Utah GOP Sen. John Curtis vows to be independent voice as he breaks with Trump over key issuesNew Foto - Utah GOP Sen. John Curtis vows to be independent voice as he breaks with Trump over key issues

In a Republican Party dominated byPresident Donald Trump, Sen. John Curtis, who was elected to fill retired Sen. Mitt Romney's seat last year, thinks it's still possible – and essential – to be an independent thinker, and isn't afraid to break with the president over key issues. "I really think the best way to make President Trump successful is to let him know when we disagree," the Utah Republican told CNN's Manu Raju on "Inside Politics Sunday." In a wide-ranging interview, Curtis praised Trump on certain issues, including border policy, but warned about the potential negative impacts of tariffs on small businesses and expressed concern over Trump's plan to accept a Qatari jet. Curtis also said he believes the president would need to come to Congress if the administration wants to suspendhabeas corpus, a legal procedure that allows people to challenge their detention in court. "We serve the president best when we act and function more like a board of directors," he said, asking, "you wouldn't want a board of directors to rubber stamp the president of a company, right?" The senator's predecessor found himself a target of scathing attacks from Trump after voting to convict the president in both of his impeachment trials. But Curtis, who didn't back Trump in the 2024 GOP presidential primary, isn't worried about the consequences of breaking with the leader of his party, who has often threatened Republican critics with primaries. "That's a stereotype," Curtis said, explaining that he believes Trump actually has "respect" for people who confront him in "the right way, the right time, the right place." "If I send out a mean, nasty tweet, of course, that's not received well, but if I have a thoughtful conversation with the administration about how I see something, I hope and trust that he actually values that as somebody who wants to help him," he said. Curtis isn't concerned about blowback from base voters either, not hesitating to tout his double-digit lead over his three rivals in Utah's 2024 GOP Senate primary, including Riverton Mayor Trent Staggs,who had the backing of Trumpand the state Republican Party. "People in Utah want the president to be successful," he said of the state that elected Trump to a second term by more than 20 points. "I want the president to be wildly successful, and so it becomes a question of how do we help him be successful," he said, adding, "from time to time, not often, that means we're going to disagree." In his maiden Senate floor speech this month, Curtis emphasized the merits of being "wildly honest" in Washington. "The odds of Congress delivering real results for the American people go up dramatically when we start telling each other the truth, not just behind closed doors, but out in the open," he said. The freshman senator said he's already exhibited some of that "wild" honesty with the Trump administration, telling the president's Cabinet nominees, all of whom he ultimately voted for, "if we're not careful, we'll destroy small businesses with tariffs." As Trump and his top advisers cobble together trade deals in the wake of global backlash to his sweeping tariff policies, Curtis said he understands the president is playing "the long game" on the world stage, but warned of the impacts at home. "We have to be very, very careful with our small businesses," he said. Other areas where Curtis disagrees with Trump and his closest allies range from environmental issues to the value of highlighting diversity to the war in Ukraine. "I think I've been very clear on where I feel about Ukraine and President Zelensky," he said, adding "(Russian President Vladimir) Putin is not our friend." As Trump tests the limits of executive power, Curtis said he thinks the president should consult with Congress first before potentially suspending habeas corpus. He insisted that he would consider the move, whichCNN has reported Trump has recently talked about, "incredibly carefully." "Make a case to me, but I will tell you, as I judge that case, I'm going to be thinking in my mind: what if this is a Democrat president coming after something that I think is important," he said. On another headline-making issue – Trump's plans for his administrationto accept a luxury jet from the Qatari royal family to use as Air Force One– Curtis would only speak for himself. "I will just tell you, in my experience as an elected official, I have found it is best to avoid even the very appearance of being in a bad place," he said. Though Curtis believes Congress has "abdicated" some responsibilities, including managing the federal deficit, he's wary of the dramatic spending slashes shepherded by Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. "We need to cut," he acknowledged, later adding, "that doesn't mean we shouldn't have compassion. That doesn't mean when we're letting a federal employee go that we shouldn't be thoughtful about perhaps that's the worst day of their life." He also recommended a compassionate approach to his colleagues on Capitol Hill as they weigh how to advance Trump's sweeping tax promises without ballooning the deficit. "We could do this without taking away critical benefits for those most in need, but if we don't make hard decisions, we're going to be making more drastic cuts in the future, and I don't want to do that," he said. Curtis said he thinks GOP lawmakers will end up in a "good place" with Trump's agenda, but he's among the chorus of Republicans calling for changes, urging caution about how the bill rolls back Biden-era clean energy tax credits. "The honesty is we need clean, affordable, reliable energy," he said, explaining that some provisions of former President Joe Biden's signature Inflation Reduction Act are "actually Republican priorities" when it comes to harnessing new forms of energy. The Utah Republican, who previously represented the youngest congressional district in the country, said he knows how much protecting the environment matters to young voters, implying that should be an asset to his party, not a hindrance. "Republicans are far better on this than we're willing to admit," he said. For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

