energy, but is it clean enough that you want to choose is north korea funding? it's miss all program with stolen crypto currency. how can digital wallace be protected and african starts up on the rise? what makes them life counting the costs on al jazeera? ah, so i'm marianne demise in london. a quick look at the main stories we're following this our. now the us is saying that it's becoming more confident in signs of pointing to russian action over ukraine. it's urgent citizens that leave in the next 24 to 48 hours and says it won't send anyone to get them. if that is a conflict. the u. k. in several other countries are also advising that citizens to leave ukraine, saying they should do so. while commercial flights are still available, washington also believes russia now has or forces in place that it would need for

any sort of military action against ukraine, and that it would likely start with ariel bombing. russia has denied that it has any plans to invade ukraine. us national security advisor jake sullivan, stress, he was not saying that president putin had made a final decision about taking military action. we have to think about the range of scenarios that we confront and it's our job to be ready for all of them. so what i will say is that the way that he has built up his forces and put them in place, along with the other indicators that we have collected through intelligence, makes it clear to us that there is a very distinct possibility that russia will choose to act militarily and there is reason to believe that that could happen on a reasonably swift timeframe. now we can't pinpoint the day at this point and we can pinpoint the hour. but what we can say is that there is a credible prospect that

a russian military action would take place even before the end of the olympic particle have as been following those development staff from washington. something is clearly up and something has changed, the calculus floor, the united states government. and i say that because we started to see some tweet and some reporting from pretty well respected reporters in washington. that in fact, the intelligence community did believe that prudent had, in fact, the excuse me, russian president vladimir putin had in fact made the decision. and that the vision, if you could come within a couple of days now, national security advisor, jim sullivan. as you heard, he really, he said, we don't believe that vladimir putin has made that decision or that any orders have been given up to the military. but he did seem to give some credence to the potential timetable. what's new is that he's saying you, if you're an american, you need to get out in 24 to 48 hours. stressing again that if it happens and you're not out in the next 24 to 48 hours, the u. s. is not going to go in and get you, they're not going to be able to get them. and he stress it if it is the kind of

invasion where it does seem quite possible worded involved and not only electronic warfare, but an aerial salt with adventure. eventually, with a ground invasion, you said you're not going to be able to get on a train or a car and a bus. and so going as far as to say, the u. s. embassy and ukraine can help pay for your travel, but you need to leave now. so it's the clearest indication in not only his words putting in $24.00 to $48.00 timeline, but we see now nato, that meeting that the president biden had with the allies, including nato. that was on his schedule. it was a fairly longish meeting. and now he's going to camp david, he usually spends his weekends at his home in delaware camp. david, though is a place where he has all of the facilities that he would need to be able to communicate real time with his national security team. with the pentagon, so they're not saying straight out that they think an invasion is eminent,

but they're putting a very precise timeline on when it could happen and say, you know, the next 24 to 48 hours are pretty, pretty critical. when other stores are following us, joe biden assigns an executive order totally $7000000000.00 in frozen afghan reserves. half of that is going to go towards humanitarian efforts in afghanistan, the other half to relatives of the victims of september 11th attacks. money was frozen prior to the taliban takeover in august. delegation of the world health organization in belgium is in south africa as it looks at setting up that an m r n . a vaccine technology hob in the country. a week ago, as i'm african pharmaceutical company and outs, had developed a new vaccine to help poor nations african as design and developed its own vaccine based on madonna's our moneys feel a bit later on after the bottom line, which is coming up next i

i am steve clements, i have a question. well, maybe a couple of questions. why did it take a year for donald trump's archives to be handed over to the government? and if he destroyed so many of his records, did he do anything wrong? legally? let's get to the bottom line. ah, donald trump's legacy was that he was unconventional and didn't care much, but the traditional norms of the white house. but recently his habit of ripping up papers and throwing them on the floor or in the trash has come under a lot of scrutiny. lots of records that he reportedly was required by law to keep and advised by his lawyers to do so, went into burn bags and were incinerated in the pentagon. the loss says any of trump's memos his letters, his papers, even emails, although there is no evidence that trump actually used email much or the property of the american people. they have to be preserved by the white house and so on to the national archives by law for safe keeping as historical records. this week we

