4th and Inches said:
We live in a freaking clown world..
Total clown world. They needs to raid Harris, McConnell, and Pelosi next.
Classified docs found in Biden's office before midterms
27,994 Views |
317 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by 4th and Inches
Total clown world. They needs to raid Harris, McConnell, and Pelosi next.
Your confusion with my posts might be stemming from the same thing that is confusing you about the distinctions between Trump's situation and Biden's situation. I can't wait to hear more about Pence's situation, personally, as he seems to be in almost the same boat as Biden.Sam Lowry said:You are going out of your way not to make sense. I'll circle back later.Wangchung said:I did answer your question. Read it again.Sam Lowry said:You're still not answering my question. When did he commit the crime, and what law did he violate?Wangchung said:When they leave office, they don't get to keep being a Senator or vice president at home. They are no longer the holder of that office. Or are you pretending we are talking about at the end of a work day when they go home for the night? Lol, tell me you aren't that stupid.Sam Lowry said:So you contend that the president can work with classified material at home, but the vice president would violate criminal law by doing the same thing. Under what law is this rule established?Wangchung said:
I would say when he took them from the secured location without legal clearance. As soon as he, or more likely his aids, left the building with the documents he was committing a crime.
Is there no one in DC responsible for keeping track of classified documents? FFS in 4th grade my kid had a library book due back by 2:30pm. By 3 we had an email, text message and a phone call from the library. So how in TF do classified documents no unnoticed so long? https://t.co/LqD2ZoBbYc
— AmErican (@Flipper628) January 24, 2023
Yes it matters. Assuming your statements are true (POTUS can declassify any documents anytime) Biden can now declassify any documents that Senator Biden, VP Biden and President Biden may have possessed. In that case, Biden no longer possesses classified documents.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:So you say Trump can't retroactively declassify documents he says he didn't know he had?Wangchung said:No, it doesn't work retroactively after the documents were stolen by that same person when they didn't have clearance to take them to begin with.Osodecentx said:For purposes of this discussion, let's accept the above as true. A sitting president can declassify any documents without executing any legal document.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
What would keep Biden from declassifying all of the docs he stole/took? As POTUS, under your reasoning, couldn't Biden declassify the docs he took when he was a senator?
Does it matter? He was POTUS when those document were in his possession outside a SCIF.
A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. The accountability is political, not legal.
Now I disagree with this argument, but if you insist that POTUS can declassify any documents anytime by mere thought without any more documentation, then it works for Biden as well as Trump.
Sam Lowry said:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Let's skip my interpretation and go straight to the ruling:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Incorrect. See New York Times v. CIA.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.Right, that's a false distinction. Being president didn't give Trump any more right to take documents when he left office than Biden had. Also, the NA didn't pack Trump's documents for him.Quote:What changed? My contention has always been that Trump had clearance to have the documents that the NA packed for him upon leaving office and Biden, as Senator and VP had no such clearance to take and keep classified documents upon leaving office, as he obviously did. Your only contention was that Biden COULD have been the person, as Senator and Vice President, who classified the documents in the first place which would make possession legal. That's it. You tried to debunk the facts as we know them with a technicality that has an astronomically low chance of being reality.Quote:Or it's my polite way of not saying you backpedaled faster than a hooker in Skechers.Quote:Ha, I just take it as his way of admitting he was incorrect to claim the distinctions I made were wrong.Quote:Quote:We don't disagree.Quote:After they leave office? Whoops.Quote:
But senators and vice presidents can have classified documents. How can they do their jobs otherwise?
Don't disagree
Lol. I love playing those word games with people. Drives them insane.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
Your interpretation of that ruling is malpractice, counselor.Quote:
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
Exactly what Biden lawyers will argue.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Let's skip my interpretation and go straight to the ruling:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Incorrect. See New York Times v. CIA.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.Right, that's a false distinction. Being president didn't give Trump any more right to take documents when he left office than Biden had. Also, the NA didn't pack Trump's documents for him.Quote:What changed? My contention has always been that Trump had clearance to have the documents that the NA packed for him upon leaving office and Biden, as Senator and VP had no such clearance to take and keep classified documents upon leaving office, as he obviously did. Your only contention was that Biden COULD have been the person, as Senator and Vice President, who classified the documents in the first place which would make possession legal. That's it. You tried to debunk the facts as we know them with a technicality that has an astronomically low chance of being reality.Quote:Or it's my polite way of not saying you backpedaled faster than a hooker in Skechers.Quote:Ha, I just take it as his way of admitting he was incorrect to claim the distinctions I made were wrong.Quote:Quote:We don't disagree.Quote:After they leave office? Whoops.Quote:
But senators and vice presidents can have classified documents. How can they do their jobs otherwise?
Don't disagree
Lol. I love playing those word games with people. Drives them insane.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
Your interpretation of that ruling is malpractice, counselor.Quote:
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
Biden declassifies any documents he possessed when he was senator and vice president. Now he didn't possess classified documents. You say POTUS and declassify "anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS)."
edit: BTW I disagree with this argument because the result is ridiculous, but if it is good for the goose (Trump) it is good for the gander (Biden)
So we can only prosecute Biden for the years he illegally possessed those documents up until he became President? Sounds good, lock him up.Osodecentx said:Exactly what Biden lawyers will argue.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Let's skip my interpretation and go straight to the ruling:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Incorrect. See New York Times v. CIA.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.Right, that's a false distinction. Being president didn't give Trump any more right to take documents when he left office than Biden had. Also, the NA didn't pack Trump's documents for him.Quote:What changed? My contention has always been that Trump had clearance to have the documents that the NA packed for him upon leaving office and Biden, as Senator and VP had no such clearance to take and keep classified documents upon leaving office, as he obviously did. Your only contention was that Biden COULD have been the person, as Senator and Vice President, who classified the documents in the first place which would make possession legal. That's it. You tried to debunk the facts as we know them with a technicality that has an astronomically low chance of being reality.Quote:Or it's my polite way of not saying you backpedaled faster than a hooker in Skechers.Quote:Ha, I just take it as his way of admitting he was incorrect to claim the distinctions I made were wrong.Quote:Quote:We don't disagree.Quote:After they leave office? Whoops.Quote:
But senators and vice presidents can have classified documents. How can they do their jobs otherwise?
