WaPo: Trump Mar-A-Lago docs were clearly marked “Classified”, were top-secret

fooferdoggie

Elite Member
Site Donor
Posts
4,467
Reaction score
7,941
Former presidents cannot declassify after they leave office. But it will be hard to prove either the gross negligence or intentional disclosure required by the law. There was some classified information in Hillary’s emails, but it was determined to be unintentional leakage, not criminal, and not even gross negligence. This looks to be worse, but I still think it’s a bit of a high bar to get over.
Sadly yep. All he has to do is say he declassified it. Just like destroying the papers it’s against the law but there is no punishment for it. So it’s like my dog barking at imaginary squirrels it’s annoying but no squirrels are hurt or care
 

Yoused

up
Posts
5,600
Reaction score
8,891
Location
knee deep in the road apples of the 4 horsemen
But her emails...

Are you ready for summer re-runs in February?


Like a dog with a bone, CFEFWSG will absolutely not let go of Hillary!!!1!1!!
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Site Donor
Posts
5,283
Reaction score
5,222
Location
The Misty Mountains
The president’s classification and declassification powers are broad
Experts agreed that the president, as commander-in-chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When someone lower in the chain of command handles classification and declassification duties -- which is usually how it’s done -- it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.

The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan -- which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance -- addresses this line of authority.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will."

In fact, Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said that "if Congress were to enact a statute seeking to limit the president’s authority to classify or declassify national security information, or to prohibit him from sharing certain kinds of information with Russia, it would raise serious separation of powers constitutional issues."

The official documents governing classification and declassification stem from executive orders. But even these executive orders aren’t necessarily binding on the president. The president is not "obliged to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed," Aftergood said. "And he can change those."

Indeed, the controlling executive order has been rewritten by multiple presidents. The current version of the order was issued by President Barack Obama in 2009.

The national-security experts at the blog Lawfare wrote in the wake of the Post’s revelation that the "infamous comment" by President Richard Nixon -- that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" -- "is actually true about some things. Classified information is one of them. The nature of the system is that the president gets to disclose what he wants."

Two caveats
So Risch’s comment holds water when it comes to the extent of the president’s powers. But some experts said that Risch’s formulation leaves out some notable aspects of the particular case involving Trump.

The first caveat: While Trump has the power to declassify information, he doesn’t appear to have done that in this case, at least at the time the story broke.

"There’s no question that the president has broad authority to declassify almost anything at any time without any process, but that’s not what happened here," said Stephen I. Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "He did not, in fact, declassify the information he shared with the Russians, which is why the Washington Post did not publish that information."
I wonder if they ever thought how these broad powers would be handled by a shit head, much less electing a shit to be President. It’s a nightmare and it was not even a majority of voting citizens who made it happen in 2016. If anything there is enough strength there to question abandoning the electoral college, it’s fucked the country over twice (W and Mr Malfeasance).
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
I wonder if they ever thought how these broad powers would be handled by a shit head, much less electing a shit to be President. It’s a nightmare and it was not even a majority of voting citizens who made it happen in 2016. If anything there is enough strength there to question abandoning the electoral college, it’s fucked the country over twice (W and Mr Malfeasance).
It’s funny that the founders thought the electoral college would prevent the ignorant bumpkins from voting in an idiot... and in reality, using the popular vote would have kept 2 of our dumbest presidents (Bush and Trump) OUT of the office.
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Site Donor
Posts
5,283
Reaction score
5,222
Location
The Misty Mountains
It’s funny that the founders thought the electoral college would prevent the ignorant bumpkins from voting in an idiot... and in reality, using the popular vote would have kept 2 of our dumbest presidents (Bush and Trump) OUT of the office.
I realize it’s a double edge sword, for the time that the majority of voters are stupid, then maybe the electoral college might possible help, but you know by then all the Republican controlled State Legislatures will have enacted laws that allow them to just call any election they don’t like the results of, any way they want.

So why don’t I see a good future for the country? 😓

I keep expecting to see/hope common sense and intelligence prevail, all logic says the Republican Party should have imploded already because there is no way these deplorable actions by The Head Shit could be accepted by enough of the American public but… they are. It’s inconceivable that the man and his corrupted party has not been driven out with pitch forks, yet we have half the country (look at who controls state legislatures) French kissing him.

