WSJ via THe Hill: FBI recovered 11 sets of classified documents in Trump search: report

Uncategorized 1 Minute
FBI recovered 11 sets of classified documents in Trump search: report

Funny. It is 4 PM and this is the first post HERE on this reporting. Have we all decided to play wait and see all of a sudden?

Published by Adam Green

A 24 year Navy vet, cancer survivor, father, grandfather, assistant caregiver for my live-in mother-in-law. Enjoys golf, football (real and fantasy), being the best grandfather I can, supporting the endeavors of my children (both involved in the education of our younger generations) and tormenting my wife of 34 years. Also prefer bourbon over scotch, but will drink both, just not at the same time. Discovering craft beers and trying trying hard to get to a consistent golf swing.

Published

141 thoughts on “WSJ via THe Hill: FBI recovered 11 sets of classified documents in Trump search: report”

  2. If ANY other government employee had removed such highly classified and sensitive documents from a government office, showed them to people without clearance, and stashed them for months in an insecure location in the basement of a golf club they would be staring down the barrel of an ESPIONAGE indictment.

    Some cultist is sure to argue that Trump had the authority to de-classify whatever he wanted. They should read the law. Information can be de-classified but documents marked as classified have to be INDIVIDUALLY marked as declassified and stamped with information on the authority doing the de-classification. As of 12:00 pm on January 20th, 2021 Trump had no authority to place such markings on any of the documents he stole.

    This, as it turns out, it one of Trump’s more serious crimes. ESPIONAGE is punishable by decades in prison.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  3. I just got back from fishing (limit of crappie plus a couple of bass) so I’m not up to speed yet. From what I’ve seen so far, I don’t see a problem. Trump had the authority to declassify what he wants as long as he was in office,

    There are procedures for declassifying things but I don’t think he is bound by them and in any case, the documents were secured and guarded by the Secret Service the whole time,

    So, they had to be looking for something else they didn’t find, as what they did find would not have justified the raid.

    What I don’t hear anyone talking about is what the justification would have been for planting a mole in Trump’s home. Sounds like political espionage to me, unless someone can show that the FBI similarly has moles in Biden’s family’s homes as well.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “Trump had the authority to declassify what he wants as long as he was in office”

      You are obviously speaking from ignorance about what is involved. Those “procedures” are not optional. See my other post about what the law requires.

      “the documents were secured and guarded by the Secret Service the whole time”
      You have absolutely no way of knowing that. Why would you state as a fact something that you do not and cannot know? There have already been reports of Trump displaying some of this stuff to his buddies. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have passed through this golf club while the documents were there.

      Your talk of a “mole” being planted is nonsense. Is it beyond your comprehension that maybe someone around Trump saw dangerous crimes being committed and did the right thing?

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. RE: “You are obviously speaking from ignorance about what is involved. Those “procedures” are not optional. See my other post about what the law requires.”

        Dr. Tabor is correct. The president has ultimate classification authority. Once the president orders material to be declassified, there is a process for evaluating the content and changing the markings where appropriate (which may include redactions) and creating new “official” copies.

        Under these circumstances there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before we can reliably accuse Trump of violating any national security laws. For example:

        • How did the subject documents get from the White House to Mar a Lago? Did someone seed them into the outgoing shipment?

        • Did Trump ever order the subject materials declassified? Perhaps some bureaucrat failed to follow through, or the source documents were processed as they should have been, but Trump never received the new official copies.

        • Did Trump even know he had the classified material in his possession?

        Like

        Reply

          1. RE: “Documents have to be individually de-classified.”

            You don’t know what you are talking about. When the classification authority orders declassification, the materials are officially declassified. Subsequently, new versions are produced to reflect the new status.

            Like

          2. “You don’t know what you are talking about. When the classification authority orders declassification, the materials are officially declassified.”

            You are simply wrong, but I do not expect you to admit it. You never do.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. …”new versions are produced to reflect the new status.”

            But those”versions” are apparently not what were found.

            THe excuse making from the Rule of Law proponents here is just A-M-A-Z-I-N-G!!!

            “Lock her up” was about a lot less that violations of the Espionage Act. ANd with NO EVIDENCE. Yet here come the Trump base, making up every excuses, probable. (HA!) and improbable to defend the possibly criminal acts of the cult leader.

            Yes. CULT. Reasonable people have been duped into believing the man can do no wrong. Even with OVERWHELMING evidence, they still say he is a freaking saint.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Mr Clueless strikes again. You have no idea about what you think you know. Laughable tripe from Paul Trump.

