Careful now... you're gonna confuse him.

was something that had an actual point.
"Of course not, as everyone knows fascists are very lax when it comes to the law" wut? please explain your point because it makes no sense.. give some back up.. show an example.

Wow.

I kinda feel bad.



Lol you were right

This post was edited by DizzyBusiness on Jun 14 2023 10:34am

watching yourself pat yourself on the back for no reason is comical.

I'm happy you're happy

I don't think that's the argument. The argument is that he declassified those documents in fact by taking them out of a secure environment and depositing them at Mar-A-Lago. If the prosecution does in fact have a recording of Trump asserting that the documents are still classified, then that's very bad, as it's tough to find a buyer for an argument you don't believe in.

On classification, the President does have the power to declassify broadly, and that must be the case, as the President is the executive branch, and cannot be bound by restrictions subordinate to his own authority.

Re: the Espionage Act, it's probably high time that the constitutionality of the law was put before the Supreme Court.

"Deepstate" should be stricken from the public lexicon. What people are talking about is selective / dual-track justice and the rampant politicization of the US federal bureaucracy.

the issue is the distinction between taking them and storing them in mar a lago and simply thinking it is moot, because there's no legal distinction afaik.

the president shouldn't be beholden to ANYONE when it comes to declassification, but he should be beholden to a formulaic process that standardizes the practice. not just to prevent bullshit like this, but so that we as the public can be made aware that things are declassified. because under the freedom of information act any info that's declassified should also be publicly available. if a president say declassifies information about area 51 or the Manhattan project the public should have a recourse to know. as it stands a press briefing by a potus is a curtesy.

You know you have hit absolute rock bottom when you use the grade school level "name some books" argument. Absolutely zero shame.

I recall a situation that came up during the Obama administration, where a staffer / bureaucrat's input was necessary, but they lacked the necessary clearance to participate in the conversation. Obama solved that with a wave of the hand. Imo, that flexibility is important for effective decision making at the federal level.

In any case, what you're asking for should come from the legislative branch. The president should be able to overrule any order of the executive branch on a whim. I recognize that activist judges have attempted to circumscribe that interpretation (especially early in Trump's term), and those decisions were fundamentally wrong.

i agree, lets hope congress wakes up and actually decides to do their job for a change.