Utah GOP Sen. John Curtis vows to be independent voice as he breaks with Trump over key issues

Utah GOP Sen. John Curtis vows to be independent voice as he breaks with Trump over key issues In a Republican Party dominated byPresident D...
'Criminal': Elton John condemns UK's AI copyright plansNew Foto - 'Criminal': Elton John condemns UK's AI copyright plans

LONDON (Reuters) -Elton John on Sunday accused the British government of "committing theft" by proposing that tech firms could train artificial intelligence models on the UK's music and creative output without guaranteeing proper recompense. Creative industries globally are grappling with the legal and ethical implications of AI models that can produce their own work after being trained on existing material. Britain, which Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants to become an AI superpower, has proposed relaxing copyright laws to allow AI developers to train their models on any material to which they have lawful access. The proposal would require creators to proactively opt out to stop their work being used. The biggest names in the industry, including John, Paul McCartney, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Ed Sheeran and others, have urged the government to change course, saying the proposal will make it even harder for young people to make a living in the creative industries. "The danger is for young artists, they haven't got the resources to keep checking or fight big tech," John told the BBC. "It's criminal and I feel incredibly betrayed." "A machine ... doesn't have a soul, doesn't have a heart, it doesn't have human feeling, it doesn't have passion. Human beings, when they create something, are doing it ... to bring pleasure to lots of people," he said. John has sold more than 300 million records over a six-decade career. A supporter of Starmer's Labour Party, he said he had always sought to support young artists and would continue to fight against the changes. The government says it is seeking a solution that will enable creative industries and AI companies to flourish. It said on Sunday it was consulting on measures, would publish an assessment on the economic impact of any move, and will not sign off on anything unless it is "completely satisfied they work for creators". Britain has long outperformed in the creative industries, with thousands employed in sectors including theatre, film, advertising, publishing and music. (Reporting by Kate Holton; editing by Barbara Lewis)

'Criminal': Elton John condemns UK's AI copyright plans

'Criminal': Elton John condemns UK's AI copyright plans LONDON (Reuters) -Elton John on Sunday accused the British government of...
Lee Bollinger Whitewashes Elite-University DecayNew Foto - Lee Bollinger Whitewashes Elite-University Decay