Don't disagree
Lol. I love playing those word games with people. Drives them insane.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
Your interpretation of that ruling is malpractice, counselor.Quote:
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
Biden declassifies any documents he possessed when he was senator and vice president. Now he didn't possess classified documents. You say POTUS and declassify "anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS)."
edit: BTW I disagree with this argument because the result is ridiculous, but if it is good for the goose (Trump) it is good for the gander (Biden)
Wangchung said:So we can only prosecute Biden for the years he illegally possessed those documents up until he became President? Sounds good, lock him up.Osodecentx said:Exactly what Biden lawyers will argue.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Let's skip my interpretation and go straight to the ruling:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Incorrect. See New York Times v. CIA.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.Right, that's a false distinction. Being president didn't give Trump any more right to take documents when he left office than Biden had. Also, the NA didn't pack Trump's documents for him.Quote:What changed? My contention has always been that Trump had clearance to have the documents that the NA packed for him upon leaving office and Biden, as Senator and VP had no such clearance to take and keep classified documents upon leaving office, as he obviously did. Your only contention was that Biden COULD have been the person, as Senator and Vice President, who classified the documents in the first place which would make possession legal. That's it. You tried to debunk the facts as we know them with a technicality that has an astronomically low chance of being reality.Quote:Or it's my polite way of not saying you backpedaled faster than a hooker in Skechers.Quote:Ha, I just take it as his way of admitting he was incorrect to claim the distinctions I made were wrong.Quote:Quote:We don't disagree.Quote:After they leave office? Whoops.Quote:
But senators and vice presidents can have classified documents. How can they do their jobs otherwise?
Don't disagree
Lol. I love playing those word games with people. Drives them insane.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
Your interpretation of that ruling is malpractice, counselor.Quote:
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
Biden declassifies any documents he possessed when he was senator and vice president. Now he didn't possess classified documents. You say POTUS and declassify "anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS)."
edit: BTW I disagree with this argument because the result is ridiculous, but if it is good for the goose (Trump) it is good for the gander (Biden)
Using your argument to defend Trump, Biden never possessed classified documents. They were all declassified because President Biden can declassify any and all documents.
Like white rock argues, "POTUS and declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS)."
As I've said, I disagree with your beliefs on the declassification process, but it is the logical application of your position
Biden can only declassify the documents he stole while Senator and Vice President AFTER committing the crime. Trump never committed the crime as he took them while president and claims he declassified them. All caught up?Osodecentx said:Wangchung said:So we can only prosecute Biden for the years he illegally possessed those documents up until he became President? Sounds good, lock him up.Osodecentx said:Exactly what Biden lawyers will argue.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Let's skip my interpretation and go straight to the ruling:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Incorrect. See New York Times v. CIA.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.Right, that's a false distinction. Being president didn't give Trump any more right to take documents when he left office than Biden had. Also, the NA didn't pack Trump's documents for him.Quote:What changed? My contention has always been that Trump had clearance to have the documents that the NA packed for him upon leaving office and Biden, as Senator and VP had no such clearance to take and keep classified documents upon leaving office, as he obviously did. Your only contention was that Biden COULD have been the person, as Senator and Vice President, who classified the documents in the first place which would make possession legal. That's it. You tried to debunk the facts as we know them with a technicality that has an astronomically low chance of being reality.Quote:Or it's my polite way of not saying you backpedaled faster than a hooker in Skechers.Quote:Ha, I just take it as his way of admitting he was incorrect to claim the distinctions I made were wrong.Quote:Quote:We don't disagree.Quote:After they leave office? Whoops.Quote:
But senators and vice presidents can have classified documents. How can they do their jobs otherwise?
Don't disagree
Lol. I love playing those word games with people. Drives them insane.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
Your interpretation of that ruling is malpractice, counselor.Quote:
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
Biden declassifies any documents he possessed when he was senator and vice president. Now he didn't possess classified documents. You say POTUS and declassify "anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS)."
edit: BTW I disagree with this argument because the result is ridiculous, but if it is good for the goose (Trump) it is good for the gander (Biden)
Using your argument to defend Trump, Biden never possessed classified documents. They were all declassified because President Biden can declassify any and all documents.
Like white rock argues, "POTUS and declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS)."
As I've said, I disagree with your beliefs on the declassification process, but it is the logical application of your
position
Sam Lowry said:It was the librarian who reported Biden's documents to the DOJ.Harrison Bergeron said:Odd that the little Beta librarian with TDS only seemed capable of tracking Trump's documents ... I wonder why. I guess our national librarians are typical incompetent regressive fundamentalists.Wangchung said:
Mike Pence's turn.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-classified-documents-found-mike-172503729.html
Is your new bit making assertions and then linking random articles that do not address your assertion in the hopes people will not read and assume you have evidence?
No one is suggesting that the president needs approval from others to declassify. Only that he does, in fact, need to declassify. In Trump's case there is no statement or any other evidence that he did.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Let's skip my interpretation and go straight to the ruling:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Incorrect. See New York Times v. CIA.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.Right, that's a false distinction. Being president didn't give Trump any more right to take documents when he left office than Biden had. Also, the NA didn't pack Trump's documents for him.Quote:What changed? My contention has always been that Trump had clearance to have the documents that the NA packed for him upon leaving office and Biden, as Senator and VP had no such clearance to take and keep classified documents upon leaving office, as he obviously did. Your only contention was that Biden COULD have been the person, as Senator and Vice President, who classified the documents in the first place which would make possession legal. That's it. You tried to debunk the facts as we know them with a technicality that has an astronomically low chance of being reality.Quote:Or it's my polite way of not saying you backpedaled faster than a hooker in Skechers.Quote:Ha, I just take it as his way of admitting he was incorrect to claim the distinctions I made were wrong.Quote:Quote:We don't disagree.Quote:After they leave office? Whoops.Quote:
But senators and vice presidents can have classified documents. How can they do their jobs otherwise?
