DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel Came Up with a Way to Block Biden from Reading Trump admin archives
In a last-minute attempt to assuage outgoing President Donald Trump’s privacy concerns, the Justice Department last month issued a legal opinion stating that upon taking office, President Joe Biden cannot access electronic records from the previous administration, even if those records are still on the president’s hardware after his inauguration.
The six-page memo—penned by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) Deputy Assistant Attorney General Devin DeBacker, an apparent “gymnastics enthusiast”— states that under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) the U.S. Archivist, not the incoming president, assumes responsibility for the “custody, control, and preservation of” all records of the previous administration. DeBacker previously worked under Trump’s former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.
“Consistent with NARA’s [National Archives and Records Administration] longstanding view and practice, we conclude that the Archivist assumes custody and control of electronic presidential records of an outgoing President that remain on EOP [Executive Office of the President] hardware after the end of the outgoing President’s term,” the memo stated. “Nothing in the PRA eliminates their status as ‘Presidential records’ subject to the PRA, or makes them presidential records of the incoming Administration, merely because they remain temporarily on EOP hardware following the change in Administrations.”
Kel McClanahan, the Executive Director of National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm specializing in national security law and information and privacy law, called the opinion “balls to the walls bonkers.”
Link to tweet
?s=20
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gymnastics-enthusiast-in-dojs-office-of-legal-counsel-came-up-with-a-way-to-block-biden-from-reading-restricted-trump-admin-archives/ar-BB1dowbf?li=BBnb7Kz
Donny you entitled fuckface everyone knows you don't put personal info on a company computer though I suspect the info is not that personal. More than likely incriminatory.
= new reply since forum marked as read
