One way or the other, if Trump is behind this sort of hide-the-ball behavior, it seems to me to reflect on his basic honesty and candor in a way the Always Trumpers would have a hard time ignoring (but if history is a guide, are likely to ignore anyway). At the minimum, it is inconsistent with the attitude towards law we have a right to expect, and must expect, from a person aspiring to the office whose oath most prominently features, "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
The failure to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her wanton distribution of classified docs, and Joe Biden's possession of SCIF material, when neither was President, undermines the seriousness of this whole enterprise. Not to mention the Clinton underling who bootlegged classified docs from the archives without consequences.
But I think the most confusing aspect of the to most Americans will be the scope of the President's power to classify/de-classify.
What is your opinion on the question of a President's classification authority?
Trump says that as Commander-in-Chief, he had the ability to "de-classify" (i.e, share) information with whomever he pleased.
His stalkers say that no, even the President has to go through a process to de-classify documents.
But this makes no sense to me. The President is the CiC and chief executive; what higher "process" could trump his decision to share information?
Is there a statute that forbids a President from possessing or sharing classified info without a process? Or perhaps there is a board of Alexander Vindamins sitting around somewhere that does this?
Good, clear analysis, as usual, though I think corrupt intent might be missing if it's a necessary element of an obstruction crime. I also think Trump's actions have to be viewed in broader context. While I haven't read it, it appears from the Durham report that the FBI and Justice Department deep-sixed Hillary Clinton's misuse of official records, which was much worse than Trump's, and are slow walking the Hunter Biden investigation, possibly to a slow death. And ever since Trump walked, or escalated, onto the political scene, he's been the object of targeted and improper investigation and prosecution. Joe Biden turned over his documents in response to or anticipation of a subpoena, but the facts that he took primarily classified documents, had them stashed in unusual places, and had a classified document that had been disassembled, suggest that classified documents had actually been reviewed in Biden's house, maybe by eyes other than Biden's, which, if true, is much worse than subpoena defiance. My analysis is not you-too-ism. You-two-ism is using another person's misconduct to justify your own. Prosecuting (or not prosecuting) the same or similar misconduct in the same way is equal justice under the law. Jim Dueholm
One way or the other, if Trump is behind this sort of hide-the-ball behavior, it seems to me to reflect on his basic honesty and candor in a way the Always Trumpers would have a hard time ignoring (but if history is a guide, are likely to ignore anyway). At the minimum, it is inconsistent with the attitude towards law we have a right to expect, and must expect, from a person aspiring to the office whose oath most prominently features, "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Paul:
The failure to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her wanton distribution of classified docs, and Joe Biden's possession of SCIF material, when neither was President, undermines the seriousness of this whole enterprise. Not to mention the Clinton underling who bootlegged classified docs from the archives without consequences.
But I think the most confusing aspect of the to most Americans will be the scope of the President's power to classify/de-classify.
What is your opinion on the question of a President's classification authority?
Trump says that as Commander-in-Chief, he had the ability to "de-classify" (i.e, share) information with whomever he pleased.
His stalkers say that no, even the President has to go through a process to de-classify documents.
But this makes no sense to me. The President is the CiC and chief executive; what higher "process" could trump his decision to share information?
Is there a statute that forbids a President from possessing or sharing classified info without a process? Or perhaps there is a board of Alexander Vindamins sitting around somewhere that does this?
Good, clear analysis, as usual, though I think corrupt intent might be missing if it's a necessary element of an obstruction crime. I also think Trump's actions have to be viewed in broader context. While I haven't read it, it appears from the Durham report that the FBI and Justice Department deep-sixed Hillary Clinton's misuse of official records, which was much worse than Trump's, and are slow walking the Hunter Biden investigation, possibly to a slow death. And ever since Trump walked, or escalated, onto the political scene, he's been the object of targeted and improper investigation and prosecution. Joe Biden turned over his documents in response to or anticipation of a subpoena, but the facts that he took primarily classified documents, had them stashed in unusual places, and had a classified document that had been disassembled, suggest that classified documents had actually been reviewed in Biden's house, maybe by eyes other than Biden's, which, if true, is much worse than subpoena defiance. My analysis is not you-too-ism. You-two-ism is using another person's misconduct to justify your own. Prosecuting (or not prosecuting) the same or similar misconduct in the same way is equal justice under the law. Jim Dueholm