            Like

          5. “Mr Clueless strikes again. You have no idea about what you think you know. Laughable tripe from Paul Trump.”

            You have all the understanding of a five year old child. The laws on handling of classified documents are both extensive and clear. Everything I have posted is based on the law not on some childish fantasy of the magical power possessed by Dear Leader. A document marked classified remains classified until legally marked as unclassified. Period.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. Having worked extensively with classified material, I can say with utter confidence that you have absolutely NO clue what you are talking about. Stop making a complete fool of yourself….again

        Like

        Reply

    2. Don, Trump could have declassified anything he wanted… however… nuclear documents are more than just “classified.” They are “restricted” under the Atomic Energy Act and no President can remove that lock.

      https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/08/12/the-legal-and-political-significance-of-nuclear-documents-trump-is-suspected-to-have-stolen/?fbclid=IwAR3y_8UHkMQEsPNrgx_jZ47AE1t-NyI3TS1gDCIdGdfIMgbX4viNLS1pRq8

      As to whether or not the FBI had a mole inside Mar-a-Lago, we still don’t know for sure, but if they did, it was justified. In February 2019, multiple whistleblowers raised issues with the House Oversight Committee about the Trump administration’s efforts to sell nuclear technology to the country that gave us the 911 hijackers.

      https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/multiple-whistleblowers-raise-grave-concerns-with-white-house-efforts-to

      It doesn’t take an Agatha Christie to figure out why nuclear documents would be in Trump’s basement.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Again, I have not been keeping up today, Were restricted nuclear documents actually found?

        But I will remember that you and Paul are OK with the administration in power using the FBI to spy on their opponents.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. “But I will remember that you and Paul are OK with the administration in power using the FBI to spy on their opponents.”

          You are once again making a fool of yourself. The FBI is NOT spying on political opponents. It is trying to enforce the law.

          If a former government employee removed highly classified material from his former office, showed them to people, and kept them for months in an unsecured location, what SHOULD the government do about it? Send agents and polite letters? They did that. Issue a subpoena for their return? They did that. Months ago. And still that employee kept and hid those documents, what should it do then?

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. What documents, other than Obama’s hand written original letter, were subpoenaed and not surrendered?

            The archives had access to the entire store of documents. They could have subpoenaed any of them.

            Like

          2. They did. TWICE! How many times do they have to ask? How many “pretty, pretty pleases” are required for someone to answer a subpoena?

            THe continuing defense of things that were once indefensible by those on the right, in complete and total fealty to a man, and NOT the law, is so blatantly obvious. But those wearing their orange colored glasses juts WILL NOT SEE.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “What documents, other than Obama’s hand written original letter, were subpoenaed and not surrendered?”

            The catalog of what was siezed (and should never have been taken from the White House) has now been made semi-public. You persist in making a complete jackass out of yourself. Why? For love of Trump? Sad.

            https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/12/politics/trump-mar-a-lago-investigation/index.html

            The Espionage Act is now in play. As it should be. Lock him up!

            Liked by 2 people

          4. RE: “The Espionage Act is now in play.”

            Only in the minds of people obsessed with their own fantasies.

            Like

          5. It is no fantasy that the Espionage Act was sited in the affidavit for hte search.

            That ain’t fantasy except to those who refuse to open their eyes and see what is happening to their orange haired hero.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. RE: “It is no fantasy that the Espionage Act was sited in the affidavit for hte search.”

            You are correct. But we don’t yet know whether any provisions of the Act have been violated. Hence, it is not “in play,” except in the fevered imaginations of people who assume too much.

            Like

          7. “Hence, it is not “in play blah blah blah”

            Of course the Espionage Act is “in play” when apparent violations of that act are cited in a court filing to support the request for a search warrant. DUH!

            Liked by 1 person

          8. If DOJ puts it in play as part of their affidavit, then it is IN PLAY. Are you claiming that the DOJ has a fevered imagination? Did they assume too much when they presented the information to the magistrate to obtain the search warrant?

            The only fevered imagination I am seeing is those who are BLINDLY trying to make excuses all over every possible scenario, NOT BASED IN FACT, that TFG did nothing wrong.

            Or maybe, like DOn used to say, he was “careless”.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. No, it is a simple error.

            For the espionage act to apply the information has to be delivered to the enemy, or left where it is vulnerable to discovery.

