[W:#7536]FBI executes search warrant at Trump's Mar-a-Lago, former President says

[poweRob]

 

[Doug64]

For documents there ARE accepted procedures and steps to be taken in order to be declassified. And again, if you believe that a president is the ultimate authority of declassification, then you contradict yourself when you make a argument that puts a former president in a position that knows more about the classification status of a document than a current president. So, the claim that a document can be declassified because Trump decided at some point to do it without anybody in the next administration knowing about it (including the sitting president) cannot stand.

Leaving aside the ex post facto aspect of your argument, when has President* Biden announced that the documents in question have been reclassified?

I don't know where you get your BS information but there definitely IS a procedure for declassifying information (see below).

I never said there isn't, just that the President isn't bound by those procedures.

Do presidents have 'the ability to declassify anything'?

The blockbuster article in The Washington Post saying President Donald Trump had "revealed highly classified information

www.politifact.com

Gross negligence wasn't enough to prosecute Clinton under 18 U.S. Code § 793.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

www.law.cornell.edu

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, ... (emphasis added)

I know I would trust the FBI and CIA with secrets before I would Trust Trump the known liar and con man

After lying about Page, the General Flynn witch hunt, the Russian Collusion hoax, the Whitmer kidnapping fiasco, and the interference in the 2020 election to (ultimately successfully) elect Biden, why should we trust anything the FBI has to say any more than we can trust Trump?

 

[pamak]

Leaving aside the ex post facto aspect of your argument, when has President* Biden announced that the documents in question have been reclassified?

Biden never said that he reclassified these documents.

So what does this logically mean?

If you accept the position of the current CIC (the foremost authority of classification ) that the documents ARE classified and you believe that the documents were never REclassified, then at no point in the past were those documents ever declassified.

 

[pamak]

...

I never said there isn't, just that the President isn't bound by those procedures.

Do presidents have 'the ability to declassify anything'?

The blockbuster article in The Washington Post saying President Donald Trump had "revealed highly classified information

www.politifact.com

He is not bound by them because he can issue a new Executive Order to change the procedures,but even executive orders require signatures and documentation

https://sgp.fas.org/library/quist/chap_3.pdf

Page 1

Executive Orders are issued by the president by authority of the executive powers granted him by the Constitution. Executive orders become effective upon presidential signature and subsequent publication in the Federal Register

and courts in a case during Trump's presidency made it clear that a simple public statement by the president that he supposedly declassified documents without documentation does not declassify documents

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/18-2112/18-2112-2020-07-09.pdf?ts=1594303207

Page 27-28

To prevail in any claim of declassification, inferred or otherwise, the Times’s must show: first, that President Trump’s statements are sufficiently specific; and second, that such statements subsequently triggered actual declassification.

...
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. 76


76 As explained above, Executive order 13,526 established the detailed process through which secret information can be appropriately declassified.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, ... (emphasis added)

Sorry bud, the Supreme Court has the final say.

Please read the following:

Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced that he was not going to recommend the filing of criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of a

warontherocks.com

In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States. In that case, the defendant was charged with selling information “relating to the national defense” to a foreign power. The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase “relating to the national defense” was unconstitutionally vague, so much so that the defendant was deprived of the ability to predetermine whether his actions were a crime

"The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute."

In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).

Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory.

The Server Will Bewitch You Shortly

It’s been a little over a year since Bernie Sanders assured America that the public was “sick of hearing” about Hillary Clinton’s “damn e-mails,” and to put it mildly, the claim has not aged well. Even before Friday’s announcement that the FBI had uncovered an additional cache of e-mails from...

www.justsecurity.org

At last we come to the constitutional barriers to prosecution. As Comey made clear in his testimony to Congress, while the statutory standard in §793(f) is “gross negligence,” the Justice Department has historically been reluctant to prosecute—indictments under §793(f) are vanishingly rare—without something at least approaching evidence of intent. One reason for that may be that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gorin v. United States (1941) which suggests that the Espionage Act’s intent requirements are an important feature that save it from unconstitutional vagueness. Due process requires that the law give citizens clear notice of what conduct is criminally prohibited, and in a country that (in large part for First Amendment reasons) has never had a British-style Official Secrets Act, there would be real reason to fear it would be too easy to unwittingly commit a crime absent relatively strict intent requirements. After all, classified information is routinely (and lawfully) printed on the front pages of newspapers—it would be perverse if forwarding a New York Times article were an indictable offense—and the sheer volume of classified material means it’s often difficult for officials to keep track of whether a particular fact is classified at a given time. Add in the historical paucity of prosecutions for mere insecure discussion of classified facts and it’s easy to imagine Clinton’s attorneys successfully sinking any case with a due process argument.

