Step Away From That Shredder ...

by hilzoy

The AP, via FDL:

"Dick Cheney's lawyers are asserting that the vice president alone has the authority to determine which records, if any, from his tenure will be handed over to the National Archives when he leaves office in January. (...)

"The vice president alone may determine what constitutes vice presidential records or personal records, how his records will be created, maintained, managed and disposed, and are all actions that are committed to his discretion by law," according to a court filing by Cheney's office with the U.S. District Court on Dec. 8.

Cheney is being sued by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog group that is trying to ensure that no presidential records are destroyed or handled in a way that makes them unavailable to the public.

The 1978 Presidential Records Act requires all presidential and vice presidential records to be transferred to the National Archives immediately upon the end of the president's last term of office and gives the archivist responsibility to preserve and control access to presidential records. The law ended the tradition of private ownership of presidential papers, opening White House records to the public and historians. (...)

But the law is unclear on how disagreements will be decided about the preservation of disputed records, said Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists.

"Decisions that are made in the next couple of weeks may prove irrevocable. If records are held from the archivist now they may never be recovered," Aftergood said.

A judge in September ordered Cheney to preserve all his records while the suit continued."

Someone needs to make sure that Cheney carries out that order. Cheney is exactly the sort of person who could decide to shred his documents and say to a judge: Go ahead, hold me in contempt. I dare you.

If he is not prosecuted, that will be bad enough. But if he destroys the record of his time in office, then we may never learn what he was actually up to when he claimed to be serving us, at our expense. A crucial part of the record of how our government was systematically perverted will be lost, and we will not be able to learn from it how to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. We cannot let that happen. Too much depends on it.

Comments

[now_what]

we will not be able to learn from it how to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again

Easy. Stop voting for republicans.

[KCinDC]

I find it hard to believe that Cheney hasn't already destroyed a great proportion of the records from his time in office.

[Carleton Wu]

It also suggests to me that Cheney, despite his rhetoric, knows both what he is and how history will perceive him. People who are proud of who they are and what they've accomplished don't go to court to prevent it from seeing the light of day.
He lacks even the courage of his own twisted convictions.

[unkraut]

This is also a good time to ensure that Rahm Emanuel, R. Blagojevich, B.H.Obama, Christopher Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and former congressman William Jefferson (among others) don't destroy their records, either.

Merry Fitzmas and a Hopey Changey New Year

[dr ngo]

Unkraut: And which of these Democratic gentlemen that you name is threatening to destroy his records, or claiming that he and he alone has the right to decide to do so?

I'm sure you will have an instant response to this, as you so clearly value an exact symmetry in politics and rhetoric. Alleged Republican wrongdoing must be matched by identical alleged Democratic wrongdoing.

Mustn't it?

[Hartmut]

Why should he keep any of the stuff that could send him to the chair, the chamber or the wedding with the daughter of Mr.Roper?
And what could happen to him, if he shreds all of it? Do you think there will be no pardon? Even if Bush had the dignity (or the delusion that there was nothing to pardon) not to issue one, Chain-Eye would have his ways to "persuade" him. Would be nice to see him giving King's evidence against his former (nominal) master though.
I would prefer: For every ounce of body of evidence shredded one ounce of your body shall likewise be shredded.

[OCSteve]

What does he have to lose? He knows he’s never going to be prosecuted for a thing he has done. He thinks he did the right things, he’s proud of what he’s done and truly believes he’ll be vindicated by history.

On the most serious things – I’m sure any paper was shredded and burned long ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently Cheney didn't learn the lesson Bill Clinton taught: You don't have to destroy records, if you don't keep them in the first place. Or else any records Cheney now finds embarrassing would have met the same fate as the Clinton administration's phone logs.

What was he planning on doing with those records, anyway, that he kept them in the first place?

Yes, I certainly agree, no records should be destroyed. In fact, I think it would be an excellent ideal if every person elected to federal office were outfitted with a 'wire' on assuming office, their every utterance remotely recorded for posterity at multiple archives beyond their reach.