learned that trump's team just sent 15 boxes from his home in florida last month. and many documents were torn into shreds stuck together by tape. today we're talking about trumps paper trail or lack thereof. and what it means, not only for historians, but for the law makers investigating the events of january 6, 2021. today we're talking with josh dorsey and investigative political reporter at the washington post who's done some of the really major reporting on this story. and joining me here in the studio are and weisman who has literally fought against every american president since the 1980s, to make sure that their records come back to the public. and is the former chief council for citizens, for responsibility and ethics in washington. responsibility, ethics, washington, we're gonna have to talk about that. and professor david barker, who teaches government and is the director of the center for congressional and presidential studies at american university. josh, let me just start with you. can you lay the groundwork if, as it were, for what we have learned about donald trump's proclivity to just kept keep ripping

things up and what are the public equities that are involved here? so what we learned is that former president trump's habit for ripping up documents was indiscriminate and repeated over the course of 4 years. various sheeps of staff . lawyers and other advisors in the white house tried to warn the former president about the public records or requirements that he had to keep these documents, but that he would rip them repeatedly, both in the oval office and the dining room of the of office and the residents, so what the white house had to do was to come and do a back system where i have a staff secretary and other offices would come through and go through the trash cans at night and take them back together. so in the national archive started processing so much of the material after the presidency ended, i'm, they found there were lots of documents that were ripped and taped back together. some of those documents will provide it to the january 6th committee that had still

been taped back the other and they found many other documents. they said that were not put back together. i, some of them had been reassembled and some of them had not. and it's been a particularly arduous challenge for the national archives dealing with the habits of someone who ripped so indiscriminately for so long. one of the issues josh, that gave president trump lift during his campaign against hillary clinton was that, you know, she was in a controversy that she had destroyed emails. aah! had used a private email server and that many that she had gone through and delivered some of those emails back, but there were literally tens of thousands, if not more, that she hadn't have. we had any response from president trump about that juxtaposition of his concern over hillary's e mails versus his proclivity to shred documents. we have not, i, as, as you said, the way partially won the election over concerns about her handling of government records and our e mail. and what we've learned really in the past few weeks is that some of this

was already known to be clear. but what we've really seen come to light more than we even knew was that the former president did not follow public records rules and laws as appropriate. but he took in a 15 different boxes of things to morrow. i go, i with him at the national archives to go down and retrieve, he shredded at thousands of documents or ripped them up, that they their tape act together. and he's really, i'm folks you know, involved in the international archives described business, unprecedented as far as the number of papers they've had to put back together and the amount of material they packed to try and retreat from the former president. and they told us yesterday the event, they still don't know if there's more material, but the former president, trump's aids, and florida say they continue to search. so really who knows that we've seen the end of this yet or not. i have a feeling we haven't been in weisman, you have sued presidencies before you successfully sued, as i understand it, the trump transition team to prevent that the destruction of documents,

if i have that correct. but tell us what the law is. the presidential records act and what you had been trying to secure, not only during the trump administration, but previous presidential administration. yes. so the president of records act was passed to make it clear that the records of a president belong to the american public. there. our records, our history, not the personal records of a president, they are the right and the act also makes it clear that the president has a legal obligation. well, he or she is an office to create and preserve records. the whole idea behind this statute is that this isn't a significant part of our history that needs to be created and preserved. obviously, present in trumps actions are completely at odds with that statue. i know the post reporting, which is quite incredible, has, you know, i think revealed just how systemic and ongoing it was. but we filed 3 separate

lawsuit against president trump early on from not in 2017. shortly after taking office came out that aids were using encrypted, disappearing message apps to communicate, which meant no records were being created. it came out in 2018 president tom's practice of ripping up his documents was 1st made public and even then it was so institutionalized that there were 2 people, long staff whose job, with the tape back his records. we sued because president trump refused to create records of key meetings with latimer potent 5 meeting by latimer flu lab, not have records correct. and kim john, he, he directed specifically, but note takers not be in those meanings. and we now know from the washington post reporting, that at least some of the records that were destroy,

