New Power to the President, Declassify in Mind?

Which begs the question: Can any revealed secret ever be made a secret again?

 

But, if something is required, as you say, the law must say so.

 

Were those government secrets ever revealed? If the person who declassified won't work with the government and actually go on record saying those documents were declassified and distributed, why assume they are?

 

Why would any one assume that they are still secrets?

THE DAILY WIRE, — NEWS AND COMMENTARY —, President Trump Claims He Will ‘Declassify ***Everything’*** Over Democrat ‘Lying’ And ‘Treason’, By Emily Zanotti, Dec 13, 2020. (Emphasis mine)
https://www.dailywire.com/news/pres...fy-everything-over-democrat-lying-and-treason


Again, case closed.

 

Ok so let's see those documents from Trump if he declassified them. Where did he release them? It should be viewable to do public, right? Why declassify documents and then bury them from the public? Kind of defeats the purpose dont you think?

 

Garland is sitting on the documents now. Give him a call.

 

Garland and Co. are asking Trump and his attorney's whether or not those documents were declassified, and Trump won't tell them.

if it's declassified, why was it sitting in trump's basement instead of NARA where it can be viewed by the public?

 

"Overitall, post: 1073753910, member: 95338"]Given the fact that the POTUS can declassify a document at any time without having to apply a process there's never been a guarantee.[/QUOTE]
Two things about that. 1. Funny how Trump's lawyers have not asserted in court that the documents in question were declassified. Seeing as.......you know........there are consequences for lying in court. 2. You make it sound as though, even if the documents were declassified, that their exposure to the wrong people is meaningless. It isn't. The info contained in the docs was classified for a reason.

 

It seems as though you were thinking of another post I submitted when you composed this response. I see no connection to what you said in relationship to what you quoted me saying. I'll consider responding to whatever you have to say relevant to what I say. In the meantime I would appreciate an answer to a simple question with a yes/no. Is there any restrictions placed upon the POTUS regarding declassifying any documents? If there is, I expect you to be able to quote it.

 

If you make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

If that weren't true, anyone could claim anything.

Obviously, the constraint on claims is that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. .

If that weren't true, there would be chaos, anyone could claim anything.

https://bencrump.com/faqs/what-is-burden-of-proof-and-why-is-it-important/

In a civil lawsuit, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff or the person filing the suit.

 

Then prove that they can convict a person for violating a law which does not exist.

BTW. You are the one who made the claim.

 

No, he was not correct if you don't need a process to declassify the documents especially when national defense information is concerned.

 

I truly don't think you are truly understanding what EO 13526 says and does not say. Again, having the power is not the same thing as what the process is. Even 13526 stipulates who needs to be involved when declassifying a national defense information document. But at the same time, Trump has not made that legal claim with Dearie or with Judge Cannon. In fact, his lawyers have refused to make those statements under penalty of perjury. And that is what matters Trix.

 

Garland et al targeted Trump. Targets should not chat with prosecutors and police.
No one should cooperate with crooked prosecutors and police.

 

It's not illegal to be stupid, but intelligence is required to be a lawyer.

It's inherit in the entrance exam. If you are stupid, you won't pass the exam nor will you get very far in law school.

There needn't be a law, it's just logical.

Moreover, if stupidity can't grasp that the onus is on those who make a claim, you won't win lawsuits or garner convictions.

Stupidity isn't illegal, but intelligence is required in the application of law, and there needn't be a law that says so.

Why?

It's 'inherent'.

If you can't grasp that, then look up the word 'stupid' and meditate on it until an epiphany is achieved.

 

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Not the defendant.