Don't disagree
Lol. I love playing those word games with people. Drives them insane.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
Your interpretation of that ruling is malpractice, counselor.Quote:
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
What evidence do you have that he didn't?Sam Lowry said:No one is suggesting that the president needs approval from others to declassify. Only that he does, in fact, need to declassify. In Trump's case there is no statement or any other evidence that he did.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Let's skip my interpretation and go straight to the ruling:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Incorrect. See New York Times v. CIA.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.Right, that's a false distinction. Being president didn't give Trump any more right to take documents when he left office than Biden had. Also, the NA didn't pack Trump's documents for him.Quote:What changed? My contention has always been that Trump had clearance to have the documents that the NA packed for him upon leaving office and Biden, as Senator and VP had no such clearance to take and keep classified documents upon leaving office, as he obviously did. Your only contention was that Biden COULD have been the person, as Senator and Vice President, who classified the documents in the first place which would make possession legal. That's it. You tried to debunk the facts as we know them with a technicality that has an astronomically low chance of being reality.Quote:Or it's my polite way of not saying you backpedaled faster than a hooker in Skechers.Quote:Ha, I just take it as his way of admitting he was incorrect to claim the distinctions I made were wrong.Quote:Quote:We don't disagree.Quote:After they leave office? Whoops.Quote:
But senators and vice presidents can have classified documents. How can they do their jobs otherwise?
Don't disagree
Lol. I love playing those word games with people. Drives them insane.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
Your interpretation of that ruling is malpractice, counselor.Quote:
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
What will become of all this classified documents being at everyone's home ? Or in the vehicles or offices ? Is this just something to talk about and politicize? Who gets in trouble? the person who let the documents go with the people who took them out ? Or the people who took them.
Obviously this happens frequently. The difference is before Trump we did not have TDS librarians throwing hissy fits to get things back, and we certainly did not send 40 armed FBI agents to a former president's home to do a show raid. But little people have faced prosecution:BornAgain said:
What will become of all this classified documents being at everyone's home ? Or in the vehicles or offices ? Is this just something to talk about and politicize? Who gets in trouble? the person who let the documents go with the people who took them out ? Or the people who took them.
Three months in prison:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/politics/justice-department-classified-info-hotel-home-sentence/index.html
Faces 10 years:
https://www.kshb.com/news/crime/former-kansas-city-fbi-analyst-admits-to-taking-classified-national-defense-documents-home
But if you give them to your son who gets millions from Putin, Ukraine, and you show them to the Chinese who give you millions, you're fine.
This lady actually did leak them ... story just funny because remember in 2016 when "russians hacked the election" and 2022 the "most secure election in the history of all elections."
If you steal $100,000 in 100s from the bank, and then change them all into 20s and 50s, you may not be in possession of the stolen money, but you are still guilty of bank robbery.Osodecentx said:Yes it matters. Assuming your statements are true (POTUS can declassify any documents anytime) Biden can now declassify any documents that Senator Biden, VP Biden and President Biden may have possessed. In that case, Biden no longer possesses classified documents.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:So you say Trump can't retroactively declassify documents he says he didn't know he had?Wangchung said:No, it doesn't work retroactively after the documents were stolen by that same person when they didn't have clearance to take them to begin with.Osodecentx said:For purposes of this discussion, let's accept the above as true. A sitting president can declassify any documents without executing any legal document.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
What would keep Biden from declassifying all of the docs he stole/took? As POTUS, under your reasoning, couldn't Biden declassify the docs he took when he was a senator?
Does it matter? He was POTUS when those document were in his possession outside a SCIF.
A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. The accountability is political, not legal.
Now I disagree with this argument, but if you insist that POTUS can declassify any documents anytime by mere thought without any more documentation, then it works for Biden as well as Trump.
Malbec said:If you steal $100,000 in 100s from the bank, and then change them all into 20s and 50s, you may not be in possession of the stolen money, but you are still guilty of bank robbery.Osodecentx said:Yes it matters. Assuming your statements are true (POTUS can declassify any documents anytime) Biden can now declassify any documents that Senator Biden, VP Biden and President Biden may have possessed. In that case, Biden no longer possesses classified documents.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:So you say Trump can't retroactively declassify documents he says he didn't know he had?Wangchung said:No, it doesn't work retroactively after the documents were stolen by that same person when they didn't have clearance to take them to begin with.Osodecentx said:For purposes of this discussion, let's accept the above as true. A sitting president can declassify any documents without executing any legal document.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
What would keep Biden from declassifying all of the docs he stole/took? As POTUS, under your reasoning, couldn't Biden declassify the docs he took when he was a senator?
Does it matter? He was POTUS when those document were in his possession outside a SCIF.
A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. The accountability is political, not legal.
Now I disagree with this argument, but if you insist that POTUS can declassify any documents anytime by mere thought without any more documentation, then it works for Biden as well as Trump.
Okay
I know, I know. It's not meant to be a literal all apples analogy. Simply an explanation that if classified material is removed without authority, it's still classified material at that point and is a crime. It remains a crime, and future declassification doesn't negate the crime that occurred while the material was classified. Now, Biden could always step down and be pardoned by Kamala.Osodecentx said:Malbec said:If you steal $100,000 in 100s from the bank, and then change them all into 20s and 50s, you may not be in possession of the stolen money, but you are still guilty of bank robbery.Osodecentx said:Yes it matters. Assuming your statements are true (POTUS can declassify any documents anytime) Biden can now declassify any documents that Senator Biden, VP Biden and President Biden may have possessed. In that case, Biden no longer possesses classified documents.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:So you say Trump can't retroactively declassify documents he says he didn't know he had?Wangchung said:No, it doesn't work retroactively after the documents were stolen by that same person when they didn't have clearance to take them to begin with.Osodecentx said:For purposes of this discussion, let's accept the above as true. A sitting president can declassify any documents without executing any legal document.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
What would keep Biden from declassifying all of the docs he stole/took? As POTUS, under your reasoning, couldn't Biden declassify the docs he took when he was a senator?
