Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
- Fr. John
- The Rt. Rev. John H. Taylor is father of two, stepfather of two more, husband of one, and servant of the Mighty One.
BLOG is God spelled backwards, with an L and a B instead of D
-
-
-
-
A month before Election Day, I predicted…8 hours ago
-
Wonkette Movie Night: Scrooged9 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
LBCF: Tin men1 day ago
-
-
-
-
-
Holy Longing4 weeks ago
-
-
-
Francis in Hungary1 year ago
-
-
-
-
Search4 years ago
-
Advent Bootcamp 20195 years ago
-
-
-
The Post-Easter Crash and Tech Week6 years ago
-
-
This Blog, R.I.P.7 years ago
-
-
-
Inclusive history7 years ago
-
-
The 2016 Polls Were OK8 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
The Years Of Writing Dangerously9 years ago
-
‘Lest we forget Jerusalem’11 years ago
-
-
-
PDP on Hiatus12 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7 comments:
Did you see the “Historians in the News” item ("HNN article cited in historians’ petition to release Nixon transcript") about this at the History News Network (HNN) site? It describes how my 2009 HNN article, Why Aren’t All the Nixon Tapes Now Available?” is cited in Stanley Kutler’s petition. My article and I are mentioned on page 28 of the pdf file of the Kutler declaration.
My article was published in February 2009, which probably represents the high point of my confidence in NARA’s ability to work with the Nixon foundation. Having gone back and read the news accounts of the internal disputes that took place regarding the foundation in the late 1990s and early 2000s, my finger in the air sense is that the Cox rather than the Eisenhower approach has been ascendant during the last year or two, although the latter served the foundation well when it was seeking establishment of a federal Nixon library during the Bush administration.
At any rate, my 2009 article and posted comments under it, cited in court filings, speak well of you and do not cast the foundation as the villain some might have. Had I written the article a year later, in February 2010, I still would not have cast the foundation as a villain (the situation is too complicated to lend itself to heroes and villains.) However, I would have referred to events that took place later in 2009, such as the flap over John Dean’s appearance and Mr. Bostock’s comments at the Nixon blog about Tim Naftali. And taken even more of a “who knows what will happen” approach to matters related to the federal library than I did in February 2009.
My concerns about the way the Department of Justice and NARA handled the case in 2009 remain the same. As a fed, I’m keenly aware of the extent to which government lawyers represent “the thin grey line” of protection which shields public employees from external attack. Remove that line of defense, or weaken or withhold it to some extent, and one places employees in an untenable position. Since 1992, I’ve expended a great deal of professional and personal currency in arguing that such situations should be avoided – and largely can be, through good communications and due diligence within the government, by NARA and DOJ, before taking positions publicly in court or elsewhere.
Sorry for the double post, again. This keeps happening because the window asks if I want to navigate away from the page instead of telling me my comment was posted. I'll try to post another comment with the links to the items in question. Don't know if it will go through, however. Too many links (I need to post 3) may come across as sp*m.
OK, now my prior post, in both versions is gone. Weird. It displayed correctly at your site for a few minutes, then disappeared. I'll just email it to you. It concerns Dr. Kutler's use of my HNN article in his petition (I'm fine with his doing so, I just want to pass on the information and the fact that the History News Network picked that up.)
Oh brother. My earlier post was wiped out. I'll email it to you, it concerns Dr. Kutler's citation in his petition of my 2009 HNN article about the Nixon tapes.
MK
MK: Sorry about the technical difficulties! I have your e-mailed comment (as well as the earlier one on the subject, which I was waiting to reply to after I returned from my quick trip back east). I have some e-mail connectivity issues at the moment but will post the one you intended for public viewing later today. Many thanks.
Below posted with MK's permission:
Did you see the “Historians in the News” item at the History News Network (HNN) site? It mentions how my 2009 HNN article, “Why Aren’t All the Nixon Tapes Now Available?” is cited in Stanley Kutler’s petition. My article and I are mentioned on page 28 of the pdf file --page 25 of the Kutler declaration.
My article was published in February 2009, which probably represents the high point of my confidence in NARA’s ability to work with the Nixon foundation. Having gone back and read the news accounts of the internal disputes that took place regarding the foundation in the late 1990s and early 2000s, my finger in the air sense is that the Cox rather than the Eisenhower approach has been ascendant during the last year or two. As I noted, however, the latter served the foundation well when it was seeking establishment of a federal Nixon library during the Bush administration. I
At any rate, my 2009 article and posted comments under it, cited in court filings, speak well of you and do not cast the foundation as the villain some might have thought I might do. Had I written the article a year later, in February 2010, I still would not have cast the foundation as a villain (the situation is too complicated to lend itself to heroes and villains.) However, I would have referred to events that took place later in 2009, such as the flap over John Dean’s appearance and Mr. Bostock’s comments at the Nixon blog about Tim Naftali. And taken even more of a “who knows what will happen” approach to matters related to the federal library than I did in February 2009.
My concerns about the way the Department of Justice and NARA handled the case in 2009 remain the same. As a fed, I’m keenly aware of the extent to which government lawyers represent “the thin grey line” of protection which shields -- or is supposed to shield -- public employees from unwarranted or unstainable attacks. Remove that line of defense, or weaken or withhold it to any extent, and one places employees in an untenable position. Since 1992, I’ve expended a great deal of professional and personal currency in arguing that such situations should be avoided – and largely can be, through good communications and due diligence before taking positions publicly in court or elsewhere.
Many thanks for posting the comment I tried to put up earlier! I made a couple of errors. I meant "unwarranted or unsustainable." And my word order in one sentence is confusing. "My concerns about the way the Department of Justice and NARA handled the case in 2009 remain the same" as 2009 in the wrong place. I should have typed "My concerns in 2009 about the way the Department of Justice and NARA handled the case remain the same."
Thanks again!
Post a Comment