truck administration used a some of that ambiguity or freedom in ways that will hamper future historians and journalists from writing clearly about what happened during the administration. >> i will defer on those questions about the administration and the records act. if you want to take that now? >> i will come back to that. let's start with a broader question about who makes the decision of what is a presidential record? >> that's what i mean, as far as i understand, the president makes the decision and can get guidance from the archivist whether or not a record is temporary. if it is temporary, it can be disposed of. under current law, the white house has two request written guidance from the archivist before disposing of written records. i'm not sure that has always been followed and i understand from reporting it has not been followed during the trump administration. is that correct? >> to my knowledge, it hasn't, but we wouldn't know because there's no provision in the presidential records act that requires the archivist make public those requests. >> good point. the only thing we know publicly is as far as i know, under the presidential records act, the sitting president can restrict access to records for an additional seven years past the five-year point, but it has to be done while the president is in office. once the president believes office, the president can relax those restrictions but must make the actual restrictions while in office. in february 2017, president trump signed the letter at the urging of the national archives, as i understand, to restrict all six categories of his records for the entire 12 years. that is pretty common because if you don't have the right to do that after you leave office, the written guidance that has been made public says the president should restrict to begin with all six categories. every president has subsequently relaxed those restrictions. i am not optimistic that former president trump will relax those restrictions. >> you said every president has relax those restrictions. how has that come to pass? have people made requests about certain records or is there a step step process why buy it happens over a period of time? >> the process has been murky in terms of how it comes about the natural -- national archives has released documents that when the president release the records and under what circumstances. there was pressure on bill clinton when hillary clinton was running for office. there was pressure against george w. bush after his presidency when people were looking at what happened in iraq and hurricane katrina and afghanistan. those relaxation documents have been released. but i am not quite sure of the process as to who approaches the president, whether it is the national archives, and if so, whether it is because of records requests specifically for those records. >> when i had a conversation with you in january, i was interested in the mechanism whereby to get sooner and wider access to presidential records, rather than accepting they would be under seal for this amount of time. what would it take to do that and is there a precedent? >> right now under the act, congress and the courts have access, they just need to request it from the archivist and the archivist has the right to determine that congress and the courts can have access. in terms of the public, the only way the public can have access prior to the five year or 12 year is of the president does not lacks -- is if the president does not relax the records, is an act of congress. in 1978, this was a new idea. prior to the presidential records act, presidents owned the records and took them with them and disposed of them as they saw fit. they decided who would get them and win. the negotiations over how to craft the presidential records act, the 12 year restriction period was a buffer so that there would be a more widespread agreement in congress that this was a good idea. former presidents and many future presidents, or people who thought they would be president, were worried about people getting access right away. the five-year period, to give you an idea of how different records have changed, in 1978, the first five-year period, the national archives requested five years so they would have time to review, process and open the records. the assumption was it would take five years to start processing them. it has taken at least 100 years to open the records of any presidential library, so that was way off. >> anne, let me turn to you, i began asking about how the trump administration followed these policies such as we can ascertain it. there have been stories of the president tearing up documents in the white house and archivists having to piece them back together, controversies about the use of social media, taking pictures of whatsapp files, deleting metadata. what do you know at this point about how well the trump administration complied with existing law? >> we know some things but not a lot, frankly. i want to make one point upfront, you started by asking what is it presidential record, and if you look at the statute, it defines it very broadly. i would argue there is almost nothing the president does that does not qualify as a presidential record. the few exceptions we know about our certain political activities that the president may engage in. and correspondence with the family member that is strictly personal. anthony is absolutely right, there is a provision that allows a president to, with the archivist's understanding, dispose of records, but my understanding is that has been viewed very narrowly in the past and only used -- the example i was given was to be able to dispose of basically the letters from the public the president gets, for example, because they are tech ugly presidential records. the reason i start with this, it is important to understand that just about everything the president commits to writing or some form of a record is worthy of preservation under the express terms of the statute. that is why the president's practices and the practices of his white house were so troubling. as you mentioned in the early reports, that the president was ripping up his notes, and i talked to one of the people who had been assigned the job of following him and literally taping them together. when that story came out, they were fired. there were early stories that ivanka trump and jared kushner were using in email server tied to the trump's noses, which is remarkable, given all of the fuss -- the trump businesses, which is remarkable given the fuss they made about hillary clinton. there was use of disappearing message apps. basically you get a message on your phone and as you are reading it, literally as you are scrolling, it vanishes so no record is preserved. historians and government groups challenged that practice in court and was not successful. we know that people like jared kushner were frequent users of another application called whatsapp, and it is far from clear -- again, on his personal device -- whether he transferred those messages with the metadata and attachments to an official account. and we know, this was the subject of a lawsuit brought, we know the president resisted creating records in the first place. for example, the multiple times he met vladimir putin. he took steps to ensure no records were created. he did not have notetakers present. there was a story published that he seized the notes at one point of the translator. he did not have notes taken of his meetings with kim jong-un. i think what that means is we will have a huge hole in the historical record. and this is just what we know about. because while the president is in office, there is no accountability to anyone for what the president is doing on the record, not to the archivist and not to the public. i very much fear that when the archives eventually go through trump's records, they will find out it is worse than we know. philip: there is a bill out there i believe, i don't know if it is still active, to change the law and bring it up-to-date with the fact that presidential records are now mainly electronic records, and these records proliferate under all sorts of different systems, social media, email, cell phone apps. what is the status of the murphy quigley bill and what would it do to bring the current law up-to-date with current forms of record-keeping? anne: anthony may know the status more than i. i think he follows legislation more. but i think it is a really good first start. it makes it clear that presidential staff should not be using personal email accounts and other personal devices to conduct presidential business. one of the provisions in it, i think it's the first time this has even been floated, the idea of -- once a president leaves office, tying access to the records and other artifacts and the systems the government offers to compliance with the government -- with the presidential records act. it was an effort to grapple with the changing technology and all of the challenges it imposes on everyone. not just the white house. philip: anthony, do you know the status or do you want to comment further on that act? anthony: i don't know the status, but anne makes a good point. with the new obama model, that does not give the national archives a role to play at the obama center, they will just run a private museum, much like the nixon foundation for 16 years ran a private museum but have an agreement with the national archives to feature documents and artifacts and memorabilia. i think tying that to performance is important because if a president decides i don't need the national archives, i will do what i want, there is still the idea of not quite the strong motto of the archives on the door, but these are records that belong to the people in this private museum. there is a less strong still an idea of support that we would not want to give to a former president who acted atrociously in office when it comes to record-keeping. philip: it gives some teeth, but in general, what is the enforcement mechanism for the current law? does the current law have any teeth? we have this image of someone running around behind trump and easing together his torn up documents. how would that person actually have had the ability to do that, given what we know about the state of the oval office and the degree to which that had been closed to a very narrow group of supporters of the president? anne: i will tackle this. the answer to the enforcement is there is absolutely none of the president is in office. the archivist has no authority over the president. the archivist can offer guidance if guidance is sought. historically, in a typical administration, there has been i think a good thing relationship between nara and the white house starting almost from the beginning because it is an enormous undertaking to collect the records of a president, even if it is only four years. at the beginning of an administration, they start to plan for that and the archives need to get a sense of volume, etc.. i don't know what the relationship was like with the trump white house, but i know that while trump was refusing to concede the election, he did not allow -- one of the consequences of that is that the transition, including the transition from having his nara help with the transition of his records did not take lace until very late. -- not take place until very late. the enforcement thing, when congress enacted this law, one of the things they assumed was that presidents would want to keep records of their presidency because it is a tribute to them, right? it is their legacy, every president will want a full historical legacy. they never envisioned someone like donald trump, who i think his legacy is what he says it is, not what the actual documents of his presidency say. the courts have been very wary to waade -- wade into this area. i mentioned a number of lawsuits that have not been successful. because any effort for a judge to rein in the president is possibly unconstitutional. treading on the president's article three powers to do what he wants while in office. as long as that concern is lurking, it means the courts are not really available. i don't know what would happen in the most extreme case, if a president just said i am not going to keep records or i will have a bonfire, and for all we know, president trump did that. so it is a real problem. i think it is a particularly acute problem with respect to trump's documents because there was a time after the election, before -- he never conceded -- but it was still unclear when the transition would happen and how. he had to realize that he faces potential liability on a lot of fronts. there is a lot of litigation out there. on the criminal and civil level. to the extent he may have taken steps to destroy records or make sure they never fall into the hands of the public or anyone in government, we don't know we simply don't know. but certainly a lot of articles have been written by noted