Thread: The truth shall stay buried

In 1974, Congress ordered a lockdown on all records kept by the Nixon White House, afraid that the outgoing president would try to wipe out the paper trail of his disastrous second term and chastened by the recent destruction of decades’ worth of FBI files by the late director J. Edgar Hoover’s loyal secretary. That order was expanded four years later into a law requiring that all presidents’ papers—everything from briefings to personal notes and everyday communications between the president, vice president, and their staffers—be handed over to the National Archives twelve years after their terms ended for eventual public release. Ronald Reagan was the first chief executive to whom the Presidential Records Act applied, and his papers were due to be turned over to Carlin at the beginning of Bush’s term.

Gonzales wanted Carlin to delay the release until June. His letter didn’t say why, but Carlin agreed. Then in June, Carlin got another memo from Gonzales—Bush’s attorney now wanted until the end of August. Carlin agreed again. The extensions continued until November, when Bush issued an executive order: effective immediately, the release of presidential records would require the approval of both the sitting president and the president whose records were in question, rather than just the former. It was what open-government advocates would later describe as a two-key system: under Bush’s rule, Nixon could have buried the Watergate tapes without explaining himself to anyone.

Last Secrets of the Bush Administration - Charles Homans

... effectively throwing up yet another roadblock to any possible investigation of conduct under oath.

No one in the Bush Admin will do time for any crimes committed. Period.

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

Last Secrets of the Bush Administration - Charles Homans

... effectively throwing up yet another roadblock to any possible investigation of conduct under oath.

No one in the Bush Admin will do time for any crimes committed. Period.

Looks like this arrogant act could pave the way for the next Amendment of the Constitution. Speaking of, the spirit of the Constitution in no way shape or form allows for manipulation(s) to transform that National Document into 'ABSOLUTE' when personal gain by an individual or a group of individuals is being called into question. If it did or does, why not just let every President commit or do whatever they wanted to, thus rendering the Constitution moot?

Shit!!!

I didn't go to law school as is obvious, but, the author of this article is suggesting that a President can make an Executive Order dictating that no one entity or person can delve into the past acts of the office of the Presidency just because said President doesn't agree to it? That's Monarchy and or a Dictatorship.

Time for a new Amendment.

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

Last Secrets of the Bush Administration - Charles Homans

... effectively throwing up yet another roadblock to any possible investigation of conduct under oath.

No one in the Bush Admin will do time for any crimes committed. Period.

probably because there is NO PROOF of any crimes being committed.

Originally Posted by spitz9000

probably because there is NO PROOF of any crimes being committed.

What an imbecilic post. Please tell us all, , , how does anyone know?

Originally Posted by whatsyurprob

What an imbecilic post. Please tell us all, , , how does anyone know?

proof would come in the form of evidence (tangible or intangible) that an actual crime has been committed, no such condition exists.

Originally Posted by spitz9000

proof would come in the form of evidence (tangible or intangible) that an actual crime has been committed, no such condition exists.

Who keeps redding you? Some childish people on here.

Originally Posted by spitz9000

proof would come in the form of evidence (tangible or intangible) that an actual crime has been committed, no such condition exists.

You're a little slow, aren't U?

"Proof" can't exist if the guy we're trying to find out about has signed an Executive Order that hinders us from doing just that, , , right?

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

Last Secrets of the Bush Administration - Charles Homans

... effectively throwing up yet another roadblock to any possible investigation of conduct under oath.

No one in the Bush Admin will do time for any crimes committed. Period.

Yeah, that didn't benefit the Clintons in the least, did it?

Which isn't to say I don't agree fully with your point, just drop the nonsense partisanship. There's absolutely no reason papers pertaining to the unclassified activities of the White House and the Legislature shouldn't be open to public review within the statute of limitations, and no more than four years from the date of their creation.

Remember, I'm the guy that proposed mounting webcams on the skulls of all elected and appointed officials and making their every action, 24/7 accessible to the public in real time.

As Reagan said, trust, but verify, and always cut the cards.

Originally Posted by whatsyurprob

Looks like this arrogant act could pave the way for the next Amendment of the Constitution. Speaking of, the spirit of the Constitution in no way shape or form allows for manipulation(s) to transform that National Document into 'ABSOLUTE' when personal gain by an individual or a group of individuals is being called into question. If it did or does, why not just let every President commit or do whatever they wanted to, thus rendering the Constitution moot?

Shit!!!

I didn't go to law school as is obvious, but, the author of this article is suggesting that a President can make an Executive Order dictating that no one entity or person can delve into the past acts of the office of the Presidency just because said President doesn't agree to it? That's Monarchy and or a Dictatorship.

Time for a new Amendment.

It's an unlawful EO, anyway. Executive Orders exist to smooth the operation of the bureaucracy. There's no way a sitting president can write an EO binding on his successor. The successor has equal power and merely re-write or simply repeal the previous EO with a new one.

If Obama wants to make the documents of his predecessors available, he can do so with a simple signature, so long as that EO doesn't conflict with existing law, anway.

So, the real question is....does Obama want to open the doors to Clinton's little chamber of horrors, or not? He can't open Bush's without letting the public see what his Secretary of State's and her husband has been doing, too.

So Obama is going to do nothing and keep those doors bolted shut with a Greyhound bus jammed against them. The Clinton's kept shoggoths!

Originally Posted by spitz9000

probably because there is NO PROOF of any crimes being committed.

You think maybe a timely review of presidential documents might be handy in making that determination, for all presidents?