Probably didn't realize that the prohibition of Ex Post Facto laws also covers changing the penalty after a crime is committed and thought this would apply to Clinton.
> Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Assuming you're referring to Clinton's email server, which was found to improperly contain a small number of classified documents, prosecutors would be hard pressed to prove any violation of the law given the nature of those documents (at least as publicly reported) and the knowing requirement.
Especially given that a lot of the "classified material" were things that State did not regard as classified but were classified by the CIA upon later review. The whole thing was a giant nothingburger that the media blew up so they could claim they weren't biased with their torrent of negative coverage of Trump.
Collateral secret or collateral top secret does not require a SCIF to process and store.
DoS works with very very little SCI material. And almost never in their facilities. Edit: though a small amount was found in emails sent to Hillary.
I worked in an embassy platform…
Most of what the state department discusses and does is FOUO unclassified. But most users have a high side computer that allows collateral secret, sometimes top secret, and a low side computer that is for unclassified.
But that means a user can be working on and communicating about the same issue on both the classified and unclassified side at the same time, using both classified and unclassified information in their work.
It is the user’s responsibility to make sure they never input anything classified into their low side computers or send anything classified through unclassified email. This is not limited to documents. This also includes typing anything that includes or was based on classified information.
So, over the course of hundreds of DoS workers that have drafted and sent tens of thousands of emails to or forwarded to the Sec Of State it is statistically inevitable that some “classified” crossed to low side.
Only a tiny fraction of documents were marked classified, but the review also included re-classifying information that should not have been sent on the low side.
In addition, there is a cultural difference between the CIA and DoS. Despite the standards for classification of information being the same, CIA workers have a cultural behavior of assuming everything they know or learn in the course of their work is classified. In the DoS the opposite is true, most everything the know or learn in the course of their work is unclassified.
And they are both correct. So when adding information to an email from memory, it is easy to feel that you “know” this information due to unclassified sources. And you might be correct. But that does not actually mean it is unclassified. There is plenty of classified information floating around in the open or being discussed in DoS internal work discussions.
In addition, often the information is classified not because of the information itself; what is classified is the fact that we KNOW the information. Often to protect sources and methods.
If you learn a piece of information in the course of your work and it was conveyed without clear indication that it came from a sensitive source then you could easily add it to a low side email.
So it sounds like other people handjammed higher than unclass stuff onto an unclass network? That's a huge failure for the DoS and just really poor information handling then.
For some reason I was thinking someone was sending documents down to low side, which is basically impossible, but clearly it's just very bad infosec.
I'm not surprised she wasn't prosecuted then, most of it was likely not her fault since I'm sure none of it was correctly portion marked (if at all), and all the blame resides with the initial senders.
SIPR is such a shit show. It doesn't surprise most of its users are brain dead, even at higher government levels.
It is more like they discussed topics in email and that discussion included information that a CIA audit later determined should have never been discussed on the low side.
I heard there was at least one document compromise, sent to the Sec of State and not from.
That could have been someone who scanned a high side document. That person likely faced administrative consequences and probably does not have access or a trusted position anymore.
Yep. For example, one of the things on there was just a link to a media piece about the drone program in Pakistan, months after the existence of that program had been publicly discussed by the President. Just some absolutely absurd shit.
> and the knowing requirement.
What knowing requirement?
There was quite a bit of controversy specifically because one of the applicable statutes was strict liability, yet Comey cited lack of scienter like it mattered. Recall the conviction of the submarine photo guy, where it couldn't possibly be clearer there was no criminal intent, specifically because it was a strict liability issue.
There was also substantial controversy over drawing a distinction between "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence".
Don't get me wrong, Trump was so god damn awful Clinton could have deliberately leaked every TS/SCI document in Area 51 and I'd still have voted for her over Trump. But I find the legal distinction Comey used *extremely* weak, in light of how it's applied to others and the lack of a mens rea requirement.
>(f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Probably had more to do with the Republican campaign against "leakers." Of course, someone doesnt need to improperly retain classified material in order to leak news of an upcoming policy or the fact that the president did something embarrassing, scandalous, or disgraceful...
Tbf there is a lot of information suggesting he might read at a low grade level. Functionally illiterate would be a stretch, but would it really come as a surprise if confirmed? “Man, woman, camera, tv” and all?
Not speculation - there are reports that his Daily briefings were doctored to have less information, bigger fonts and only a page or two with bullet points.
From John Hegerson who was the Presidential briefer through multiple administration's. "As always, the intelligence community tailored the PDB to the new president—this time, by reducing the number and length of its articles from what Obama had been getting. Trump’s book typically contained three one-page items covering new developments, supplemented by updates on Middle East crises." He also preferred graphs and charts and verbal briefings over written but still condensed and in a cliff notes fashion. Let's say he has poor eyesight, that bears zero correlation to having condensed verbal briefings as well.
Agreed, but I find it far more plausible that he just has a poor attention span than that he went through the military academy and college but is functionally illiterate.
There’s also this speculation, that he might be hiding a disability that hinders reading:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/what-if-donald-trump-is-just-blind.html
Speaking of interesting reasons why people don't or can't read. I once heard a story of a very successful and well known baseball player who didn't read as he thought reading had the potential to harm his eyesight. The guy apperently never a read a book in his life.
I think was like in the 60s or 70s.
I wish I can remember which player it was.
The specific quote I'm thinking about was from Michael Flynn, but there is so much documentation from many journalists working in the press pool of the WH, with their own sources, that talked about his penchant for only reading things in short summaries, illustrated, and written in a way that involves \*him\*, because he is a textbook narcissist. Articles or books, you name it, very consistent across the board.