On May 7, police arrested at least 44 Columbia University students and 13 Barnard College students - many were masked - for taking over the university library. "Once inside the agitators passed out pamphlets that endorsed Hamass violence andchanted'There is only one solution, intifada revolution, 'We want divestment now,and'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,usingmegaphones andbangingon drums,"accordingto the Washington Free Beacon. "Theyrenamedthe library after Basel al-Araj, a Palestinian terroristkilledin a 2017 shootout with the Israel Defense Forces." Columbias admission of students disposed to break the law to endorse Hamas genocidal intentions against Israel and to call for extending the jihadists violent revolution beyond the Middle East is only the most conspicuous of the universitys many problems. FIREs2025College Free Speech Rankingsassessed the "speech climate" at Columbia as "Abysmal" and placed the university second to last, 250 out of 251 schools. Only Harvard scored lower. The results might have turned out differently if, following Iran-backed Hamas Oct. 7, 2023, massacre and kidnapping of mostly civilians in southern Israel, the rankings had focused on universities handling of anti-Israel protesters who erected illegal encampments on campus, harassed and intimidated Jews, and otherwise disrupted academic activities. In that case, Columbia might well have beaten Harvard for last place in the nation. Before the encampments, according to the FIRE rankings, approximately 30% of Columbia students said they self-censored "very" or "fairly" often in conversation with other students, and 20% said they self-censored in conversation with professors and during classroom discussion. The encampments worsened the dismal condition of free speech at Columbia. After they were erected, almost 40% of Columbia students said they self-censored "very" or "fairly" often in conversation with other students, and around 30% said they self-censored in conversation with professors and during classroom discussion. With Columbia a poster child for dysfunctional university governance and the erosion of free and robust speech, it is jolting to readLee Bollingers recent Atlantic essay, "Universities Deserve Special Standing." President emeritus of Columbia, a prominent First Amendment scholar, and holder of a prestigious university-professor chair at Columbia, Bollinger contends that American universities should receive "special solicitude under the Constitution" because they advance the public interest by pursuing the truth. If only our universities were worthy of the deference Bollinger insists they are owed. However, universities betrayal of their mission - along with the former Columbia presidents failure to tell the truth about their betrayal - undermines his plea for bestowing on them privileged constitutional status. A graduate of Columbia Law School, Bollinger occupied powerful positions at major universities for almost 35 years, serving not only as Columbias president (2002-2023) but also as University of Michigan Law School dean (1987-1994), and University of Michigan president (1996-2002). His three-and-a-half decades guiding an elite law school and two elite universities coincided with the precipitous decline of higher education into an industry for the reproduction of progressive orthodoxy. "Universities," Bollinger warns, "are most certainly under assault, and the risks appear likely to grow." He sees only external threats, though. "The nations leading universities are locked in an unprecedented battle with a president and an administration that have chosen to withhold billions of dollars in vital federal research funding in order to take control of institutions for which freedom of thought and expression are among their most essential values." Here, and throughout his essay, Bollinger confusesisandought. Freedom of thought and expressionoughtto be among our universities most essential values. Yet itisuniversities propensity to censor and indoctrinate - along with their protracted violation of civil rights - that spurred the Trump administration, however much it may haveoverreached, to leverage federal funding to impel them to practice free speech and respect the law. Despite shirking personal responsibility and turning a blind eye to the origins of the crisis of higher education in universities dereliction of their educational duties, Bollinger performs in his essay a valuable service. His account of universities as they ought to be provides a devasting indictment of what our elite universities have become, not least Columbia under his 21 years of stewardship. Bollinger rightly emphasizes that American constitutional government presupposes educations centrality to the formation of citizens who responsibly exercise their rights, discharge their duties, and engage in self-government. Accordingly, he argues, universities "are every bit as vital to our society as the political branches of government or quasi-official institutions such as the press (often even referred to as the 'fourth branch of government)." Furthermore, he maintains, universities advance the goal "of the First Amendment, which affirms our nations commitment to a never-ending search for truth." And "like the press but even more so," universities "explore every facet of existence, including questions of justice, fairness, and the character of our political and social life." Would that it were so. Bollinger describes universities that America needs but obscures the character of the universities that we have. Long ago, many classes and whole concentrations and majors in the humanities and social sciences set aside the search for truth in favor of promoting progressive social change. These days, moreover, our universities barely teach constitutional, diplomatic, military, and religious history; literary classics; the principles of economic freedom; and the history of political philosophy. And they frown on students drawn to such studies. Nevertheless, Bollinger would have readers believe that there is little new and little true in current criticisms, especially those coming from conservatives, of American higher education. "There is a long tradition of populist disdain for the unconventional thought and progressive values of many university campuses and college towns," he writes. That, though, is a smokescreen since todays criticism revolves around elite universitiesilliberalpractices: intolerance, antisemitism and race-based discrimination, curtailment of due process, politicization of courses, contempt for reasoned debate, and autocratic governance. Nevertheless, Bollinger insists that the "political right" makes a mountain out of molehill. It "has, as in earlier eras of our history, skillfully elevated and made an easy target of the most extreme picture of the academic world," he contends. But since a good portion of scholarship and teaching matches the critics dire depictions, it is Bollinger who tries to make a molehill out of a mountain. Bollinger admits that "the academic world has undoubtedly provided fodder for" critics, "especially in not responding more forcefully to the anti-Semitism that too often manifested on campus after October 7, well beyond constitutionally protected political debate and public protest of Israels government." This, his single acknowledgement that conservatives are not simply making things up about university misconduct, is a stylish understatement. Not least, it suggests that the upsurge in campus antisemitism and universities feckless response occurred mysteriously, independent of their other pathologies. Columbia has issued not fewer than three reports on antisemitism -Report #1: Task Force on Antisemitism,Report #2: Task Force on Antisemitism, andThe Sundial Report(sharply criticized for myriad inadequacies byThe Sunlight Report, produced by theStand Columbia Society). The universitys reportsdocument persistent harassment, intimidation, ostracism, and physical violence directed at Jews on campus. But, among other deficiencies, these reports, like Bollinger, fail to connect antisemitism at Columbia to the universitys manifold betrayals of liberal education. These betrayals - as at elite universities throughout the land - provide fertile breeding ground for antisemitism. Americas most selective institutions of higher education have encouraged students to believe that expressing opinions that challenge progressive orthodoxy and failing to affirm progressive orthodoxy are both forms of violence. They have eroded due process in cases concerning allegations of sexual assault. They have fashioned a curriculum that features courses - focusing on narrow areas of expertise or advocacy for popular causes - that professors prefer to teach instead of courses on basic subjects that equip students for citizenship in a free and democratic nation. They have infused the curriculum with a settler-colonialism ideology that condemns the United States as a unique source of international instability and injustice and that scorns Israel as an outpost in the Middle East of Western oppression. They have accepted substantial sums of money from abroad, often without proper disclosure, that compromise their intellectual independence. They have instituted diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and other identity-conscious initiatives that encourage students to understand themselves as belonging to either the oppressed class or the oppressor class while generally placing Jews in the latter. And they have populated the undergraduate body with students and the faculty with professors who embrace, or at least know how to go along and get along with, debased educational standards. The age-old scourge of antisemitism thrives in such illiberal environments. America needs universities like those Lee Bollinger evokes. America, however, will not get them if progressive elites persist in suppressing the truth about the decay of the nations universities over which they have long maintained an iron grip. Or, it also should be said, if conservatives take a sledgehammer to the universities. Lasting reform depends on left and right in America cooperating based on an education for freedom that transcends partisan differences. Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2019 to 2021, he served as director of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. State Department. His writings are posted atPeterBerkowitz.comand he can be followed on X @BerkowitzPeter.