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-secrets-of-mar-a-lago-donald-trump-merrick-garland-fbi-department-of-justice-11660339323?st=rfexqrrmgyn5buh&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

            Now, had he placed those documents on an unsecure private server every intelligence agency in the world had penetrated, then there would be a case.

            Like

          2. …”left where it is vulnerable to discovery.”…

            Until the door to the basement storeroom was installed, it WAS vulnerable to discovery.

            DJT also took joy in telling ANYONE that would listen during private audiences, “Here, look at this shit that I can have at will. Ain’t it cool”😇

            Lord only knows what he shared with Lavrov VERY early in his term.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Hillary did no such thing, as you are suggesting.

            Nice try at whataboutism. But as usual, your “facts” are overridden by TRUTH. ANd it is killing you because you can’t admit it.

            Like

        3. YEs, they were.

          But even that is not enough for you to stop defending a law breaker.

          Rule of Law.?Only “YOU PEOPLE” break it. My people are ALWAYS innocent. That is your mantra as you and the rest of the base here continue to chant over and over again.

          Like

          Reply

          3. The reports I have seen simply say they referenced nuclear weapons. That doesn’t tell you anything.

            As Scott Adams pointed out, a letter to Kim Jong Whatever saying “We have nuclear weapons. We would rather not use them on you. Let’s talk” would fit the reports.

            Nuclear codes are another issue. First, they are changed regularly, like updating your password. Expired nuclear codes are no longer SCI, as I understand it.

            So again, what specifically is being alleged?

            Like

          4. “Expired nuclear codes are no longer SCI, as I understand it.”

            You mean as you just made up.

            Here we are again. Your hero Trump commits and gets caught committing egregious crimes and you tie yourself into knots trying to spin them away. This has been a recurring pattern for about seven years now.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “Do you have a cite that nuclear codes, or any other really sensitive information, were involved at all?”

            The information recovered from Trump’s basement has been characterized in the inventory provided under court supervision. Eleven sets of documents were marked with various levels of classification including four marked “Top Secret” and one marked “Top Secret/SCI.” I have not cited any particulars beyond that. By definition the mark “Top Secret” means release of the document “reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” The SCI take that standard to an even higher level. Such materials marked “Top Secret” or “Top Secret/SCI” qualify as “really sensitive information.” Obviously.

            Your “logic” amounts to . . . We do not know at this juncture whether the materials contained Nuclear Codes therefore this is no big deal and the work of the DOJ and FBI is political.

            And that is typical of your busted logic when it comes to Trump’s crimes.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Certainly there are other subjects that could be sensitive beyond the nuclear codes, but there are also many others that mention nuclear weapons that were never really sensitive and many more that have timed out.

            In any case, Trump declassified everything taken out of the Oval Office un there terms of executive order 13526 that specifically exempts the President from the normal procedures.

            BTW, that is Obama’s executive order.

            Like

          8. “In any case, Trump declassified everything taken out of the Oval Office un there terms of executive order 13526 that specifically exempts the President from the normal procedures.”

            He is NOT exempted from putting his declassification decisions in the form very specific WRITTEN orders. And his decisions do not affect a specific document until that document has been formally found to be covered by that WRITTEN order and marked as such.

            As discussed elsewhere, the Espionage Act is not tied to the classification scheme so the classification status of the particular documents is not the central issue.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. Huh?

            Did I say that Obama’s executive order was in any way in error?

            On the contrary, I find it to be in line with the powers of the Chief Executive.

            Like

          12. So Trump is OK because of something Obama did? I am immediately buying stock in every mustard company in the world, because the pretzel logic you are spewing is going to take a LOT of extra flavoring.

            Like

          13. Start drinking early today?

            What I wrote was that Obama’s executive order outlining the issue of classification, and the President’s power to alter it as he chooses is correct and in line with the Constitution.

            Jeez, I can’t even credit Obama when he was rigth without you finding fault.

            Like

          14. You keep saying nuclear codes like that is what was discovered. NO ONE HAS SAID THAT BUT YOU. In your desperate defense of a man who wandered off the reservation with classified information and did not return it when asked nicely…TWICE

            Liked by 1 person

          15. OK, then any sensitive nuclear information.

            I doubt seriously that Trump has ever read any technical nuclear papers, or could understand them if he did.