included communications about his meetings with foreign leaders. and yes, at the end of the administration, we sued and we raise the concern. look, president trump is really leaving office. there is a likelihood that he faced a significant exposure. legally. we fear that on his way out, he is going to destroy a lot of his records. and unfortunately, we didn't get very far in our last who actually was the justice department that was defending the president and said was, oh not to worry, we put it what's called the litigation hold in place. once you follow the last 2, we've told everybody don't destroy anything. well, the washington post makes it clear that what you need to this is what's fascinating to me. you've got literally an administration or a presidency is not just one individual. yeah, there are literally billions of documents that are part of any presidential

administration that typically eventually go into the national archives and into a presidential library for later research and access. i guess in, in, in this case you got one guy, president donald trump ripping up stuff. right. that's there, but it still still will be billions of documents out there. but, but i think the other question is, what legal liability does he really face? i mean, i have yet to see president trump suffer any legal consequence of which i'm aware of, of, of serious you know, status and haven't seen that happen. so is it a toothless law while the para is to? yes, there is no enforcement mechanism in it course has taken the view that congress does not intend courts to have any role in supervising the president's compliance with the law. there are 2 criminal statutes of potentially apply. one of them for hibbitts with called the degradation of

u. s. property. and the 2nd statue criminal also says that it is against the law to wilfully mutilate or destroy record in a federal office. we think that there is a good argument that both of those statues have been violated. and we, i also believe that the element of willfulness is likely met here as well. and again, due to the reporting, the washington post and people like josh, we know that the president was told by 2 separate chiefs of staff and white house council that the, his actions were illegal. and still he persisted with david, you know, i have tried to sort of think about not only donald trump but other presidencies and go back to richard nixon who was a president i worked for during the last 2 years of his life. believe it or not, as director of the nixon center. you know, i think kissinger and nixon were obsessed that there be records ah,

and documentation of their presidency, which when watergate came along, proved to be something that perhaps they wish they hadn't done as much when you look at every white house since the attitude about taping or about records, how they've managed them. i can't really paint any president since nixon is actually loving the presidential records act, because things come back to bite them. so or so, you know, as a researcher and a historian, as a political scientist, looking at this, what are the equities that you care about? what are the behaviors we should be securing from the person who holds the highest office in this land or senior? right. you know, it started with kennedy and then that practice was continued by johnson and, and then next and not necessarily, you know, for the practice of taping the practice of taping, specifically. right. which as you noted and came back to bite nixon and rather famous ways. but you know, they talk about how the goal of that time actually was to be able to,

to use those tapes against political adversaries. right. i mean, the, the, the goals weren't necessarily all sanguine. but since that time, as, as you noted, that practice has, has been ended. but if you think about the, the richness that we've gotten from those, those tapes, and from records in general, from, from johnson especially, and next, and, you know, as, as historians and as, as anybody who cares about that the country and its history and from learning for from our past, right, we want to want to be able to see what these people did and office, the decisions that they made, the, the thoughts that were going through their minds, the conversations that they were having so that we can learn, right? we can learn what they did, what worked, what didn't worked, and why, you know, and that's the only way that we really get a sense of our nation is pass so that we can build a better future. josh, i'm wondering whether we should not just be looking at the torn papers, you know, in burn bags and, and donald trump's ways back. but also asking questions about official secrecy and

what we're not seeing. well, it's certainly true that this president i had given a paranoid tendency to not want anything personal about him to come out. not any sort of secret that would be embarrassing to it's him and he would often ask aids in meetings to not take notes. he would, he would ask people if they were recording him at times of the former president was kind of a secretive figure in some ways. and what we saw in this case, steve was that we don't really know what else he took. frankly, we don't know what i'll, he destroyed one of the things that my colleagues and i are really trying to do is figure out, okay, so the, the national archives is a shifting boxes. what was in this 15 boxes, what else is still there? i'm, you know, there were thousands of not tens of thousands of papers that were ripped up. was just a pattern of practice where he ripped up only sensitive materials that were,

you know, he saw as deleterious to him in some way. or was he just whooping things up because, you know, that's, that's what he did. i, there are lots of questions that we stop at figure out here. and we have kind of a broad outlines of, of what he was doing. but we still have lots of granular things that really would tell how a furious these practices were. well, i want to jump to david in 2nd, but josh, i know you're a reporter and you don't often give your views. but just reading your excellent reporting on this, i'm asking myself, you and i both know these folks and, and normal people who run for the presidency, sort of have the office in law. they understand the public role. they see it. and i'm just wondering who would rip up the records of their own? i think i'd, you know, do you have a sense that donald trump had all of the office of the presidency or thought just sort of his, you know, a side show think some of the traffic than the accoutrements of the office. he saw

