I suspect this
Aqui, señor
beat ya.
Different sources for different horses’ asses.
What do you think now, Dewey?
I think the DPS may or may not have screwed up, depending on if they were correct or not in their reading of the federal statute mandating the destruction of certain documents.
If their reading is wrong, the officer in charge should face appropriate disciplinary measures. If they were right, then he did the right thing.
What on earth did you expect me to say?
can you link to the appropriate language in law requiring investigation sources to destroy evidence of their investigation w/in such a short time? thanks ever so.
Now there’s a bold, uncompromising stand for ya.
Good ol’ Dewey, never afraid to denounce them damyankee lib’rals when his GOP’s probity is questioned, but never able to retract it when forcibly shown the facts, either. A fine addition to Texas’ political culture, you are.
Seeing how the news article made no reference to the name of the act or its location in the US Code, no, I can’t link to it, not without a lot of time-intensive research. A brief Googling is all I’m willing to commit, and it isn’t turning up anything.
Just because I have a law degree doesn’t mean I have every state and federal law committed to memory.
No other stand is appropriate. If they were right, then they acted properly. If they were wrong, they didn’t and should be punished accordingly.
Unlike you, I’m not willing to make snap judgments without knowing the facts. You can’t condemn the DPS unless you know the contents of the law they are claiming as their basis for document destruction. I don’t, so I won’t. **
I have utterly no idea what you’re talking about. Even if the DPS did act inappropriately, you have exactly zero evidence that the GOP requested the shredding.
And of course, none of this justifies the choice of Oklahoma as a hideout.
hell, I’d accept any link suggesting that any law enforcement agency is required to destroy evidence of an investigation w/in this short of a time period.
It seems very peculiar to me. It’s been my experience that the opposite is more likely to be true (“required to keep all records for a specified period of time”).
So, you see, when I see an investigatory branch of our government (knowing as I do, how anal they get about requiring documentation of all activities) destroying evidence/communications/ records of actions that they just did it, well , it makes me, ya know, wonder.
Actually, this does not surprise me. A law requiring document destruction for noncriminal investigations is something that would result from hard-fought efforts by civil liberties groups like the ACLU. The basic idea behind such a law would be the prevention of J. Edgar Hoover-like filekeeping on ordinary Americans.
I recall that this was a sticking point over the background check system in recent gun control proposals – the NRA, et al, wanted the record of the background check to be immediately flushed out, no ifs ands or buts. The opposition wanted to allow the records to sit around for awhile before they were destroyed. I don’t recall where that all ended up, but it illustrates the concerns I’m talking about.
At the very least, the news articles cited don’t contest the existence of the federal law – they just quote folks who say the law doesn’t apply to the DPS in this particular instance.
Can you substantiate how the required background check for crminal history/gun permits relates to an investigation intitiated by one governmental source through official channels? This wasn’t a ‘record check’. This was an active investigation. I don’t offhand see any similarity.
I was just pointing out that there are, in fact, areas where the law mandates speedy disposal of records in noncriminal investigations (and a background check is an “investigation” – an investigation into the criminal history of the purchaser of a weapon). Such laws generally exist on civil liberty grounds. The same arguments put forth by the NRA on the background check issue could easily be put forth by the ACLU for other noncriminal investigations.
At any rate, as I noted, no one directly involved with this matter is saying that there isn’t a federal law mandating immediate record disposition in noncriminal matters – what they are saying is that the law does not apply to this particular situation.
I’m not certain that your emphasis on ‘they’re not claiming there isn’t such a law…’ is anything significant. Since the ‘claimers’ aren’t citing (any specific) law, the other side may be in the same position that you say you are - that is “not aware of all potential national/state laws/regulations” so claiming nothing at all similar exists would be risky. But claiming that there’s no regulation that would require the destruction of* all* evidence of a request for an investigation, as well as all documentation of the investigation itself, especially so soon afterwards, does seem to be, well, suspect, and not at all something routine. and, as far at that goes, didn’t the ‘destroy’ order include 'destroy evidence as to who requested the information?
