re: Remember when Trump declassified all materials related to Russiagate?

quote:

---

But is a tweet tantamount to declassification??? If fact, yes it is.

---

quote:

---

There is no basis to require the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to reprocess over 4,000 pages of FD-302s from the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election by October 28. The President’s recent statements on Twitter referencing the “declassification” of information were not an order to the Department of Justice (the “Department” or “DOJ”) to declassify the materials in this case. Decl. of G. Bradley Weinsheimer ¶¶ 4–5 (Oct. 13, 2020). The Twitter statements do not constitute a self-executing declassification order. Id. ¶ 5. Indeed, they provide no more authority to the Department to declassify material that the Presidential Memorandum giving the Attorney General authority to declassify information that the President signed on May 23, 2019.1 See id. As with that memorandum, the President’s Twitter statements do not require the declassification of any particular documents and have not resulted in the declassification of any FD-302s at issue in this case. Id.

---

quote:

---

Plaintiffs claim that the President exercised his authority to declassify all of the information withheld from the FD-302s under Exemption 1 based on two statements the President made on Twitter. See Pls.’ Mot. 2. But the Twitter statements “were not self-executing declassification orders and do not require the declassification of any particular documents.” Weinsheimer Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiffs have pointed to no order declassifying the documents at issue in this case. See generally Pls.’ Mot. And DOJ is not aware of any order that either declassified the remaining documents at issue or directed declassification of them. Weinsheimer Decl. ¶ 4.

The Court cannot infer that any such sweeping order exists based on the President’s Twitter statements because they merely suggest that the President “authorized” the “declassification” of unspecified information. See Pls.’ Mot. Exh. A. The Twitter statements do not refer to any specific document and do not indicate that the President was exercising his Constitutional authority to declassify specific information. See id. They were not an order to declassify particular material. Weinsheimer Decl. ¶¶ 4–5. In contrast to the ambiguous Twitter statements at issue in Plaintiffs’ motion, the President has previously clearly declassified and disclosed information when he wished to do so. See, e.g., Letter from White House Counsel Donald McGahn to Representative Devin Nunes (Feb. 2, 2018) (explaining that the President declassified a memorandum and attaching that memorandum to the letter).4

The Department of Justice did not receive any similar directive to declassify the FD-302s at issue in this case. Weinsheimer Decl. ¶¶ 4–5. After the President made those statements on Twitter, DOJ officials conferred with the White House Counsel’s Office and were informed that there was no order requiring declassification or disclosure of any document at issue in this case. Id. “The Department was further informed that the President’s statements on Twitter were not self-executing declassification orders and do not require the declassification of any particular documents.” Id. ¶ 5. Although in May 2019, the President did delegate declassification authority to the Attorney General, to date, the Attorney General has not exercised that declassification authority to release any of the redacted material in this case based on the President’s Twitter statements. Id. In sum, the Twitter statements are not an order to declassify any FD-302s, the Department has never received such an order, and the Department subsequently confirmed with the White House Counsel’s Office that there was and is no order to declassify materials at issue in this case based on the Twitter statements. Id. ¶¶ 4–5.

---