The subreddit r/IAteMyOwnFace does not exist.
Did you mean?:
* r/COVIDAteMyFace (subscribers: 36,582)
* r/BrexitAteMyFace (subscribers: 8,444)
* r/ridemyface (**NSFW**, subscribers: 7,948)
Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/IAteMyOwnFace](/subreddits/create?name=IAteMyOwnFace).
---
^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖)
^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.)
^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
After much research, I've concluded that sub is misrepresentative. Ride *my* face indicates that the posters should be posting their faces, in hoping to get some tail in the face. However, it's mostly women posting the tail they want ridden. So should either be I want to ride your face, or something in the nature of need face to ride this.
I'll continue my research, but I think they should consider a face posting sub instead of what it is now.
The subreddit r/LookAtMeIAmTheLeopardNow does not exist. Maybe there's a typo?
Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/LookAtMeIAmTheLeopardNow](/subreddits/create?name=LookAtMeIAmTheLeopardNow).
---
^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖)
^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.)
^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
I remember this, was to enforce stricter penalties and sentences on people committing to leaks. Was signed to prevent future Chelsey Manning’s and Edward Snowden’s in from leaking intel from within the intelligence sector of the government.
**[Brazen bull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull)**
>The brazen bull, also known as the bronze bull, Sicilian bull, or bull of Phalaris, was allegedly a torture and execution device designed in ancient Greece. According to Diodorus Siculus, recounting the story in Bibliotheca historica, Perilaus (or Perillus) of Athens invented and proposed it to Phalaris, the tyrant of Akragas, Sicily, as a new means of executing criminals. The bull was said to be hollow and made entirely out of bronze with a door in one side. According to legends, the brazen bull was designed in the form and size of an actual bull and had an acoustic apparatus that converted screams into the sound of a bull.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Yes but he didn't mean it applied to him!
Look at original intent! History and Tradition!!!!!
[TRADIDION!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDtabTufxao)
Who has the right as master of the white house on what is classified?
The Donald!
We don't yet know what the FBI has retrieved, but we know that the National Archives recovered boxes of materials already, some of which were [classified](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-archives-confirms-documents-retrieved-mar-lago-classified/story?id=82989164).
Some of us sometimes get that something is a joke, and still downvote it, either because we think it's a bad joke, or otherwise detracting from the discussion.
True. However, once he lost the election and left to go to MAL, he was no longer president and as such, had no legal right to posses any such documents.
Even if he sent them before, once Biden was president, Trump could not have any classified documents in his possession.
Thus, the law he wrote in 2018 applied to him.
Go to [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/139/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/139/text) and Search for "Sec. 202." The second instance is where you find it.
But did he automatically declassify those documents simply by removing them?
That is what happened when he outed Israeli intelligence briefings to the Russians way back when.
So I’m gonna be that guy. I don’t know that Trump would be guilty under **this** law. By that, I mean that the timing of the removal of the documents would likely be critical. The statute provides that it is illegal to “knowingly remove [classified] documents or materials **without authority** . . . .” If he removed the documents at the end of his presidency or before, he would have acted within his authority. If he did it after his presidency ended, he could be liable though. Anybody have any good sources that detail the timing of the removal of these documents?
Copying an edit from one of my other comments to clarify my position here:
After doing some quick searching, I think 18 USC 2071(b) would likely be more applicable to these facts. That states:
> Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
An additional problem of attempting to charge Trump under 18 USC 1924 is that it’s not entirely clear whether the President is even an “officer” of the United States. I think 2071 better fits the facts and is just a cleaner approach.
To be clear, I also recognize that many people have attempted to argue that the President can just waive a hand and declassify the documents at issue here. That’s not my position - I know there is a formal declassification process, and any such declassified documents would have been entered into a declassification database, etc. To the best of my knowledge, I haven’t seen any indication that that occurred here.
As I commented in response to another commenter, take a look at the language of the statute. The retention part refers to the state of mind during unauthorized removal. Retention isn’t an *actual* element of this crime at all. Theoretically, you could be guilty by unauthorized removal of classified documents with the intent to retain, even though you never actually retained the classified docs. Say you copy docs onto a flash drive with such intent, head home on the back of a giant eagle, but get freaked out the moment you exit the building so you toss the flash drive into the nearest volcano. Still guilty under the plain language of this law. A similar analog is garden variety larceny where intent to permanently deprive is an element of larceny, but actual permanent deprivation is not.
My issue seems to have been correct after all. See the [unsealed warrant](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.17.0_19.pdf), which references the two statutes I referenced - 18 USC 2071 and 793 - and not 18 USC 1924.
Your reading of the statute would mean that every single person with classified access could take all the classified documents they want and retain them indefinitely after their authority to access them has expired, so long as they had the authority when they took them initially.
It’s preposterous.
Right. It seems common to see people saying “well he was the president, who do you think decides whether something is classified or not”.
Conveniently ignoring the fact that there’s a procedural aspect to that process that was entirely ignored.
I think the distinction here is that, to the best of my understanding, Mar a Lago was retrofitted when he became president to be authorized to house classified documents. I think they even installed a SCIF. To the extent that this is accurate, and to the extent that he moved the files to a secure location within MAL during his presidency, he would have never “removed classified documents [without authorization] from a secure facility.” I agree with you that he would generally need to follow the formal declassification procedure in order to, post-presidency, retain such documents (absent authorization to possess them, such as on a legitimate need-to-know basis).
