Go back
What can POTUS declassify?

What can POTUS declassify?

Debates

Vote Up
1
Vote Down
-1

@no1marauder said
Yes, but he has to do it not merely think about it.

There is no record of Trump declassifying the documents seized during his term of office and he has no power to do so after his term is over. Therefore, the arguments in your cited article are unpersuasive in the extreme; Trump's act of bringing records to Margo Largo does not automatically declassify them.
"There is no record of Trump declassifying the documents "

source?

Ah, there is no source is there, just you caught in another one

Vote Up
1
Vote Down
-1

@sonhouse said
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/trump-fbi-raid-classified-nuclear-documents/671119/

This explains it pretty well. POTUS can declassify most anything he wants EXCEPT for names of spies and nuclear secrets.
If any of THOSE docs were in Trump's home, he would be in MUCH more trouble than he already is.

The main question is WHY he took them in the first ...[text shortened]... pesky fact, he took those docs when he was NOT POTUS. That throws some poop in the game right there.
they are lying to you boy...The president is THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF...no one above him

read that till you understand it.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@shallow-blue said
He wasn't prezzie any more when he copied them and gave them to Russia and the Saudis.
Who ever said he did that?
Oh....one of the other jokers here.
Stop making up snarky comments that aren't true, you just show everyone what you are.

1 edit
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@mott-the-hoople said
"There is no record of Trump declassifying the documents "

source?

Ah, there is no source is there, just you caught in another one
I need a source to support the statement "There is no record of Trump declassifying the documents "?

I would say you need source showing a record he did.

EDIT: Here's a source anyway:

"Nevertheless, Greer noted, "there has to be evidence that a declassification order occurred." And in Trump's case, "the Trump team has yet to produce any credible evidence," he said."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-claims-experts-magic-wand-president-declassify-documents/story?id=88466588

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@earl-of-trumps said
@no1marauder said:
No, the main question is why did he keep those particular documents and what did he do or plan to do with them.

I see the number of boxes of documents go anywhere from 15 to 24. Whatever. A *lot* of documents.
Now let's think about that. I am still looking for how the president managed to take those docs from a "secure facility",
And I w ...[text shortened]... arter, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama? C'mon, for kripes' sake. This SUCKS.
3rd world country stuff!
YEAH, WHATABOUT JIMMY CARTER, BILL CLINTON and
BARACK OBAMA....?
Why did you leave out Bush 1 & 2, Ronald Reagan?
..............Not LIBERTARIAN enough for you, huh?

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@no1marauder said
I need a source to support the statement "There is no record of Trump declassifying the documents "?

I would say you need source showing a record he did.

EDIT: Here's a source anyway:

"Nevertheless, Greer noted, "there has to be evidence that a declassification order occurred." And in Trump's case, "the Trump team has yet to produce any credible evidence," he sa ...[text shortened]... /abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-claims-experts-magic-wand-president-declassify-documents/story?id=88466588
your source is a state media outlet…the DOJ is conducting this raid, have they said Trump didnt declassify the documents? The DOJ is the only source that could make this claim, not some media outlet.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@jimm619 said
YEAH, WHATABOUT JIMMY CARTER, BILL CLINTON and
BARACK OBAMA....?
Why did you leave out Bush 1 & 2, Ronald Reagan?
..............Not LIBERTARIAN enough for you, huh?
that approach is getting a little old jimi

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Mott-The-Hoople
YOU are the one with the whatabouthimisms. In a court of law that opens up discussion of the issue by the prosecutors and defense attorneys.

3 edits
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@mott-the-hoople said
your source is a state media outlet…the DOJ is conducting this raid, have they said Trump didnt declassify the documents? The DOJ is the only source that could make this claim, not some media outlet.
The DOJ inventory lists various documents as "Classified" "Top Secret" "Secret" and "Confidential". https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.17.0_6.pdf

"Top Secret" "Secret" and "Confidential" are the official categories of "classified" information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/18/3a.11

EDIT: ABC is "State media"? What nutty conspiracy site is that from?

