Posted on 06/09/2023 7:01:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Pages 25 & 26, the National Archives admits to not being able to track all individual documents in their possession:
“What do you mean No Additional Gun?????”
Buying a gun right now means you are likely to do something.
Lay low.
You can only shoot one gun at a time. Buying more guns only gives the government more tax revenue.
Remember these people hate Trump, but they love money more.
Pay off credit card debt ASAP to reduce your future financial risks and remove a highly profit source of income to our masters.
I bet if Trump said he was stepping out of the election all this would go away.
Sounds like being retired.
"...And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward..."
They have no more gambit left except prison or death.
The complaint is it was made public the day there was movement on Burisma. It wouldn’t have been made public until sometime later. Yet Trump disclosed it. The decision to release it to the public on the same day as other important news was entirely Trump’s.
Honestly, this indictment is long overdue. IMHO, they have been slow & careful about this. It was May 6th, 2021 when the archives first noticed documents were missing and began the process to notify Trump asking for return. It took until January of 2022 for the first group of documents to be returned. The documents saga goes back over 2 years. Had those boxes been in your or my possession, an indictment would have long ago been served and we would either be at trial or had received the results of a jury. They just gave him a lot of rope. He decided what to do with the rope. I guess we could complain that they should have known what he’d do with that much rope.
The media had no knowledge of the release.
.
RE: IMHO, they have been slow & careful about this. It was May 6th, 2021 when the archives first noticed documents were missing and began the process to notify Trump asking for return. It took until January of 2022 for the first group of documents to be returned. The documents saga goes back over 2 years. Had those boxes been in your or my possession, an indictment would have long ago been served
1. What’s this “ had these boxes been in your or my possession” comparison? You and I are not the President and do not have declassification powers. This is not an apt comparison.
2. Trump’s team had been cooperating with the DOJ from the start. However, They are DISPUTING whether certain documents legally belong to the archives or to Trump’s possession. Since it is a legal dispute, the process should have been given time to play out, preferably by a court decision. Merrick Garland’s DOJ did not wait for the process to play out, charging Trump with obstruction instead.
How long ago it was demanded has no bearing on WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE by the Justice Department. They jumped the gun for obvious political reasons.
In what ways were they disputing it? It seems there were a few times when documents were returned it was portrayed by the Trump team as ALL the documents. I can’t find where there was any legal discussion of all documents except those we believe we can keep, or we are in agreement we can keep or filing of a disagreement of what can be kept and what must be returned. Even as a former President claim a shipment represents ALL the documents while withholding those that you want to keep for whatever reason.
Had Trump played by the rules, I doubt he’d be up the creek he finds himself in. There are legal proceedings that could have returned the documents to him if he were entitled to them. Unfortunately, he’s put himself over the constitution and is putting us in a constitutional crisis.
There is a declassification process. Allegedly Trump knows the process.
U.S. Const., Art I, Sec 1: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
All executive power is vested in the President. His power to classify and declassify comes from the Constitution. The authority of all subordinates to classify or declassify is derived from the President.
The declassification process is not issued in a law but in an Executive Order issued by the President to his subordinates. His own power to declassify is plenary.
It may help to understand the nuances of the law. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/
Some separate issues. Declassification and the process of it. And treatment of presidential records.It may help to understand the nuances of the law.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/
At the link you provided:
In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said.
I note as a nuance that the President is not an official, designated or otherwise. The Court was addressing Agency action by some official.
That case was between a newspaper and a government agency. The pull quote is from a Second Circuit Court Opinion, not a Supreme Court Opinion. The case has nothing to do with any President having claimed to declassify anything. The Times claimed that a mean tweet inferred declassification. The Court found that novel argument to be without merit.
The New York Times v Central Intelligence Agency, 965 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2020)
III. The President's Statements Did Not Declassify the Existence of the Covert ProgramThe Times next contends that the President's tweet and statements to the Wall Street Journal interviewer declassified the fact that the program existed, thus precluding the CIA from invoking FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3. The Times argues that this "conclusion flows inexorably from the President's supreme authority in matters of classification." This novel argument is without merit.
It is true that the President has broad authority to classify and declassify, derived from the President's dual role "as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief" of the armed forces. The "authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."
Dep't of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527, 108 S.Ct. 818, 98 L.Ed.2d 918 (1988).
Id. (citing Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 890, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961) ).
To make its declassification claim, the Times essentially recasts its "official acknowledgement" claim as one of "inferred declassification." 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. The first is easily disposed of because we have already found that the statements are insufficiently specific to quell any "lingering doubts" about what they reference. The second requires further discussion.
