Trump: 'I'm Allowed to Do Whatever I Want' With Classified Info
www.rollingstone.com
The former president told Hugh Hewitt that he “absolutely” would testify in the federal government’s probe of his handling of sensitive material

DONALD TRUMP SAID he “absolutely” plans to testify in the federal government’s case against him regarding classified documents he removed from the White House. “I’m allowed to do whatever I want … I’m allowed to do everything I did,” the former president told conservative podcast host Hugh Hewitt.

In an interview on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” that dropped Wednesday, the host asked Trump, “Did you direct anyone to move the boxes, Mr. President? Did you tell anyone to move the boxes?” referring to the boxes of more than 300 classified documents the federal government seized last year from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

“I don’t talk about anything. You know why? Because I’m allowed to do whatever I want. I come under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump replied, while also taking a quick detour to bash Hewitt. “I’m not telling you. You know, every time I talk to you, ‘Oh, I have a breaking story.’ You don’t have any story. I come under the Presidential Records Act. I’m allowed to do everything I did.”

  • Masterofballs@lemmy.world
    35·
    1 year ago

    Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

    “The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’” according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. “His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security … flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.”

    It’s been generally accepted that the president is not subject to his own executive orders because he can change them at will

    The official documents governing classification and declassification stem from executive orders. But even these executive orders aren’t necessarily binding on the president. The president is not “obliged to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed,” Aftergood said. “And he can change those.”

    As Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy wrote.

    I will take my $500 in bitcoin thank you.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      5·
      1 year ago

      So what your saying is that an ex president can refuse to turn over classified documents that he himself acknowledges he did not declassify, and share that information with people that do not have clearences or precedent to know that information.

      If your right, then it isn’t a strong case. If you’re wrong, that case seems pretty fucking damning.

      • Masterofballs@lemmy.world
        17·
        1 year ago

        Theoretically the president can indeed forget that he ever declassified them. By being in his possession any requirements were satisfied because he himself defined those requirements.

    • Raging LibTarg@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      1 year ago

      Hey, that’s pretty neat! Let me try:

      The New York Times, et al., v. Central Intelligence Agency (2020)

      Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot “simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary,” that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public.

      The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program.

      Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stand for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.

      Pretty cool!!

      • Masterofballs@lemmy.world
        25·
        1 year ago

        That case has no presidential implications. It’s not relevant at all. It establishes no precedent for a president.

    • Mcdolan@lemmy.world
      31·
      1 year ago

      This seems like a much better example of your appeal to authority fallacy.

      Fucking troll…

      -_-