As low as he can go, they will make up exceptions and excuses for why that is now acceptable because of some imagined extraordinary circumstance that requires it for them to get their way, allowing them to win elections but inexplicably not realizing what they are losing, until it turns back on them and it’s too late and we are hosed. An invisible tragedy seems to be playing out until the Civil War breaks out and then maybe it might dawn on some of STUPID that it’s not good for them. :oops:
 

Yoused

up
Posts
5,600
Reaction score
8,891
Location
knee deep in the road apples of the 4 horsemen
In 1787, the EC was presented as a means to buffer the average stupidity and venality of the populace. And most likely to protect the interests of Dixie. It was not originally intended as a tool to entrench two huge parties. It could have value, if implemented properly, but neither party wants that, because they are entrenched.

Really, the executive branch invests way too much power in one person. That is a major flaw that needs to be addressed.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
I realize it’s a double edge sword, for the time that the majority of voters are stupid, then maybe the electoral college might possible help, but you know by then all the Republican controlled State Legislatures will have enacted laws that allow them to just call any election they don’t like the results of, any way they want.

So why don’t I see a good future for the country? 😓

I keep expecting to see/hope common sense and intelligence prevail, all logic says the Republican Party should have imploded already because there is no way these deplorable actions by The Head Shit could be accepted by enough of the American public but… they are. It’s inconceivable that the man and his corrupted party has not been driven out with pitch forks, yet we have half the country (look at who controls state legislatures) French kissing him.

As low as he can go, they will make up exceptions and excuses for why that is now acceptable because of some imagined extraordinary circumstance that requires it for them to get their way, allowing them to win elections but inexplicably not realizing what they are losing, until it turns back on them and it’s too late and we are hosed. An invisible tragedy seems to be playing out until the Civil War breaks out and then maybe it might dawn on some of STUPID that it’s not good for them. :oops:
"Dumb voters” > Entitled Slaveowners who thought they knew better than those bumpkins.

America’s founders were mostly wealthy landowners (and slaveowners) who setup a system that still works very well for wealthy people. If we had a bit more real democracy instead of our current minority rule with a wink and nod to democracy, we might get somewhere.

When politicians show more concern about the filibuster than about voting rights, you know what they really care about.
 

lizkat

Watching March roll out real winter
Posts
7,341
Reaction score
15,163
Location
Catskill Mountains
In 1787, the EC was presented as a means to buffer the average stupidity and venality of the populace. And most likely to protect the interests of Dixie. It was not originally intended as a tool to entrench two huge parties. It could have value, if implemented properly, but neither party wants that, because they are entrenched.

Really, the executive branch invests way too much power in one person. That is a major flaw that needs to be addressed.

The Bush 43 admin -- from VP Cheney's office and that of the WH legal counsel-- spent a whole lot of time trying to make the executive branch much stronger. Cheney and guys like his chief of staff David Addington also worked quietly to get "the right people" plugged in at middle agency levels, so that language in pending bills could be tweaked --without fanfare-- to favor presidential powers, during consultations with lobbyists and Congressional staffers.

I thought about that during Trump's presidency and wondered sometimes what Dick Cheney thought of how Trump operated, as The Don went envelope-pushing under bright lights as if his gig was an extension of being a TV host.

But Dick Cheney had never been a publicity seeker. He clearly had found the best way to breathe more leeway into the practice of unitary executive theory was to put one's head down and just work at expanding a President's options, and most definitely not to get out there and brag on executive powers the way Trump liked to do.

Bush 43 and Cheney behaved per tradition for the most part regarding norms of public behavior by past Pres-VP teams after leaving office, so they both tended to keep their own counsel while Trump played to the crowd and meanwhile shredded at least the spirit of the Constitution.

Trump didn't seem to appreciate that some of the levers of power he wielded were expanded quietly by a previous Republican administration. No surprise there. Trump always took personal credit for anything that worked

It's clear now that the establishment side of the GOP, what's left of it, does see the pitfalls of a WH without guardrails and struggling to retain integrity under very old laws with loopholes that Trump and like-minded current officials in some states want to try to exploit if possible in 2024. So those more traditional Republicans are the ones now working across the aisle in Congress to try to get the relevant federal laws reformed. At least some in the GOP do realize the loopholes could be played by rogues from either party in future, and they don't need reminding that the current federal administration is in the hands of Democrats, and so are both houses of Congress, albeit with narrow margins.
 
Top Bottom
1 2