Does it matter? He was POTUS when those document were in his possession outside a SCIF.
A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. The accountability is political, not legal.
Now I disagree with this argument, but if you insist that POTUS can declassify any documents anytime by mere thought without any more documentation, then it works for Biden as well as Trump.
Okay
NopeOsodecentx said:I believe Biden acted horribly and inappropriately as senator and VP in re: possession of classified documents..Doc Holliday said:
Look at all the ridiculous posts defending our child sniffing, dementia ridden puppet president.
Trump has ruined y'all's ability to be rational.
My point is that the defense you guys are using for Trump also works for Biden. It shouldn't, but you'll have to twist yourselves into pretzels to distinguish the cases.
In addition to disparate authority questions, were Trump's docs found anywhere besides MAR? Biden's were all over the place.
And let's not forget the scale of time involved.
The only twisting is the effort to say Biden was not much, worse than Trump's alleged misconduct here.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Column’s up: A curiously well-informed email about Ukraine, Russia and the UK on Hunter Biden’s laptop is a thread that links the President’s classified documents scandal to the Delaware federal investigation into his son’s foreign business dealings. https://t.co/8hu5x5e6RU
— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) January 23, 2023
u mean a letter on the laptop from hell links the crackhead who was staying at the Biden house where the classified documents were found for a mere 50k a month which happens to be the exact amount a foreign company was paying Hunter ?!Doc Holliday said:Column’s up: A curiously well-informed email about Ukraine, Russia and the UK on Hunter Biden’s laptop is a thread that links the President’s classified documents scandal to the Delaware federal investigation into his son’s foreign business dealings. https://t.co/8hu5x5e6RU
— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) January 23, 2023
The classified docs scandal is now linked to the laptop scandal. Looks like Dems did the old blame what we do on others thing again.
Biden is the one guilty of espionage act crimes
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
LOL. No court can encumber POTUS with procedures for declassification. If a POTUS says, "it is declassified," that's it. All procedures set forth in XO are for those to whom he has delegated power, not him. He may change the policy at any time, for any reason, in any way, for any length of time. The proposition that he must always document changes in policy re his own actions? Patently silly. Certainly that has never been the standard previously. A POTUS handles classified materials as he deems necessary to do his duty, and writes XO to govern how others handle that classified materials in pursuit of their duties.Sam Lowry said:No one is suggesting that the president needs approval from others to declassify. Only that he does, in fact, need to declassify. In Trump's case there is no statement or any other evidence that he did.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Let's skip my interpretation and go straight to the ruling:whiterock said:Sam Low said:Incorrect. See New York Times v. CIA.Quote:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Quote:Right, that's a false distinction. Being president didn't give Trump any more right to take documents when he left office than Biden had. Also, the NA didn't pack Trump's documents for him.Quote:
What changed? My contention has always been that Trump had clearance to have the documents that the NA packed for him upon leaving office and Biden, as Senator and VP had no such clearance to take and keep classified documents upon leaving office, as he obviously did. Your only contention was that Biden COULD have been the person, as Senator and Vice President, who classified the documents in the first place which would make possession legal. That's it. You tried to debunk the facts as we know them with a technicality that has an astronomically low chance of being reality.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
Your interpretation of that ruling is malpractice, counselor.Quote:
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
The case in question did not address the issue of whether not private disclosures constitute full or partial declassification. Neither did the court address in the NYT/CIA case whether a public disclosure constitutes full or partial declassification. It merely said that a passing reference that revealed the existence of a classified program did not declassify the entire program (within the context of a third party using that passing reference as an affirmative defense in court.) VERY limited context of the case. Nowhere near the sweeping ruling your argument needs it to be.
I won't defend either scumbag (Trump or Biden). It's worth pointing out, though, that there is a period of time that Biden had no authority to declassify the documents (or have the documents declassified by Obama) - from when he was no longer vice president to the time he took office as president. For that ~4 years, he had no method to declassify the documents. If classified documents were sitting in these unsecured locations during that period of time, he committed a crime. Now that he is president, he has every right to declassify documents. He may have declassified these documents the day he took office (highly unlikely since he's probably too gone to even remember he had the documents). And if he declassified them on that date, then great. But the period of time they were classified and not securely stored, there was a crime that was committed.Osodecentx said:Wangchung said:So we can only prosecute Biden for the years he illegally possessed those documents up until he became President? Sounds good, lock him up.Osodecentx said:Exactly what Biden lawyers will argue.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Let's skip my interpretation and go straight to the ruling:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Incorrect. See New York Times v. CIA.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.Right, that's a false distinction. Being president didn't give Trump any more right to take documents when he left office than Biden had. Also, the NA didn't pack Trump's documents for him.Quote:What changed? My contention has always been that Trump had clearance to have the documents that the NA packed for him upon leaving office and Biden, as Senator and VP had no such clearance to take and keep classified documents upon leaving office, as he obviously did. Your only contention was that Biden COULD have been the person, as Senator and Vice President, who classified the documents in the first place which would make possession legal. That's it. You tried to debunk the facts as we know them with a technicality that has an astronomically low chance of being reality.Quote:Or it's my polite way of not saying you backpedaled faster than a hooker in Skechers.Quote:Ha, I just take it as his way of admitting he was incorrect to claim the distinctions I made were wrong.Quote:Quote:We don't disagree.Quote:After they leave office? Whoops.Quote:
But senators and vice presidents can have classified documents. How can they do their jobs otherwise?
