Trump claiming there is no recording may not keep him safe, if there is anyone else who is aware that recording has been taking place.
(Note that there is no reason to assume that the Comey Dinner recording, should one exist, will prove to be the most interesting to investigators, of all recordings that have hypothetically been created in Trump’s White House.)
True. but you have to remember that for this set of people, there’s not really a “I have to comply with the law and testify truthfully,” bone in their bodies (generally). So it becomes not so much “what is true?” as “what can they prove?” This calculation applies just as strongly to any Trump confidante that has knowledge of a tape. What’s the leverage to get him to spill his guts on record? And it can’t be, “You’re under oath now and have to tell the truth,” because. . . well. . .
Of course. This is why investigations take more than a day. The leverage you mention is crucial, and the forms that leverage takes may not be immediately obvious to those who don’t know all that the investigators know. (Duh.)
Ambivalid, in what way does this contribute to the discussion or move the debate forward? Other than hoping to establish your own vaguely-defined superiority I fail to see any purpose for the post.
Note that Trump COULD legally delete or erase recordings, IF the Archivist gives him written permission–but not otherwise. Bet you a dollar that Trump knows none of this (but of course ignorance of the law is no defense).
It’s like all y’all have been asleep for the last couple of years and have not been watching Trump operate. Of COURSE there is no “tape”. Actually having the “tape” would be contrary to Trump’s purposes and MO. The purposes and MO - very successful so far - has been to make the opposition get all discombobulated over nothing that they can prove (because it’s nothing).
The tweet has been an obvious part of the psychological campaign Trump has been conducting from way back in election season and until now. And of course you’re “torn”. That’s the purpose of the campaign. Trump is very carefully and methodically unpredictable.
Of course universally beloved Saint Ronnie was the most upright of presidents without a dishonest bone in his body; yet I would have thought Willie might have experimented with one of those new-fangled video cameras from time to time. To impress the ladiez.
Everyone is assuming any recordings would be from the White House, yet Trump is one of the most peripatetic of philosophers, darting here, there, and everywhere — to places where no rules apply.
That’s why I prefaced that remark with “note that” (as an indication that what followed was not strictly responsive to the original question).
The answer to the original question was the link, given that the list of conditions and circumstances surrounding “release (make public)” was too long for a post–that answer is, in fact, the text of that portion of the US Code. The “note that” remark was inspired by what I believed to be the unspoken inference most of us were probably making about the situation: that the question of Release would very likely be moot if Trump got the chance to Delete, first.
You stopped reading too soon: the relevant section is actually 2205, Exceptions to Restricted Access:
That’s really “back at square zero,” state, though. It means records can’t be deleted to avoid subpoena, but it doesn’t eliminate the President’s room to quash based on any ordinary grounds related to production, plus executive privilege.
Executive privilege might not help Trump much, though. Clinton lost when he tried to invoke it to prevent testimony from Blumenthal et al during the Lewinsky scandal. Bush was successful in invoking it on a couple of occasions but lost on the Harriet Miers / Karl Rover showdown.