Slashdot Mirror


'COVFEFE Act' Would Make Social Media a Presidential Record (thehill.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) introduced legislation Monday to classify presidential social media posts -- including President Trump's much-discussed tweets -- as presidential records. The Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) Act, which has the same acronym as an infamous Trump Twitter typo last month, would amend the Presidential Records Act to include "social media." Presidential records must be preserved, according to the Presidential Records Act, which would make it potentially illegal for the president to delete tweets. "President Trump's frequent, unfiltered use of his personal Twitter account as a means of official communication is unprecedented. If the President is going to take to social media to make sudden public policy proclamations, we must ensure that these statements are documented and preserved for future reference. Tweets are powerful, and the President must be held accountable for every post," said Quigley in a statement. Most people took the "covfefe" tweet to be a typo, although press secretary Sean Spicer told the media that the term was used intentionally. "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," he said.

21 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. good by MrNJ · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The more time the congress spends on pointless stuff like this, the less time is left to waste taxpayer money. Carry on.

    --
    I don't respond to or upvote ACs
    1. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fuck you. Accountability of government officials is of vital importance to our republic.

    2. Re:good by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, they're not exactly overwhelmed by the volume of work. Congress is already stalled by the fact that the party in power is not quite so ideologically unified as it thought it was.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Except when those government officials are democrats

    4. Re:good by David_Hart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that there are millions of eyes already on Trump's Twitter account and so this "bill" (actually just a stunt) would accomplish nothing if signed into law. Well, except set up yet another government group tasked with doing something that adds little or no value.

      Not true. It would force all Presidential tweets to be archived for the public record, including tweets that might end up being deleted for various reasons. This will provide a historical record that can be analyzed by historians, researchers, and laughed at hilariously by people in 2030.... The comedic value alone makes this worth it... (grin)

    5. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You think Obama directed congress to only deal with nonsense and ignore important issues? Does the name John Boehner ring a bell?

    6. Re:good by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's an example.

      Taiwan spends 1/6 as much percentage of GDP as we do on health care. 1/6th. I've been to a Taiwanese hospital, and as a non-tax-paying foreigner, they charged me $10 to see the doc. I thought he was fine, even compared to American docs (of course he had an accent - but he even spoke english). I was expecting 3rd worldish service, and I was very surprised. But think about it - 1 / 6th!

      Can you imagine taking what you pay between medical bills, insurance, your employers' insurance, and taxes, dividing that number by 6, and then paying that amount in taxes only ? Sounds amazingly awesome ... for a pragmatist. But if you're conservative or Republican, you're already making up reasons why it could never work - because I used the word "taxes". That's the definition of an ideologue, you don't believe it could ever work, despite the proof of it working right there in Taiwan. Your not willing to try to improve something because there's a hard line of ideology - anything involving taxes must be bad, and we can't try to work in that direction at all (officially, I wouldn't necessarily want to try to go as far as Taiwan, but it seems obvious we should at least be picking out what could work for us, and go in that direction).

    7. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, but without a trusted authoritative source that archives the Tweets, you can't really trust the millions of anonymous eyeballs to provide them without tampering with them.

    8. Re:good by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't care what democrats or republicans see the other side as. In the main of what you say, republicans are for the individual while demarcates are for the group. You get more diverse opinions when you promote the individual. Also, I have this opinion because that is the interaction I got from each party when I participated in each party.In the GOP for 2008/2012 for RP and in 2016 with the democrats for 2016 for Sanders. The GOP, didn't have the same arrogance or condescension. Sure, the old guard didn't like Ron Paul but not to the point to say "we don't need you or your vote" like what I experienced in 2016. I haven't seen any study that looks into the acceptance of diverse opinions between the group. Do you have a link?

      the other is battling for groups of people.

      Ever see what a black conservative is called in democrat circles? They are for groups of people so long as those groups toe the party line. Same treatment for gay conservatives. They don't want different thoughts and they chastise anyone from any group accordingly. I have seen this many times over.

      an ideology

      If the ideology is based on individualism. I am for it too. I don't care what group you belong to because the individual is the ultimate minority to be protected.

  2. And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This is pathetic grandstanding by a moronic representative. We didn't elect you to troll the President and waste time on bills that won't get passed, we elected you to get actual legislation through.

