re: Neil Gorsuch’s former law clerk says Trump has constitutional authority to declassify

quote:

---

I would argue that the fact that Trump tried to hide the existence of the document from the FBI makes a strong case against the argument that he declassified them.

---

Arguing facts not in evidence. If fact, all evidence is to the contrary. He was fully cooperating and the FBI viewed all of the documents in June. If you have to lie to make a point, it isn’t a great argument.

quote:

---

Trump's attorneys went so far as to sign documents stating that Trump had no further documents "marked classified" in his possession, a clear lie and criminal offense.

---

Link?

quote:

---

When documents are declassified, people in the government need to know that. If, for example, names of spies in Russia were declassified, the government would want to take steps to protect them. If nuclear deterrence procedures were declassified, the government would want to adjust their deterrence protocols.

---

Your wishes do not create a burden on anyone. Your beef is with the law. It doesn’t make sense to you and that is ok. It also doesn’t change the law.

quote:

---

Well shite, if a former law clerk says it, then who could doubt them?

---

Hmmmmm....word of a law clerk for a Supreme Court Justice vs snarky post from anonymous shite head on message board....

Have to ponder that one a bit....

quote:

---

The statement was signed after Jay Bratt, a top national security official in the U.S. Department of Justice, visited Trump's South Florida beach club on June 3, the New York Times reported.

---

Ah. So trump wasn’t cooperating when he allowed someone from the DOJ to come in and look at everything? Hint: don’t believe the editorialization of the New York Times.

The document signed said “various top secret documents”. That is not what you claimed at all. Do you have any evidence that the statement as written is not true?

quote:

---

same clerk claiming to have personal knowledge of the actions of POTUS

---

Which personal actions are you referring to? Does that influence the legal conclusion regarding constitutional authority?

quote:

---

Your wishes do not create a burden on anyone. Your beef is with the law. It doesn’t make sense to you and that is ok. It also doesn’t change the law.

---

It is amazing how far you will go to defend this. Our former POTUS had highly sensitive documents that he claimed he declassified in secret and then proceeded to hide the existence of those documents from the FBI.

Merely possessing the documents and hiding their existence from the government, whether declassified or not, is a violation of the espionage act.

Not informing the government of the declassification of said documents is a serious national security issue and I would guess could be grounds to charge under the espionage act.

And of course the obstruction of justice related to the attorneys signing documents that there were no more documents marked classified is pretty straight forward and someone will go to prison over that.

quote:

---

Merely possessing the documents and hiding their existence from the government, whether declassified or not, is a violation of the espionage act.

---

Cool, then Trump should be prosecuted in chronological order.

Immediately after Obama and Hillary's trial, we can go after him.

quote:

---

It is amazing how far you will go to defend this.

---

I’m discussing the law. You are discussing hypotheticals.

quote:

---

Our former POTUS had highly sensitive documents that he claimed he declassified in secret and then proceeded to hide the existence of those documents from the FBI.

---

This is not true. He didn’t hide a thing. His home was searched in June. They DOJ requested he keep the materials in a more safe environment. Which he did. This is well established. Your claims he hid documents is pure fantasy.

quote:

---

Merely possessing the documents and hiding their existence from the government, whether declassified or not, is a violation of the espionage act.

---

This is also not true. List the elements and let’s see if the facts you allege (which aren’t true) satisfy the elements.

quote:

---

Not informing the government of the declassification of said documents is a serious national security issue and I would guess could be grounds to charge under the espionage act.

---

You would guess wrong.

quote:

---

And of course the obstruction of justice related to the attorneys signing documents that there were no more documents marked classified is pretty straight forward and someone will go to prison over that.

---

obstruction? First of all, what you claim happened and what the documents your article references are two very different things. Second, what investigation did the attorneys actions obstruct? List the elements. Hint: there wasn’t an investigation. However, even if there was, surely you are aware the DOJ Manual provides that investigations by the FBI are not included in the types of investigations that can be obstructed.


You are arguing feelings. I am telling you to argue the law. In all of your prattling, I have yet to see you actually cite elements of a law that you claim was broken.

quote:

---

of course, the pragmatic question is “If Trump COULD have unilaterally declassified these documents at any time during his presidency, does it really matter whether he actually did so?”

---

The question should be “what affirmative action does a president have to do to declassify documents”. Then “did trump do that”

If we are talking pragmatism, the real question should be “why is the FBI raiding a former President’s house over a very common issue regarding documents when administrations change hands?”

quote:

---

The question should be “what affirmative action does a president have to do to declassify documents”. Then “did trump do that”

---

Those are the first two of three relevant questions.

I do not know whether you participated in the other thread, where a poster sarcastically suggested that Trump could’ve waved his Johnson over the documents and declared them declassified, without ever generating any paper whatsoever.

(1) HOW? Let’s say that is true. Johnson waiving DOES declassify.

(2) DID IT HAPPEN? Let’s say that the Johnson waving did take place.

(3) PROOF? How does a former POTUS ever PROVE that he waived his Johnson over the documents years ago, if he did not generate a contemporaneous memorandum of his actions? Is his word adequate to meet that burden of proof, and should it be?

quote:

---

It still doesn’t address the fact that the left is trying to frame this as some big criminal act. We all know that isn’t he case.

---

From what we have seen, I agree with you. Legally, I care less about this than about Billy Jeff’s hummers.

quote:

---

I disagree with number 3. If a President says he did it, that is self-authenticating. The burden should fall on those contesting it, IMO

---

In a few minutes of research, I cannot find any law directly on point, but this just does not make pragmatic sense to me. And (jokes aside) procedural law on things like BoP usually DO make sense when you think about them.

You basically assert that anyone challenging presidential action is put to a burden of proving a negative … PROVING that a POTUS did NOT do something that he theoretically could have done in his own head while sitting on the crapper.

Think about that. Some future, dishonest POTUS (a Benedict Arnold, if you will) decides to get rich after leaving office by taking TRULY sensitive, highly-classified documents at the end of his term and selling them to the Norks. He gets caught, claims that he secretly declassified the documents and claims that he had every right to give or sell non-classified materials to anyone he wants.

Are the American people left no recourse, because it is impossible to prove a negative?