journalist and historians raising the significant fear that that did happen. philip: just a little bookkeeping to welcome people to the panel if you are joining us. i see there are more participants. but also to invite people to send questions. i might ask lisa briefly if anybody has done so and if we should pause to respond to folks listening? lisa: no questions yet, although i would encourage people to ask their questions. we have a wealth of knowledge on the panel. take advantage. we expect that act to be reintroduced to congress, i don't know if that was clear earlier. but again, if there are questions, please time in on the chat. anthony: i think anne is right that there has been a history of cooperation in the white house. the major change happened in the george w. bush administration. senior officials used the republican national committee system to send emails and we lost many records because of that. and second, the national archives office that coordinates secure and compartmentalized facilities that look at classified records, they have an enforcement authority to conduct audits of how federal agencies are handling classified records. when they tried to look at how the vice president's office was handing -- handling classified records, cheney's office refused. and vice president cheney recommended that office be abolished. even before president trump, we were seeing an administration resist. philip: you said the vice president recommended abolishing the office. what was the follow-up on that? anthony: it was not. philip: maybe moving onto the other half of this question, which is the presidential library itself. i know you wrote at the time that a lot of people were thinking of a trump library, you wrote a measured assessment saying you did not think it was likely to happen, and you have to kind of lay the particularities of the trumpet nest and and donald trump himself. give us a brief sense of why you think it is unlikely we will see a trump library. anthony: in a nutshell, it is expensive, it is complex, there are a lot of responsibilities and regulations involved. that doesn't describe anything donald trump has done in his life, following the law, following the rules, raising money in a consistent and legitimate manner and using it for the purposes for which he claimed to have raised it. i think in addition to that, there is the idea of location. every president has had to one extent or another, difficulty in finding a site to place his library. i am not sure trump would have as much finding any site. when richard nixon was in the wilderness years and could not find a place, a city in kansas offered a plot of land and tax breaks, and the downside was it was leavenworth. so the question whether president trump, former president trump, former president trump, can find a place -- i think he can find a place, but whether that is like his recent predecessors at universities or where the public can easily access it, i think he might have a location more like hoover, where it is not connected to an institution or city organization. it is taking hundreds of millions of dollars to build these facilities. if you want the national archives to have a role to play, you have to give 60% of the cost of the part of the building you give to them to the national archives in addition, as an endowment. that is an additional problem. i also think there are questions as to what he will be doing as a former president in 2022, midterms, and 2024. if you build a presidential library, that is the capstone, you are no longer going to be running. there is no president that builds a library while out of office and then runs for office again. i think that's one of the main reasons we have not seen any announcement from the white house, or now the office of former president trump about that. philip: let me follow-up on that, is a fascinating question. it's been a long time since we had a president who potentially could run again and maybe even be president again. i would like to ask you both, what are the issues there? if trump came back as president, what kind of control would he have over the records of his previous administration, and are there things he could do or not do that would essentially terminate the idea of public access to presidential records? anne: i will start. as you probably know, there is absolutely no precedent for this. the statute, because the statute says nothing, i think technically, legally, his records would still be the records of a former president and would be subject to the processes and timeline that the presidential records act spells out. that said, if he were reelected now as an incumbent president, i am sure he would try to find a way to use the power of the presidency to restrict access, further access, to the records of his first term. but the statute, as far as i know, i've never seen anything in the legislative history of the presidential records act that even contemplated this possibility. i think technically, the records remain -- there would eventually be two sets of records. but again, i think there is the possibility, and in my mind, the risk that if he were reelected, one of the things that president trump would do would be to use the power of his office to try to further restrict access to the records of his first term. anthony: there is one word in the presidential records act that gives us something to hang our hats on, which is consecutive. the definition says consecutive terms. that might have been just crossing the t's and dotting i's , not anticipating this. when carter signed this, it did not apply to his first term records. he announced that if he were reelected, he would apply the law to his first term but they actually didn't get if he had -- they actually didn't. if he had been reelected, he would have half his records as the personal property of the president. those are two clues as to how they would be litigated. but as was pointed out, just because we have something clear in and often unclear statute doesn't mean you will have success in the courts. philip: this raises an interesting, larger question that goes beyond trump and applies to all of the past presidents working within this system. that is, how well are these libraries distinguished from the national archives? where does the real power reside within them when it comes to giving scholars, journalists access to these documents? how well do they work independently from the federal government? anthony: let me just say