DeSantis can't get enough credit for pulling off the win in a perennial swing state in a D+8.6 wave year against an opponent who we know in hindsight would have been a total disaster.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 11 2022 10:15pm

To previous comments about how “trump can just declassify them” not entirely true. The process has to be specific and memorialized. and the power doesn’t exist post losing an election. Lol
So unless the endless baboon pre documented and identifies these specific things as “declassified “ previously. They remain classified.
Trump again self owning because he’s too stupid

Plenty of room for crystal meth and male hookers in the florida governors mansion, but if he started pulling an ed buck I'm not sure he'd be the one to survive

There is no such process, because there is no law precedent. Its an example of one of those matters of law where there is no guidance, no means to say what is legal. Because its never been tested, because no prosecutor has ever been insane enough to target a former president. The legal theory goes that the president has the implicit power to declassify information without any formal process, and there is no guidance as to whether this privilege stops existing when he leaves office or applies to documents he held from his time in office or continues onwards or what limitations exist. Its simply uncharted legal territory. And we functioned well enough when it remained that, because its precisely the kind of legal scuffle that should not exist in a functioning democracy.

There is only a handful of legal cases touching on the broad powers of the president. 1988 Navy v Egan established that "{The presidents} 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.". Under that ruling, not only does the president have unilateral authority to classify or declassify, but laws passed by congress cannot infringe on the president's power without violating the separation of powers. And then there's nothing about how this applies in the case of former presidents, or materials they declassified or claim as declassified, or slapfights against their successors. In a functioning democracy, these are treated as little more than legal quirks for scholars to disregard. In a banana republic where one administration seeks to persecute the last in a power struggle, we get what we're seeing now.

and as long as I get the opening to triple post;


I think the late Antonin Scalia had a good focus on these kinds of constitutional disputes.
The 'constitution' as written by the founding fathers is just a piece of paper. Its just scribbles. America has one, but so does every banana republic, so did the USSR. Didn't stop Beria from running around locking up and murdering dissidents (and raping young girls). The true constitution of America, its structure, its health, is its civil agreement on a shared system of laws. You can't have people trying to apply game theory and min/max every facet of the law to their most exploitative ends or the system simply falls apart, its not resilient, there's no magic to the canon of law. There are plenty of ways to persecute an opposition or a minority or a rival under the color of law, rewriting it, redefining it, selectively applying it. Only when you're willing to be civil can civil society work. Even Donald Trump, for all his lumpy self and posturing and bellicose rhetoric, showed that fiber in the hours after his election, when he turned around and said jk we're not locking her up, forget about Clinton, she's free to go. He didn't try to bring the temple down on her, he didn't weaponize his DoJ to target Obama, he didn't fill a whole wing of a prison with the liberals who demonstrated against him or send storm troopers to break down the door of liberal journalists.

So current situation because he trump didn't' identify them previously.. so he is forever the judge and jury of classification? That makes zero sense.
Choosing as he wishes as a NON president, what is deemed classified or not.. It has to be noted and categorized as un classified to get said status.
He's not president now.. so he cannot do it now.. so that means he had to do it before while acting president which he didn't. So they remain classified.
I read your same internet copy. Keep reading and copy paste that part.

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Aug 11 2022 10:46pm

You should learn more about history than watching the Death of Stalin so you can reference someone besides Beria.

Well lets see 1) trump took them with him when departing office, which is enough to argue that he implicitly declassified them and 2) there is no legal standard to deny that as former president he's entitled to the classification of materials from his tenure as president 3) none of that should matter

I don't think you are appreciating the overarching point: There is no precedent. There is no law or statute or established doctrine to cover any of this. Its being made up as we go along, and baseless arguments are all the DoJ has, same as Trump. There's no grounding. Because if we were a functional civil society, issues like this would never need to be resolved. When disputes exist, they can be resolved amicably by good faith cooperation, not by sending in the FBI on a raid of a former president's home, not by hashing it out in a courtroom and leaving it up to judges to fill in all the blanks of the constitution with their own bias.



and let me guess, anyone making Hitler comparisons is doing it because they just watched Jojo Rabbit

This post was edited by Goomshill on Aug 11 2022 10:57pm

DOJ tried to resolve it amicably by both just asking and by subpeona. Trump still didn't turn over top secret nuclear documents.



I'm talking about you, who can only seem to reference Beria and literally no other historical figure.









This post was edited by Sioux on Aug 11 2022 11:00pm

Pretty sure I compared him to Hoover, as those are the logical two comparisons for a federal law enforcement head who is abusing their office to persecute political opponents
Why, do you contend Merrick Garland dresses in women's clothing as he's raping little girls?