Don't disagree
Lol. I love playing those word games with people. Drives them insane.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
Your interpretation of that ruling is malpractice, counselor.Quote:
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
Biden declassifies any documents he possessed when he was senator and vice president. Now he didn't possess classified documents. You say POTUS and declassify "anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS)."
edit: BTW I disagree with this argument because the result is ridiculous, but if it is good for the goose (Trump) it is good for the gander (Biden)
Using your argument to defend Trump, Biden never possessed classified documents. They were all declassified because President Biden can declassify any and all documents.
Like white rock argues, "POTUS and declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS)."
As I've said, I disagree with your beliefs on the declassification process, but it is the logical application of your position
If one was concerned about Trump mishandling classified documents, then they need to be concerned about this. Since that was the first shot that was fired, everything else is a shot back in response to that. Don't fire the first shot unless you know the other side doesn't have any ammunition.
Thoughtful post. It was obvious from day one the show raid on Trump's residency was another example of weaponizing the DOJ for political theater. That was confirmed by the myriad leaks of disinformation about "Trump has the nuclear codes," which was a constant during his tenure in office.contrario said:I won't defend either scumbag (Trump or Biden). It's worth pointing out, though, that there is a period of time that Biden had no authority to declassify the documents (or have the documents declassified by Obama) - from when he was no longer vice president to the time he took office as president. For that ~4 years, he had no method to declassify the documents. If classified documents were sitting in these unsecured locations during that period of time, he committed a crime. Now that he is president, he has every right to declassify documents. He may have declassified these documents the day he took office (highly unlikely since he's probably too gone to even remember he had the documents). And if he declassified them on that date, then great. But the period of time they were classified and not securely stored, there was a crime that was committed.Osodecentx said:Wangchung said:So we can only prosecute Biden for the years he illegally possessed those documents up until he became President? Sounds good, lock him up.Osodecentx said:Exactly what Biden lawyers will argue.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Let's skip my interpretation and go straight to the ruling:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Incorrect. See New York Times v. CIA.whiterock said:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Sam Lowry said:
if he didn't have a hand in classifying them, then yes, he cannot have them at all as a Senator or vice president.Right, that's a false distinction. Being president didn't give Trump any more right to take documents when he left office than Biden had. Also, the NA didn't pack Trump's documents for him.Quote:What changed? My contention has always been that Trump had clearance to have the documents that the NA packed for him upon leaving office and Biden, as Senator and VP had no such clearance to take and keep classified documents upon leaving office, as he obviously did. Your only contention was that Biden COULD have been the person, as Senator and Vice President, who classified the documents in the first place which would make possession legal. That's it. You tried to debunk the facts as we know them with a technicality that has an astronomically low chance of being reality.Quote:Or it's my polite way of not saying you backpedaled faster than a hooker in Skechers.Quote:Ha, I just take it as his way of admitting he was incorrect to claim the distinctions I made were wrong.Quote:Quote:We don't disagree.Quote:After they leave office? Whoops.Quote:
But senators and vice presidents can have classified documents. How can they do their jobs otherwise?
Don't disagree
Lol. I love playing those word games with people. Drives them insane.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
Your interpretation of that ruling is malpractice, counselor.Quote:
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
Biden declassifies any documents he possessed when he was senator and vice president. Now he didn't possess classified documents. You say POTUS and declassify "anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS)."
edit: BTW I disagree with this argument because the result is ridiculous, but if it is good for the goose (Trump) it is good for the gander (Biden)
Using your argument to defend Trump, Biden never possessed classified documents. They were all declassified because President Biden can declassify any and all documents.
Like white rock argues, "POTUS and declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS)."
As I've said, I disagree with your beliefs on the declassification process, but it is the logical application of your position
If one was concerned about Trump mishandling classified documents, then they need to be concerned about this. Since that was the first shot that was fired, everything else is a shot back in response to that. Don't fire the first shot unless you know the other side doesn't have any ammunition.
I generally am not a fan of flippantly defying protocol and polity for short-term political wins, which the Democrats regularly do and usually regret because with them every accusation always is a confession. This is another example Democrats having to lose at the game due to the rules they changed.
I never was concerned about overdue library books secured in Trump's home, which is protected by the Secret Service. I am more concerned about boxes of documents in Hunter Biden's garage and his China Joe's Chinese-funded office given the bags of cash that have come into the family they were not qualified to earn.
At the end of the day, the biggest question is how did "No Ragrets" steal classified documents from secure locations during the time he was a Senator.
He got them at Halloween passing thru the line.
Nothing like the narrow ruling you need it to be. I only mentioned it to explain why Trump keeps losing. You can come up with all the fantastical interpretations you want, but none of them matter because Trump has already lost this issue on the facts of the present case.whiterock said:LOL. No court can encumber POTUS with procedures for declassification. If a POTUS says, "it is declassified," that's it. All procedures set forth in XO are for those to whom he has delegated power, not him. He may change the policy at any time, for any reason, in any way, for any length of time. The proposition that he must always document changes in policy re his own actions? Patently silly. Certainly that has never been the standard previously. A POTUS handles classified materials as he deems necessary to do his duty, and writes XO to govern how others handle that classified materials in pursuit of their duties.Sam Lowry said:No one is suggesting that the president needs approval from others to declassify. Only that he does, in fact, need to declassify. In Trump's case there is no statement or any other evidence that he did.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Let's skip my interpretation and go straight to the ruling:whiterock said:Sam Low said:Incorrect. See New York Times v. CIA.Quote:Being president allows you to declassify documents by simply picking them up from the desk, walking out of the Oval Office, and entering any number of non-SCIFsecured places: WH residence, Marine 1, AF1, limousine, etc......Quote:Right, that's a false distinction. Being president didn't give Trump any more right to take documents when he left office than Biden had. Also, the NA didn't pack Trump's documents for him.Quote:
What changed? My contention has always been that Trump had clearance to have the documents that the NA packed for him upon leaving office and Biden, as Senator and VP had no such clearance to take and keep classified documents upon leaving office, as he obviously did. Your only contention was that Biden COULD have been the person, as Senator and Vice President, who classified the documents in the first place which would make possession legal. That's it. You tried to debunk the facts as we know them with a technicality that has an astronomically low chance of being reality.