            Like

          16. Doesn’t matter if he read it OR understood it. What matters is he ILLEGALLY absconded with highly sensitive, HIGHLY CLASSIFIED documents that do NOT belong to him or even his presidency.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. Then you haven’t been paying attention to anything but your BUBBLE sources. Coe out of your silo, get some fresh air, and realize that the implications of what was found are damning to your hero, who is careless. And has been LYING to the country for 6 years.

            Liked by 1 person

          21. “Pick a reliable news site and find out for yourself.”

            He is not going to do that. Pretending there is a need for “cites” for widely reported information is one of the standard rhetorical tricks of your basic Trump-loving, reality-denying cultist.

            Liked by 1 person

          23. Then you have eifffully NOT paid attention to anyone but Trump and his minions.

            He has thrown out more BS than Carter has little liver pills. None of them are sticking, so he has to come up with something. Now it is attorney-client privilege (again). A judge can review and determine that. Can’t just say it and have it be true.

            Liked by 1 person

          24. Once that privileged material has been seen, it cannot be unseen, the abuse of rights is irreversible. The refusal to have that adjudicated by an independent special master BEFORE it is viewed by a partisan FBI has no innocent explanation.

            Like

          25. What privileged information? Do you have and evidence or proof that there was some? Trump has changed his stories from the first day to the most recent with regards to the search warrant. Only after several days did he say some was privileged.

            He is so adept at suing, I think he ought to sue in this case. It could set a precedent for future presidents.

            Depositions might be an issue he would not want to deal with, however.

            There is also the matter of taking the classified papers from us, regardless of classification status. They are not his to remove and keep. Period.

            Obama gave the Archive all his papers before he left the White House and it is storing them in Chicago, excepting the classified ones which are store in DC. Both storage facilities are secure NARA facilities control by the Archive.

            Was Trump special?

            Liked by 2 people

          26. Suing and getting the privileged papers back in a year or so, after they have been read and any embarrassing tidbits are leaked to the NYT does not repair the damage.

            If there is any doubt at all that there might be privileged papers in the 45 boxes, the only remedy would be for an impartial party to screen the material.

            Again, there is no innocent reason for the FBI to refuse that.

            Like

          27. “Again, there is no innocent reason for the FBI to refuse that.”

            You are forgetting the most obvious one. They have the papers. They know what they took and what they left behind. They are in position to know that this late-to-the-party bullshit is nothing but a political stunt and an obvious attempt to run out the clock. Their careers are on the line if they are wrong.

            Like

          28. If they have already read privileged communications then their careers are already over.

            Not wanting to get caught is not an innocent explanation.

            Like

          30. Keep smearing the FBI and you will end up with egg on your face with the rest of the Trump apologists. John Dean said that and he knows a little bit about Presidents being criminal.

            Like

          31. Scott Adams fell off the deep end when his step son committed suicide. It seems clear from his writings. -IMO

            How good gravy desperate are YOU and YOUR tribe to defend what happened when you were screaming lock her up with the rest of the drooling masses?

            THere is NO REASONING WITH THE HYPOCRISY OF YOUR TRIBE! And you are just too god awful blind to even realize it.

            Liked by 1 person

          33. Scott Adams is not in a good place anymore and has become more and more disconsolate and emotionally damaged. Trusting him in ANYTHING is not a good idea.

            Like

          36. I read his posts every day, and I see no evidence of that. He is certainly frustrated by his inability to save his stepson but it would be abnormal not to be.

            Like

          37. Neither is it abnormal to say that he is depressed.

            Plus, he is in your tribe, so he can’t do or say anything wrong. ANother reason to doubt anything he opines on.

            Like

          43. “Tell it to Obama”

            Okay, tell us where in the applicable Executive Order does it say that the President can declassify documents by uttering magic words as he heads out the door.

            Liked by 1 person

        4. “ But I will remember that you and Paul are OK with the administration in power using the FBI to spy on their opponents.”

          “Hey, this is Vito. It’d be a real shame if somethin’
          happened to youse guys.”

          Egad, all the folks that were involved in or agreed with the search have been threatened with violence. Shoot, anyone who even questions the ex-president gets that treatment nowadays.

          I know your remark was offhanded (there is that word again), but it seemed both funny and not so funny at the same time.

          As you say, “words have meaning”.

          Take this as lighthearted…kindly😇

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. You’re projecting your obsession with violence again.

            Remembered is not a threat, it is notice that the hypocrisy will be pointed out at the appropriate time.