[Gary Ruppert]

The fact is, Cheney has this right, as does Bush. There is nothing in the constitution about records management practices. Sunshine laws entirely benefit liberals, and are unconstitutional. National security trumps all and the liberals will have to suck it up.

[phg]

as per carlton wu's statement above, it reminds me of a line i use in closing arguments of my trials in which a party (usually a corporation of some type) has failed to produce documents and tried to hide behind some sort of privelege:

"ladies and gentlemen, truth screams. weasels whisper".

[Anna Granfors]

The problem is that Deep Throat died, literally, a few days ago, and metaphorically, over the last 28 years. And if someone proved to be suicidal enough to rise to the occasion, they would be thoroughly marginalized at best or "suicided" at worst.

[hoser]

Gary Ruppert betrays his ignorance when stating "nothing in the constitution [sic]...." There are many things not in the Constitution, that does not mean they are not federal law.

[hoser]

Gary Ruppert betrays his ignorance when stating "nothing in the constitution [sic]...." There are many things not in the Constitution, that does not mean they are not federal law.

[hoser]

Gary Ruppert betrays his ignorance when stating "nothing in the constitution [sic]...." There are many things not in the Constitution, that does not mean they are not federal law.

[Ben Alpers]

Easy. Stop voting for republicans.

Well we'll all get to see the efficacy of that strategy, now_what.

We did stop voting for Republicans this November. What will the Obama administration do about the war crimes of the Bush Administration? How will they address the records issues?

I honestly don't have a strong sense of what the likely answers to these questions are (though I have my hopes and fears.) The record of Congressional Democrats over the last eight years on issues of openness in government has been decidedly ambivalent, filled with yapping but very little action.

I'm also amused how quickly the discursive water becomes filled with "everybody does it" squid ink whenever the crimes of the Cheney-Bush administration are mentioned. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. There's simply no comparison between either the underlying crimes of Cheney-Bush on the one hand and Jefferson, Blagojevich, and the other actual Democratic miscreants on the other, nor between the scale of the attempted cover up in the two sets of cases. Bonus points for throwing in the names of entirely innocent Democrats (e.g. "B.H. Obama") when listing the guilty!

[Ben Alpers]

Easy. Stop voting for republicans.

Well we'll all get to see the efficacy of that strategy, now_what.

We did stop voting for Republicans this November. What will the Obama administration do about the war crimes of the Bush Administration? How will they address the records issues?

I honestly don't have a strong sense of what the likely answers to these questions are (though I have my hopes and fears.) The record of Congressional Democrats over the last eight years on issues of openness in government has been decidedly ambivalent, filled with yapping but very little action.

I'm also amused how quickly the discursive water becomes filled with "everybody does it" squid ink whenever the crimes of the Cheney-Bush administration are mentioned. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. There's simply no comparison between either the underlying crimes of Cheney-Bush on the one hand and Jefferson, Blagojevich, and the other actual Democratic miscreants on the other, nor between the scale of the attempted cover up in the two sets of cases. Bonus points for throwing in the names of entirely innocent Democrats (e.g. "B.H. Obama") when listing the guilty!

[Ben Alpers]

Easy. Stop voting for republicans.

Well we'll all get to see the efficacy of that strategy, now_what.

We did stop voting for Republicans this November. What will the Obama administration do about the war crimes of the Bush Administration? How will they address the records issues?

I honestly don't have a strong sense of what the likely answers to these questions are (though I have my hopes and fears.) The record of Congressional Democrats over the last eight years on issues of openness in government has been decidedly ambivalent, filled with yapping but very little action.

I'm also amused how quickly the discursive water becomes filled with "everybody does it" squid ink whenever the crimes of the Cheney-Bush administration are mentioned. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. There's simply no comparison between either the underlying crimes of Cheney-Bush on the one hand and Jefferson, Blagojevich, and the other actual Democratic miscreants on the other, nor between the scale of the attempted cover up in the two sets of cases. Bonus points for throwing in the names of entirely innocent Democrats (e.g. "B.H. Obama") when listing the guilty!

[Ben Alpers]

Easy. Stop voting for republicans.

Well we'll all get to see the efficacy of that strategy, now_what.