a quick anecdote. the presidential libraries are part of nara, but the presidential foundations that raise the money and yelled at, they still have a significant presence and they cooperate the library's in terms of public programs. when i was on the oversight committee, we try to hold hearings into the relationship between the national archives and the foundations, and the foundations put pressure on us to cancel the hearings. we scheduled a hearing, we had witnesses set up -- i'm not sure, anne might have been on the witness list. the archivist came to us and said these foundations don't want to have an open discussion about a relationship, please cancel it. a few months later we tried to schedule another hearing with the same results. that gives you a window into where the power lies when it comes to national archives and the foundations. one other point, for the libraries that don't follow under the presidential records act, hoover through carter, the foundations and presidential families made the determinations, often, who gets to see the records, because they created the deed of gift to the national archives and set up the circumstances. for example, the kennedy family makes determinations on who can see president kennedy's health records, as one example. anne: -- lisa: we have one question from the audience and it goes to what we were originally talking about, nara needing more teeth and making sure the archives have more teeth. what do they need to do to reduce the 60% endowment down to 20%? what would be the impact? anthony: the reason the endowment exists in the first place is it was costing taxpayers a ton of money to maintain the libraries. when the act was amended in 1986, the endowment is 20%. the foundations and national archives worked together to figure out a way around that and limit how much space is considered national archives space and what systems are involved. it worked out to be maybe 5% or 10% rather than 10%. during the george w. bush administration, congress upped it first to 40% and then sickly the present, in anticipation of the endowment -- and then a percent, in anticipation of the endowment. it might have scared of the obama administration entering into a partnership. i think it's a positive we don't have a building where the archives are giving a seal of approval to any presidential foundation, whether it be trump or obama or biden. anne: i would like to make the point, i could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the archives was not unhappy with obama's decision not to have a library that was in the family of archives managed libraries. and in fact, they kind of encouraged this as the model of the future. i don't think it is really the case that the archives is pushing for a greater role in presidential libraries. my sense is they would be happy to have them relegated to a private entity in which i guess artifacts and letters and papers would be on loan. philip: you've mentioned obama, you both mentioned obama, and this rings us to -- brings us to another story about residential records i don't think the public understands very well, and that is the change to how we access the records now that the vast majority of them are not physical records, but electronic records. my understanding is the obama foundation will give access to electronic records in some form but not necessarily in a place where you have to go to a particular site. can you explain a little to us about what has changed in particular with the obama records? anthony: in terms of access, it is still the same thing. you don't have access for the first five years. i don't know of any relaxation of the restrictions yet. as far as we know, it will be 12 years from the time he leaves office. when it comes to the processing and digitization, it is quite new and some of the details i find alarming. which is that the obama foundation is paying for the digitization of the paper records. according to the memorandum of understanding the national archives released, the obama foundation chooses the vendor and sets up the circumstances in coordination with the national archives. in the past, i was always told if a foundation wants to do something, and exhibit or sell something and a gift shop or have a public event, if they are paying for it, they get to call it my understanding is the national archives is giving over digitization to the obama foundation. also alarming is the memorandum of understanding says the national archives cannot publicly discuss the memorandum without the express consent of the obama foundation. i'm sure some people might say what is the problem with that? i would urge you to say that the national archives have said this is the new model they wish to pursue, which is they would like to have the same model and memorandum of understanding with whatever organization the trump family decides to have. anne: if i can add an obvious point but i think it bears emphasis, and that is we are talking about records that belong to us. the fact that they may be housed in a physical library or virtual library or are being discussed about a private library is going to deal with these records in some way, it doesn't change the fact that they belong to the people. they are not personal records. that was one of the biggest impacts of the presidential records act. because president nixon took his papers when he left and congress realized there had been assumption they were federal records but there was nothing codified in law that made them records of the united states. not the only, but the key purpose of the records act was to declare that these are records of the united states. when we are talking -- anthony is right to bring out these private agreements and the extent to which they are done in secret or may place limitations we don't know about, that should trouble us. these are our records, they are not president they are not president obama's records, they belong to the government, they belong to the people. >> i want to return to what you understand about the memorandum of understanding. it may not be the national archives able to comment on it. what might you be worried are in that document that would be troubling? >> the document has been released. my question is what is the process? the presidential records act says when the president leaves office, the president gets legal custody of the records. during this digit i'd is asian process -- digitization, who has custody? does the foundation have it? do they