The person from whom all classification/declassification authority flows is under no legal requirement to ask permission or document anything from/for anyone to handle the information as he/she sees fit. If he/she reveals it in private or in public to any person or persons, the revelation itself is a declassification.
Has always been so. Only the effort to contrive a problem here has caused some to contrive a legal problem for Trump.
And NONE of the above applies to a Senator
Your interpretation of that ruling is malpractice, counselor.Quote:
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
The case in question did not address the issue of whether not private disclosures constitute full or partial declassification. Neither did the court address in the NYT/CIA case whether a public disclosure constitutes full or partial declassification. It merely said that a passing reference that revealed the existence of a classified program did not declassify the entire program (within the context of a third party using that passing reference as an affirmative defense in court.) VERY limited context of the case. Nowhere near the sweeping ruling your argument needs it to be.
LOL. Trump WON the NYT vs CIA case (which had the limited effect of preventing verbal gaffes or passing comments from elected, appointed, and career civil service officials from exposing entire intelligence programs to public scrutiny.)Sam Lowry said:Nothing like the narrow ruling you need it to be. I only mentioned it to explain why Trump keeps losing. You can come up with all the fantastical interpretations you want, but none of them matter because Trump has already lost this issue on the facts of the present case.Quote:LOL. No court can encumber POTUS with procedures for declassification. If a POTUS says, "it is declassified," that's it. All procedures set forth in XO are for those to whom he has delegated power, not him. He may change the policy at any time, for any reason, in any way, for any length of time. The proposition that he must always document changes in policy re his own actions? Patently silly. Certainly that has never been the standard previously. A POTUS handles classified materials as he deems necessary to do his duty, and writes XO to govern how others handle that classified materials in pursuit of their duties.Quote:No one is suggesting that the president needs approval from others to declassify. Only that he does, in fact, need to declassify. In Trump's case there is no statement or any other evidence that he did.Quote:Quote:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:Quote:
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
The case in question did not address the issue of whether not private disclosures constitute full or partial declassification. Neither did the court address in the NYT/CIA case whether a public disclosure constitutes full or partial declassification. It merely said that a passing reference that revealed the existence of a classified program did not declassify the entire program (within the context of a third party using that passing reference as an affirmative defense in court.) VERY limited context of the case. Nowhere near the sweeping ruling your argument needs it to be.
Present case = Mar-a-Lago.whiterock said:LOL. Trump WON the NYT vs CIA case (which had the limited effect of preventing verbal gaffes or passing comments from elected, appointed, and career civil service officials from exposing entire intelligence programs to public scrutiny.)Sam Lowry said:Nothing like the narrow ruling you need it to be. I only mentioned it to explain why Trump keeps losing. You can come up with all the fantastical interpretations you want, but none of them matter because Trump has already lost this issue on the facts of the present case.Quote:LOL. No court can encumber POTUS with procedures for declassification. If a POTUS says, "it is declassified," that's it. All procedures set forth in XO are for those to whom he has delegated power, not him. He may change the policy at any time, for any reason, in any way, for any length of time. The proposition that he must always document changes in policy re his own actions? Patently silly. Certainly that has never been the standard previously. A POTUS handles classified materials as he deems necessary to do his duty, and writes XO to govern how others handle that classified materials in pursuit of their duties.Quote:No one is suggesting that the president needs approval from others to declassify. Only that he does, in fact, need to declassify. In Trump's case there is no statement or any other evidence that he did.Quote:Quote:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:Quote:
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
The case in question did not address the issue of whether not private disclosures constitute full or partial declassification. Neither did the court address in the NYT/CIA case whether a public disclosure constitutes full or partial declassification. It merely said that a passing reference that revealed the existence of a classified program did not declassify the entire program (within the context of a third party using that passing reference as an affirmative defense in court.) VERY limited context of the case. Nowhere near the sweeping ruling your argument needs it to be.
Poor choice, since that matter has not produced a final verdict. Trump had wins there up to now as well, such as the appointment of a Special MasterSam Lowry said:Present case = Mar-a-Lago.whiterock said:LOL. Trump WON the NYT vs CIA case (which had the limited effect of preventing verbal gaffes or passing comments from elected, appointed, and career civil service officials from exposing entire intelligence programs to public scrutiny.)Sam Lowry said:Nothing like the narrow ruling you need it to be. I only mentioned it to explain why Trump keeps losing. You can come up with all the fantastical interpretations you want, but none of them matter because Trump has already lost this issue on the facts of the present case.Quote:LOL. No court can encumber POTUS with procedures for declassification. If a POTUS says, "it is declassified," that's it. All procedures set forth in XO are for those to whom he has delegated power, not him. He may change the policy at any time, for any reason, in any way, for any length of time. The proposition that he must always document changes in policy re his own actions? Patently silly. Certainly that has never been the standard previously. A POTUS handles classified materials as he deems necessary to do his duty, and writes XO to govern how others handle that classified materials in pursuit of their duties.Quote:No one is suggesting that the president needs approval from others to declassify. Only that he does, in fact, need to declassify. In Trump's case there is no statement or any other evidence that he did.Quote:Quote:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:Quote:
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
The case in question did not address the issue of whether not private disclosures constitute full or partial declassification. Neither did the court address in the NYT/CIA case whether a public disclosure constitutes full or partial declassification. It merely said that a passing reference that revealed the existence of a classified program did not declassify the entire program (within the context of a third party using that passing reference as an affirmative defense in court.) VERY limited context of the case. Nowhere near the sweeping ruling your argument needs it to be.
Myopia and perspective do not mis well, Sam. You might consider taking a step back and not making everything about Trump.
On that note, interesting - is it not - that classified documents were found at Pence's residence as well.
