Go back and reread the linked article and see that it is the position of the article (with citations), I'm just articulating it.
From the end of the article:
Our rulingHowever...Risch said, "The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process."
We found broad agreement that a president, using powers granted by the Constitution, is able to declassify essentially anything. However, experts added that Risch’s comment was not entirely on point for the particular situation involving Trump.
In this case, it appears Trump didn’t actually use his declassification power before talking to the Russian officials...
"There’s no question that the president has broad authority to declassify almost anything at any time without any process, but that’s not what happened here," said Stephen I. Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "He did not, in fact, declassify the information he shared with the Russians, which is why The Washington Post did not publish that information." Instead, Vladeck said, Trump "took it upon himself to authorize officials from a foreign government to receive classified national security information...
So there are two sides of the coin being discussed. One is declassifying a document; the other is keeping the document classified but giving someone clearance to see it. The article suggests that President Trump did both.
let’s postulate a scenario here. The President decides to declassify a document, but never makes a record of that decision or informs anyone. Subsequently, a subordinate is charged for sharing that document because no one knows it was declassified. In that case, the president could just say “ I declassified that document on this date” and that would be that. No further questions necessary. It’s not an issue of questioning whether the president had the right to declassify, but determining if he declassified the document.
First, we have to clarify the terms of the scenario. Is the President mid-term in office? The current Trump situation is that he says he declassified the documents on the way out and took them. Your hypothetical scenario seems to imply a case where he declassified with time to go in his term. I'd question that scenario by asking whether President Trump would notify at least his Chief of Staff that he is declassifying the document if he still had months or years remaining on his term. Do you know of other documents that remained in the archives that President Trump claims to have declassified but appear to remain classified that would suggest this as a viable what-if?
Now change the scenario a bit. The president declassified a document but never documented it nor informed anyone. All copies of the document still are marked as classified. The president leaves office, and months later one of his aides shares the document and is arrested for sharing classified data. The ex-president then says, “oh, I actually declassified that last year.” Without some way of verifying that, I doubt that would be accepted at face value.
Same as above. The basic question is what is the underlying reason for declassifying something? Most people (including President Trump, IMHO), take secrets seriously and don't just declassify casually like they're getting a can of soda from the fridge. There has to be a purpose.
I think President Trump truly felt humbled and honored to have been elected President because he loved the country so much and hated what he was seeing happening to it by the elite ruling class. I think he took his powers of office seriously and wouldn't willy-nilly and haphazardly declassify documents. On those terms I would dismiss hypotheticals based on those assumptions.
I do think that President Trump was surprised at how much of DC turned on him simply for winning. I think he was surprised by the lack of support that he got from his own party leaders. I think he was surprised by the back-stabbing he got from his own appointed staff members. I wouldn't be surprised if he amassed some evidence of people conspiring to undermine him in one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised of some of these documents were classified as "related to national defense" or "national security," but those are just dog whistles for "threats to Democrat party rule.
-PJ
First, the scenarios I proposed were not Trump specific, which is why I said “president” and “ex-president”. I wanted to address the general principle rather than the individual.
Second, most of what the article is discussing the classification authority in relation to a sitting president. It tries to extend that to a president leaving office, but I don’t find it persuasive. And honestly, I hope that position is never accepted as correct.
Let me explain why with another scenario. Let’s assume Trump used this as a defense and was able to get an expedited hearing by SCOTUS, and just prior to the election, SCOTUS agrees - any classified information the departing president takes with him is automatically declassified. Trump wins the election! On January 20th, Joe Biden packs up truckloads of sensitive confidential data that China, Ukraine and other countries would love to get their hands on. On January 21st, he sets up shop selling the information to the highest bidder - and there is not a thing anyone can do, because according to the premise you proposed, everything he takes is declassified and belongs to him. He even gives a big chunk to Hunter to set up his own shop selling the data - since the data is declassified, there can be no prohibition on him doing so.
Do you see the problem?