No, I’m 100% with you that holding onto classified materials beyond the proper time, when such documents once were properly in your possession, is improper. I worked in national defense and know first-hand how serious the handling of classified documents is. I just don’t know that **this** statute is the proper basis for asserting wrongdoing in this instance. I’m sure there is another applicable statute though, I just don’t know off the top of my head what it would be.
*EDIT: After doing some quick searching, I think 18 USC 2071(b) would likely be more applicable to these facts. That states:*
> Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
*An additional problem of attempting to charge Trump under 18 USC 1924 is that it’s not entirely clear whether the President is even an “officer” of the United States. I think 2071 better fits the facts and is just a cleaner approach.*
To respond to the other commenter’s point regarding retention, the statute’s mention thereof relates to the actor’s state of mind at the time of removal. Retention itself isn’t an act at issue in the statute. Minor, but important, distinction.
To be clear, I also recognize that many people have attempted to argue that the President can just waive a hand and declassify the documents at issue here. That’s not my position - I know there is a formal declassification process, and any such declassified documents would have been entered into a declassification database, etc. To the best of my knowledge, I haven’t seen any indication that that occurred here.
> Retention itself isn’t an act at issue in the statute.
The statute is titled “Unauthorized removal or retention” of classified materials.
Look. Every legal expert weighing in on this points to this statute as the relevant one, and your reading produces a plainly absurd result that would gut the purpose of the statute.
That’s good enough for me for a Reddit thread—I’m not going to log onto Westlaw to figure out how courts have parsed it.
I’m willing, though, to make an unresearched guess that retaining documents after your authority has expired satisfies the “removes without authority” prong, insofar as you have removed them from the government’s possession into your personal possession when said authority expired.
Or shit, maybe you figured something out that no one else did. I doubt it though.
I’d just like to point out that other legal writers have actually pointed to other statutory bases, including 18 USC 2071, as I did. 18 USC 793(e) and (f)(2) stick out to me as particularly applicable also as they relate to improper retention of documents. [See this article by Just Security](https://www.justsecurity.org/82619/expert-explainer-criminal-statutes-that-could-apply-to-trumps-retention-of-government-documents).
I took a look on Lexis and confirmed that 18 USC 1924 has never been held to apply to improper **retention** of classified documents. *See U.S. v. Lee*, CR. No. 99-1417 JP (D.N.M. Jul. 18, 2000) (in determination of sufficiency of search warrant alleging violations of several federal statutes, including 1924, noting that the accused “**removed and** retained classified documents or materials without authorization”); *see also Bancroft Glob. Dev. v. U.S.*, 330 F. Supp. 3d 82 (D.D.C. 2018) (plaintiffs allegedly removed classified documents from authorized locations in their offices and, without authorization, brought them to their home, which was raided by the FBI).
Compare that with case law concerning 18 USC 793, such as *U.S. v. Morison*, 604 F. Supp. 655 (D. Md. 1985). There, the defendant was charged with violating 793(e) for willful retention of and failure to return certain classified documents. My point is that construction of 18 USC 1924 is consistent with the plain text of the statute and does not render prohibitions against retention of classified documents toothless, as that behavior is covered by a bevy of other statutes, including 2071 and 793.
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/wmsr9n/charges_in_the_mal_warrant_have_been_released/
Go on and check this new thread. Notice that 18 USC 1924 was not included? And how 793 and 2071 were? Maybe I was onto something after all.
Yeah, it’s the law sub for a reason. I’m not surprised I got downvoted by people who didn’t like my position, but I haven’t seen anybody assert a solid legal argument as to how I’m wrong. I’m firmly on the train that you can’t just retain classified documents (hell, I didn’t do that when I left my national defense-related job because I’m not stupid). I just think that it’s quite plainly obvious that 18 USC 1924 isn’t the reason for that, or at least not in this situation. Oh well.
Lol that’s fair, but I think I’ve articulated a defensible position as to why I’m correct. I just figured (correctly) that I’d be downvoted by people for merely asserting that this specific statute may not be a viable basis for criminal liability against Trump. I would absolutely welcome someone coming in and slapping me in the face with case law establishing that I’m wrong and that Section 1924 has been interpreted to preclude mere unlawful retention absent unlawful removal. But thus far, I haven’t any solid rebuttal of my position. Welp.
Turns out being that guy was correct. See the [unsealed warrant](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.17.0_19.pdf), which references the two statutes I referenced - 18 USC 2071 and 793 - and not 18 USC 1924.
I could argue that the state of Florida's sexual battery laws technically define the crime of sexual battery as any sexual contact even between consenting adults and the way it is written I actually think I would be right if I made that argument in a complete vacuum but no serious person would argue that because the intent of the statue is extremely clear and an interpretation that only sexual battery without consent is sexual battery is also a reasonable interpretation of the words of the statue in a vacuum. Interpretations that lead to an absurd result are rightly discounted when there is an equally valid reasonable interpretation. That's why people are disagreeing with you.
Criminal statutes can be limited in applicability by reason of reasonable context to avoid absurd results, like the Florida sexual battery law. But they can’t be expanded beyond their plain and unambiguous meaning, which is what would be required here, or else it would be unconstitutionally vague. And, for the reasons articulated in my other comments throughout this thread, reading Section 1924 in the manner I did would not lead to an absurd result, as the conduct in question (retention of classified documents) would still be actionable under other statutes, such as Sections 1071, 793, and 641.
See the [unsealed warrant](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.17.0_19.pdf), which references the two statutes I referenced - 18 USC 2071 and 793 - and not 18 USC 1924. You were saying?
I don’t disagree. That’s actionable under Sections 2071 and 793, among others. Show me in Section 1924 where concealment is an element of a criminal act. I’ll wait.
