New Power to the President, Declassify in Mind?

Said the poster who never ever actually posts evidence... LMAO...

 

There is no "official" process - period - where the POTUS MUST follow a process. According to Kash Patel Trump did it via a tweet.

https://www.deseret.com/2022/9/22/23367221/trump-declassify-documents-by-thinking-about-it-hannity

I have yet to see anyone here cite specific legal language where the POTUS is bound to follow a process. EOs are not legally binding to the POTUS.

 

LOL... No, not the video, but your "must see" BS ascribed to it. Trevor is the least likely to ever be funny, so if it turns out he actually was, I can assure you it was entirely by accident. Mostly, he's a reliable propagandist. The funniest part of your post was the joke of the former president inferring the FBI were actually interested in finding Hillary's emails... But you sucked that one down...hook, line, sinker...

 

If I want a good laugh I just watch this.

 

Are you saying DeSantis is a bigger gaping a55 hole than Trump? I didn't think that was even possible.

 

Bottom line is that the President must make the departments involved in the classified documents that he is declassifying them. After all, if he is declassifying a list of spies in Russia, he needs to advise the CIA that he is doing so, in order so that they can withdraw those spies before they get eliminated by the Russians. If you are stating the opposite, then you are not using your head..............or the guidelines of the government are plain stupid, and I doubt the latter.

 

Evidently, I was not the only one that got sucked in:

Trump Floats Nutso Claim FBI Agents Were After Hillary’s Emails During Mar-A-Lago Raid

Trump bizarrely suggests FBI looked for Hillary Clinton’s emails at Mar-a-Lago

Even Newsweek carried the story:

Trump Claims FBI Raided Mar-a-Lago Looking for Clinton Emails

Of course, the fact that there is a video of him saying that, means nothing, right?

What I believe is that people like you that think that Trump is not crazy-as-a-bat are the ones that have bought Trump's Schpiel HOOK, LINE, and SINKER!

 

back at ya!

Trump supporters.

 

IOW, you know I know you know you don't know.

“The key idea here is “negative partisanship”: partisan behavior driven not by positive feelings toward the party you support but negative feelings toward the party you oppose. If you’ve ever voted in an election feeling a bit bleh about the candidate you backed, but fearful of the troglodyte or socialist running against her, you’ve been a negative partisan. It turns out a lot of us have been negative partisans. A 2016 Pew poll found that self-described independents who tended to vote for one party or the other were driven more by negative motivations. Majorities of both Republican- and Democratic-leaning independents said a major reason for their lean was the other party’s policies were bad for the country; by contrast, only a third of each group said they were driven by support for the policies of the party they were voting for.” Ezra Klein, from Why We Are Polarized.

 

Where is it stated that he must? It shouldn’t be that difficult to support your claim.

 

Well, according to my logic, there has to be an administrative procedure to declassify a Top Secret document prior to storing it in a cabinet, or in a box, such as;

1. X out its original classification
2. Stamp it as DECLASSIFIED
3. By Whom, and
4. A date

Agree, or disagree?

 

THE QUESTION
Can the president declassify documents?

THE ANSWER


Yes, the president can declassify documents while in office, but there isn’t a set protocol they have to follow.



How US presidents can declassify documents | verifythis.com

 

I already showed that in two previous posts. It is a guideline to declassifying classified documents. I have no desire to look it up again, especially since the idea of declassifying documents in your mind and telling no one is totally stupid and ridiculous.

This is not a case of whether Trump can be put in jail for doing that (though he should be put in jail) but a case where "who wants to have a president that cannot handle the leadership position in a responsible and competent way?"

Even if what you say turns out to be true, does that excuse Trump of being incompetent and a huge potential threat to the safety of our nation?

You seem to be arguing in favor of giving permission to a person that could severely hurt our nation by doing anything he personally wants. Do you honestly think that Trump is incapable of hurting those that disagree with him, out of pure spite?

 

Try to address this issue by leaving Trump out of it. Where is it stated that the POTUS is subject to his own EOs?

 

Your "logic" (which doesn't have anything to do with it) may be reasonable, but it isn't what is currently part of the requirements.

 

I will always post evidence on request if I hadn't already.

But, you, do not. Which is why I requested it, to give you the benefit of the doubt, which you have not extended towards me.

Your comment is therefore dismissed.

 

I cannot leave Trump out of it simply because no other president has done (and claimed excuses) like he has done.

All of this (legal questions) have occurred because of Trump and it has brought into the conversation the reality of what common sense means, especially when it has to do with security of the nation and all of its population.