pay for private vendors to do this on government property? there is a lot of concern over the years with me and other commenters, after the essential library, the offices are intermingled with the national archives. the truman library foundation had national archives email addresses and phone numbers. were they generating records, and who is paying for that? when you apply those problems to the obama's foundation and anyone, you get back to the point that these are our records, not the personal property of the president. and not during that 12 year period are they the property of the president, they are ours as soon as the president leaves office. >> i want to follow up on the public's notion of ownership. when nixon could have cleaned his archives of things -- there was outrage at the idea. as we have moved toward electronic records, have we at an innate level changed our sense of what a record is so that we are not outraged if it is disappeared? we want to use in some cases messaging apps that make things disappear. is there a broader revolution and understanding of records that needs to happen? >> i think it is funny because, one of the early concerns in the federal records act -- which is the counterpart that agencies are bound by -- they gave agencies a lot of authority to dispose of records, because they understood otherwise they would be overwhelmed with paper. we have the reverse now. the amount of paper records is diminishing, i suspect dramatically, but the amount of electronic records have increased exponentially. however, it is a lot easier to store and access electronic records than people records. that does not really answer your question, but members of the public, we use electronic -- we send email and intermingled doing work. it is not unusual to throw in, "hi, how are you, have you got your vaccine yet?" and presumably the white house does the same thing, and they send a lot of electronic records that on the face may not be significant. but i think the differences with the white house and the president, you cannot always assess the significance of the president's records in a contemporary timeframe. a lot of what becomes interesting is over time, and that is why i think the fact there is even a provision in the presidential records act that allows the president currently to dispose of records that are considered not permanent is really misplaced and needs to go . there has to be a default that everything that comes out of the white house, everything that is a presidential record needs to be preserved. and we leave this for when that president has left office to sift through and decide -- maybe they do not need to keep every letter and email from someone outside the white house, but the real risk -- i would rather err on the side of preserving too much than too little. these fears are heightened with president trump. as i have been saying, and i believe to my core, there is a huge hole in his historical record. we will not be able to fill it. yes, i do not know if it is a mismatch to answer your question more directly between the public's perception and reality. i think when you are talking about the president and the white house, you are talking about a particularly valuable set of records. if you are overinclusive in what you preserve, that is far better of an outcome to be underinclusive. >> forgive a naive question, but you have me thinking off the cuff. if one were to look at my records, you would find i may have initiated a conversation on email and followed up on facebook messenger, and finished the job on whatsapp. three different systems, three different changes of dialogue. is there anything in the way administrations are required to keep records that brings coherence to how they preserve and present them? >> the law requires if it is a record that has to be preserved regardless of the medium, and i think the guidance sometimes lags in terms of the specific technologies, i think it is clear an amendment to the pra and fra made it clear regardless of the format, digital or paper, it is a record. the character of the record does not change depending on the medium. the problem is certain technologies just create real challenges from a records preservation perspective. disappearing apps create a problem. but so do things like whatsapp and other applications you use on your personal phone. people may not know this, but installed in the white house -- and it has been there through several terms, several presidents now -- is a system that automatically captures every email sent on an eop email system. the individual user does not get to make a choice whether it is a presidential record or not. that decision is automatically made and everything is preserved. the real problem comes in, if you use a private email account, if you use or phone and use whatsapp, it will not be captured, and you have to take steps to ensure that it is captured. i think the problem is too often employees do not know they have to take the extra steps, or do not do it or capture enough. it is not enough to capture, to screenshot the particular message. you also have to capture the metadata and attachments. in fact, this was a lawsuit that i was part of that we filed at the end of the trump administration. they had an official white house policy that allowed them for whatsapp to only screenshot. they said, is that good enough? we said, no, it is not. you are not collecting a lot of data that under our guidance is record data. >> we are getting close to the end. i wanted to ask if there are any more questions from folks listening in. if not, i have one really quick question to ask anthony, then get a closing comment from both of our panelists. you mentioned you are working for a member of congress thinking of having hearings to look at the relationship between presidential foundations. why do you think the pressure was brought do not have those? what particular lines of questioning would have been problematic for the presidential foundations? >> to give you an idea, that was in 2010, the democrats lost the house in 2010. in february 2011, the national archives does yes tickly brought the presidential library directors to washington to hold a conference on america's treasures, the presidential libraries. the foundations had a long hearing on the same day celebrating these. the concern was not the public would not learn about it, but the public would not learn what actually happens, and what the relationships are, and how much