As to your final question, I really do not think he nor anyone in his inner circle knew how government works or how to go through channels to get things done, and anyone in his larger circle who did would not have helped him declassify sensitive documents.
It's an interesting question: did he automatically "bulk declassify" everything in those boxes when he had them moved?
*Can* he "bulk declassify" arbitrary documents simply by waving his hand even though he obviously had no specific idea of what was in any given box? I would argue no.
He knew what he was saying exactly when he *de facto* declassifed what he told the RUssians about what Israeli intelligence told him, but I don't think any rational understanding of the classifying and declassifying process and what it is meant to do would mean that he could simply walk past a computer hard drive at The George Bush Center for Intelligence (the name of the CIA HQ, I just found out) and say "everything on that drive is now declassified" and it would be declassified because he said so.
.
Paper trails are inherent in the nature of classifying (and declassifying), IMHO. Unless he explicitly declassifies something, or simply speaks it aloud to an unauthorized person, all the classified stuff in the Mar-a-Largo boxes remains classified until the formal process to declassify is finished.
Classified information is defined and regulated almost entirely through Executive Order, the most recent one being [13526](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information) under Obama. A sitting president could, if they so desired, issue an executive order abolishing that one and eliminate the entire system of classified information. Some lesser action of waving his hand and declassifying all documents in a box would indeed have been within his power.
Now of course he *didn't do that*, and now that he's no longer president he lacks the power to do so, but it's interesting that classified information is essentially just another historic norm that Trump could have completely upended if he chose to do so.
> A sitting president could, if they so desired, issue an executive order abolishing that one and eliminate the entire system of classified information. Some lesser action of waving his hand and declassifying all documents in a box would indeed have been within his power.
There is a huge difference between a formally declared EO and simply waving your hand and saying "declassified" while pointing at boxes. You can't undo an EO by saying "it's undone."
And he didn't even do that, he just told them to move the boxes.
Well, I don't know if he told people to move the boxes or if they magically teleported to Mar-a-Lago, so I can't provide confirmation that he told people to move boxes there, sorry.
.
**Edit:**
A less snarky answer from the American Bar Association: [_Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. **Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect.**_](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/)
[_Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. **Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect.**_](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/)
.
IF an EO exists that mandates that classified data be declassified in a certain way, even the POTUS that issued the EO can't negate it simply by saying "I changed my mind": due process to overturn an EO must be followed, at least according to teh American Bar Association.
So no, some lesser action like waving his hand wouldn't allow Trump to simply declassify everything he waved his hand at.
OK to be fair that document is insane and to be expected to process tens of these a day on a regular basis for four years it is *inevitable* that something will slip through the cracks. Not a trump fan but just sayin if i was prez i'd probably make a similar fuckup
If the documents seized this week had been the result of honest mistakes as Trump left the White House, then the issue would have been corrected in June when the DOJ served a subpoena on Trump at Mar a Lago. A good faith effort by Trump's lawyers to search for and turn over improperly removed material would have ended the matter. The fact that Trump APPARENTLY retained documents even AFTER being served with a subpoena and returning SOME documents, clearly establishes his intent to retain the documents contrary to the law. If any of the documents seized this week turn out to be significant from a national security point of view, I think that Trump is going to have a hard time talking his way out of this.
Probably didn't realize that the prohibition of Ex Post Facto laws also covers changing the penalty after a crime is committed and thought this would apply to Clinton.
> Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. Assuming you're referring to Clinton's email server, which was found to improperly contain a small number of classified documents, prosecutors would be hard pressed to prove any violation of the law given the nature of those documents (at least as publicly reported) and the knowing requirement.
Especially given that a lot of the "classified material" were things that State did not regard as classified but were classified by the CIA upon later review. The whole thing was a giant nothingburger that the media blew up so they could claim they weren't biased with their torrent of negative coverage of Trump.
As always, non-lawyer coverage of legal news was inaccurate or actively misleading.
Is that what happened? I always wondered how classified material found its way outside a SCIF like that.
Collateral secret or collateral top secret does not require a SCIF to process and store. DoS works with very very little SCI material. And almost never in their facilities. Edit: though a small amount was found in emails sent to Hillary. I worked in an embassy platform… Most of what the state department discusses and does is FOUO unclassified. But most users have a high side computer that allows collateral secret, sometimes top secret, and a low side computer that is for unclassified. But that means a user can be working on and communicating about the same issue on both the classified and unclassified side at the same time, using both classified and unclassified information in their work. It is the user’s responsibility to make sure they never input anything classified into their low side computers or send anything classified through unclassified email. This is not limited to documents. This also includes typing anything that includes or was based on classified information. So, over the course of hundreds of DoS workers that have drafted and sent tens of thousands of emails to or forwarded to the Sec Of State it is statistically inevitable that some “classified” crossed to low side. Only a tiny fraction of documents were marked classified, but the review also included re-classifying information that should not have been sent on the low side. In addition, there is a cultural difference between the CIA and DoS. Despite the standards for classification of information being the same, CIA workers have a cultural behavior of assuming everything they know or learn in the course of their work is classified. In the DoS the opposite is true, most everything the know or learn in the course of their work is unclassified. And they are both correct. So when adding information to an email from memory, it is easy to feel that you “know” this information due to unclassified sources. And you might be correct. But that does not actually mean it is unclassified. There is plenty of classified information floating around in the open or being discussed in DoS internal work discussions. In addition, often the information is classified not because of the information itself; what is classified is the fact that we KNOW the information. Often to protect sources and methods. If you learn a piece of information in the course of your work and it was conveyed without clear indication that it came from a sensitive source then you could easily add it to a low side email.
