you posted because it highlights that there’s more to it than NARA’s general guidance for the entire federal government,
by acdha 2y ago
First, you really want to read the link you posted because it highlights that there’s more to it than NARA’s general guidance for the entire federal government, including specific laws for defense information. That’s presumably why it quotes people saying that they think it’s illegal but avoids making a definitive statement.
Even if that defense-specific law is determined not to apply, as that article explains this is still at least borderline illegal. It links to the relevant law:
> (Sec. 10) Prohibits an officer or employee of an executive agency from creating or sending a record using a non-official electronic messaging account unless such officer or employee: (1) copies an official electronic messaging account of the officer or employee in the original creation or transmission of the record, or (2) forwards a complete copy of the record to an official electronic messaging account of the officer or employee not later than 20 days after the original creation or transmission of the record. Provides for disciplinary action against an agency officer or employee for an intentional violation of such prohibition.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1233 https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1233
I haven’t seen even his most devoted defenders claim that he officially set up a process to archive all of their Signal messages at all, and the fact that the chats were set up to delete messages after 7 days certainly doesn’t suggest an intention in following it. Moreover, even if they didn’t have messages deleted automatically Signal allows people to manually edit or delete messages so they’d be placed in the difficult position of proving the negative that they hadn’t removed official records.
- firesteelrain 2y agoThe law linked says that they must copy the official account at the time of the message, or they can forward the message to the official account within 20 days. It doesn’t outright ban Signal. What I provided as parameters could have been followed. We don’t know. Someone would have to file a FOIA. The only ramifications are political in nature. Trump could decide to remove him.
- acdha 2y agoYes, he’s effectively above the law because his boss controls the DOJ and could pardon him. That doesn’t mean that he’s in compliance with the law, only that Republicans consider obeying laws optional if it interferes with their exercise of power.
- firesteelrain 2y agoI don’t agree. George Santos just got convicted and will be serving 7 years for fraud. He is/was Republican. Not saying any one of them is perfect, just trying to be reasonable that he probably used Signal and maybe still does but it’s not this blazing fire that it’s made out to be. Plus, the President is the ultimate classification authority. He can make the rules.
- acdha 2y agoSantos isn’t comparable: he was charged under an administration which followed the law, at a time when his vote didn’t affect the balance of power, and he also lied to his fellow Republicans. Based on what we’ve seen so far with a newly-politicized DOJ, it’s debatable whether he’d have the same outcome now or be seen as a very safe vote after being given a deal like Eric Adams to avoid punishment as long as he toes the line. While it’s true that the president can set policy, there’s no evidence that he’s done so in this case. You’ve made a really concerted effort to try to imagine scenarios where this wouldn’t be a big deal but there’s no evidence that they’re real. For example, if Trump had decreed that personal devices were approved for classified messages, you’d expect that Hegseth would have defended himself by pointing to that memo.
- firesteelrain 2y ago[flagged]