We may yet learn that this issue is far more widespread than most suspected.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
and it's not about a public revelation. It's about possession.Oldbear83 said:Poor choice, since that matter has not produced a final verdict. Trump had wins there up to now as well, such as the appointment of a Special MasterSam Lowry said:Present case = Mar-a-Lago.whiterock said:LOL. Trump WON the NYT vs CIA case (which had the limited effect of preventing verbal gaffes or passing comments from elected, appointed, and career civil service officials from exposing entire intelligence programs to public scrutiny.)Sam Lowry said:Nothing like the narrow ruling you need it to be. I only mentioned it to explain why Trump keeps losing. You can come up with all the fantastical interpretations you want, but none of them matter because Trump has already lost this issue on the facts of the present case.Quote:LOL. No court can encumber POTUS with procedures for declassification. If a POTUS says, "it is declassified," that's it. All procedures set forth in XO are for those to whom he has delegated power, not him. He may change the policy at any time, for any reason, in any way, for any length of time. The proposition that he must always document changes in policy re his own actions? Patently silly. Certainly that has never been the standard previously. A POTUS handles classified materials as he deems necessary to do his duty, and writes XO to govern how others handle that classified materials in pursuit of their duties.Quote:No one is suggesting that the president needs approval from others to declassify. Only that he does, in fact, need to declassify. In Trump's case there is no statement or any other evidence that he did.Quote:Quote:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:Quote:
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
The case in question did not address the issue of whether not private disclosures constitute full or partial declassification. Neither did the court address in the NYT/CIA case whether a public disclosure constitutes full or partial declassification. It merely said that a passing reference that revealed the existence of a classified program did not declassify the entire program (within the context of a third party using that passing reference as an affirmative defense in court.) VERY limited context of the case. Nowhere near the sweeping ruling your argument needs it to be.
Myopia and perspective do not mis well, Sam. You might consider taking a step back and not making everything about Trump.
On that note, interesting - is it not - that classified documents were found at Pence's residence as well.
We may yet learn that this issue is far more widespread than most suspected.
I'd love to hear the argument that the sole federal officer designated with power to classify/declassify can be prosecuted for possessing a classified document.
What we are seeing, I believe, is a fundamental conflict about who is authorized to possess sensitive documents, who reasonably may create or alter/modify sensitive documents, who may speak about secrets and to whom and in what conditions, It is also apparent - to me at least - that the law as written is not realistic.whiterock said:and it's not about a public revelation. It's about possession.Oldbear83 said:Poor choice, since that matter has not produced a final verdict. Trump had wins there up to now as well, such as the appointment of a Special MasterSam Lowry said:Present case = Mar-a-Lago.whiterock said:LOL. Trump WON the NYT vs CIA case (which had the limited effect of preventing verbal gaffes or passing comments from elected, appointed, and career civil service officials from exposing entire intelligence programs to public scrutiny.)Sam Lowry said:Nothing like the narrow ruling you need it to be. I only mentioned it to explain why Trump keeps losing. You can come up with all the fantastical interpretations you want, but none of them matter because Trump has already lost this issue on the facts of the present case.Quote:LOL. No court can encumber POTUS with procedures for declassification. If a POTUS says, "it is declassified," that's it. All procedures set forth in XO are for those to whom he has delegated power, not him. He may change the policy at any time, for any reason, in any way, for any length of time. The proposition that he must always document changes in policy re his own actions? Patently silly. Certainly that has never been the standard previously. A POTUS handles classified materials as he deems necessary to do his duty, and writes XO to govern how others handle that classified materials in pursuit of their duties.Quote:No one is suggesting that the president needs approval from others to declassify. Only that he does, in fact, need to declassify. In Trump's case there is no statement or any other evidence that he did.Quote:Quote:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:Quote:
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
The case in question did not address the issue of whether not private disclosures constitute full or partial declassification. Neither did the court address in the NYT/CIA case whether a public disclosure constitutes full or partial declassification. It merely said that a passing reference that revealed the existence of a classified program did not declassify the entire program (within the context of a third party using that passing reference as an affirmative defense in court.) VERY limited context of the case. Nowhere near the sweeping ruling your argument needs it to be.
Myopia and perspective do not mis well, Sam. You might consider taking a step back and not making everything about Trump.
On that note, interesting - is it not - that classified documents were found at Pence's residence as well.
We may yet learn that this issue is far more widespread than most suspected.
I'd love to hear the argument that the sole federal officer designated with power to classify/declassify can be prosecuted for possessing a classified document.
This did not start with Trump. Presidents have had sensitive documents in their possession going back a very long time. They use them for research on memoirs and personal correspondence. On that second point there are reasons why a President would continue to have access to certain documents. People don't often realize, for example, that Nixon provided foreign policy advice to President Clinton, or that GW Bush was asked for input by President Obama on situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do you seriously think they did not include sensitive documents in those discussions, including highly-classified material?
That's what made the whole Archives issue look so contrived. Different standards and a complaint based on politics.
When you get down to common sense, it makes sense for Presidents to have access to such documents. The only real question is whether such documents are kept secure from unauthorized view.
That's where Biden is - frankly - in much worse trouble than Trump. There is no evidence that Trump. Pence, Obama, Bush or Clinton kept classified documents out where unknown people could access them. We know that Biden - while a Senator - kept classified material unsecured in his home, where literally anyone could have access to them.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
ok let me understand thes eclassified documents: A President can or cannot declassify any document he wants?
2) A President elect can not declassify previous classified documents he had in his possession when he was a senator or Vice Pres?
3) A president son or wife or brother has no business with classified documents True or F?
If no is there a penalty
2) A President elect can not declassify previous classified documents he had in his possession when he was a senator or Vice Pres?
3) A president son or wife or brother has no business with classified documents True or F?
If no is there a penalty
#1 is not exactly true.. there are congressional limitations on NDI that the president cannot declassify without additional approval.BornAgain said:
ok let me understand thes eclassified documents: A President can or cannot declassify any document he wants?