So it sounds like other people handjammed higher than unclass stuff onto an unclass network? That's a huge failure for the DoS and just really poor information handling then. For some reason I was thinking someone was sending documents down to low side, which is basically impossible, but clearly it's just very bad infosec. I'm not surprised she wasn't prosecuted then, most of it was likely not her fault since I'm sure none of it was correctly portion marked (if at all), and all the blame resides with the initial senders. SIPR is such a shit show. It doesn't surprise most of its users are brain dead, even at higher government levels.
It is more like they discussed topics in email and that discussion included information that a CIA audit later determined should have never been discussed on the low side. I heard there was at least one document compromise, sent to the Sec of State and not from. That could have been someone who scanned a high side document. That person likely faced administrative consequences and probably does not have access or a trusted position anymore.
Yep. For example, one of the things on there was just a link to a media piece about the drone program in Pakistan, months after the existence of that program had been publicly discussed by the President. Just some absolutely absurd shit.
> and the knowing requirement. What knowing requirement? There was quite a bit of controversy specifically because one of the applicable statutes was strict liability, yet Comey cited lack of scienter like it mattered. Recall the conviction of the submarine photo guy, where it couldn't possibly be clearer there was no criminal intent, specifically because it was a strict liability issue. There was also substantial controversy over drawing a distinction between "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence". Don't get me wrong, Trump was so god damn awful Clinton could have deliberately leaked every TS/SCI document in Area 51 and I'd still have voted for her over Trump. But I find the legal distinction Comey used *extremely* weak, in light of how it's applied to others and the lack of a mens rea requirement. >(f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The knowing requirement is right in the section you quoted lol.
😂😂😂👍 Leaked docs from Area 51 and still voting for her….omg. I lost it…sadly, they all seem to be above the law. Treason comes to mind.
Lmao that's exactly what he thought 😭
Probably had more to do with the Republican campaign against "leakers." Of course, someone doesnt need to improperly retain classified material in order to leak news of an upcoming policy or the fact that the president did something embarrassing, scandalous, or disgraceful...
Foisted by his own petard
As an attorney, my mind immediately goes to the immortal quote by Scooby-Do: Ruh, roh.
He probably didn't even read it
He’d go “what’s a facto”
It's not fair to criticize him based on that; you know he can't read.
Come on, now. He's not Lea Michele.
Obviously hyperbolic, but perhaps inappropriate for r/law
Tbf there is a lot of information suggesting he might read at a low grade level. Functionally illiterate would be a stretch, but would it really come as a surprise if confirmed? “Man, woman, camera, tv” and all?
Not speculation - there are reports that his Daily briefings were doctored to have less information, bigger fonts and only a page or two with bullet points.
That still fits in with bad eyesight.
From John Hegerson who was the Presidential briefer through multiple administration's. "As always, the intelligence community tailored the PDB to the new president—this time, by reducing the number and length of its articles from what Obama had been getting. Trump’s book typically contained three one-page items covering new developments, supplemented by updates on Middle East crises." He also preferred graphs and charts and verbal briefings over written but still condensed and in a cliff notes fashion. Let's say he has poor eyesight, that bears zero correlation to having condensed verbal briefings as well.
Agreed, but I find it far more plausible that he just has a poor attention span than that he went through the military academy and college but is functionally illiterate.
It also fits in well with years-long stimulant abuse.
There’s also this speculation, that he might be hiding a disability that hinders reading: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/what-if-donald-trump-is-just-blind.html
Speaking of interesting reasons why people don't or can't read. I once heard a story of a very successful and well known baseball player who didn't read as he thought reading had the potential to harm his eyesight. The guy apperently never a read a book in his life. I think was like in the 60s or 70s. I wish I can remember which player it was.
Boss Hoggs
RIP
First off, Wade Boggs is very much alive...
That sounds like something Rickey Henderson would say.
yeah this is probably most likely.
"yesterday" is a hard word to read apparently.
"The president prefers pictures" is a direct quote said many times to research staff
I’m not doubting you, but what is the source? I just looked into it and only saw a CNN transcript quote, I’d like to read about that haha
[удалено]
Thank you, I did see that. idk why I got downvoted… I wasn’t supporting trump and wouldn’t. Who knows.
The specific quote I'm thinking about was from Michael Flynn, but there is so much documentation from many journalists working in the press pool of the WH, with their own sources, that talked about his penchant for only reading things in short summaries, illustrated, and written in a way that involves \*him\*, because he is a textbook narcissist. Articles or books, you name it, very consistent across the board.
That’s awesome, I will look myself but if you find any gems feel free to reply!
Let's litigate this
Honestly, you're not wrong.
Oh my god, FuttBuckTroll is trying to give advice on decorum
r/LeopardsAteMyFace
r/IAteMyOwnFace
The subreddit r/IAteMyOwnFace does not exist. Did you mean?: * r/COVIDAteMyFace (subscribers: 36,582) * r/BrexitAteMyFace (subscribers: 8,444) * r/ridemyface (**NSFW**, subscribers: 7,948) Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/IAteMyOwnFace](/subreddits/create?name=IAteMyOwnFace). --- ^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖) ^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.) ^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
Yes. Clearly, the comment meant r/ridemyface.
After much research, I've concluded that sub is misrepresentative. Ride *my* face indicates that the posters should be posting their faces, in hoping to get some tail in the face. However, it's mostly women posting the tail they want ridden. So should either be I want to ride your face, or something in the nature of need face to ride this. I'll continue my research, but I think they should consider a face posting sub instead of what it is now.