Lee Bollinger Whitewashes Elite-University Decay

Lee Bollinger Whitewashes Elite-University Decay On May 7, police arrested at least 44 Columbia University students and 13 Barnard College s...
The future of history: Trump could leave less documentation behind than any previous US presidentNew Foto - The future of history: Trump could leave less documentation behind than any previous US president

WASHINGTON (AP) — For generations, official American documents have been meticulously preserved and protected, from the era of quills and parchment to boxes of paper to the cloud, safeguarding snapshots of the government and the nation for posterity. Now, theTrumpadministrationis scrubbingthousands of government websites of history, legal records and data it finds disagreeable. It has sought to expand the executive branch's power to shield from public view the government-slashing efforts ofElon Musk's teamand other key administration initiatives. Officials have usedapps such as Signalthat can auto-delete messages containing sensitive information rather than retaining them for recordkeeping. And they haveshaken up the National Archives leadershipand even ordered the rewriting ofhistory on display at the Smithsonian Institution. All of that follows PresidentDonald Trumpdiscouraging note-taking at meetings, ripping up records when he was done with them, refusing to release White House visitor logs and having staffers sign nondisclosure agreements during his first term — thenbeing indictedfor hauling to Florida boxes of sensitive documents that he was legally required to relinquish. To historians and archivists, it points to the possibility that Trump's presidency will leave less for the nation's historical record than nearly any before it and that what is authorized for public release will be sanitized and edited to reinforce a carefully sculpted image the president wants projected, even if the facts don't back that up. How will experts and their fellow Americans understand what went on during Trump's term when those charged with setting aside the artifacts documenting history refuse to do so? How to piece together a history of truth and accuracy? The administration says it's the "most transparent in history," citing the Republican president's penchant fortaking questions from reporters nearly every day. But flooding the airwaves, media outlets and the internet with all things Trump isn't the same as keeping records that document the inner workings of an administration, historians caution. That's especially true given the president'spropensity for exaggerating, particularly when it comes to bolstering his own image and accomplishments. "He thinks he controls history," says Timothy Naftali, a presidential historian who served as founding director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California. "He wants to control what Americans ultimately find out about the truth of his administration, and that's dangerous. Because, if he believes that he can control that truth, he may believe that there is nothing that he can do that would have consequences." Watchdog groups are most immediately worried about what the administration is doing in real time with little oversight or accountability. They point to Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, orDOGE, and other top officials seeking to obscure sweeping efforts to remake government, the economy and large swaths of the nation's civil and cultural fabric. "With this administration's history of tearing up records, storing them in unsecured facilities in Florida, its use of Signal," said Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, which has sued DOGE seeking greater access to records. "At that point, there are a lot of questions about how's DOGE operating, and is it operating within the law?" Trump has made concealing even basic facts part of his political persona. He long refused to release his tax returns despite every other major White House candidate and president having done so since Jimmy Carter. Today, White House stenographers still record every word Trump utters, but many of their transcriptions are languishing in the White House press office without authorization for public release. That means no official record — for weeks, if at all — of what the president has said. "You want to have a record because that's how you ensure accountability," said Lindsay Chervinsky, executive director of the George Washington Presidential Library in Mount Vernon, Virginia. "You can't hold people accountable if you don't actually know what happened." The law says Trump must maintain records Presidents are legally obligated to keep up the historical record. After the Watergate scandal forced Nixon to resign in 1974, he tried to take documents home to California. Congress approved a law requiring document preservation that applied only to Nixon. Four years later, thePresidential Records Actextended similar rules to all commanders in chief. It mandates the preservation, forever, of White House and vice presidential documents and communications. It deems them the property of the U.S. government and directs the National Archives and Records Administration to administer them after a president's term. A separate measure, the Federal Records Act of 1950, is meant to safeguard for the historical record the actions of other officials. It says their communications should be preserved, sent to the National Archives, whose headquarters is down the street from the White House, and are generally subject to requests for information under Freedom of Information Act. The Presidential Records Act affords presidents the exclusive responsibility for the custody and management of their records while in office, and says the National