 

[Doug64]

If you accept the position of the current CIC (the foremost authority of classification ) that the documents ARE classified

I'll ask again, has Biden ever announced that the documents have been reclassified? Because if he hasn't then the question is whether Trump actually declassified them--if he did they are, if he didn't they aren't.

He is not bound by them because he can issue a new Executive Order to change the procedures,but even executive orders require signatures and documentation

The president doesn't need to issue an executive order do declassify something--as simple an act as handing a document to someone that lacks the clearance or reading something to a foreign leader over the phone is enough.

Sorry bud, the Supreme Court has the final say.

Please read the following:

Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced that he was not going to recommend the filing of criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of a

warontherocks.com

There's a problem with the article, encapsulated in this statement: "Despite what may appear to be the plain meaning of 793(f), the negligent mishandling of classified material is not a civilian criminal offense. (emphasis added)" If you are arguing against the plain meaning of the text, you are almost certainly wrong. Likewise Comey's assertion that because a case might not have been argued before on the grounds of gross negligence, it couldn't be in Clinton's case. The problem with arguing that Clinton's offense required intent is it doesn't match the text of the law. Intent is mentioned, for the five paragraphs: "Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, ..."; "Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, ..."; "Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, ...";

 

[W_Heisenberg]

There's a problem with the article, encapsulated in this statement: "Despite what may appear to be the plain meaning of 793(f), the negligent mishandling of classified material is not a civilian criminal offense. (emphasis added)"

If you are arguing against the plain meaning of the text, you are almost certainly wrong.

Well, I am arguing against the plain meaning of the text, and the reason for that is the Supreme Court ruling in Gorin. The Supreme Court has the ultimate say in determining the meaning of any statute; and also, which parts of any particular statute is unconstitutional and should be struck out.

Likewise Comey's assertion that because a case might not have been argued before on the grounds of gross negligence, it couldn't be in Clinton's case.

Comey faced a situation in which there was great certainty that if the DOJ charged Clinton, and Clinton was somehow convicted, the courts would later overturn the conviction anyway. That was part of what Comey was trying to avoid. The fact that no one had ever been tried and convicted of this crime, and the fact that the Supreme Court already ruled in a way as to make sub paragraph likely unconstitutional, means that it was unlikely that the DOJ could ever secure a conviction. And it is policy of the DOJ, and it's fair, in and of itself, to refrain from prosecuting cases where there is no hope or little hope of securing a successful prosecution.

The problem with arguing that Clinton's offense required intent is it doesn't match the text of the law.

It doesn't have to match the text of the law.

See Judicial Review:

Judicial review - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Intent is mentioned, for the five paragraphs: "Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information re specting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, ..."; "Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, ..."; "Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, ...";

Yes, intent is mentioned in the other crimes, each paragraph except for h is a separate crime. What's your argument, exactly? I don't follow you. You were arguing that intent was not needed previously, and now you are referencing the fact that the other crimes in the statute do mention intent. Do you understand how that might hurt your argument?

 

[pamak]

I'll ask again, has Biden ever announced that the documents have been reclassified? Because if he hasn't then the question is whether Trump actually declassified them--if he did they are, if he didn't they aren't.


The president doesn't need to issue an executive order do declassify something--as simple an act as handing a document to someone that lacks the clearance or reading something to a foreign leader over the phone is enough.

if you want to ask again the same question expecting that I will change my point, it is not going to happen.
Again, the current president does not need the input of any person outside of his administration (this includes the former president) in order to know whether a document within his administration is classified or not.

So, as things are now, we have Biden through his DOJ taking the position that certain documents that were found inside Trump's residence are classified. The current CIC's claim is also supported by the classification markings of these documents.
At the same time, Biden has never claimed that he reclassified the documents which bear classification stamps and were found in Trump's residence

Both of the above mean that at no point were any of those documents declassified.