We did stop voting for Republicans this November. What will the Obama administration do about the war crimes of the Bush Administration? How will they address the records issues?

I honestly don't have a strong sense of what the likely answers to these questions are (though I have my hopes and fears.) The record of Congressional Democrats over the last eight years on issues of openness in government has been decidedly ambivalent, filled with yapping but very little action.

I'm also amused how quickly the discursive water becomes filled with "everybody does it" squid ink whenever the crimes of the Cheney-Bush administration are mentioned. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. There's simply no comparison between either the underlying crimes of Cheney-Bush on the one hand and Jefferson, Blagojevich, and the other actual Democratic miscreants on the other, nor between the scale of the attempted cover up in the two sets of cases. Bonus points for throwing in the names of entirely innocent Democrats (e.g. "B.H. Obama") when listing the guilty!

[Ben Alpers]

Easy. Stop voting for republicans.

Well we'll all get to see the efficacy of that strategy, now_what.

We did stop voting for Republicans this November. What will the Obama administration do about the war crimes of the Bush Administration? How will they address the records issues?

I honestly don't have a strong sense of what the likely answers to these questions are (though I have my hopes and fears.) The record of Congressional Democrats over the last eight years on issues of openness in government has been decidedly ambivalent, filled with yapping but very little action.

I'm also amused how quickly the discursive water becomes filled with "everybody does it" squid ink whenever the crimes of the Cheney-Bush administration are mentioned. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. There's simply no comparison between either the underlying crimes of Cheney-Bush on the one hand and Jefferson, Blagojevich, and the other actual Democratic miscreants on the other, nor between the scale of the attempted cover up in the two sets of cases. Bonus points for throwing in the names of entirely innocent Democrats (e.g. "B.H. Obama") when listing the guilty!

[John Thullen]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the cheney for which it madoff, one jackoffkingston inblagojevichable, with hannity and funkypaper for all .....

.... and to all, higher copays to incentivize
not having the doctor check out the blood in your stool....

..... and may you receive smaller rations in the future, but may you be permitted to hedge with rations futures based on sophisticated mathematical algorithims, whose transparency may be strictly rationed until it's too late......

..... and may your Christmas stocking be filled with clean coal and the worthless fruits of your own labor and nobody elses because Santa Rand will bend you over the coal scuttle and give you a voucher for a good rogering in lieu of cash ...

... and may you bleed when pricked, for it is better to be the prick than to bleed, for the prick shall bleed last in the heirarchy of bloody prickdom in these ufrighted states we call foreclosed home....

... and may charity sooth you when you fail, unless your money manager attended the Ponzi School of Business and invested all of the charitable dollars in warrants for your arrest ...

... and may this comment be posted once and only once to save you from scrolling and swearing and ulcer flareups ...

[Mike T]

This reminds me of the flap that occurred as soon as W. took office. I don't recall all of the specifics, but the incoming Bush Administration declared that the records from Bush Senior's Administration would remain at his Presidential Library instead of being handed over to the Archives like they should have been. Does anyone else recall this? Turns out it merely foreshadowed the years of the secrecy that were about to come.

[Jeff Darcy]

WTF does this have to do with national security, Gary Ruppert? Or is that just a card you like to pull out regardless of applicability? Also, the constitution might not say that official records must be public but it doesn't say that they must be private. These are not the president's or vice president's personal effects, and not covered by the bill of rights. These are the people's effects from the instant of their creation, and there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about requiring that they remain accessible to the people. If sunshine laws benefit liberals it's because they don't get their jollies by pissing on the constitution like conservatives do. Take your completely made-up excuses back under your rock with you.

[Charles Gittings]

Those interested will find most of the legal documents from this case on my website here:

http://www.pegc.us/archive/CREW_v_OVP/

[KCinDC]

Hmm, I thought Gary Ruppert's comment was a spoof, but looking again I suppose it could be real.

[Nell]

Mike T. made the comment I was about to. If I recall correctly, that was W's first executive order on taking office. They began as they meant to go on...

[matttb.]

Isn't Gary Ruppert the resident spoof wingnut @ Sadly, No!?