Archives plays no role except when a president wants to dispose of such materials. Further, it protects some presidential records from Freedom of Information requests for five years after a president leaves office, and can even block release of some records for up to a dozen years after a president's term is up. Presidents also can evoke executive privilege to further limit certain types of communication from release. Once an administration is over, however, there are rules about what even the president must retain for the public. The Presidential Records Act also prohibits presidents from taking records home. That's best evidenced by Trump's 2022federal indictmentfor mishandling classified documents. Rather than turn them over the National Archives, Trump hauled boxes of potentially sensitive documents from his first termto his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, where they ended piled up in his bedroom, a ballroom and even a bathroom and shower. The FBIraidedthe property to recover them. The case was later thrown out, though, and thenabandonedaltogether after Trump won back the White House last November. Trudy Huskamp Peterson, acting Archivist of the United States from 1993 to 1995, said keeping such records for the public is important because "decision-making always involves conflicting views, and it's really important to get that internal documentation to see what the arguments were." Early presidents often sought to preserve their place in history The push toward preservation of the historical record predates Nixon and even the United States itself. American colonists decried the secrecy around the British Parliament, leading early leaders to install transparency safeguards, including initially rejecting the notion of a presidential Cabinet at the Constitutional Convention. Instead, they endorsed requirements that the president receive advice in writing from department secretaries, so that there would be a written record, said Chervinsky, also author of "The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution." In 1796, Washington asserted what today might be called executive privilege, arguing that some diplomatic conversations had to be private given their sensitive nature. But the following year, the nation's first president wrote about the need to build a library to house his papers for historians and researchers, Chervinsky said. Many early presidents kept meticulous records, including John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom wanted to "be seen as a positive figure in history," Chervinsky said. Others, like Abraham Lincoln, had advisers who understood the importance of the era and documented history carefully. Other presidents often did not prioritize recordkeeping. Ulysses S. Grant, who left office in 1877, famously wrote, "The only place I ever found in my life to put a paper so as to find it again was either a side coat-pocket, or the hands of a clerk more careful than myself." And it wasn't until 2014 when the Library of Congress, finally clear of legal battles that raged 50 years earlier with Warren G. Harding's family, released correspondence between the 29th president and his mistress, Carrie Fulton Phillips. Federally authorized presidential libraries did not exist until 1941, when Franklin D. Roosevelt opened his while still in office, although a mostly privately funded library established for Rutherford B. Hayes, who left the presidency in 1881, served as a model. Roosevelt also installed a White House tape recorder to capture conversations, a practice that mostly continued until Nixon's Oval Office tapes upended his presidency. After President John F. Kennedy's assassination, many of his presidential recordings were taken by his family and National Archives officials had to negotiate with Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., for public access, Peterson said. President Lyndon B. Johnson recorded phone calls that have informed historians for decades, including his 1964 lament about the Vietnam War: "It just worries the hell out of me." Naftali said that in his role at the Nixon library, he saw drafts materials — and the notes used to compile them — that survived among presidential papers, even when the finished documents were shredded in Watergate cover-up efforts. "You should want accountability whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or an independent," Naftali said. "You want to know what people did in your name." Presidential clashes with archivists predate Trump Even after new laws saw Nixon's White House tapes turned over to authorities, it fell to archivists to separate official and political material from the personal, which was potentially subject to more privacy protections. They also had to deal with voice-activated devices clicking on while Oval Office cleaning crews worked. More recently, President George H.W. Bush's administration destroyed some informal notes, visitor logs and emails. After President Bill Clinton left office, his former national security adviser, Sandy Berger, pleaded guilty to taking copies of a document about terrorist threats from the National Archives by stuffing them down his pants leg. President George W. Bush's administration disabled automatic archiving for some official emails, encouraged some staffers to use private email accounts outside their work addresses and lost 22 million emails that were supposed to have been archived, though they were eventuallyuncovered in 2009. The younger Bush also signed an executive order seeking to limit the scope of the Presidential Records Act for himself and past presidents. His successor, President Barack Obama, rescinded that. Obama's administration nonetheless moved to block release of