milo10
Member

I would definitely question his motivations. I would love to know what Trump's motivations are on this one, but I don't question whether or not they were for the betterment of the country.

"Many of the officials spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity" Ahh... good old step 1.. they combined it with step 5 this time. 1. Anonymous sources 2. Wrap-up Smear

Check the classification. Then if you are still unsure, ask the President. No, I'm using it as an example of why the President has complete discretion over classification, period, according to the Constitution, and there is no other entity that has more power in this particular arena. My point is I'm arguing against people who seem believe that the government and classified documents are some sacred institution. I'm just letting you know I don't feel that way, but I'm still right about the law, and you aren't.

Kash Patel said the same thing I said - what I like to call the Michael Scott "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!!" theory on the President declassifying documents. He can literally just stand over a bunch of documents and declassify them, without doing anything else. He doesn't have to tell anybody, he doesn't have to re-label anything. These people attacking Trump are trying to promote the idea that un-elected bureaucrats have more power over classification than the duly elected President.

He declassified them while he was President. The President doesn't have to tell anybody. For example, if they are negotiating with a foreign leader, they may have to discuss classified information. For that purpose, the information is temporarily declassified so that he can discuss it with the foreign leader. Then it is reclassified for all intents and purposes. That all happens in the President's noggin, and nobody else needs to know. That is in the Constitution. I'm not really sure I've heard a strong argument for having information in the government classified in the first place. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I also like the idea that the government be fully transparent. So you may be arguing with the wrong person.

Trump didn't do that, but yes, he could. He said anything he took to his house was de-facto declassified. So he told people. But he didn't even have to do that. He went above an beyond what was required. In other words, if anybody has any question as to whether something was declassified or not, one simply only needs to ask Trump himself.

No, I'm following the Constitution and allowing the duly elected representative of the people to decide. You are trying to insinuate that un-elected bureaucrats should have more power than an elected official, which is a deep state, leftist talking point.

The Constitution gives supreme power to the President since the President is the commander in chief of the military. Classification of documents is related to national security, which is a function of the military. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf

Is that in the Constitution somewhere?

If you read the article, Trump basically said anything he took to his house was de-facto declassified. So they knew.

This sounds like one of those stories where the content 'pretty much' doesn't match the headline. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-raid-claim-instantly-declassify-documents-is-bs-leon-panetta-2022-8 "They have something to say" "There is a process"

The reasons he gave were important. Ron Paul has no future political aspirations, so he has nothing to lose. Trump will be in his final term with no future political aspirations. When you have nothing left to lose, you are free.

Did you listen to the clip? Ya it's a pipe dream, but that is completely missing the point.

Ya, from random people on this website forum, not from one of the premiere leaders of the Trump movement. You are one ungrateful person, generally, I've noticed.

Uh, ya, Derek Harvey, for example.. He was on Timcast last night, you can hear him in the link below. He worked in the Bush admin, worked closely with Cheney, and was literally in charge of our middle east policy. He said he doesn't understand why him and other Republicans were supporting the Bush admin back in the day, admits he was supporting "the lesser of two evils" (Gore/Kerry). He supports Ron and Rand and is in full support of them running for VP, or even Rand for President (Ron can't really run for President at this point, he wouldn't run, but I'm sure he would vote for him if he was in that position). Now that the neocons have gone home to the Democrat Party, the Republican Party stands out as the anti-war and smaller government party. Are they the anarchist party? No. Are they fully libertarian? Not exactly. But they are against the Covid mandates, they are for free speech and they are against never-ending wars. I'll take that any day over what the Democrats are offering. That doesn't mean I support just any Republican in any positition, but the Republican Party is not the same as it was under Bush, or even the same as it was 10 years ago. You are still living in the past. Ron Paul talked about taking over the Republican Party. Well, that kind of actually happened. We moved them closer to our position on many issues. There are still some hold-outs and some sell-outs and some that are compromised by the establishment, but we have made serious headway. Plenty of Republicans were upset about Trump's spending, but they continued to support him because he is so much better on so many other issues and while Trump would like to reduce spending in the longterm, he had goals for his Presidency that he felt included the necessity to vote for some egregious spending bills. The people who are part of the larger Trump movement were largely not happy with that particular aspect, and that is also a good sign we are moving in the right direction.

1559724422109532160 https://twitter.com/mister57juice/status/1559724422109532160 1559724621523521536 https://twitter.com/EviAngelakis/status/1559724621523521536

Because that is what the Constitution says?

Yes, 100%, and yes, he did.

My point was it was better than documentation, I was hoping somebody would try to deny that. If he had just written "Declassified" on the sides of the boxes with magic marker and stuck them in some random storage locker, you would have to figure out who did it. Did President Trump authorize it? Was it his handwriting? Was it Trump who had access to the storage locker? The questions go on and on. When the President takes classified documents TO HIS OWN HOUSE, then there is no question that the documents had been declassified, which he had the power to do. He can literally say it in his own head "These documents are now declassified" and not tell anybody and take them home. He is the sole authority on whether that occurred. If you ever want to know whether the documents were declassified, the only person who would know is Donald Trump.

Gave up the material when asked? Is that what you remember? Hillary deleted the emails with bleachbit and had her cell phones smashed with a hammer. Trump kept the documents at his home for 18 months.

He did document it. He took the documents to his house.

Here's another one. The right is saying that government transparency > government secrecy The left is saying that government secrecy > government transparency Choose your team wisely. We're not in 2012 anymore.

This is a cool little test to see if you are actually on the left or the right. The right is saying that the duly elected Commander and Chief who has ultimate authority over the declassification of documents declassified them. The left is saying that an un-elected bureaucratic state has the authority to "check" the President on this issue.

Yes. He said himself he declassified them. When the President is negotiating with a foreign leader, let's say they are negotiating a nuclear weapons treaty.. he doesn't have to go through a "process" to declassify certain materials in the middle of the negotiation. The President has ultimate authority on what gets declassified. There is no higher authority on this matter. Some "lawyer" you are.

He did declassify them. The President can declassify documents like Michael Scott declared bankruptcy in The Office.

I can compare them. Hillary Clinton was NOT the President and had no power to declassify documents. Trump was President and had the ultimate highest authority over such matters.

If you see two police officers fighting and try to break it up, would you say that is illegal, or just morally wrong?