            Lois and Paul excused using the FBI for political espionage. They cannot later complain about future perceived abuses.

            Like

          3. Who, other than Bannon would be responsible for that?

            Certainly placing agents at risk is reprehensible. Garland and Wray are responsible for the unjustified raid, not the agents who followed orders.

            In any case. I don’t remember you having a problem when conservatives were doxxed.

            Like

          4. …”for the unjustified raid,”

            Tell that to Garland and the FEDERAL MAGISTRATE who signed off on it.

            D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-ON. I can smell it from here all over your posts.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. First the Magistrate should have recused himself.

            But even assuming his rabid hatred for Trump was not a factor, that does not mean the Affidavit (which the DOJ still hides) was factually accurate or complete.

            It would not be the first time the FBI has defrauded a court to try to spy on Trump.

            Like

          6. “First the Magistrate should have recused himself.”
            “Rabid hater of Trump”

            Is he of Mexican heritage too?

            Here is a bio of Judge Reinhart…

            https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-bruce-reinhart-fbi-search-warrant-trump-mar-a-lago-2022-8

            It is hard to see from these facts where lying liars come up with these irrelevant personal attacks. That his decision to approve the warrant was 100% reasonable is FULLY supported by the fact that the materials covered were actually there.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. First, be sure to run your spyware program soon. Business Insider is packed with tracking cookies and spyware.

            But none of the article is relevant. Reinhart had recused himself from a matter involving Trump in the past and nothing has changed.

            Like

          8. Business Insider has been cited here by numerous posters. NOW you are warning against using it because of potential malicious cookie tracking and spyware?

            Could it be an attempt to sdiscreit a source Paul used because, well, they told the truth?

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Nope, just a warning based on my security software’s reaction. It has not been bad in the past but in the last month, it has been a problem It could be something in one of the ads.

            Like

          11. This case is way too sensitive to go about it lightly. Yet here you are spewing misinformation, and casting aspersions on a judge YOU DON’T LIKE. Like Trump with the federal judge in Indiana, you question his ability to be a fair and impartial jurist. But CHEER decisions by those who are radical right wing judges.

            Clouded judgement on your part does not make anything you say even remotely true.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. Reinhart had previously recused himself on a case where Trump was involved. If he was so prejudiced against Trump before that he felt he had to recuse himself, nothing has changed

            Like

          13. Your wording was just a pretty flower waiting to be picked.

            BTW, only you and the Trump cult think this warrant was about political espionage.

            Our government was very rightly concerned that Top Secret documents were in a closet at a private home. Documents they have tried to get back for over a year and a half through asking, begging, subpoenas.

            That is a problem for most of us.

            “Lock her up…?” Talk about hypocrisy.

            And now death threats are flying from your “tribe” (using your favorite name). Even FOX through Tucker’s folks have spread the phony meme of the federal magistrate’s face on Epstein’s body on a plane with Ghislaine Maxwell. On the Carlson show, the most popular opinion show on cable.

            Are threats of violence just jokes? Coming from a man with a purported arsenal, does that make sense?

            Liked by 2 people

          14. … hypocrisy will be pointed out at the appropriate time.”

            I point out YOURS almost every day, yet you continue to ignore it and in some instances, try and spin it around like Trump does; blaming others for what he himself is doing or has done.

            Like

          15. “Lois and Paul excused using the FBI for political espionage.”

            You can repeat your stupid slanders until you turn purple. It is what you do. There has been ZERO political espionage done by the FBI. They have done their job of investigating security threats and criminal behavior. The fact that your hero drew their attention reflects on HIM and not on them.

            You people can shuck and jive all night long. Carting off highly classified documents was in itself a serious crime. Failing to return them when the crime was discovered compounds the offense. There is no bona fide reason for Trump to take and hide such documents. This makes it very much within the reach of the Espionage Act. “What was he planning to do with them?” is a legitimate question that DEMANDS investigation.

            Liked by 2 people

          16. “Reinhart had recused himself from a matter involving Trump in the past and nothing has changed.”

            My what a good little parrot you are! Still attacking the judge for approving a warrant which proved to be honest and accurate. Stolen documents were found as the supporting affidavit said they would be.

            You have slimed this judge and when challenged with some facts you give a warning about cookies? Not too ridiculous.

