Liberal Forum

Question: Does the Presidential Records Act authorize the president to declassify documents at will, without a formal process, even by the President 'thinking it' (as Trump claimed)?

Answer: No, the Presidential Records Act (PRA) does not authorize the president to declassify documents at will or by simply thinking it. The PRA is a federal law that governs the management and preservation of presidential records generated during a president's time in office. It establishes that presidential records are the property of the United States government and should be preserved and made available to the public after a certain period.

Declassification of documents, on the other hand, falls under the authority of executive orders and other statutes specifically related to classification and declassification. The president does have the authority to declassify certain documents, but this power is typically exercised through established processes and procedures. The specific procedures for declassifying documents can vary depending on the nature of the information, the agencies involved, and the applicable executive orders or statutes.

It is important to note that even though the president has the authority to declassify documents, this authority is not unlimited. There are still considerations of national security, ongoing investigations, and other factors that may restrict or limit the declassification of certain information.

Question: Which law states that it is illegal to remove national defense information documents from their secure locations.?

Answer: This is the Espionage Act of 1917, which encompasses various provisions related to the mishandling, removal, or disclosure of national defense information. Under this act, it is illegal to remove national defense documents from their secure locations without authorization.

Question: What is the DOJ policy regarding prosecuting those who take them inadvertently but who do return them when the government requests them returned? [This is the case with Biden and Pence]

Answer: Regarding the Department of Justice's (DOJ) policy on prosecuting individuals [Biden and Pence] who inadvertently take national defense information but later return it when requested by the government, it ultimately depends on the specific circumstances and facts of each case. Generally, the DOJ considers factors such as intent, willfulness, and the overall impact of the actions [i.e., the DNI damage assessments] when deciding whether to prosecute. In cases where the individual's actions were unintentional, and they promptly return the documents when requested, the DOJ may exercise discretion and determine that prosecution is not warranted. However, this is a decision made on a case-by-case basis.

Question: What is the DOJ Policy regarding prosecuting those who knowingly, wilfully, though with a mistaken understanding of the Presidential Records Act, and use deceptive tactics to avoid returning them when the Government requests them by subpoena? [This is the case with Trump]

Answer: Regarding the DOJ's policy on prosecuting individuals who knowingly and willfully avoid returning national defense documents when requested by subpoena, the DOJ takes a more serious view. If someone knowingly and willfully disregards a subpoena and uses deceptive tactics to avoid returning the documents, they may face criminal charges for obstruction of justice or contempt of court, depending on the specific circumstances. The DOJ generally views such actions as serious offenses, as they undermine the legal process and hinder the government's ability to conduct investigations.

In my view, given recent events surrounding Trump and NDI docs, Trump's goose is cooked. 
 
 
 

Prospero » 01 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm

Question: Does the Presidential Records Act authorize the president to declassify documents at will, without a formal process, even by the President 'thinking it' (as Trump claimed)?

Answer: No, the Presidential Records Act (PRA) does not authorize the president to declassify documents at will or by simply thinking it. The PRA is a federal law that governs the management and preservation of presidential records generated during a president's time in office. It establishes that presidential records are the property of the United States government and should be preserved and made available to the public after a certain period.

Declassification of documents, on the other hand, falls under the authority of executive orders and other statutes specifically related to classification and declassification. The president does have the authority to declassify certain documents, but this power is typically exercised through established processes and procedures. The specific procedures for declassifying documents can vary depending on the nature of the information, the agencies involved, and the applicable executive orders or statutes.

It is important to note that even though the president has the authority to declassify documents, this authority is not unlimited. There are still considerations of national security, ongoing investigations, and other factors that may restrict or limit the declassification of certain information.

...

In my view, given recent events surrounding Trump and NDI docs, Trump's goose is cooked.

If you read your copy-paste for comprehension, rather than for confirmation, you will see that even if Trump DID break the law - and your copy paste by no means confirms this, - it is virtually certain there will be no trial. Putting the matter before a jury would involve the complexity of convincing that jury that yes, this **** really WAS top secret (Here, look - we'll show you how sensitive these documents are, because 12 average people can be trusted with top secret information). 

I very particularly enjoyed this bit of rhetoric: "The president does have the authority to declassify certain documents, but this power is typically exercised through established processes and procedures."

The implicit suggestion that atypical = criminal is downright laughable - but the laughability escapes partisans. They're too engaged by we got him this time. 

