I would imagine the Privacy ACT of 1974 applies as well, but congress never follows their own rules so who knows.
I posted this earlier in response to the repeated use of the word insurrection. Surprisingly it didn't receive any replies and I thought it would have. One more shot: "That's a bold exaggeration and use of the word imo. I think it takes a hell of a lot of people, in a hell of a lot of locations, and the support of some members of Congress and the support of the military to even remotely consider calling it an insurrection."
Well they dont really care. They want it to be an insurrection so it is. They dont care if it was 1 Viking or 15 galactic spaceships. They will have their insurrection!
No, I'm following the conversation just fine. Let me help you catch up. During a national crisis Hannity (among others) sent texts to the presidents chief of staff with the purpose of getting the president to take a specific course of action for the crisis. The committee investigating the crisis subpoenaed all of the records related to the crisis which of course included the texts. Why was the text released ? - well I can only guess. But if I guess I would say it was a petty move to respond to the perceived pettiness of the Republicans relative to the investigation. I would guess the releaser had two prime objects (1) to show the duplicity of Trumps FOX sycophants; and (2) to show that during the most intense time of the crisis and despite the pleas of his staff, family, and key supporters Trump had his head up his ass. But that's just my guess of the motive behind who released the texts.
You dont need to repeat yourself. Again, the question is why? It was not a crisis. Everyone went home when their iphone storage was full of selfies. You mentioned you are guessing as to why; is political vengeance not a guess of yours?
The privacy act of 1974 is about the government safeguarding the collection and storing of your personal information - name, address, social security number ect. in the systems of records. Don't think it applies to this case.
A couple of posters who I thought would reply haven't. And they have been in the forum since I posted it. Perhaps this gif sums it up best. Substitute THEY for YOU.
I’ve written several times why I see the time from Nov 3 leading up to and including January 6 as an attempt by Trump and his followers to subvert the result of the election, thus becoming an insurrection. It wasn’t sending a “Viking “ to the capital or any one action but a growing and broad attempt to intimidate election officials across the country up to and including congress to ignore the law and constitution. It wasn’t a military coup as that wouldn’t have succeeded. It was a bold attempt to twist law and language to get a desired outcome. They tried to create a legal fiction to get there. As Trump told people from Kemp in Georgia to Pence just open things with a question and he would take care of it. He had minions prepare papers claiming legal precedent including calling a national emergency so he could declare martial law. There were schemes on top of schemes to undermine the results of the election. There is nothing else it can be called but an insurrection.