            As for the previous recusal, the case involved Hillary Clinton as well as Trump. It was a different case and a different set of circumstances. It is entirely likely that he recused himself from that case because he had the preconceived idea that the case was bullshit because, you know, it was. Or maybe he just hates Hillary. You do not know and neither does anyone else.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. Reinhart was on a plane with Maxwell, Epstein’s procurer. Eating Oreos and drinking Early Times.

            Don’t believe it? A right wing meme showed “proof”. Carlson’s show promoted it.

            It must be true. Millions believe it.

            Wait, I have a call from Adobe…it might be Photoshopped.

            Sorry, I am sure Carlson will correct that soon.😇

            Liked by 2 people

          19. True. But millions see Rev. Carlson as the leader of the Church of Right is Might.

            Woe be to Hannity to defy the Almighty Demagogue. Amen brother, Amen.

            Like

          20. Looking forward to the knockdown, drag out, hand off between those two in the coming weeks. It will be a distraction from truth about Trump, but I think Hannity can kick Carlson’s backside with one tongue tied behind his back.

            Like

  4. Off hand I’d say it’s just another case of “ignore-it-if-it’s-bad-for-Trump.” Still that’s a step up from “but-Obama/Hillary.” I’ve even noticed some people calling the situation in Ukraine a “war.” Baby steps. But it’s all you can hope for. Without Alex Jones, they’re floundering for truthiness.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  5. Yes, restricted documents were found. And yes, the Espionage Act is being discussed.

    I’ll admit, when the FBI publicly declared it was opening another investigation into Hillary’s emails 11 days before the election, I was upset. However, I did not trash the Capitol nor shoot up an FBI headquarters about it. If they had found anything incriminating the SECOND TIME THEY LOOKED, I would have been grateful for their efforts. If the FBI had found anything about Hunter Biden’s laptop that was incriminating, perhaps Trump wouldn’t have had to extort the President of Ukraine to dig up non-existent dirt and our country would have been spared that embarrassment too. So, yeah, I’m okay with the FBI doing their job. I’m a law and order kinda gal… just like conservatives used to be.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. A whole pile of wishful thinking there.

      Patel was representing Trump with NARA so he needed access to what was being sought to provide it.

      And, Trump had declassified the documents, or at least of the best of his knowledge had, so he can’t have knowingly allowed improper access.

      The NYTimes David Brooks fears that this raid has already guaranteed Trump the Presidency in 2024 and he may be right.

      Like

      Reply

      1. David Brooks wrote that piece after the search warrant was served Monday evening. (It was in the Times on Tuesday) I haven’t seen anything new from him concerning the events since SO much more information has come to light.

        OOPS. Timing is everything.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. You assume too much. I have only stressed that the president has ultimate declassification authority, which is true.

          Like

          Reply

      2. If you had read the article, you would know that Trump once Tweeted: “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”

        That order was never carried out because it couldn’t be carried out without grave damage to national security. But he gave the order. Offhandedly.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. That’s what I thought. “Offhandedly” is your opinion, not fact.

          Announcing a declassification order and the order itself are two different things. Then, separately, comes the process of preparing the materials for public release.

          Like

          Reply

          2. I know what those markings indicate. I held a Secret security clearance for 20 years, for which I was required to take “refresher training” on policies and procedures four times a year every year throughout the period.

            Like

          3. Then why are you playing dumb about such documents, not known to be officially declassified? And just “saying” TS/SCI is know declassified is NOT legal. Maybe you should get your training refreshed again.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Hear an interview this morning with a former Intel official who was in charge of anti-espionage operations and talking about how declassification works. He makes YOU look a bit foolish in your cavalier statements about how declassification REALY works. Tried to find a link to it from NPR, but not avialable yet.

            Liked by 1 person

  8. No, giving the order was “offhanded” because it was never processed. He said it in a snit and never followed up. If it had been processed, it wouldn’t have been “offhanded.” It would have been stupid, but not offhanded. Announcing the declassification of government documents in a tweet shows shallowness of thought and a total disregard for the seriousness of national security.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. RE: “No, giving the order was ‘offhanded’ because it was never processed.”

      Why do you think the order was never processed; what is your evidence? Also, are you not aware that a president’s declassification order is effective immediately, whether it is “processed” or not?

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Also, are you not aware that a president’s declassification order is effective immediately, whether it is processed” or not?”

        Buzz. False. A document remains classified until it is individually marked as declassified page by page with the notation of the authority responsible for making that change.

        We all have to give Mr. Trump high marks for understanding the suckers he leads down the primrose path. He nailed you people when he declared . . . “”I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? It’s, like, incredible.”