This snippet is also quite important: "The specific procedures for declassifying documents can vary depending on the nature of the information, the agencies involved, and the applicable executive orders or statutes." Imagine being a prosecutor and having to slow-walk a jury through procedures that "can vary depending on" (a multiplicity of factors) - and then establishing which of those factors came into play in the case at hand, then establishing beyond reasonable doubt to 12 impartial jurors that these documents threatened national security without threatening national security by showing them the offending documents.

Then there is the fact that biden took several times as many, treated them several times more carelessly, and did it when he WASN'T president, and DIDN'T have declassification authority. Your focus on trump's behavior, given that far, far more egregious behavior by biden, removes all doubt of your partisanship. 

You got him this time, scooter. You got him this time.     

 
 

Only time will tell if he is guilty ! 

And he'll be dead before they can put him away.

When you have LOTS of $$$....appeals can go on forever before it =15pxreaches the Supreme Court.

It isn't a question of whether they were classified.
Trump is in trouble for not producing the documents when asked for them. After a year of trying to get them the orange groomer still hadn't gave them up so he got served a warrant and they were retrieved by other means.
If he would have gave them back without obstruction he wouldn't be in trouble.

Prospero » 01 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm

 

Another sock puppet.    

Squatchman » 02 Jun 2023, 1:02 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 1:02 am

It isn't a question of whether they were classified.
Trump is in trouble for not producing the documents when asked for them. After a year of trying to get them the orange groomer still hadn't gave them up so he got served a warrant and they were retrieved by other means.
If he would have gave them back without obstruction he wouldn't be in trouble.

Trump and I agree, you and your cohorts can kiss our ***.......funny how you appropriate the groomer tag, does it run in the family?

Squatchman » 02 Jun 2023, 1:02 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 1:02 am

It isn't a question of whether they were classified.
Trump is in trouble for not producing the documents when asked for them. After a year of trying to get them the orange groomer still hadn't gave them up so he got served a warrant and they were retrieved by other means.
If he would have gave them back without obstruction he wouldn't be in trouble.

And here lies the **** in your post!!

IF indeed these documents were soooo sensitive that they required CLASSIFIED markings, then you need to PROVE he didn't declassify them!! AND that they were being kept from the National Archives for nefarious reasons, of which NONE of that had happened!!

You see, there is MORE than sufficient evidence that Trump's team were in NEGOTIATIONS for documents to be returned and ones to be retained. What happened was the DOJ decided to turn this into a POLITICAL THEATER and do a raid complete with LEAKED PHOTOS to the press so they could make an even BIGGER SPLASH to destroy Trump and his backed candidates. But you are just too effing STUPID to understand that there was NO CRIME committed here, except by the DOJ to affect an election.

AND in order to show "obstruction" you need to PROVE that all attempts to return these documents had been blocked, which there is MORE THAN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to prove that is NOT the case. SO you LOSE THAT ONE squattyman!!

           
 

Prospero » 01 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm

In my view, given recent events surrounding Trump and NDI docs, Trump's goose is cooked.

So, why the question mark?

Is Trump going to jail?

 



 
 

Prospero » 01 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm

Question: Does the Presidential Records Act authorize the president to declassify documents at will, without a formal process, even by the President 'thinking it' (as Trump claimed)?

Answer: No, the Presidential Records Act (PRA) does not authorize the president to declassify documents at will or by simply thinking it. The PRA is a federal law that governs the management and preservation of presidential records generated during a president's time in office. It establishes that presidential records are the property of the United States government and should be preserved and made available to the public after a certain period.

Declassification of documents, on the other hand, falls under the authority of executive orders and other statutes specifically related to classification and declassification. The president does have the authority to declassify certain documents, but this power is typically exercised through established processes and procedures. The specific procedures for declassifying documents can vary depending on the nature of the information, the agencies involved, and the applicable executive orders or statutes.

It is important to note that even though the president has the authority to declassify documents, this authority is not unlimited. There are still considerations of national security, ongoing investigations, and other factors that may restrict or limit the declassification of certain information.


 

The US Constitution, by making the President Commander in Chief, gives the President authority to declassify anything he damn well pleases (and to classify anything he wants classified).  Others in the government have a process that must be followed.  While most President follow that procedure as well, they ARE NOT REQUIRED to do so.  If you remember, early in his term Trump mentioned something that was classified to a foreign visitor in the Oval.  There was a "big hubub" on CNNLOL and MSNBS until one of their experts pointed out Trump had the authority to declassify and when he shared the information it made it no longer classified.