I am not at ALL interested in the technicalities of the problem. I will let the experts and judges decide that. I am interested in what Trump has done to put our country at risk. You don't care about that? Are you actually interested in the technicalities of the situation when you know that the accused person is 100% guilty of putting our nation at risk?

If you are, I suggest you start a debate with a lawyer and not with a member of a debate board. I have no interest in continuing this debate with you. I am out!

 

It would be illogical to give an unelected bureaucrat and subordinate the power to check an elected Chief Executive.
Which is probably why the drafters of the COTUS, who thought this through very carefully created no such check. See "plenary powers".

 

If you're not at ALL interested in the technicalities of the problem why did your thread premise address the "technicalities of the problem" by asking the reader the question below?

"New Power to the President, Declassify in Mind?"

 

From your source:

“THE QUESTION

Can the president declassify documents?

THE SOURCES

• U.S. Department of the Navy v. Egan

• Executive Order 13526

• Kel McClanahan, executive director of the National Security Counselors, a nonprofit public interest law firm

• Richard Immerman, Edward J. Buthusiem Family Distinguished Faculty Fellow in History at Temple University

• The New York Times, et al., v. Central Intelligence Agency

THE ANSWER.

Yes, the president can declassify documents while in office, but there isn’t a set protocol they have to follow.

VERIFY,
Yes, the president can declassify documents, but there isn’t a set protocol, By Megan Loe, Published: 3:05 PM EDT August 18, 2022, Updated: 6:24 PM EDT August 23, 2022.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/...heck/536-e1961390-e7c6-438a-b9b5-671dc9c6f7ec

In a representative democratic republic unelected bureaucrats/mandarins may not interfere with an elected POTUS's plenary powers created by the COTUS.

 

Hence, and I think you'll confirm that there is NOT a chance the DOJ will be indicting the former POTUS for a damn thing.

 

From what I've seen, most of your evidence is just calling everything "Fascist"
It looks like I'm not the only one that is on to you

 

It was PURE sarcasm!

Does anyone believe that any person has the power to declassify anything with his mind? Do you believe it?

It is as ridiculous as it can be. I am flabbergasted at the amount of Republicans that have actually believed and supported this idea? I am surprised that YOU have even gotten involved in a serious way in this OP. This was an OP to talk about ridiculous behavior and not seriously addressed. I had a higher opinion of your ability to carry out a sane conversation.



There were no technicalities involved in the OP.

 

You've proved my point. Just more goal-shifting, off-topic banter, and attempted insult from you.

It's been proved that Trump could declassify anything at anytime according to legitimate sources, Navy vs. Egan, cited by me and other intellectually honest posters. You conveniently left out the context of Trump's statement when you decided to put up this thread. He said something very important before he said he could think a document should be/could be declassified by his own power. He spoke to his own executive power that allowed him to declassify a document at his own will. Trump was not wrong. “There doesn’t have to be a process, as I understand it,” he told Hannity. “You’re the president of the United States. You can declassify just by saying, ‘It’s declassified.’ Even by thinking about it.”

Read your thread. Navy vs. Egan proves that former POTUS is correct.

Should you want to carry on being intellectually dishonest, that's not on me... Carry on.

 

You actually said that a business owner does not need much detail to run a business, aka a fool, in your earlier post. And nothing you have posted here disagrees with that assessment. You have friends in high places, so do I. Do you really want to do a pissing match on who knows who? That is pretty much junior high school mentality.

I have never said "nobody knows everything," but what I can tell you, is what separates a good business person from a bad one is the discernment to ask for help in areas that they don't know such as accounting, advertising, HR when their business grows, etc. Some ask for help reluctantly and some ask for help when they know they are in trouble. Some will even try to make money off their troubles such as Amy's Baking Company. But a bad business person will ignore all the warning signs and refuse to change.

the website was not that good and was a pisspoor representation of yellow journalism. Just as you said "nobody knows everything," a politician will have made the wrong decisions or bad decisions in his lifetime. That being said, nothing in the article truly represents Biden's foolishness at all. It simply gave a summary of what he did and try to portray it as all wrong with no explanation whatsoever. It is that type of ignorance that the author is cultivating for in their audience. But those who are informed, well-read, know the facts, or can at least research the points done, can determine what is BS and what is not. And yet, it has nothing to do with the bad, very bad business decisions that Trump has made in his business career. Those types of behaviors have translated into his political office and positions, the same as Sen Rick Scott from Florida. He was the CEO of a major healthcare firm that was caught frauding Medicare. His company paid the largest fine in history and now the Senate Reelection Campaign and how $150 million had just, all of a sudden, disappeared on his watch. Now, even his own party is asking what happened to the money and he has refused to answer his own party.