Vote Up
Vote Down

@no1marauder
Don't worry, he will move the goalpost once more and after you refute THAT particular set of BS, he will move the goalposts yet again ad infinitum.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-2

@no1marauder said
I need a source to support the statement "There is no record of Trump declassifying the documents "?

I would say you need source showing a record he did.

EDIT: Here's a source anyway:

"Nevertheless, Greer noted, "there has to be evidence that a declassification order occurred." And in Trump's case, "the Trump team has yet to produce any credible evidence," he sa ...[text shortened]... /abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-claims-experts-magic-wand-president-declassify-documents/story?id=88466588
Every person along chain of custody could be liable . The Espionage Act does not apply to a president. No warrant shall issue ....has to particularly specify the person to be served, what to be seized, it can't say 'just everything,'. NO GENERAL WARRANT. The language in the warrant violated the 4th amendment.
You have no case. Neither do they.
We'll learn a lot tomorrow. I can't WAIT to see you and Stroik and Adam Sxhiff and the gang, the mob, the hyenas, lose another one.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@techsouth said
I have not wildly speculated. I have put forth a few not too far-fetched possibilities that are not meant to prove anything, but merely to suggest we should have humility in what we think we "know". I think it is a useful exercise in developing healthy skepticism.

Curious. Did you consider the idea of "Russian Collusion" wild speculation?

Edit: As far as wild specu ...[text shortened]... helpful to consider possibilities that are more complex than just the cartoonishly simplistic ones.
Libs do that a lot, as I have highlighted lately. They say ' he did it because', or 'his reason was'.
Makes for vacuous reading.

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@sleepyguy said
More from the same link:

All former presidents also get a federally funded office, called the Office of the Former President. They get lawyers and other staff, security clearances, Secret Service protection, and secure facilities (SCIFs) for the maintenance of classified records. Even if Trump had classified records, then, they were protected and secure.

At best, then ...[text shortened]... ne requiring a 30-person FBI brigade and unprecedented raid of a former president's home and office.
So mar a largo is designated as one such office?
A POTUS can get up off the crapper one day and decide to declassify your Nuclear readiness and deployment docs in his head and they are declassified.
I’m beginning to suspect that the US IS the rabbit hole.

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@averagejoe1 said
Every person along chain of custody could be liable . The Espionage Act does not apply to a president. No warrant shall issue ....has to particularly specify the person to be served, what to be seized, it can't say 'just everything,'. NO GENERAL WARRANT. The language in the warrant violated the 4th amendment.
You have no case. Neither do they.
We'll learn a lo ...[text shortened]... an't WAIT to see you and Stroik and Adam Sxhiff and the gang, the mob, the hyenas, lose another one.
You must be getting legal advice from your pet parrot. The warrant easily meets Constitutional requirements:

" ATTACHMENT B

Property to be seized

All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071, or 1519, including the following

a. Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;

b. Information, including communications in any form, regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material;

c. Any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20.2017, and January 20, 2021; or

d. Any evidence of the knowing alteration, destruction, or concealment of any government and/or Presidential Records, or of any documents with classification markings."

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1117277865/read-the-full-warrant-documents-from-fbi-search-of-trumps-mar-a-lago-home

Assuming criminal charges flow from the search (as is likely), the defendant can and probably will move to suppress the warrant and any evidence seized. I'll bet you the motion is denied; I'd say the chance it isn't is one in a million.

Vote Up
1
Vote Down
-2

@no1marauder said
You must be getting legal advice from your pet parrot. The warrant easily meets Constitutional requirements:

" ATTACHMENT B

Property to be seized

All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071, or 1519, including the following

a. Any physical docum ...[text shortened]... evidence seized. I'll bet you the motion is denied; I'd say the chance it isn't is one in a million.
I hope your government moves this along quickly today, to answer all of our questions. I have some, too.
Do you think everything will be finely tuned daily to be sure that the right news falls at the right time to best benefit the November elections