Trump is in trouble for violating the Presidential Records Act (which was also violated by Obama, Carter, Clinton, Biden and Pence).  Oddly enough, only one appears to be facing jail time. I wonder why? (not really).

 

Cannonpointer » 02 Jun 2023, 12:55 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 12:55 am

If you read your copy-paste for comprehension, rather than for confirmation, you will see that even if Trump DID break the law - and your copy paste by no means confirms this, - it is virtually certain there will be no trial. Putting the matter before a jury would involve the complexity of convincing that jury that yes, this **** really WAS top secret (Here, look - we'll show you how sensitive these documents are, because 12 average people can be trusted with top secret information). 

I very particularly enjoyed this bit of rhetoric: "The president does have the authority to declassify certain documents, but this power is typically exercised through established processes and procedures."

The implicit suggestion that atypical = criminal is downright laughable - but the laughability escapes partisans. They're too engaged by we got him this time. 

This snippet is also quite important: "The specific procedures for declassifying documents can vary depending on the nature of the information, the agencies involved, and the applicable executive orders or statutes." Imagine being a prosecutor and having to slow-walk a jury through procedures that "can vary depending on" (a multiplicity of factors) - and then establishing which of those factors came into play in the case at hand, then establishing beyond reasonable doubt to 12 impartial jurors that these documents threatened national security without threatening national security by showing them the offending documents.

Then there is the fact that biden took several times as many, treated them several times more carelessly, and did it when he WASN'T president, and DIDN'T have declassification authority. Your focus on trump's behavior, given that far, far more egregious behavior by biden, removes all doubt of your partisanship. 

You got him this time, scooter. You got him this time.   

I'm sure this was just an honest oversight by the OP author.   
 

Beekeeper » 02 Jun 2023, 6:28 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 6:28 am

And here lies the **** in your post!!

IF indeed these documents were soooo sensitive that they required CLASSIFIED markings, then you need to PROVE he didn't declassify them!! AND that they were being kept from the National Archives for nefarious reasons, of which NONE of that had happened!!

You see, there is MORE than sufficient evidence that Trump's team were in NEGOTIATIONS for documents to be returned and ones to be retained. What happened was the DOJ decided to turn this into a POLITICAL THEATER and do a raid complete with LEAKED PHOTOS to the press so they could make an even BIGGER SPLASH to destroy Trump and his backed candidates. But you are just too effing STUPID to understand that there was NO CRIME committed here, except by the DOJ to affect an election.

AND in order to show "obstruction" you need to PROVE that all attempts to return these documents had been blocked, which there is MORE THAN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to prove that is NOT the case. SO you LOSE THAT ONE squattyman!!

         

The entire issue of 'declassification' is pretty much a moot issue.  It won't matter if Trump declassified them or not.  Violation of the Espionage Act does not depend on any classification regime.  It will depend much more so on DNI damage assessments, as well as aggravating factors (such as Trump's obstruction).  Etc. 

But, to reply to your claim that 'we must prove he didn't declassify them'. No, the onus is on those who make claims to prove their claim. Trump has claimed that he 'declassified them with his thoughts', which is an absurd claim.   If classification was an issue (and it isn't that much), Trump will need to prove that he declassified the documents, but we know that he didn't, because there is no proof (noting that a new tape produced proves that he didn't), nor are any of his aides willing to testify under oath that Trump declassified them. Some have claimed otherwise, such as John Bolton, Bill Barr, and others.  
 

Jantje_Smit » 02 Jun 2023, 6:31 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 6:31 am

So, why the question mark?

 

The OP is in a question & answer format.  So, it follows that the subject is in question form, and the conclusion of the OP is the answer. 

Not rocket science..   
 
 Ps, you appear to be smoking something. 
Just sayin'  
 

No

ConsRule » 02 Jun 2023, 7:36 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 7:36 am

The US Constitution, by making the President Commander in Chief, gives the President authority to declassify anything he damn well pleases (and to classify anything he wants classified).  Others in the government have a process that must be followed.  While most President follow that procedure as well, they ARE NOT REQUIRED to do so.

Ahh, but the problem is that a former president, who 'claims he declassified them', note that he is NO LONGER PRESIDENT as he makes that claim.  Capiche?  He will then have to prove that he declassified them (should that become an issue, and it won't so much, as is explained below). Without his following the protocols of memorialization, he won't have proof.  So, your point is really of no consequence and is, indeed, problematic, when it comes to legal jeopardy.  