In addtion, if it was routine, why did they have to issue the orders to do it? for example, I doubt seriously that after conducting the routine records check there’s a seperate order afterwards reminding folks 'you are to destroy these records".
nice quibble on the ‘investigation’ concept. Certainly any request for information will require ‘an investigation’, even if the investigation involved is merely a typing of a name into a data base. However, the issue was, an on-going investigation, not accessing a data base. (we don’t believe that the technology exists to simply type in a legislators name into a data base and discover their current location for example).
From ElvisL1ves’ link:
Obviously, at least one person questioning the propriety of the DPS’s action is aware of the substantive content of the law in question, since he is able to comment on its provisions. And in fact, the same article quotes from the federal law:
I think it’s fair to say that the law exists, and the only issue in question is whether it applies to this particular situation.
**
Only if you assume that every officer gathering information is perfectly clear on what his duties are regarding data destruction – a dangerous assumption for the officer in charge to make. A smart officer would remind his subordinates of what their duties are under the law.
Hell, I did this all the time when I’d be doing due diligence on a target company. Often, we’d be subject to a confidentiality agreement mandating that we destroy all documents at the end of the diligence review. Part of my job as a corporate associate is to get the relevant material to various specialist attorneys (environmental counsel, tax counsel, etc), and ensure their compliance with the CA. Now all of those lawyers were bright folks who were perfectly aware of the CA and their duty to destroy the documents. That didn’t stop me from placing followup calls and emails reminding them to do so. **
Again, I just don’t see how this is relevant. The point in bringing up the gun control thing was to illustrate how those civil liberty concerns about data retention find their way into legislation.
DCU re the seperate specific instruction - your experience conflicts with mine in this matter. w/o specifics from the regs involved, it’s a wash.
re: the quote - if it is your position that you don’t know the specific rules involved, therefore cannot comment, fine, except you’re assuring us that the person you quoted has seen the specifics and is commenting on the specifics including the quote you cited. So - if the person is seeing the regs and quoting from same, can you not comment then, given that quote, it would seem like the regs should have prevented the actions taken?
I understand being a lawyer type person, you’d rather have chapter and verse, but assuming that there’s not a big “NOT” before or after teh quoted parcel, can we agree that the entire ‘investigation’ and subsequent orders to shred all evidence that there ever was such a request immediately, well, stink to high heaven?
So you don’t followup with your colleagues periodically? If I’m tasked with ensuring compliance with something, I’m damned sure going to make certain it gets done. **
Well, no – I don’t know this particular lawyer, I don’t have the regs in front of me, and thus I have no basis for evaluating whether his analysis is correct or not. The DPS might have acted improperly. They might not have. I have no basis for evaluating which is correct. **
Well, no. The quoted portions do not deal with the shredding requirements. And the investigation, at least insofar as state authorities were involved, was perfectly lawful – Texas law explicitly allows the use of law enforcement to ensure a quorum.
surely you’re not claiming that if Federal laws/regs prohibit the use of certain federal agencies/systems for political use, that since Texas law requires a quorum that should circumvent Federal law/regs for use of systems?
RE: your customary habits w/coworkers etc. If regs are that certain things must be destroyed, my tendancy would be:
A. When issuing the Order to perform the action, include the message “upon completion you must shred”.
B. Periodically one might issue an order relative to all such occurances.
What I would **not ** be likely to do, is immediately after a particular action and while the press/investigations/questions about propriety of the actions were still abounding issue a seperate memo specfically relating to that particular incident saying ‘shred it’. I’d especially not do this in the wake of Enron. Your Mileage obviously varies.
See my problem w/your stance re: the specific guy is that here you seem to be not very trusting of him, that total ‘who knows what he might be seeing’ sort of thing, and yet you appear also to trust that there indeed are regulations that are on point. And I see that as saving your cake/eating it the same time. You want to trust his assesment that the reg exists and is on point, but not his assesment that it doesn’t apply. Shrug.
Either way, I suspect that we’ll never be able to find said reg, nor will you have to eat the crow that (I suspect you know) you pro’lly should re: the actions spoken of (the shredding of documentation relative to “who authorized the use of these investigatory agencies to track these folk down” etc.), since you’ll always be able to rest on the ‘not proven’ aspect.
It would have been nice for you to admit that the actions certainly would give the ‘appearance of possible inpropriety’, but I suspect that’s too much to hope for.