[Phil]

Impressive, Brett. It took you less than 12 hours to get to "Clinton did it too!"

[matttbastard]

Ah, a little googling reveals that the jury is still out on whether Ruppert posts in earnest or facetiously. Regardless, feeding is likely pointless either way.

[Gary Farber]

"Apparently Cheney didn't learn the lesson Bill Clinton taught: You don't have to destroy records, if you don't keep them in the first place."

Yes, he did.

One of the major concerns of historians and academics, as society moved into the electronic age, was that many of the written documents -- like letters, diaries, messages and memos -- so important in reconstructing history later would simply be deleted over time and not left as paper documents for archivists to pore over as in previous centuries.

Well, historians need not worry about memo deletions as far as Vice President Dick Cheney's files are concerned.

The reason: He doesn't write memos. He leaves no paper trail. On purpose.

Speaking last week in Grand Rapids, Mich., at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, Ford's one-time White House chief of staff said, "Researchers like to come and dig through my files, to see if anything interesting turns up."

"I want to wish them luck," the vice president said to a laughing audience. "But the files are pretty thin. I learned early on that if you don't want your memos to get you in trouble someday, just don't write any."

"Yes, I certainly agree, no records should be destroyed."

In fact, it's against federal law to destroy any records of any official business, and that includes any attempts to circumvent the law by trying to use private email accounts or other such subterfuges. On top of other law is the Presidential Records Act of 1978.

"I don't recall all of the specifics, but the incoming Bush Administration declared that the records from Bush Senior's Administration would remain at his Presidential Library instead of being handed over to the Archives like they should have been. Does anyone else recall this?"

Executive Order 13233: this changed the mandated legal procedure under the 1978 Act (passed specifically because of Richard Nixon's attempts to sequester his records/files) of requiring presidential records to be transferred to the National Archives immediately upon the president leaving office, and to be released to the public within 12 years, to requiring the approval of the current president to release the records of past presidents and vice-presidents.

Bush issued the order in March of 2001, following an earlier White House memo to the same effect, just as the Reagan papers were about to be publically released.

Pure coincidence, no doubt, and nothing to do with looking ahead to the succeeding Republican administrations they hoped for, either.

[Downtownted]

Let us be straight up about this. Cheney is breaking the law here. He has broken many laws. You and I know he is going to get away with it. No one from this administration is going to go after him. The Republicans are relying, correctly history will show, on the fact that Democrats are wimps and will let them get away with all of these crimes against our country and its people. Maybe a lower level flunkie but not the real persons in power.

Which is why the next time they take the White House, your rights are going to disappear faster than Frosty on a hot sunny day. But you aren't going to fight to bring them to justice and so my friends there will be none for you next time around

[Gary Farber]

"But you aren't going to fight to bring them to justice and so my friends there will be none for you next time around"

I'm so glad you can mindread, and know so well, all the people who read ObWi; I'm so happy you are here to be superior to everyone else. Thanks so much!

[Ben Alpers]

Belated apologies for the accidental repost (at this point I should know that TypePad error messages are often in error about whether or not a comment has been posted!)

[efgoldman]

[Posted by me on another blog, but entirely appropriate here:

One of three things is true about Cheney:

1) He feels like the “invulnerable” bad guy near the end of a movie: the hero is in his clutches, and will soon be dead. Its time to explain everything, so the hero will know as he dies how fiendishly clever, and cleverly evil, the bad guy has been.
(Of course, the hero always escapes and vanquishes the villain.)

Which means the fix is in and Bush has already drawn up the pardons which he will sign on the way out the door.

2) Cheney is really totally pathological, and believes everything he says, and that everything he and the rest of that gang did was necessary and heroic.

Which means the fix is in and Bush has already drawn up the pardons which he will sign on the way out the door.

3) His heart condition is really, really bad, and he figures he’ll be in the ground before he can be prosecuted.

Which means the fix is in and Bush has already drawn up the pardons which he will sign on the way out the door.

I vote for all of them.

[Industrial Paper Shredders]

If there are many departments in the organization than one shredder is less.