In an obvious effort to protect President Barack Obama, a group of congressional Democrats has introduced legislation to create an official process that will allow the commander-in-chief to keep presidential records secret after he leaves office. Ironically, Obama revoked a similar George W. Bush order in one of his first official acts as president. In 2001 Bush penned an executive order severely limiting public access to his presidential records. Shortly after swearing in, Obama killed it as part of his much-ballyhooed commitment to government transparency. At the time, the new president claimed that he was giving the American people greater access to historic documents. More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/index.php/topic,900.0.html
Funny, after reading through the proposed amendments to the PRA, it becomes pretty clear that the intent is to ensure that it's HARDER for Presidents to seal their records indefinitely and that the sponsors of the bill are asserting that the records belong to the people and not the President. Kucinich in 2009: Mr. KUCINICH. "Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you in this upcoming session of Congress and working with Mr. Issa. I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. If we truly have government of the people, then there has to be transparency. And not only must Presidents be accountable, but former Presidents must be accountable. And a system of transparency will ensure accountability, particularly with respect to Presidential records. Now this legislation will make it impossible for Presidential records to be buried. It's going to set strict time frames in which information has to be released to the public. It is not going to permit former Presidents to have unlimited, broad authority to be able to claim through the existing President executive privilege, and it is not going to enable designees of Presidents to assert claims of executive privilege after the death of a former President. So this is a very important moment where transparency in government trumps the assertion of executive privilege. That can only be good for democracy."
This reminds of when democrats changed special election law in Mass....then, when the law they passed in 2004 looked like it was going to bite them in the ass on the Obamacare senate vote when Kennedy died, they sought to change it back. They're unrepentant frauds.
Trying reading beyond paragraph # 3, the 60 days crap is nothing but smoke and mirrors, read the entire law.
The actual law is in the article, you should try reading once in a while instead of your constant baseless propaganda that attempts to illicit prescribed responses that endeavor to abscind as to the context of the proclamation or actuality that are entailed by ones ignorance.
WTF are you talking about? The "60 days is nothing but smoke and mirrors"? How exactly? The time frames for the archivist's notifications in the ORIGINAL PRA are 30 and 60 days so it seems to just follow those. So PLEASE, feel free to explain how the "60 days crap is nothing but smoke and mirrors". I'd LOVE to hear that explanation. As for the bill itself, it ADDS a section that addresses Presidents who use "executive privilege" claims to keep records from being released to the public. So again, ANYBODY... how does this ADDITION to the PRA help "keep Obama Records Secret"?
After reading the proposed law...do you really think that no Republican President will ever get elected? Because it says right there that if the incumbent President(any President after Obama) decides there is no privelage, the Archivest will release the records- even if the former President requests privilage. In other words- unless both the former President and the Incumbent President both request privelage within the mandated period, the Archivest is mandated to release the information. And the Archivest has to provide to the public any requests of privelage. So...are you really so confident that the President after Obama will be a Democrat? Or do you just think that Cain or Perry or whatever will be in Obama's pocket? To me, this seems like a fairly reasonable law to allow privelage when an incumbent President thinks that there is a valid reason for it. And there will be times when there is.