Everybody who exercises authority need some type of documentation or communication with his subordinates in order to exercise authority. So. courts have the authority to make decisions for civil and criminal cases but such decisions are documented. Presidents have the authority to issue executive orders but such orders are signed and published in the federal register. The claim that one can exercise authority through telepathy is a novel claim which comes from Trump and his stooges. Even oral orders eventually create a record as they are communicated to those below the decision maker who are to execute such orders. In the absence of any written record and any testimony by Directors of Intelligence that they received orders to declassify certain documents, the only conclusion is that Trump never exercised such authority.

Moreover, at the time of Trump's presidency, Executive Order 13526 was still the controlling one. Executive orders have the status of law. That order says among other things:

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

(c) An official or employee leaving agency service may not remove classified information from the agency's control or direct that information be declassified in order to remove it from agency control.

While a president can issue a different executive order, he cannot do it in his head with a record.

 

[CaughtInThe]

It wont

i love this post

 

[Doug64]

Well, I am arguing against the plain meaning of the text, and the reason for that is the Supreme Court ruling in Gorin. The Supreme Court has the ultimate say in determining the meaning of any statute; and also, which parts of any particular statute is unconstitutional and should be struck out.

So you are arguing that the Supreme Court can never get it wrong? You are arguing that the phrase " The Supreme Court ruled incorrectly" is without any real meaning because the Supreme Court is the body that provides whatever meaning the Constitution has?

Comey faced a situation in which there was great certainty that if the DOJ charged Clinton, and Clinton was somehow convicted, the courts would later overturn the conviction anyway. That was part of what Comey was trying to avoid. The fact that no one had ever been tried and convicted of this crime, and the fact that the Supreme Court already ruled in a way as to make sub paragraph likely unconstitutional, means that it was unlikely that the DOJ could ever secure a conviction. And it is policy of the DOJ, and it's fair, in and of itself, to refrain from prosecuting cases where there is no hope or little hope of securing a successful prosecution.

It doesn't have to match the text of the law.

See Judicial Review:

Judicial review - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

See the Canons of Judicial Interpretation:

Statutory interpretation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Specifically:

Plain meaning

When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses. The United States Supreme Court discussed the plain meaning rule in Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917), reasoning "{i}t is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain... the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." And if a statute's language is plain and clear, the Court further warned that "the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion."

In other words, if the meaning is plain then the meaning is plain, full stop--though the meaning in question is that of the time that the constitution or legislation in question was created rather than what it might be now.

Yes, intent is mentioned in the other crimes, each paragraph except for h is a separate crime. What's your argument, exactly? I don't follow you. You were arguing that intent was not needed previously, and now you are referencing the fact that the other crimes in the statute do mention intent. Do you understand how that might hurt your argument?

Not at all--the point is that the absence of any mention of intent in this case where it is clearly mention in other cases of the same legislation indicates that in this case intent isn't necessary--if it was, it would have been mentioned just as it was in the other cases.

 

[Galactic Spin]

And two months later, Trump is begging for help from the SCOTUS. He knows he is ****ed.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

So you are arguing that the Supreme Court can never get it wrong? You are arguing that the phrase " The Supreme Court ruled incorrectly" is without any real meaning because the Supreme Court is the body that provides whatever meaning the Constitution has?

Doug64:

#1 For the DOJ and the FBI going about their daily asks, it doesn't matter if the Supreme Court "got it wrong" in either a theoretical or objective sense. The Supreme Court has the last word. And the DOJ and the FBI has to operate within this environment. They can't just do whatever they want. They have to operate in accordance with the law. Furthermore, it is DOJ policy to not prosecute people when there is very little hope of a successful prosecution.

#2 The Supreme Court in the case of Gorin was right! It is a long-standing principle in American and also English law that for serious crimes that allow for serious punishments that the prosecution prove the defendant intended to engage in the action that is prohibited.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

In other words, if the meaning is plain then the meaning is plain, full stop--though the meaning in question is that of the time that the constitution or legislation in question was created rather than what it might be now.

So, with respect to this specific statute, the Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional without the intent element. And because the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional without the intent element the statute was effectively revised.

This is how case law works.

The judicial branch routinely modifies laws created by the legislative branch.

So, it doesn't matter that the text says or implies that intent need not be proven. The Supreme Court said it does, and they have the final say, and this is how our system works

 

[Galactic Spin]

So, with respect to this specific statute, the Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional without the intent element. And because the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional without the intent element the statute was effectively revised.