If you remember, early in his term Trump mentioned something that was classified to a foreign visitor in the Oval.  There was a "big hubub" on CNNLOL and MSNBS until one of their experts pointed out Trump had the authority to declassify and when he shared the information it made it no longer classified.

Trump is in trouble for violating the Presidential Records Act (which was also violated by Obama, Carter, Clinton, Biden and Pence).  Oddly enough, only one appears to be facing jail time. I wonder why? (not really).

While you make an interesting point, that the 'President can declassify anything he damn well pleases',  that's not quite accurate.  He certainly cannot declassify, without consent from the issuing authority,  'restricted data' documents (nuclear secrets, see the AEA).  Moreover, his classification authority is monitored by an Executive Order which now establishes protocols for declassification.  However, we can argue this until the end of time, but it's a moot point.  A violation of the Espionage act does not depend on the classification regime. It will depend much more so on DNI damage assessments.  Trump Claims He Declassified All the Documents at Mar-a-Lago. Even if That’s True, it Probably Doesn’t Matter - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

AS for other presidents, another interesting point, but it appears that DOJ policy regarding high level execs who take NDI docs, it's more of an issue of aggravated circumstances, such as obstruction, deliberate taking, that sort of thing, which does exist with Trump, not so much the other presidents.  The DOJ will give former and existing presidents the benefit of the doubt that they took the docs inadvertently, and all they need to do is return them. Which is what Biden and Pence did. However, Trump went on TV and admitted he deliberately took them and that he had the right to do it, then he obstructed the govs attempts to retrieve certain documents.  

 
 

Cannonpointer » 02 Jun 2023, 12:55 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 12:55 am

If you read your copy-paste for comprehension, rather than for confirmation, you will see that even if Trump DID break the law - and your copy paste by no means confirms this, - it is virtually certain there will be no trial. Putting the matter before a jury would involve the complexity of convincing that jury that yes, this **** really WAS top secret (Here, look - we'll show you how sensitive these documents are, because 12 average people can be trusted with top secret information). 

I very particularly enjoyed this bit of rhetoric: "The president does have the authority to declassify certain documents, but this power is typically exercised through established processes and procedures."

The implicit suggestion that atypical = criminal is downright laughable - but the laughability escapes partisans. They're too engaged by we got him this time. 

This snippet is also quite important: "The specific procedures for declassifying documents can vary depending on the nature of the information, the agencies involved, and the applicable executive orders or statutes." Imagine being a prosecutor and having to slow-walk a jury through procedures that "can vary depending on" (a multiplicity of factors) - and then establishing which of those factors came into play in the case at hand, then establishing beyond reasonable doubt to 12 impartial jurors that these documents threatened national security without threatening national security by showing them the offending documents.

Then there is the fact that biden took several times as many, treated them several times more carelessly, and did it when he WASN'T president, and DIDN'T have declassification authority. Your focus on trump's behavior, given that far, far more egregious behavior by biden, removes all doubt of your partisanship. 

You got him this time, scooter. You got him this time.   

You rightly point out the "squishy" words.
  - Certain, typically, can, etc.
This type of wording is intentional for the very reasons you mention.
The legal eagles writing (and passing) this stuff cannot predict when it will (sorry, I mean MAY) gore their own ox.

Cannonpointer » 02 Jun 2023, 12:55 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 12:55 am

[ ...edited for the 4000 word count...]

You got him this time, scooter. You got him this time.   

I don't think quantity is the basis for justifying prosecution as much are aggravating circumstances, such as where we have evidence of Trump deliberately taking NDI docs, given that he stated on TV that 'I have every right to take them' (negating any 'I didn't know my underlings took them' arguments) and there is a new tape where Trump admits he had classified documents, and couldn't reveal the contents of the documents to the folks he was talking to in the tape, which proves he didn't declassify them.  

Moreover, we have testimony from workers at Mar A Lago stating that Trump ordered the moving of boxes to hide them from the FBI after a subpoena was given. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1bHlNI
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/12/politics ... index.html

So, the DOJ will look for a serious aggravated circumstance, such as obstruction of justice.  This had to have occurred to warrant a federal magistrate signing off on a search warrant on the home of a former US President, you can rest assured he made sure there was more than sufficient probable cause for such a search, given the stakes involved. Moreover, the testimony of Trump ordering aides to move boxes to hide them from the FBI is more evidence of obstruction.  Therefore, the DOJ is far more likely to prosecute Trump than they would of Biden or Pence, where such aggravating circumstances are not there.  Carelessness, perhaps, but I doubt they are going to indict a sitting US President and a former VP on that, alone. 