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
Congressional Research Service Report, Procedures for Declassifying Intelligence of Public Interest, August 4, 2022
Executive Order (E.O.) 13526, Classified National Security Information, signed by President Barack Obama on December 29, 2009, provides guidance to federal agencies on classification and declassification of information.[...]
The President has the authority to declassify documents in the public interest that originated in any department or agency of the executive branch.
I would note that the President is not a Federal agency, nor does he issue Executive Orders to provide himself with guidance.
In Egan, the U.S. Supreme Court stated the classification authority of the President and Commander-in-Chief and its source being the Constitution and existing quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep484518/
Dep't of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 526-27 (1988)
The Court of Appeals' majority stated: "The absence of any statutory provision precluding appellate review of security clearance denials in section 7512 removals creates a strong presumption in favor of appellate review," citing Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 141 (1967). 802 F. 2d, at 1569. One perhaps may accept this as a general proposition of administrative law, but the proposition is not without limit, and it runs aground when it encounters concerns of national security, as in this case, where the grant of security clearance to a particular employee, a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment call, is committed by law to the appropriate agency of the Executive Branch.The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 890 (1961). This Court has recognized the Government's "compelling interest" in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. Snepp v. United States, 444 U. S. 507, 509, n. 3 (1980). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 267 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 10 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105, 106 (1876). The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief.
The President's grant of the entirety of the Execuive power comes via direct grant in the Constitution and is plenary. E.O. 13526, Classified National Security Information, provides guidance to federal agencies on classification and declassification of information.
Who, above the Constitution, has the power to create hoops to jump through, and require the President to jump through them to exercise his constitutional authority to classify and declassify? The Legislative Branch has no power to do it. President Obama had no authority to issue an Executive Order that would be binding upon President Trump. Upon taking office, President Trump could have issued an Executive Order cancelling all existing Executive Orders. The President does not issue Executive Orders restricting his own constitutional authority.
Thank you for the response. In your last sentence you noted that he/she wouldn’t issue orders restricting themselves. But they would for for compliance purposes.
Thank you for the response. In your last sentence you noted that he/she wouldn’t issue orders restricting themselves. But they would for for compliance purposes.
The Executive Order advises the subordinate Agencies.
What is the President compelled to comply with? He has sole authority to classify documents as Presidential or Personal. See Judicial Watch v. NARA.
Admittedly, this means the President can misclassify documents as Personal when they should be classified as Presidential, but it is his sole authority to perform the classification. The alternative is to have some subordinate dictating the decision to the President.
Judicial Watch v. NARA, 845 F Supp 2d 288 (DDC 2012)
At 19-21:
If certain records are not designated as Presidential records, the Archivist has no statutory obligation to take any action at all, and there is nothing to compel under the APA.In order to accept plaintiff’s theory that section 2203(f)(1) of the PRA creates a mandatory duty for the Archivist to assume custody and control of what he or she considers to be Presidential records regardless of how the President designated the documents, the Court would be required to ignore the rest of the PRA’s statutory scheme. This it cannot do. See Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 420 U.S. 395, 403 (1975) (stating that a statutory provision must be “read together with the rest of the Act”).
[...]
The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency. It provides: “materials produced or received by the President, [and other Executive Office employees], shall, to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” Id. § 2203(b). The PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President “categorized” and “filed separately” as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only “assume[s] responsibility for . . . the Presidential records.” Id. § 2203(f)(1).
[...]
... the PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)–(b).
Presidential Records Act of 1978, 92 Stat 2523
“§ 2201. Definitions"As used in this chapter—
"(1) The term 'documentary material' means all books, correspondence memorandums, documents, papers pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio, audiovisual, or other electronic or mechanical recordations."(2) The term 'Presidential records' means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term—
"(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying. out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but"(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code) (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.
"(3) The term 'personal records' means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—
"(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business"(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
"(C) materials relating exclusively to the President's own election to the office of the Presidency ; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
"(4) The term 'Archivist' means the Archivist of the United States.
"(5) The term 'former President', when used with respect to Presidential records, means the former President during whose term or terms of office such Presidential records were created.
- - - - - - - - -
2203. Management and custody of Presidential records"(a) Through the implementation of records management controls and other necessary actions, the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records pursuant to the requirements of this section and other provisions of law.
"(b) Documentary materials produced or received by the President, his staff, or units or individuals in the Executive Office of the President the function of which is to advise and assist the President, shall, to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.
[...]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.