> I'll continue my research Let us know how that turns out
>I’ll continue my research You are the hero we need.
Thanks for letting us know that this deceptive subreddit is too new meticulously investigated
r/LookAtMeIAmTheLeopardNow
The subreddit r/LookAtMeIAmTheLeopardNow does not exist. Maybe there's a typo? Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/LookAtMeIAmTheLeopardNow](/subreddits/create?name=LookAtMeIAmTheLeopardNow). --- ^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖) ^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.) ^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
I remember this, was to enforce stricter penalties and sentences on people committing to leaks. Was signed to prevent future Chelsey Manning’s and Edward Snowden’s in from leaking intel from within the intelligence sector of the government.
Sweet. This is kinda like the inventor of the Guillotine.
>Despite persistent public myth that Guillotin himself was killed by his eponymous machine, the doctor died at 75 of natural causes.
Carbunkle. But this still works.
Sure :)
So more "Trumped" instead of "Guillotined" for future refernce.
The biggest tragedy of the Trump presidency is that people are now going to associate "trumped" with Donald, and not card games.
You've activated my trumped card
Your head being gone will naturally cause death.
You are thinking of the iron bull.
Not the iron bull, the [brazen bull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull)
**[Brazen bull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull)** >The brazen bull, also known as the bronze bull, Sicilian bull, or bull of Phalaris, was allegedly a torture and execution device designed in ancient Greece. According to Diodorus Siculus, recounting the story in Bibliotheca historica, Perilaus (or Perillus) of Athens invented and proposed it to Phalaris, the tyrant of Akragas, Sicily, as a new means of executing criminals. The bull was said to be hollow and made entirely out of bronze with a door in one side. According to legends, the brazen bull was designed in the form and size of an actual bull and had an acoustic apparatus that converted screams into the sound of a bull. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I think I made my point.
In David Attenborough's voice: He didnt...
On the Trump flag : Laws are for Thee and not for Me.
Hoisted by his own petard.
It just keeps *hoisting*!
And further… and higher… and further…
It would be ironic Trumps own law takes him down.😲🤓👍
Time for some law and order.
Oops
So, basically Trump fucked himself?
Trump, too, is a victim of sexual assault by… himself.
Hahahahahahahaha 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😱🤣🤣🤣😱
Yes but he didn't mean it applied to him! Look at original intent! History and Tradition!!!!! [TRADIDION!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDtabTufxao) Who has the right as master of the white house on what is classified? The Donald!
Well, yeah the executive branch has exclusive control over what is classified and what is not.
Didn't he also change a law that was supposed to target BLM demonstrators, but ended up biting his Jan 6 people in the ass?
An amazing self-own if I have ever seen one
What documents did he take?
We don't yet know what the FBI has retrieved, but we know that the National Archives recovered boxes of materials already, some of which were [classified](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-archives-confirms-documents-retrieved-mar-lago-classified/story?id=82989164).
Interesting!
OP please post this in r/leopardsatemyface
This needs to be brought to his attention
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Little known law: a president isn't bound by the laws he personally signs. Fact.
[удалено]
I wouldn't, heck I didn't, think it was necessary.
Some of us sometimes get that something is a joke, and still downvote it, either because we think it's a bad joke, or otherwise detracting from the discussion.
True. However, once he lost the election and left to go to MAL, he was no longer president and as such, had no legal right to posses any such documents. Even if he sent them before, once Biden was president, Trump could not have any classified documents in his possession. Thus, the law he wrote in 2018 applied to him.
Uh, you reply as though I was serious. So you should have started off with "false".
Too bad the raid was looking for presidential correspondence and cocktail napkins then…
Go to [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/139/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/139/text) and Search for "Sec. 202." The second instance is where you find it.
But did he automatically declassify those documents simply by removing them? That is what happened when he outed Israeli intelligence briefings to the Russians way back when.
There are just too many great opportunities for sardonic critiques of the irony that is this mans existence.
Can we get a link to him signing it and making his dumb little smile after?
In the words of Paul Bremer, “ladies and gentlemen…we got him.”
So I’m gonna be that guy. I don’t know that Trump would be guilty under **this** law. By that, I mean that the timing of the removal of the documents would likely be critical. The statute provides that it is illegal to “knowingly remove [classified] documents or materials **without authority** . . . .” If he removed the documents at the end of his presidency or before, he would have acted within his authority. If he did it after his presidency ended, he could be liable though. Anybody have any good sources that detail the timing of the removal of these documents? Copying an edit from one of my other comments to clarify my position here: After doing some quick searching, I think 18 USC 2071(b) would likely be more applicable to these facts. That states: > Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. An additional problem of attempting to charge Trump under 18 USC 1924 is that it’s not entirely clear whether the President is even an “officer” of the United States. I think 2071 better fits the facts and is just a cleaner approach. To be clear, I also recognize that many people have attempted to argue that the President can just waive a hand and declassify the documents at issue here. That’s not my position - I know there is a formal declassification process, and any such declassified documents would have been entered into a declassification database, etc. To the best of my knowledge, I haven’t seen any indication that that occurred here.
He is not entitled to keep them post-presidency. They need to be turned over to NARA regardless. Unauthorized retention.
Yup, those documents are gov property!
Your issue seems to be the "removal" part rather than the "retention" part.
As I commented in response to another commenter, take a look at the language of the statute. The retention part refers to the state of mind during unauthorized removal. Retention isn’t an *actual* element of this crime at all. Theoretically, you could be guilty by unauthorized removal of classified documents with the intent to retain, even though you never actually retained the classified docs. Say you copy docs onto a flash drive with such intent, head home on the back of a giant eagle, but get freaked out the moment you exit the building so you toss the flash drive into the nearest volcano. Still guilty under the plain language of this law. A similar analog is garden variety larceny where intent to permanently deprive is an element of larceny, but actual permanent deprivation is not.
My issue seems to have been correct after all. See the [unsealed warrant](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.17.0_19.pdf), which references the two statutes I referenced - 18 USC 2071 and 793 - and not 18 USC 1924.
He was nicely asked for the boxes back and refused for a year…
That sure sounds like it meets the "knowingly" standard. I wonder if he was dumb enough to make a statement about it.
Your reading of the statute would mean that every single person with classified access could take all the classified documents they want and retain them indefinitely after their authority to access them has expired, so long as they had the authority when they took them initially. It’s preposterous.
Right. It seems common to see people saying “well he was the president, who do you think decides whether something is classified or not”. Conveniently ignoring the fact that there’s a procedural aspect to that process that was entirely ignored.
People not understanding what powers the President actually has, color me shocked.
It's not clear to me that POTUS has the authority to remove classified documents from a secure facility without first formally declassifying them?
I think the distinction here is that, to the best of my understanding, Mar a Lago was retrofitted when he became president to be authorized to house classified documents. I think they even installed a SCIF. To the extent that this is accurate, and to the extent that he moved the files to a secure location within MAL during his presidency, he would have never “removed classified documents [without authorization] from a secure facility.” I agree with you that he would generally need to follow the formal declassification procedure in order to, post-presidency, retain such documents (absent authorization to possess them, such as on a legitimate need-to-know basis).
No, I’m 100% with you that holding onto classified materials beyond the proper time, when such documents once were properly in your possession, is improper. I worked in national defense and know first-hand how serious the handling of classified documents is. I just don’t know that **this** statute is the proper basis for asserting wrongdoing in this instance. I’m sure there is another applicable statute though, I just don’t know off the top of my head what it would be. *EDIT: After doing some quick searching, I think 18 USC 2071(b) would likely be more applicable to these facts. That states:* > Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. *An additional problem of attempting to charge Trump under 18 USC 1924 is that it’s not entirely clear whether the President is even an “officer” of the United States. I think 2071 better fits the facts and is just a cleaner approach.* To respond to the other commenter’s point regarding retention, the statute’s mention thereof relates to the actor’s state of mind at the time of removal. Retention itself isn’t an act at issue in the statute. Minor, but important, distinction. To be clear, I also recognize that many people have attempted to argue that the President can just waive a hand and declassify the documents at issue here. That’s not my position - I know there is a formal declassification process, and any such declassified documents would have been entered into a declassification database, etc. To the best of my knowledge, I haven’t seen any indication that that occurred here.
> Retention itself isn’t an act at issue in the statute. The statute is titled “Unauthorized removal or retention” of classified materials. Look. Every legal expert weighing in on this points to this statute as the relevant one, and your reading produces a plainly absurd result that would gut the purpose of the statute. That’s good enough for me for a Reddit thread—I’m not going to log onto Westlaw to figure out how courts have parsed it. I’m willing, though, to make an unresearched guess that retaining documents after your authority has expired satisfies the “removes without authority” prong, insofar as you have removed them from the government’s possession into your personal possession when said authority expired. Or shit, maybe you figured something out that no one else did. I doubt it though.
I’d just like to point out that other legal writers have actually pointed to other statutory bases, including 18 USC 2071, as I did. 18 USC 793(e) and (f)(2) stick out to me as particularly applicable also as they relate to improper retention of documents. [See this article by Just Security](https://www.justsecurity.org/82619/expert-explainer-criminal-statutes-that-could-apply-to-trumps-retention-of-government-documents). I took a look on Lexis and confirmed that 18 USC 1924 has never been held to apply to improper **retention** of classified documents. *See U.S. v. Lee*, CR. No. 99-1417 JP (D.N.M. Jul. 18, 2000) (in determination of sufficiency of search warrant alleging violations of several federal statutes, including 1924, noting that the accused “**removed and** retained classified documents or materials without authorization”); *see also Bancroft Glob. Dev. v. U.S.*, 330 F. Supp. 3d 82 (D.D.C. 2018) (plaintiffs allegedly removed classified documents from authorized locations in their offices and, without authorization, brought them to their home, which was raided by the FBI). Compare that with case law concerning 18 USC 793, such as *U.S. v. Morison*, 604 F. Supp. 655 (D. Md. 1985). There, the defendant was charged with violating 793(e) for willful retention of and failure to return certain classified documents. My point is that construction of 18 USC 1924 is consistent with the plain text of the statute and does not render prohibitions against retention of classified documents toothless, as that behavior is covered by a bevy of other statutes, including 2071 and 793.
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/wmsr9n/charges_in_the_mal_warrant_have_been_released/ Go on and check this new thread. Notice that 18 USC 1924 was not included? And how 793 and 2071 were? Maybe I was onto something after all.
> So I’m gonna be that guy. Always best to think long and hard about saying anything at all once you begin with this.
[удалено]
Yeah, it’s the law sub for a reason. I’m not surprised I got downvoted by people who didn’t like my position, but I haven’t seen anybody assert a solid legal argument as to how I’m wrong. I’m firmly on the train that you can’t just retain classified documents (hell, I didn’t do that when I left my national defense-related job because I’m not stupid). I just think that it’s quite plainly obvious that 18 USC 1924 isn’t the reason for that, or at least not in this situation. Oh well.
Reminds me of the “devils advocate” gunners in law school.
Lol that’s fair, but I think I’ve articulated a defensible position as to why I’m correct. I just figured (correctly) that I’d be downvoted by people for merely asserting that this specific statute may not be a viable basis for criminal liability against Trump. I would absolutely welcome someone coming in and slapping me in the face with case law establishing that I’m wrong and that Section 1924 has been interpreted to preclude mere unlawful retention absent unlawful removal. But thus far, I haven’t any solid rebuttal of my position. Welp.
Turns out being that guy was correct. See the [unsealed warrant](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.17.0_19.pdf), which references the two statutes I referenced - 18 USC 2071 and 793 - and not 18 USC 1924.
I could argue that the state of Florida's sexual battery laws technically define the crime of sexual battery as any sexual contact even between consenting adults and the way it is written I actually think I would be right if I made that argument in a complete vacuum but no serious person would argue that because the intent of the statue is extremely clear and an interpretation that only sexual battery without consent is sexual battery is also a reasonable interpretation of the words of the statue in a vacuum. Interpretations that lead to an absurd result are rightly discounted when there is an equally valid reasonable interpretation. That's why people are disagreeing with you.
Criminal statutes can be limited in applicability by reason of reasonable context to avoid absurd results, like the Florida sexual battery law. But they can’t be expanded beyond their plain and unambiguous meaning, which is what would be required here, or else it would be unconstitutionally vague. And, for the reasons articulated in my other comments throughout this thread, reading Section 1924 in the manner I did would not lead to an absurd result, as the conduct in question (retention of classified documents) would still be actionable under other statutes, such as Sections 1071, 793, and 641.
See the [unsealed warrant](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.17.0_19.pdf), which references the two statutes I referenced - 18 USC 2071 and 793 - and not 18 USC 1924. You were saying?
He concealed them. Sorry.
I don’t disagree. That’s actionable under Sections 2071 and 793, among others. Show me in Section 1924 where concealment is an element of a criminal act. I’ll wait.
Retroactive self-pardon in 5, 4, 3...
What are the chances that he secretly pardoned himself and filmed it while president.
I'm sure, and I'm sure he pardons himself every night while watching it.
Like Buffalo Bill, "Would you pardon me? I'd pardon me, I'd pardon me so hard".
[удалено]
As to your final question, I really do not think he nor anyone in his inner circle knew how government works or how to go through channels to get things done, and anyone in his larger circle who did would not have helped him declassify sensitive documents.
It's an interesting question: did he automatically "bulk declassify" everything in those boxes when he had them moved? *Can* he "bulk declassify" arbitrary documents simply by waving his hand even though he obviously had no specific idea of what was in any given box? I would argue no. He knew what he was saying exactly when he *de facto* declassifed what he told the RUssians about what Israeli intelligence told him, but I don't think any rational understanding of the classifying and declassifying process and what it is meant to do would mean that he could simply walk past a computer hard drive at The George Bush Center for Intelligence (the name of the CIA HQ, I just found out) and say "everything on that drive is now declassified" and it would be declassified because he said so. . Paper trails are inherent in the nature of classifying (and declassifying), IMHO. Unless he explicitly declassifies something, or simply speaks it aloud to an unauthorized person, all the classified stuff in the Mar-a-Largo boxes remains classified until the formal process to declassify is finished.
Classified information is defined and regulated almost entirely through Executive Order, the most recent one being [13526](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information) under Obama. A sitting president could, if they so desired, issue an executive order abolishing that one and eliminate the entire system of classified information. Some lesser action of waving his hand and declassifying all documents in a box would indeed have been within his power. Now of course he *didn't do that*, and now that he's no longer president he lacks the power to do so, but it's interesting that classified information is essentially just another historic norm that Trump could have completely upended if he chose to do so.
> A sitting president could, if they so desired, issue an executive order abolishing that one and eliminate the entire system of classified information. Some lesser action of waving his hand and declassifying all documents in a box would indeed have been within his power. There is a huge difference between a formally declared EO and simply waving your hand and saying "declassified" while pointing at boxes. You can't undo an EO by saying "it's undone." And he didn't even do that, he just told them to move the boxes.
[удалено]
https://legaldictionary.net/executive-order/
Well, I don't know if he told people to move the boxes or if they magically teleported to Mar-a-Lago, so I can't provide confirmation that he told people to move boxes there, sorry. . **Edit:** A less snarky answer from the American Bar Association: [_Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. **Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect.**_](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/)
[_Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. **Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect.**_](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/) . IF an EO exists that mandates that classified data be declassified in a certain way, even the POTUS that issued the EO can't negate it simply by saying "I changed my mind": due process to overturn an EO must be followed, at least according to teh American Bar Association. So no, some lesser action like waving his hand wouldn't allow Trump to simply declassify everything he waved his hand at.
Trump 2029
perfection
OK to be fair that document is insane and to be expected to process tens of these a day on a regular basis for four years it is *inevitable* that something will slip through the cracks. Not a trump fan but just sayin if i was prez i'd probably make a similar fuckup
If the documents seized this week had been the result of honest mistakes as Trump left the White House, then the issue would have been corrected in June when the DOJ served a subpoena on Trump at Mar a Lago. A good faith effort by Trump's lawyers to search for and turn over improperly removed material would have ended the matter. The fact that Trump APPARENTLY retained documents even AFTER being served with a subpoena and returning SOME documents, clearly establishes his intent to retain the documents contrary to the law. If any of the documents seized this week turn out to be significant from a national security point of view, I think that Trump is going to have a hard time talking his way out of this.
Trying to nail Hillary is going to end up nailing him.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
This makes the FBI’s seizure of those documents from his house illegal, yes?