2) A President elect can not declassify previous classified documents he had in his possession when he was a senator or Vice Pres?
3) A president son or wife or brother has no business with classified documents True or F?
If no is there a penalty
The president can declassify almost anything at will but not everything
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
This is not a difficult concept. If people were not all so crazy tribal and full of TDS it would not even be controversial.Oldbear83 said:What we are seeing, I believe, is a fundamental conflict about who is authorized to possess sensitive documents, who reasonably may create or alter/modify sensitive documents, who may speak about secrets and to whom and in what conditions, It is also apparent - to me at least - that the law as written is not realistic.whiterock said:and it's not about a public revelation. It's about possession.Oldbear83 said:Poor choice, since that matter has not produced a final verdict. Trump had wins there up to now as well, such as the appointment of a Special MasterSam Lowry said:Present case = Mar-a-Lago.whiterock said:LOL. Trump WON the NYT vs CIA case (which had the limited effect of preventing verbal gaffes or passing comments from elected, appointed, and career civil service officials from exposing entire intelligence programs to public scrutiny.)Sam Lowry said:Nothing like the narrow ruling you need it to be. I only mentioned it to explain why Trump keeps losing. You can come up with all the fantastical interpretations you want, but none of them matter because Trump has already lost this issue on the facts of the present case.Quote:LOL. No court can encumber POTUS with procedures for declassification. If a POTUS says, "it is declassified," that's it. All procedures set forth in XO are for those to whom he has delegated power, not him. He may change the policy at any time, for any reason, in any way, for any length of time. The proposition that he must always document changes in policy re his own actions? Patently silly. Certainly that has never been the standard previously. A POTUS handles classified materials as he deems necessary to do his duty, and writes XO to govern how others handle that classified materials in pursuit of their duties.Quote:No one is suggesting that the president needs approval from others to declassify. Only that he does, in fact, need to declassify. In Trump's case there is no statement or any other evidence that he did.Quote:Quote:You're clutching at the same straw that the NYT did on appeal. Unfortunately the possibility of deliberate declassification by implication had already been addressed by the district court:Quote:
Doubling down on it, I see.
Your error starts at the word "inadvertent."Quote:
Here, President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information. This should end the inquiry, but Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of President Trump's tweet and his statements to the Journal are sufficient to verify existence of a covert CIA program, and therefore President Trump's statements declassified the existence of the program. Yet, even when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this argument is unsupported.
Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification. At best, President Trump's statements could be treated as an official acknowledgement of an alleged covert CIA program, but Plaintiffs argument on this front also fails.
You keep undermining your own point. In noting that a passing comment about a classified matter does not necessarily declassify it, the court affirmed that a President can, by statement or otherwise, declassify a thing.
"….Accordingly, the Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information…,"
The context of the case is that others were attempting to use in their own defense a tangential comment by POTUS as evidence of declass. The Court rightly rejected that argument. They did not, however, in any way limit the longstanding power of a POTUS to declassify anything, anytime, anywhere without encumberance of process or approvals by others (because the powers of all others on such matters are derivative from POTUS).
The case in question did not address the issue of whether not private disclosures constitute full or partial declassification. Neither did the court address in the NYT/CIA case whether a public disclosure constitutes full or partial declassification. It merely said that a passing reference that revealed the existence of a classified program did not declassify the entire program (within the context of a third party using that passing reference as an affirmative defense in court.) VERY limited context of the case. Nowhere near the sweeping ruling your argument needs it to be.
Myopia and perspective do not mis well, Sam. You might consider taking a step back and not making everything about Trump.
On that note, interesting - is it not - that classified documents were found at Pence's residence as well.
We may yet learn that this issue is far more widespread than most suspected.
I'd love to hear the argument that the sole federal officer designated with power to classify/declassify can be prosecuted for possessing a classified document.
This did not start with Trump. Presidents have had sensitive documents in their possession going back a very long time. They use them for research on memoirs and personal correspondence. On that second point there are reasons why a President would continue to have access to certain documents. People don't often realize, for example, that Nixon provided foreign policy advice to President Clinton, or that GW Bush was asked for input by President Obama on situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do you seriously think they did not include sensitive documents in those discussions, including highly-classified material?
That's what made the whole Archives issue look so contrived. Different standards and a complaint based on politics.
When you get down to common sense, it makes sense for Presidents to have access to such documents. The only real question is whether such documents are kept secure from unauthorized view.
That's where Biden is - frankly - in much worse trouble than Trump. There is no evidence that Trump. Pence, Obama, Bush or Clinton kept classified documents out where unknown people could access them. We know that Biden - while a Senator - kept classified material unsecured in his home, where literally anyone could have access to them.
Trump's behavior was consistent with every other president in history - he took some documents he wanted with him. The only difference is - a theme with Trump - is that a beta librarian with TDS broke with protocol and threw a temper tantrum and literally made a federal case out of wanting some of those documents. Never before has the National Archives thrown such a fit and the FBI has never sent 40 armed agents to raid a former president's home to get overdue library books, but TDS. And as noted, Trump's documents were secure in a locked facility inside a compound guarded by the Secret Service.
Biden, who had no right to steal Top Secret documents - especially as Senator - had them flown around the garage of a home owned or rented by his son, a known foreign agent, and his Chinese-funded "think tank." The optics definitely do not look good.
It was Biden admin who initiated the request for materials that should have been off limits as per PRA
Biden admin asks for access to records under the pretense that they were for the January 6 investigation which were never used after recovery. should've been a PRA argument with the NARA but turned unnecessarily into something a lot more..
The bigger picture problem is we are not vetting materials when elected officials leave office and we have no idea who has possession of it and why..
Biden admin asks for access to records under the pretense that they were for the January 6 investigation which were never used after recovery. should've been a PRA argument with the NARA but turned unnecessarily into something a lot more..
The bigger picture problem is we are not vetting materials when elected officials leave office and we have no idea who has possession of it and why..
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart