You do realize that any declassified document can be obtained via a FOIA request right? That means any of those documents can be obtained. So let's go with your little theory that Donald declassified these Top Secret documents for anyone to access. Why is the hell would he? The answer is, he didn't.
On standing order to auto-declassified.... not sure why team Trump hasn't made a legal argument for that (maybe they are consulting with their Supreme Court partners on a good legal argument). Ignoring the BS of it (really, if you are okay with a POTUS simply waving his hand and putting the US at risk because he wanted to take some cool things home - you are part of a cult), declassified doesn't absolve him of criminal actions. From the very start, the DoJ noted in the redacted filing that the provision of the Espionage Act is related to the mishandling of national defense information (declassified or not). And there are also lies and obstructions.
Whether Trump had the power or not there is little evidence that this order actually existed. The WH counsel has not said that such an order existed nor did many others in the Admin. If such a radical order did exist why weren’t we hearing about this before he left office? Most of the evidence points to this being an after the fact excuse. It’s not surprising that they are now dropping it or downplaying it.
No one believes that he ordered it (they are lying to you when they say otherwise). The fact that he didn't order it doesn't mean Trump can't claim that it was ordered. Trump's argument can be as absurd as: 'in my mind, I declassified all of them. It doesn't matter that no one knows it. While he has not made that argument in any court filing, his lawyer did basically make that statement in their letter to the DoJ that on the basis of "the Constitution" (without any reference to which part of it) Trump can declassify anything at any time while he was POTUS (implying he doesn't have to notify anyone). While there seems to be plenty of problems with that, who the hell knows with the Court.
From my limited knowledge of the law an ex post facto argument like this with no evidence would be very problematic for a lawyer to make. For example in my profession if a building collapsed and I blamed it on the contractor claiming that my drawings showed there should’ve been more concrete in a column than there was. If the drawings don’t show that I can’t claim that that was my design intent all along and someone just forgot to update the drawings. I would rightfully not only lose my license but also be sued out of house and home.
Your best case scenario is complete fantasy. Trump was asked to return documents that were in the White House residence before he left office. He was then asked for them again in May 2021. So even if it was an accident, which is doubtful, he had multiple opportunities to return the documents. Instead he delayed, lied about and obstructed their return.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-co...rtment-11661711673?mod=hp_opin_pos_4#cxrecs_s The Comey-Clinton Document Standard and Trump When Hillary kept classified information on her private email server, Justice and the FBI let her off. By The Editorial Board Aug. 28, 2022 5:16 pm ET When Jim Comey held his July 2016 press briefing on Hillary Clinton’s emails, his conclusion was this: “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” In other words, Mrs. Clinton could have been indicted but wasn’t. That ended the Clinton email saga as a legal matter—with a lecture but without a prosecution. As we wrote at the time, this was an outrageous usurpation by the FBI director, whose role was to investigate and turn the evidence over to a U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General to decide on prosecution. He was letting the Democratic Justice Department off the hook from having to make its own judgment. Attorney General Loretta Lynch let Mr. Comey’s judgment stand. After his press statement, Mrs. Clinton was free to continue her run for the White House, and the press declared the issue put to rest. We criticized that decision at the time, but for better or worse Mr. Comey and the Obama Justice Department had set the Clinton Standard for treating a prominent politician who mishandles classified documents. Lesser public officials might have been prosecuted, or at least sanctioned, and some were. But from then on any such prosecution for comparable alleged offenses has to be made in light of the Comey-Lynch-Clinton precedent. All of this bears on the current furor over Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago. If Mrs. Clinton wasn’t prosecuted, is there a different standard for Mr. Trump? Mrs. Clinton was obliged to follow all the typical classification rules that apply to government officials. As Mr. Comey said in his 2016 press statement, Mrs. Clinton falsely claimed that she had turned over all work-related emails to State, but the FBI found “several thousand” work-related emails that weren’t turned over. He also said Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers hadn’t even read her emails when deciding what to turn in. They relied on “header information” and search terms, and then “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” Recall that she also deliberately used private personal servers on which she conducted government business. All of this sounds similar to the behavior the FBI says in its affidavit that it suspects of Mr. Trump, who may not have turned over all the documents the National Archives and FBI wanted. One complicating legal difference is that Mr. Trump operates under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), whose language assumes there will be some give and take between the Archives and a former President over documents. We don’t know everything about the documents Mr. Trump retained, how he handled them, what he told the FBI and other facts that are still hidden by the redactions in the affidavit. New details may emerge that differ in significant ways from Mrs. Clinton’s behavior. But that isn’t evident so far, and Mr. Trump’s lawyers will surely argue that under the PRA he has some right to hold documents, even many that are classified, for some period of time or some personal purpose. All of this has to weigh on Merrick Garland as the Attorney General considers whether to indict Mr. Trump for his handling of classified documents. We didn’t like the Clinton Standard but we didn’t establish it. A Democratic Justice Department did, and in a case with enormous political consequences. If Mr. Garland can’t make a compelling case that Mr. Trump’s transgressions are greater than Mrs. Clinton’s, with enough clear and convincing evidence to warrant a criminal charge, the better judgment is not to prosecute and put the country through the trauma of a political trial that half of America will suspect is a case of unequal justice. Appeared in the August 29, 2022, print edition as 'The Comey-Clinton Document Standard'.