No, I’m saying the quoted portion indictes that there be “no harassment or interference with any lawful political activities.” (Emphasis added). The activity the Dems were engaged in (namely, busting a quorum) was unlawful, though not criminal – Texas law essentially forbids it, allowing the use of law enforcement to force a quorum. Thus, the quoted provision does not apply.
The quoted provision would apply to the use of federal agencies for a political activity not sanctioned by law (indeed, that’s what it’s designed for). Think Richard Nixon siccing the IRS on his political enemies, in spite of there being no reason to believe they are engaged in tax fraud or tax evasion. **
So the DPS officer isn’t media-saavy. BFD.
And you’re goddamn right I’d do it. If I was working on a deal where our client had signed a CA compelling us to destroy all materials immediately after the diligence period had expired, I’d make damned sure those materials were in fact destroyed immediately after the end of diligence, including making followup calls to my specialist colleagues. It might well be malpractice to do otherwise – I would potentially be leaving my client open to a breach of contract suit if those documents aren’t destroyed immediately. It’s my butt that’s in a sling if we don’t comply – CYA, CYA, CYA.**
Well, I’m not trusting his assessment that the reg is “on point” – I’m only citing his words for the proposition that the reg exists. And the words of the newspaper reporter, who quoted language from the reg in his story. I think that’s a satisfactory basis to say with reasonable certainty that the reg in fact exists.
Now, whether the reg applies to this circumstance or not is a matter of some dispute. The DPS clearly believes that it does apply. The lawyer I quoted believes it does not. Who’s right? I dunno. Maybe the DPS is right. Maybe they aren’t. Maybe the reg is unclear and either interpretation is plausible. I just don’t know. **
Odd that you would take such pleasure in my “eating crow.” Even if it is later shown that the DPS is 100% wrong, why would I have to do that? I’ve said repeatedly that they may well be wrong, that they may have acted improperly, and that we just don’t have the data to come to any sort of conclusion on that point. I remain perfectly open to the possibility that the DPS erred in their interpretation of the law in question, and thus acted improperly in shredding the documents. **
Never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to stupidity.
Even if the DPS is wrong, it doesn’t mean he was acting in bad faith. If the DPS officer seriously thought the federal law compelled him to shred immediately, then he was wrong, not venal. That error in judgment shouldn’t shield him from the consequences, of course – he is paid, in part, to exercise good judgment – but it does make an accusation of bad faith misplaced.
This happens a lot, BTW. For example, it isn’t illegal for a schoolchild to carry a Bible to school. But a lot of school principals are misinformed about the parameters of church-state separation, and it has happened that some school principals have sent kids home for carrying a Bible around. I always hate when it happens, because the Jerry Falwells of the world always scream bloody murder, laying the blame at the feet of the SCOTUS or “liberal judges” or somesuch, when the blame is in fact properly laid at the feet of misinformed school offiicials. You never hear about the the resolution of these cases – inevitably, the kid is allowed to carry his Bible – you only hear about the initial action, which generates more heat than light.
I’d believe the ‘never attribute to malicious what can be explained by stupidity’, if I believed that it was SOP for this person to issue such a memo. And I’d believe it was SOP if he’d claimed it was. Since he’d not claimed it was, I believe that it was a “I think I better do this” type of thing.
the state/fed thing. As the Texas rangers no doubt knew, and in any event became faced with, the State of Texas regulation re: quorum was pretty unenforceable outside Texas. Federal resources were apparently used in an attempt to investigate /enforce a State of Texas regulation, outside Texas.
what I believe is likely to have happened is that some one high up (not DeLay, he’d need to have ‘plausible deniablity’), suggested along down the line “we should check into their whereabouts, can’t we check using this system?” and then the request went down the line. ONce it got out that it was done, it became clear that folks could potentially get into trouble having done so, hence the orders to destroy all documentation.
re: your standard procedures. key difference is “when time period elapsed”, and I’m not seeing anything that suggests that ‘immediate’ disposal of this stuff was the norm in any sense of the word. (save for your examples re: gun checks)
You’re a lawyer. You often get very mired (IMHO) in the very minute details of your position. Understandable effect of your profession. (it was, IMHO, why you got into that train wreck of a thread re: some politician making a statement which you said ‘on the face of simply that statement’ wasn’t necessarily homophobic, but the train went off and running for pages and pages about if the guy really was, and if that phrasing was often used by folks who were homophobic etc.).
whatever.