    He could have easily made the same bill without the insult and had a good chance of it passing, but that wouldn't get his name in the press.

    1. Re:And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You think a bill sponsored by a Democrat has a chance of getting passed?

      You're an optimist. I like that.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    2. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by penandpaper · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Trump seems to like spending time crafting executive order that get blocked by the court

      I don't understand this nor the reason it was modded up. As opposed to the courts not blocking orders from the president? We have seen that and that is why we have the first year filled with E.O.'s.

      Also, the arguments why he can't have his ban are specious at best. The only way the courts would allow them is if the executive prove a negative. "Prove it isn't racist!". Instead of taking the order as is and within the confines of the text to the extent that it would be enforced, the courts use campaign rhetoric that may or may not have influenced this order. But they don't have to prove it Trump has to prove it isn't racist.

      Prove you are not racist and want strong immigration enforcement.

  3. Already subject to relevant rules by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the current record keeping rules are very broad and would include this, especially given Spicer's other comment that they consider Trump's tweets to be official Presidential announcements. So this seems unnecessary and more grandstanding than anything else (which is reinforced by the name chosen).

  4. Interesting implication by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Twitter FB etc would be legally barred from deleting posts from government employees ?

    How interesting.

    1. Re:Interesting implication by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doubtful. More likely those posts would be archived instantly by the government, with no delete option. So not really that different to what happens now, only it's the government doing it as well as citizens.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's unsubstantiated hearsay from some unnamed person - IE Gossip.

    I'm sure that the special counsel will get it straighten out in short order.

  6. Twitter the Worst by sycodon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Twitter is the worst thing to happen to public discourse since TV.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  7. Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you seem to think that using twitter is making trump a less effective leader, when in reality it is more of a symptom of him not being a leader at all. So don't blame twitter, if his twitter phone was taken away from him he will think of something else to distract himself, like say play even more rounds of golf.

  8. Re:Who thought they were to begin with? by TWX · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Consider the Republican perspective- if you were a Republican prior to the Tea Party era then even with your party co-opted you might be hesitant to leave the party, and if you and a bunch of other pre-tea-party Republicans leave to form a new party then there'll be two conservative parties that will diminish in-power much more than half, essentially ceding control of the government to the Democratic Party for as long as it takes for one of those two conservative parties to finally fold.

    The problem with any "big tent" party is there are always forces within that party that want different things than other forces. When the issue at-hand is generally in-agreement then those disparate groups might be able to work together for the specific issue, but once that single issue is dealt-with then they can't form consensus on other issues.

    The Democratic Party has similar issues at times, to the point that Will Rogers quipped, "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."

    If we want to fix this kind of partisanship then we need to either acknowledge that political parties have a place in the system and use a voting method that rewards seats in legislative bodies based on the population's vote for that party, and lets voting for party-members decide who fills those seats, or else we need to revise the number of seats in our legislatures to create significantly smaller districts with significantly more representatives, so that gerrymandering is much less effective.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  9. Re:Who thought they were to begin with? by stabiesoft · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do not underestimate the power of the prez. He alone is the ONLY person in the US who cannot be indicted on any federal crime while prez. Further, it is a matter of debate if he can be indicted on any state level crime. So it is possible that the US Supreme court could rule even if Donald shot and killed someone on 5th avenue he may not be able to be indicted. It is a matter of scholarly debate as to how the Supreme's would rule. It has never been tested. Further, I believe if congress does not extend the special prosecutor law, Donald can fire Mueller from investigating him. The constitution is very specific, the executive branch is a unitarian form of entity with the president solely and completely in charge. So if congress does not properly oversee and impeach bad behavior, the prez can do alot. If he doesn't like a law, don't enforce it. If he wants something reallocate funds. Frankly we are at a juncture in the US I fear, and how a republican congress acts may well change the course of history. And no I don't think I am being over dramatic.

  10. Butthurt Democrats Just Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    These Butthurt Democrats just don't get it. They are making themselves look 10 times worse than they are Trump, because they're just proving themselves to be a bunch of whiny crybabies and petulant children throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way.

    I don't like Trump at all, but I have more respect for him than I do for these idiots.