that way, but i don't think he cared much about records retention. there was nothing that i saw in the course of 4 years of reporting on this with president or sense that led me to believe that he wanted to be careful keeper of his legacy. i mean, a former aid that i've talked to spoke with him about assembling presidential library. say he is very little interest in the topic and quickly moves on to other subjects. i don't think he saw keeping his papers out of the details of his presidency and clean order as high priority. i do not david, i know you want to jump in on that as well. but i'm going to ask you the same thing of someone who study different president. yes. we've see the archive. i've gone to research in the clinton library and nixon library in the reagan library. and and what is the public loss? what are people like you lost when you see something like we've seen reported in the washington post, eliminate again the, the ability to understand what happened for the past 4 years so that we can learn

from in the future. but one of the things that i really want to try to understand may perhaps from, from an even, is this distinction. you know, lots of times it's hard to prosecute someone if, if you can't, you know, demonstrate nefarious intent. try to. and oftentimes you've seen that with, with trump ability say like, oh, well, you know, he's just doesn't know any better or, or he like, you know, as a narcissistic sort of thing. he's above these things, but it's not really that he's necessarily trying to to conceal anything. and it was started for him to rip up the pieces of paper and throw him on the floor. and so blah, blah, blah. but to me, more than the, than the ripping and the shredding and even the take. i mean i have to interrupt you. i do remember what he was giving a state of the union address. and nancy pelosi was sitting behind him and ripped off here copies of the union. and he did not look clean. but you know, to me even sort of more concerning maybe than the, then the shredding and or the taking them or lago are these burn bags, right?

which, which, which suggests that there was an actual, you know, practice in place. right? this one of the burn bags are typically done for classified information, right? so the meaning of classified and non classified as is i just wanted to clarify that better. the bern bags are about classified information sent to the pentagon. so the question was, what made its way into those right? and it should have been part of them as i understand, right. it was what trump wanted in there and didn't want to see the light of day which, which seems to make a tougher case against them. and you know, i guess the question as you look forward and what ought to be some of the practices that we should expect. the administration, i must admit, i assume josh is the same. i communicate with a lot of senior government, white house officials and i communicate with them both through their official email account and phone number and through their unofficial g mail or aol counts even

though someone has a compuserve account, believe it or not. what are the rules if i communicate with one of jo biden's, most senior staff in a private account is someone breaking the law there? well, i know why not breaking the law, but well, what the law says it doesn't prohibit him from getting or you know, receiving or sending from a private account. but that official is supposed to take those emails and put them into an official account. the way the way it has to set up any email center received on an official whitehouse email account is automatically preserved. it requires no action whatsoever on the part of any white house official. but yes, the problem is use of unofficial devices and it goes on a lot and we're trying to get the law tightened up on that. but the obligation is on the white house official who gets that email from you if it pertains to official

business. they're supposed to put it into an official record keeping system. but, you know, again, when we're talking about this, you see how much you give there isn't the law. you see that, you know, with no enforcement how easy it is to circumvent it. and now we know the president himself, who is the most significant person in the white house, whose records are of the highest value was and you know, alive and thinking about is, you know, you can go to the present the j, f. k presidential library, or even at the archives, and they have doodles from as it in kennedy that he created at the height of the cuban missile crisis when our country was facing extinction. we thought, and they were preserved. and it's fascinating because they give you an insight, their doodles, they're not formal letter, borman memos, it shows you that almost everything a president creates. oh, look. i mean, i think, i think one of the interesting questions that's out there, not just what the president's thinking bit about the different arguments that are

going on around him or her over policy. and you know, much of that, you know, is it becomes part of records in archives. and then looking at the decision, the president might have gone or inputs from foreign leaders, which may very well be part of the material that josh dorsey was reporting on from our lago. are the things that might be out there. and i guess, josh, my question to you would be with regards to things that we don't know, have you begun to issue for your requests for material that might corroborate or might find information? because again, i know that any presidency is a great number of people are communicating. so would those documents that donald trump be shredded be held in other parts of the government? and can you, can you explain to our audience what a 4 year request is of so for your requests of freedom of information request, we frequent frequently uses reporters, historians and others. use them as wow,

i to try it and get public records from the government. it's more difficult with the executive branch because there's so many protections there where they don't have to destroy certain things in the white house, but a lot of government agencies, a lot of other official places, do not have that same protections. and one of the things that we've often tried to do to realistically is look for other places that would have to disclose. even if the, if the west wing proper eye does not, ash some of the documents. you know, steve, it's, it's hard to believe would be anywhere other than i and the west wing. i mean, we believe a lot of the things that he took were, you know, letters are from, from where of leaders are, you know, documents and he viewed as sensitive as the new york times reported last night. but he actually took up a piece of clothing and we don't really know exactly what that is. and that he took the amos sharpie map from hurricane doria, and they took all sorts of things that were kind of personal to him. and whatever

seems it's, i'm not sure would be privy to any sort of other foyer request. ah, what are the other things that we've been trying to figure out is in, in a lot of these documents, are there, are there duplicates? right. you aids a half copies of these things do in other advisors, do people who also would have provided them would they exist in some other form, even if a former president himself did not provide. oh, thank you. then let me just ask you, last minute we have 30 seconds each, david, can you just share with us what you think the, that trump has permanently change the norms by which a president behaves and is expected to behave? or do you think they'll be a bounce back to something like we used to see before? well, i worry that he had some and i don't have a crystal ball with a say for sure. but i mean, i think typically that's where you see it historically, every time a norm is degraded, it rarely bounces back, you know, and, and i think that, that trump has as a sure, in an era where, you know, we see in general behavior by all kinds of politicians that at various levels that

we didn't used to see a lot of copycatting and you know, your, i admire your expertise in, in suing administrations for the public good. but when i see unenforced subpoenas, when i see a lot of legal wrangling out there that doesn't have consequence, i guess my question would be the same. are we now because there has not yet been legal consequences applied for a change in presidential norms? going to see a permanent shift in those norms. i fear we are, i'm hopeful you know, post watergate. there were a lot of reforms that were inactive. they saw what poles, phoenix and ministration was able to exploit. there's certainly been an effort to do that. now i know i'm part of a group that's pushing for some reforms to the record keeping laws. i wish i could be more optimistic though, given the comp composition of congress. i will say i partisan. yeah. right. yeah. well listen, i want to thank all of you,

journalist josh dorsey incredible reporting lawyer and weisman professor david barker. thank you so much for all for being with us today. thank you, steve. thank you for having me. so what's the bottom line? president richard nixon was obsessive about record keeping and he wanted notes and audio tapes of everything documenting his presidency. the watergate scandal change that though, and pretty much every president since has had a kind of a complicated relationship with records in archives. but none is worked as hard as president, donald trump, to destroy records of his own presidency, whether he is being malicious or not. presidents work for american citizens, their records belong to the people. and their time in office becomes the nation's history. comes in buying that idea fully and he saw the job as serving him personally. which is why he more than any other president we've seen thinks nothing of personally ripping the shreds. documents that tell the story the drop years. there's a law against doing what he did, but thus far we haven't seen many consequences for those laws. if he can get away

with it, other presidents down the line will think they can do. and that's the bottom line. ah, a philosophically aligned out jesse real world explored the surprisingly between the egyptian islamic scholar mohammed abdul and russian novelist, leo tolstoy, and the french addiction. surrealists all 3 breton and jewish liter really isn't thinkers, answer realists on al jazeera, a unique here endangered bio diversity, lies in the heart of one of ecuador, tropical jungles. there was a lot of misinformation about the animals that we have here. and now that probably electives become them by others of conservation in their communities. out there,

a journey deepened to the rain forest to follow a scientist until teams effort to save the flora and fauna. so precious in the region. women make fires. ecuador was hidden treasure on al jazeera with hello, i am, i am was in london with a quick look at our main stories this, our, the u. s. is saying that it's becoming more conference in signs of a russian invasion of ukraine. it's all of its citizens there to leave in the next 24 to 48 hours and says it won't send anyone to get them if there is a conflict. the u. k. in several other countries are also advising citizens to leave ukraine, saying they should do so while commercial flights are still available. the u. s. also believes that russia now has all the forces in place that it would need for any sort of military encourage.