2007-07-01 10:39:58 · 10 answers · asked by stevemxusa 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No, every bit of information the VP has in office is public property and destruction of it (outside of prescribed record retention and destruction schedules) is completely illegal and a violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), regardless of the reason (intent to hide, reckless disregard of law, negligence).
2007-07-01 17:07:07 · answer #1 · answered by Nuff Sed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you know why Nixon resigned????? No, its not legal for the president or the vice-president to do. In US v. Nixon, he tried to say that executive privileges protected him from turning in the watergate tapes and information. The Supreme Court decided that he didn't have executive privileges to do that.
2007-07-01 17:49:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Was it ok for Clinton and Gore to do it but not Cheney and/or Bush? Double standard!!!!
When will Democrats stop playing this stupid double standard game???
For instance, Clinton once said, "Saddam remains a serious threat to global security thru the use of terrorism". Did he do anything to stop Saddam in his tracks? NOOOOOOOOOO!!! Now he is saying, Saddam had no connections to Al Queada or any other terrorist group in the first place!!! HOW FREAKIN STUPID can you get?
2007-07-01 17:53:14 · answer #3 · answered by maddog 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if there is a possibility of an investigation.
So, now that Congress has subpoenaed his records, he can't destroy anything that might be relevant or he will be guilty of obstruction of justice
2007-07-01 19:29:24 · answer #4 · answered by BigD 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, providing it was not done to cover up an on going investigation into possible illegal activity directly related to and known by the VP
2007-07-01 17:43:40 · answer #5 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Potentially, yes. It could well be Obstruction of Justice. However, it would have to be very fact specific and violate many other rules as well, including his Security clearances.
2007-07-01 17:46:02 · answer #6 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
unless there are executive privilages he can invoke this is obstruction and evidence tampering. you are only protected from testifying against yourself but both lawyers in a case are supposed to get all the information they can to make their case.
Vin
2007-07-01 17:43:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he's smart, he would.
2007-07-01 17:45:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-07-01 17:54:38 · answer #9 · answered by lananoki2mahone 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no.
2007-07-01 17:48:02 · answer #10 · answered by ndgrad 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