Hillary complied with requests, didn't obstruct, wasn't part of other ongoing investigations. That being said, I would have been fine had they indicted her.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/30/clinton-emails-trump-documents-comparison/ In explaining his agency’s recommendation not to prosecute, Comey cited the lack of four elements that he said had been present “in some combination” in previous prosecutions involving removal or mishandling of classified information: “Clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information.” “Vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct.” “Indications of disloyalty to the United States.” “Efforts to obstruct justice.” Comey concluded: “We do not see those things here.” Thus Clinton was not charged. Let’s take them one by one and compare the evidence against Clinton and Trump. 1. ‘Clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information’ This was the portion of Comey’s decision that was most disputed in Clinton’s case. ... Given the disputes over Comey’s read on Clinton’s intent, it’s difficult to directly compare with Trump. But a key difference is that there is a lot of evidence that Trump resisted relinquishing these documents when the government repeatedly came knocking for them. As The Post reported last week in a thorough review of the known facts: In a legal filing on Monday, Trump’s lawyers insisted that he had been cooperating with Justice Department requests. In fact, however, the narrative they laid out, as well as other documents and interviews, show that Trump ignored multiple opportunities to quietly resolve the FBI concerns by handing over all classified material in his possession — including a grand jury subpoena that Trump’s team accepted May 11. Again and again, he reacted with a familiar mix of obstinance and outrage, causing some in his orbit to fear he was essentially daring the FBI to come after him. With Clinton, the question was: Did her reasons for setting up the private email server demonstrate her intent? With Trump, we’re still learning a lot. But there appears to be plenty of evidence to suggest that his intent was to keep these documents, even when the alleged mishandling was flagged to him. Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump’s obstinance played a role in why he was searched. Whether that search was justified or not, it’s not really analogous to Clinton. 2. ‘Vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct’ “Vast quantities” is, of course, a subjective term. But the quantities do differ somewhat in these two situations. ... With Trump, we still don’t know the full extent of what he took to Mar-a-Lago. But the partially redacted search warrant affidavit released last week said that Trump in January voluntarily returned 184 classified documents, including 25 that were marked top secret. The search earlier this month turned up 11 more sets of classified documents, including several that were top secret. We don’t have the final numbers — the New York Times last week put the total number of classified documents at more than 300 — but the government has retrieved more classified and top-secret documents from him than from Clinton. ... 3. ‘Indications of disloyalty to the United States’ ... With Trump, the evidence on this front is very incomplete — and “disloyalty to the United States” is a very high bar. We do know that there was urgency to retrieve the documents for some reason, but despite plenty of speculation, we don’t know why that was. 4. ‘Efforts to obstruct justice’ This is likely to be the crucial difference, possibly alongside No. 1, if Trump is ever charged. As mentioned earlier, Trump resisted returning these documents. He didn’t return them even after one of his attorneys agreed last year that they should be returned. His attorney also signed a document in June stating that all documents marked as classified had been returned, according to the Times. And the government cited the likelihood that it would find evidence of obstruction to obtain the search warrant. Precisely what the government believes might rise to the level of obstruction, we’ll have to see.
The additional problem is Trump has issued orders to declassify certain materials. In fact, he made one (to declassify the FBI "crossfire hurricane" investigation) right before he left office on 1/19/21. The other problem is if a POTUS has such power, then Biden can also simply wave his hand to reclassify everything he took. But Trump's lawyer has made some absurd legal arguments so ...
Didn't Trump also change the laws to be harsher after the Hillary saga? You gonna prosecute someone in California because they got caught with weed in 1995 and let go? That's not a defense of Hillary, it's just the hilarity of Trump. Remember, he was running a campaign on this whole thing, while bragging about how many laws he could and had broken.
Trump is a traitor to this country and his army of Magats are about as ignorant and gullible as anyone could believe. DD