political pressure is brought to bear not just on the content of exhibits and speaker series participants, but the contact of the main focus of presidential libraries. just two years ago, the johnson library hired their first federal director who was not an historian. the foundation and the national archives said this is great news, a respected historian of vietnam who left after eight months after the lbj foundation did not like -- this is what was reported from sources -- that he was operating the library according to the law, in a nonpartisan way. there is a lot more in the older libraries dealing with public programming and exhibits, but there are records that need to be processed and open. that private foundation got a federal employee fired. i think the short answer that is what the lines of questioning they do not want the public to know. >> we are a couple minutes from being at the top of the hour. i want to ask you both to give us a final comment and final thoughts. anything we have talked about, advice, how things have changed. anthony? >> the two things, if you are an interested party or member of a professional organization or government advocate, the things you should be concerned about -- it is great we are focusing on preservation. if you do not preserve the records, we will not have access. the overwhelming majority of effort is in preservation. the lawsuits brought for decades, the ideas for legislative reform has been about how do we make sure the white house preserves the records. once they get preserved, they go to the national archives that spends more money on celebrating presidents than hiring archivists to preserve and open these records. the next step for all organizations interested in having access to presidential records is taking the victories and momentum from preservation fights, and bringing it more toward access. the second part is, do not consider that because the national archives has a unique and historic mission that everyone who leaves the organization over time is dedicated solely to that mission. for example, if the department of energy had a private foundation run by exxon mobil inside its facilities, that organizations working for a renewable energy would be upset about it. most of the stakeholders in the national archives system are folks who need national archives, the researchers, government advocates, former litigators who need to have and maintain a good relationship. it is a struggle between criticizing too much and letting things slide. do not think that just about preservation, and the national archives is not part of the problem in getting access. >> we have been talking about the legal niceties of the presidential records act and how it works. i want to step back and pick up a theme you sounded in your article that we cemented at the outset. it is easy to forget now that we are in calmer times, but we went through what i think is an historically unprecedented attack on our democracy. i think the verdict is out how much our democracy has helped. we will see that. to have a president who refused to participate -- not only refused to participate in the peaceful transfer of power, but challenged that very institution . i think that raises enormous questions. when we are talking about presidential libraries, the first question, does president trump deserve to have a library? i would answer no. it is not just a question of whether he deserves it, but the risk he will use that kind of an institution to perpetuate lies and untruths that really are so incredibly harmful to our democracy is just too great of a risk. i think it is different in times. we have had presidents before, president nixon comes to mind, but he is not the only one who has tested our democracy. but nothing like this. and i think the other question, picking up what anthony said, is a question of access. he is right. a lot of our litigation and legislative reforms, the groups i have been involved with have been pushing, have to do with ensuring preservation. but access is a real key. when it comes to president trump's records, we need to fundamentally rethink the idea that there should be some kind of a hold on when the public can get access. for us to move past and make sure what happened under president trump never happens again, we need to know what happened, and we need to know why it happened. the only way we find that out is to get access to his records. i am not naive enough to think a statute aimed at records could pass. there was a statute aimed at president nixon's records. it had i partisan support and it passed. i do not think we would get that today. that troubles me. we are going to have to look at other ways to counter what will continue to be a disinformation campaign. the thought that the archives and the records of this administration could be used to further that disinformation campaign troubles me greatly. >> thank you. you have brought up at the very end of our conversation disinformation, which is the key one we need to think about now. it was for me, realizing trump is not just a president who wanted to burnish his record, fudge a few facts, but has initiated a new era in how americans relate to public records -- the era of public disinformation. that is a subject for another panel, not one we can get into today. i will turn it back to lisa for closing remarks. >> thanks, i want to thank the panelists. this has been a quick moving conversation. we have a clarification about the difference between a presidential library and a building. lara used the library to reference the documents no matter where they reside. i think we are in a new era, and as a public we need to demand more actual information, more factual information, and recognize the fact these records belong to all of us. we need also to demand -- this has to do with a balance of power issue, so congress needs to figure out a way to enforce the laws we have in addition to reforming the laws so they are stronger so that we capture all this information for the future, and can analyze and understand it. it will take a long time to analyze and understand it. we need complete documents and access to all of them. we need to demand to get that. i want to thank all of you. i appreciate your time. enjoy the rest of your week. >>

Related Keywords

Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , United States , Washington , Leavenworth , America , Anthony May , Richard Nixon , Vladimir Putin , Biden Anne , Hillary Clinton , Kim Jong ,