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. RE: “A document remains classified until it is individually marked as declassified page by page with the notation of the authority responsible for making that change.”

          Wrong. Classification markings are just markings. Although neither is desireable nor common in practice, it is not unusual for unmarked documents to contain classified material or for marked documents to contain unclassified material. Both can and do happen in a variety of ways.

          Like

          Reply

          2. I suggest you stop pretending to be an expert on classified documents, especially since you have never held a clearance.

            Like

          3. “I suggest you stop pretending to be an expert on classified documents, especially since you have never held a clearance.”

            What a dope you are! I am not “pretending” anything. I can read and do simple research. You should try it.

            A top secret document that has been marked classified remains classified until it is legally marked as unclassified. That is the simple fact of the matter which in your Trumpish stupidity and pigheadedness you are unable to accept.

            And, as a matter of fact, I HAVE held a security clearance. Not that it matters in the least as you so amply demonstrate. It was required when I audited secret government projects at General Electric earlier in my career.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “It was required when I audited secret government projects at General Electric earlier in my career.”

            I don’t believe you. Last time I called you out on your experience with security clearances, you said you “must have had one” because General Electric was a government contractor. But you couldn’t say what your clearance was, or even if you had undergone the required background check. I think you are inventing bona fides for yourself.

            Like

      2. So a TS document was verbally declassified by the president, but not marked, dated and shown to be such, who would know?

        If you were caught reading a highly classified document still labeled as such, your defense would be to contact the ex-president and ask if this was declassified? If he liked you or not would be pretty important for your defense. Or worse, what if he is incompetent and in a nursing facility? Or deceased, for that matter? Is hearsay evidence by a former Trump advisor going to save you in court?

        Even if an ex-president said he declassified the documents that are still marked classified over a year and a half ago, why should he be believed? No records. No information. I am not just referring to Trump and his track record of lying, but any president?

        Who knows what our adversaries may already have regarding copies or access to our highest level of secrets.

        This may be a test of whether the Constitution was enough to protect our nation against a traitor in the Oval Office.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. RE: “Even if an ex-president said he declassified the documents that are still marked classified over a year and a half ago, why should he be believed?”

          He shouldn’t. As you point out there should be records or other evidence.

          In the absence of records or other evidence, one cannot say that the ex-president did something wrong. Remember, the president and vice president are the “original classification authorities” for all classified materials.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “ In the absence of records or other evidence, one cannot say that the ex-president did something wrong.”

            If that absence of evidence that he did issue a blanket declassification, then he is just another citizen with top secret limited access documents in a private home.

            If you are caught with stolen goods from a store, you better have receipts as proof of purchase or other corroborating evidence as to why you have exactly the same goods reported stolen.

            Liked by 2 people

  9. Don, at the time, both Solomon and Patel had been stripped of their security clearances. And it doesn’t matter what Trump “thought” about those documents being declassified, they were, in fact, restricted and Trump never had the authority to changed that.

    David Brook’s fears should be directed at what would have happened if those documents had not been retrieved… if they had been left in the care of a man who was more interested in a $2 billion deal with the Saudis than what the results of nuclear weapons in the hands of religious fundamentalists might be. That fear alone should guarantee Trump will never set foot in the White House again.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  10. One more late night piece of information: The FBI will be fingerprinting all of the confiscated documents to see whose fingerprints are on them. That should be interesting.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  11. So… what do you think? Maybe they’ll find Hillary’s fingerprints? Maybe it’s a hoax? Who cares who’s fingerprints are on the most highly restricted documents in the government archives? You know, the same kind of documents that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for stealing. Who cares who has been handling them?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

      1. Roy Cohen was Joesph McCarthy’s lawyer and the chief prosecutor of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who got the death penalty for stealing exactly the same kind of documents found in Trump’s basement. And if you know anything about the relationship between Roy Cohen and Donald Trump, it’ll tell you all you need to know about Karma’s sense of humor. Chilling. Almost… spooky. If there was ever a sign the boi’s goin’ down, that was it.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

    2. RE: “Who cares who’s fingerprints are on the most highly restricted documents in the government archives?”

      I’m sure that the fingerprints might be interesting, but handling a classified document is not in itself a crime. Once you have the fingerprint you need to explain how it got there.

      To use the jargon of national security, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were prosecuted for violating the need-to-know principle, not for handling papers.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment