BusterAg said:

---

So. What you are saying is that this thread is 100% unrelated to the Trump raid? That you agree the president has different powers, and can declassify information at will?

Seems like important context for this situation.

At best, op omitted critical information that would make the op intentionally misleading.

My mother taught me a lie of omission is still a lie.

---

I never said that. If you'd bother to read what I've posted (after your "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee! fit), you'd see I think the OPs procedural detail dovetails nicely with the Trump situation. Bureaucratic procedure can darn sure interfere with Presidential intent, and we've seen that. SCOTUS said it's cool, and so have I.

Change Detection said:

---

Telling people what you do and what information you have is a pretty big no-no.

---

Of which I did neither.

wbt5845 said:

---

Interesting watching you guys who've never handled a classified document arguing with someone who handles them on a daily basis.

Carry on.

---

You are not the only that handles or has handled classified docs on this site nor the only one with TS clearannces. Signed the former of both.

No reply?

Quote:

---

The lead attorney being from nat sec instead of crim is a big tell.

---

You mean this supports the more immediately relevant take of Trump has sufficient space to argue otherwise so as to negate this whole thing? At this point its lawfare.

wbt5845 said:

---

It means that if you are commenting on my weight, you don't know me very well. I've posted here a lot about my weight - or loss of, to be precise.

---

Yet recently posting questions on how to qualify for weight loss drugs.

Integrity!

"I'm not a biologist, I can't define what a woman is."

"Although two consecutive quarters of negative growth generally defines a recession, she said, "When you're creating almost 400,000 jobs a month, that is not a recession."

"There is no legal definition of what collusion is. Trump definitely colluded though."

"Although the president declaration that he is declassifying materials generally defines that they are declassified, that is not always the case according to our technical experts. Please ignore the Supreme Court ruling; our experts are more expert than them."

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

The lead attorney being from nat sec instead of crim is a big tell.

---

You mean this supports the more immediately relevant take of Trump has sufficient space to argue otherwise so as to negate this whole thing? At this point its lawfare.

---

Yes. The type of probable cause needed for a FISA warrant in a secret ex parte court proceeding is not as rigorous as what is required for an in person search of someone's residence.

The misapplication of the Espionage Act clause is also a sign that this warrant wasn't fully thought out.

wbt5845 said:

---

Change Detection said:

---

Telling people what you do and what information you have is a pretty big no-no.

---

Of which I did neither.

---

Was the FBI just in their actions against Trump?

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

"Government Secrets"

---

"Oxymoron"

aggiehawg said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

The lead attorney being from nat sec instead of crim is a big tell.

---

You mean this supports the more immediately relevant take of Trump has sufficient space to argue otherwise so as to negate this whole thing? At this point its lawfare.

---

Yes. The type of probable cause needed for a FISA warrant in a secret ex parte court proceeding is not as rigorous as what is required for an in person search of someone's residence.

The misapplication of the Espionage Act clause is also a sign that this warrant wasn't fully thought out.

---

Are you saying Hillary effed up...again?

So why weren't the leakers punished?

Oh that's (D)ifferent.

Op I'm guessing you work for a defense contractor? Maybe Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing, L3?

In my experience, I've found a lot of people that are employed by a defense contractor and that have top secret clearance insufferably have to let you know about it all the damn time.

SIAP & IANAL

Even the NYT agrees the President can declassify documents:

• Presidential Power to Declassify Information, Explained

Quote from the article:

• Can presidents declassify matters directly?
  Yes, because it is ultimately their constitutional authority.
  Normally, presidents who want something declassified direct subordinates overseeing the department or agency with primary responsibility for the information to review the matter with an eye to making more of it public. But on rare occasions, presidents declassify something directly.
  For example, in 2004, President George W. Bush himself declassified a portion of his presidential daily intelligence briefing from August 2001 a month before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in which he had been warned: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
  Do presidents have to obey the usual procedures?
  There is no Supreme Court precedent definitively answering that question.
  Even if it is true that Mr. Trump had pronounced the documents declassified while he was in office, he clearly did not follow the regular procedures.
  In the unlikely event that the Justice Department were to charge him under the law that makes the unauthorized retention or removal of classified material a crime despite not listing it as a focus of the investigation in the search warrant a novel question would arise if Mr. Trump were then to repeat the claim as a defense.
  Proponents of a strong view of presidential power have argued in other contexts that presidents are not personally bound by the rules and procedures that regulate the conduct of their subordinates in the executive branch and that presidents can even disregard executive orders without first rescinding them. Others disagree with that vision of executive power.
  The statement from Mr. Trump's office that was read aloud by the right-wing writer, John Solomon, included what appeared to be a gesture at the claim: "The idea that some paper-pushing bureaucrat, with classification authority delegated by the president, needs to approve the declassification is absurd."

My personal opinion is this power to declassify should NOT be held in the hands of UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS.

There is uncertainty regarding whether a President can be charged with a crime by the Executive Branch for any act committed while in office. Though no president is "above the law", the remedy for crimes while president is impeachment and trial by Senate.

So if Trump on January 19th is posting classified docs on the North Korean eBay of state secrets, there is question is he could even be charged with a crime by the Executive Branch. Again, this has never been challenged in our history.

Trump could be charged with crimes committed before or after office but not during. I am confident this Supreme Court would rule this way if this is challenged through misguided Dems wanting to get Trump at any and all costs. The result will be in a strengthened Executive, which given that Congress thinks they have executive authority these days would be a better balance.

This is a fishing expedition to support Jan 6th hearings and a 3rd impeachment with the intent to disqualify him as a candidate for office.

Quote:

---

am confident this Supreme Court would rule this way if this is challenged through misguided Dems wanting to get Trump at any and all costs.

---

You are confident even though the court itself is overly political?

The court has recently shown that it believes Congress and the Executive have not been staying in their lane regarding responsibilities and powers.

Congress should make laws, the President should execute those laws, and both the laws and the execution must be within the bounds of the Constitution, and the referee on that is the Judicial.

I do believe the Court remains political, but the Dems are going to push them to having to legitimize themselves or further undermine the Judicial and the Constitution itself. There are selfish folks intent on leaving a legacy and I do not think they want to go on record as ending the Republic.

A President is not a plebe like most anyone claiming they know better.

B-1 83 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

So. What you are saying is that this thread is 100% unrelated to the Trump raid? That you agree the president has different powers, and can declassify information at will?

Seems like important context for this situation.

At best, op omitted critical information that would make the op intentionally misleading.

My mother taught me a lie of omission is still a lie.

---

I never said that. If you'd bother to read what I've posted (after your "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee! fit), you'd see I think the OPs procedural detail dovetails nicely with the Trump situation. Bureaucratic procedure can darn sure interfere with Presidential intent, and we've seen that. SCOTUS said it's cool, and so have I.

---

The president has plenary powers to declassy. Beaurocratic procedure can place no restriction on him. Therefore, in relation to the Trump situation, beaurocratic procedure is completely irrelevant. That's what we have all been trying to tell you.

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

So. What you are saying is that this thread is 100% unrelated to the Trump raid? That you agree the president has different powers, and can declassify information at will?

Seems like important context for this situation.

At best, op omitted critical information that would make the op intentionally misleading.

My mother taught me a lie of omission is still a lie.

---

I never said that. If you'd bother to read what I've posted (after your "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee! fit), you'd see I think the OPs procedural detail dovetails nicely with the Trump situation. Bureaucratic procedure can darn sure interfere with Presidential intent, and we've seen that. SCOTUS said it's cool, and so have I.

---

The president has plenary powers to declassy. Beaurocratic procedure can place no restriction on him. Therefore, in relation to the Trump situation, beaurocratic procedure is completely irrelevant. That's what we have all been trying to tell you.

---

I haven't said anything different than that. Pay attention. The bureaucratic procedure explains why he did it. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

Why he did what?

Your argument is now so completely muddled as to be incomprehensible.

Let's get to the meat:

1)what law, if any, did Trump break?

2) what is the penalty for breaking that law?

BusterAg said:

---

Why he did what?

Your argument is now so completely muddled as to be incomprehensible.

Let's get to the meat:

1)what law, if any, did Trump break?

2) what is the penalty for breaking that law?

---

Why HE (Trump) declassified items before waiting through the "normal" channels. That might take forever. No, Presidential declassification is not normal, but perfectly legal and his right. Drink a glass of water, not another beer.

Apparently no law was really broken

Your third point becomes irrelevant

This thread was fun.

I certainly had fun.

Apparently the raid is a nothingburger, and Trump broke no laws.

Only took 5 pages to get that admission.

My husband reminded me a video that the security office of our old defense contractor showed. It was a video of Carter on TV talking about some classified surveillance the US was engaged in.

The mere fact that Carter decided to share that information on TV declassified that information.

He did not have to do anything else to declassify that information.

Presidents have that privilege/responsibility.

wbt5845 said:

---

That documents are marked and their classification level is based on that marking. The rules are very specific.

It's pretty evident many posting here have never handled classified data.

---

If the President of the US declassifies something, what does that do to the classification?

Science Denier said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

That documents are marked and their classification level is based on that marking. The rules are very specific.

It's pretty evident many posting here have never handled classified data.

---

If the President of the US declassifies something, what does that do to the classification?

---

At best, it was a headache causing, dumb idea to not be marking as "declassified" something declassified under any type of order. There needs to be a way to keep track of that if, just as a minimum, to allow every other person handling the document to know what they're handling

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

That documents are marked and their classification level is based on that marking. The rules are very specific.

It's pretty evident many posting here have never handled classified data.

---

If the President of the US declassifies something, what does that do to the classification?

---

At best, it was a headache causing, dumb idea to not be marking as "declassified" something declassified under any type of order. There needs to be a way to keep track of that if, just as a minimum, to allow every other person handling the document to know what they're handling

---

Yeah, we kind of suck at that whole thing. Even Hillary couldn't understand what the "c" stood for.

I once read classified docs. Thought it might fit in here.

wbt5845 said:

---

Interesting watching you guys who've never handled a classified document arguing with someone who handles them on a daily basis.

Carry on.

---

I've handled them on a daily basis for 25 years. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Who is the ultimate authority on classifying and declassifying?

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Who is the ultimate authority on classifying and declassifying?

---

Not a who, but the Constitution is.

Where OP go hiding on the general board this went bad for him?