White House visitor logs, something Trumpcontinued in his first term. Congress updated the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act in 2014 to encompass electronic messaging, including commercial email services known to be used by government employees to conduct official business. But back then, use of auto-delete apps like Signal was far less common. "A decade ago, we were still in a Gmail, Yahoo, and AOL world," said Jason R. Baron, a professor at the University of Maryland and former director of litigation at the National Archives. "The point is, it's far easier to copy — or forward — a commercial email to a dot-gov address to be preserved, than it is to screenshot a series of messages on an app like Signal." Further complicating matters is Trump's routinely answering cellphone calls, including from reporters. Guidance dating back decades suggests documenting, through ordinary note-taking, the substance of conversations where significant decisions are made, Baron said. But he also noted that the rules are less clear than those around written communications, including texts. Such communications have already been at the center of advocates' work to preserve records around DOGE's work. The administration has argued DOGE's efforts are subject to the Presidential Records Act which would potentially shield it from Freedom of Information Act rules. Amey's Project on Government Oversight sued, maintaining that Musk's initiative should be covered by the Federal Records Act. Other advocacy groups have alsosued DOGEover compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests, prompting the administration to file a one-page record retention policy in March that was revealed in court filings. It requires DOGE staffers to preserve all work-related communications and records, regardless of format — which, if applied completely across the board, would include apps like Signal. Relying on 'an honor system' There were efforts during the first Trump administration to safeguard transparency, including a memo issued through the Office of White House counselDon McGahnin February 2017 that reminded White House personnel of the necessity to preserve and maintain presidential records. Trump's 2017-2021 administration also established a system to capture messages the president posted to Twitter even after he deleted them. When Trump frequently ripped up briefing papers and other documents when he was finished with them during his first term, record analysts working across the street from the White House later would gather them up and tape them back together as best they could. Experts and advocates say no such guidance memo has been issued from the White House this time, though William Fischer, the National Archives acting chief records officer, released a memo this month reminding agencies about rules for maintaining federal records created on apps such as Signal and recommending using "automated tools to comply" with the Federal Records Act. Trump has recently talked about his place in history, and officials around the president have discussed building a presidential library —potentially in Florida— when he leaves the White House for good. But Trump also long exaggerated his right to keep documents for personal use rather than turn them over to archivists. "Under the Presidential Records Act, I'm allowed to do all this," Trump wrote on his social media site in June 2023 after the FBI seized boxes of documents from Mar-a-Lago — an assertion the indictment against him disputed. The White House says Trump was "unjustly prosecuted" on "fake charges" during that case. It points to having recently ordered the declassification of bevies of historical files, including records related to theassassinations of Kennedy, hisbrother RobertandMartin Luther King. The administration says it fulfilled records requests from Congress that the administration of his predecessor, DemocratJoe Biden, ignored, and offered instructions that federal agencies should clear out backlogged Freedom of Information Act requests. It says it ended the Biden-era practice of staffers using Microsoft Teams, where chats were not captured by White House systems. The Biden administration had more than 800 users on Teams, meaning an unknown number of presidential records might have been lost, Trump officials now say, though that is something Biden representatives did not confirm. But the White House did not answer questions about the possibly of drafting a new memo on record retention like McGahn's from 2017. Nor did it comment about whether nondisclosure agreements remain in use for White House staffers this term, or speak to Trump's past habit of tearing up documents. Chervinsky, of the George Washington Presidential Library, said Congress, the courts and even the public often don't have the bandwidth to ensure records retention laws are enforced, meaning, "A lot of it is still, I think, an honor system." "There aren't that many people who are practicing oversight," she said. "So, a lot of it does require people acting in good faith and using the operating systems that they're supposed to use, and using the filing systems they're supposed to use." Angeredby the role the National Archives played in his documents case, meanwhile, Trump fired the ostensibly independent agency'shead, Archivist of the United StatesColleen Shogan, and named Secretary of StateMarco Rubioas her acting replacement. Peterson, the former acting national archivist, said she still believes key information about the Trump administration will eventually emerge, but "I don't know how soon." "Ultimately things come out," she said. "That's just the way the world works." ___ Will Weissert covers the White House for The Associated Press.

The future of history: Trump could leave less documentation behind than any previous US president

The future of history: Trump could leave less documentation behind than any previous US president WASHINGTON (AP) — For generations, officia...
Texas AG Ken Paxton sued over new rule to rein in 'rogue' DAs by allowing him access to their case recordsNew Foto - Texas AG Ken Paxton sued over new rule to rein in 'rogue' DAs by allowing him access to their case records

FiveTexas district attorneysare suing state Attorney General Ken Paxton, challenging new rules that would give his office broad authority to access their office's case records, according to a new report. In the two lawsuits filed on Friday, the district attorneys said the rule, in effect since April, is an unconstitutional overreach that violates the separation of powers and would impose unnecessary burdens on county prosecutors, The Texas Tribune reported. District attorneys in Dallas, Bexar and Harris countiesfiled one lawsuitwhile district attorneys in Travis and El Paso counties filed another. Both lawsuits seek to block Paxton from enforcing the rule, arguing that it violates the state constitution and federal law. The rule created by Paxton's office applies to counties with at least 400,000 residents, impacting only 13 of Texas' 254 counties, The Texas Tribune reported. It requires district attorneys to provide all documents or communications produced or received by their offices, including confidential information. Texas Gov. Abbott Signs $1 Billion Voucher Program Into Law, Capping Off Win For School Choice Advocates All documents, correspondence and handwritten notes relevant to a case can be subject to review, according to the outlet. Counties must also submit quarterly reports to the attorney general on twelve different subjects, including specific information on indictments of police officers and the number of times indictments were issued for election code violations. Information on internal policies and how funds obtained through civil forfeiture are spent would also need to be turned over under the new rule. Read On The Fox News App Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot described the rules as a violation of the separation of powers between the executive branch and the judicial branch. "To make matters worse, the rule's extremely burdensome reporting requirements will cause district attorneys' offices to divert resources and staff away from core prosecutorial roles and responsibilities, which harms public safety and the administration of justice," Creuzot said in a statement. "And it will cost Dallas County taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to pay for the technology and resources needed to identify and produce all the responsive information under these unnecessary reporting requirements." "AG Paxton should be working with all district and county attorneys in pursuit of justice, not picking fights with the Democrats in large cities," Creuzot added. Paxton's office has claimed the provision is a way to "rein in rogue district attorneys" allegedly refusing to uphold the law. District attorneys that do not comply with the reporting rule could be charged with official misconduct and removed from office. "District and County Attorneys have a duty to protect the communities they serve by upholding the law and vigorously prosecuting dangerous criminals," Paxton said in March. "In many major counties, the people responsible for safeguarding millions of Texans have instead endangered lives by refusing to prosecute criminals and allowing violent offenders to terrorize law-abiding Texans. This rule will enable citizens to hold rogue DAs accountable." Jasmine Crockett Accused Of 'Abusing Her Power' At Airport Boarding Gate In response to the lawsuits, Paxton said Friday that it "is no surprise that rogue DAs who would rather turn violent criminals loose on the streets than do their jobs are afraid of transparency and accountability." "My DA reporting rule is a simple, straightforward, common-sense measure that will shed light on local officials who are abdicating their responsibility to public safety. This lawsuit is meritless and merely a sad, desperate attempt to conceal information from the public they were sworn to protect," he continued. The two lawsuits claim Paxton's office does not have the sweeping jurisdiction the rule creates, and that providing the information requested would be expensive and illegal, according to The Texas Tribune. The lawsuits claim the rule seeks to achieve apolitical objectiveby burdening officials and creating strict consequences for noncompliance. Original article source:Texas AG Ken Paxton sued over new rule to rein in 'rogue' DAs by allowing him access to their case records

Texas AG Ken Paxton sued over new rule to rein in 'rogue' DAs by allowing him access to their case records

Texas AG Ken Paxton sued over new rule to rein in 'rogue' DAs by allowing him access to their case records FiveTexas district attorn...

 

MON SEVEN © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com