This is how case law works.

The judicial branch routinely modifies laws created by the legislative branch.

So, it doesn't matter that the text says or implies that intent need not be proven. The Supreme Court said it does, and they have the final say, and this is how our system works

Intent will be the easiest thing to prove to a jury. Slam dunk.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Not at all--the point is that the absence of any mention of intent in this case where it is clearly mention in other cases of the same legislation indicates that in this case intent isn't necessary--if it was, it would have been mentioned just as it was in the other cases.

The problem with your argument Doug, is the Supreme Court didn't agree with you, the Supreme Court said the intent element is necessary, and the Supreme Court has the final say.

End of story.

Case closed.

Comey acted in accordance with the law.

Your problem is you don't understand how our legal system works.

 

[uptower]

Biden never said that he reclassified these documents.

So what does this logically mean?

If you accept the position of the current CIC (the foremost authority of classification ) that the documents ARE classified and you believe that the documents were never REclassified, then at no point in the past were those documents ever declassified.

You think he'd have noticed

 

[uptower]

The president doesn't need to issue an executive order do declassify something--as simple an act as handing a document to someone that lacks the clearance or reading something to a foreign leader over the phone is enough.

You seem very keen to take Mr Trump at his word. Do you believe him when he says this too?

Trump said former President George H.W. Bush kept secret government documents in a combination bowling alley and Chinese restaurant and should be investigated. Bush died in 2018.

Trump's speech also falsely claimed Barack Obama moved over 33 million pages of documents to a "totally unsafe former furniture store."

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Doug64]

You seem very keen to take Mr Trump at his word.

When did I say I took Trump at his word? I have no problem with requiring him to prove he declassified the documents in question. I'm simply pointing out that when it comes to declassification, presidents aren't bound by any of the regulations or procedures that apply to everyone else.

 

[uptower]

When did I say I took Trump at his word? I have no problem with requiring him to prove he declassified the documents in question. I'm simply pointing out that when it comes to declassification, presidents aren't bound by any of the regulations or procedures that apply to everyone else.

Well they are in the sense that at some point it has to be acknowledged and recorded and not after he leaves office when it becomes a problem.

In any case, I doubt you'll see his lawyers argue in court that he declassified anything: without a paper trail from the period, they can't prove it. So don't expect that 'argument' to linger outside forums like this.

 

[MTAtech]

Well they are in the sense that at some point it has to be acknowledged and recorded and not after he leaves office when it becomes a problem.

In any case, I doubt you'll see his lawyers argue in court that he declassified anything: without a paper trail from the period, they can't prove it. So don't expect that 'argument' to linger outside forums like this.

It's no different than Rudy saying crap in front of the Four Seasons Landscaping office that he wouldn't dare say in a court of law. Trump and his cult will say things on the news that they wouldn't put in legal filings. It's no surprise that Trump's lawyers didn't mention declassification of documents in court papers.

It is also inconsequential. Whether documents were classified or not doesn't affect the violation of the presidential records act. The only difference is that he may have also broken the Espionage Act too.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's no different than Rudy saying crap in front of the Four Seasons Landscaping office that he wouldn't dare say in a court of law. Trump and his cult will say things on the news that they wouldn't put in legal filings. It's no surprise that Trump's lawyers didn't mention declassification of documents in court papers.

It is also inconsequential. Whether documents were classified or not doesn't affect the violation of the presidential records act. The only difference is that he may have also broken the Espionage Act too.

Documents don't have to be classified to fall under the Espionage act. They have to be national defense related. So even if the FPOTUS declassified highly classified information - say - about a foreign countries nuclear capabilities and the methods about how that information was acquired [by mentally and secretly declassifying it] without telling anyone doesn't mean it is still not Espionage Act material.'

WW

 

[Doug64]

In any case, I doubt you'll see his lawyers argue in court that he declassified anything: without a paper trail from the period, they can't prove it. So don't expect that 'argument' to linger outside forums like this.

True, I doubt there's any kind of paper trail. The only argument I could see his lawyers making is that the act of ordering the documents removed to Mara Largo itself declassified them--just as other presidents declassified documents by simply reading them over the phone or handing them to someone without the clearance to read them. I have no idea how well that would or wouldn't fly.