You seem to dismiss the possibility of Trump facing legal consequences without providing much evidence or logical reasoning to back up your claim. You mention that it would be unlikely for there to be a trial because if would be difficult to convince a jury. However, this argument doesn't have a strong foundation and doesn't consider the legal processes involved in such a case. 

You also criticize the statement about the typical exercise of a president's authority to declassify documents. You interpret it as suggesting that any deviation from typical procedures is automatically considered criminal. But I think you might have misinterpreted the intention of that statement. It's more about emphasizing the importance of established processes and procedures, rather than labeling atypical actions as criminal right away. 

Another point you raise is the complexity of navigating procedures and factors in a trial, especially when it comes to establishing the threatening nature of the documents beyond a reasonable doubt. It's true that presenting complex information to a jury can be challenging. However, it's the responsibility of legal professionals to present evidence and arguments in a clear and comprehensive manner.  Just because it might be difficult doesn’t mean a trial should automatically be ruled out.  

You also mention Biden's actions and suggest that they were more egregious than Trump's. While that is an interesting point (and a very debatable point with which I most certain do not accept as valid) it doesn't directly address the legality of Trump's actions or the potential consequences Trump might face. It's important to evaluate each case independently based on the available evidence and applicable laws. 

so, in sum, your rebuttal seems to rely on speculative arguments and misinterpretations of the OP. It lacks strong evidence and logical reasoning to support your claims and doesn't fully address the legal aspects and potential consequences of Trump's actions. 

 
 

Prospero » 02 Jun 2023, 5:06 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 5:06 pm

I don't think quantity is the basis for justifying prosecution as much are aggravating circumstances, such as where we have evidence of Trump deliberately taking NDI docs, given that he stated on TV that 'I have every right to take them' (negating any 'I didn't know my underlings took them' arguments) 

As opposed to biden sneaking them out and letting anyone and everyone access them? At least t-Rump had an ARGUMENT. Biden was just a sneak thief of classified docs.

Okay, goomer. 
 

Prospero » 02 Jun 2023, 4:20 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 4:20 pm

Ahh, but the problem is that a former president, who 'claims he declassified them', note that he is NO LONGER PRESIDENT as he makes that claim.  Capiche?  He will then have to prove that he declassified them (should that become an issue, and it won't so much, as is explained below). Without his following the protocols of memorialization, he won't have proof.  So, your point is really of no consequence and is, indeed, problematic, when it comes to legal jeopardy.  

While you make an interesting point, that the 'President can declassify anything he damn well pleases',  that's not quite accurate.  He certainly cannot declassify, without consent from the issuing authority,  'restricted data' documents (nuclear secrets, see the AEA).  Moreover, his classification authority is monitored by an Executive Order which now establishes protocols for declassification.  However, we can argue this until the end of time, but it's a moot point.  A violation of the Espionage act does not depend on the classification regime. It will depend much more so on DNI damage assessments.  Trump Claims He Declassified All the Documents at Mar-a-Lago. Even if That’s True, it Probably Doesn’t Matter - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

AS for other presidents, another interesting point, but it appears that DOJ policy regarding high level execs who take NDI docs, it's more of an issue of aggravated circumstances, such as obstruction, deliberate taking, that sort of thing, which does exist with Trump, not so much the other presidents.  The DOJ will give former and existing presidents the benefit of the doubt that they took the docs inadvertently, and all they need to do is return them. Which is what Biden and Pence did. However, Trump went on TV and admitted he deliberately took them and that he had the right to do it, then he obstructed the govs attempts to retrieve certain documents.
 

If he declassified them as President, they stay declassified after he leaves office. 

Yes, he can.  If you contend otherwise, provide a cite.

Except for Congress, any "issuing authority works for the President.

 

ConsRule » 02 Jun 2023, 6:20 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 6:20 pm

If he declassified them as President, they stay declassified after he leaves office. 

Yes, he can.  If you contend otherwise, provide a cite.

Except for Congress, any "issuing authority works for the President.

he said he declassified them in his head

I dont give a ****, but you ever tRumpers crack me up

LincolnNebraska » 02 Jun 2023, 6:17 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2023, 6:17 am

Another sock puppet.  

THIS IS HIS GIVEAWAY
"Just sayin' "