5 ms·

The president can declassify anything he wants to, merely by speaking it to someone else. He's the only person in or out of the government who can do this. So

The president can declassify anything he wants to, merely by speaking it to someone else. He's the only person in or out of the government who can do this. So, not impeachable. Impeachable would be when the former Secretary of State did not exercise care when handling classified information. The relevant statute does not require intent - only lack of care. It is interesting that all the push back by governments to keep phones from being secure has resulted in no phones being available that are secure - at least not any that people want to use.

craftyguy 8y ago
Interesting. So does the president have a free ticket to declassify anything, even if it puts the nation at risk (e.g. during a time of war)? For example, if trump posted the location of a surprise invasion force on twitter, can the rest of the government just "lol, trump on twitter again" and move on?
- s_m_t 8y ago
  The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces so pretty much anything the military does is under the presidents authority or by authority delegated down the chain of command from him/her. The president could personally lead troops into battle if he wanted to. I think the only president to have served as an actual general during their time as president was George Washington during the whiskey rebellion.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    President Lincoln wasn't leading troops into battle, but he was (briefly) under fire in 1864, during Early's raid on Washington.
- wahern 8y ago
  This is why we have impeachment and removal. "High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't require breaking an actual criminal statute. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors and my reply to tomohawk.
akhilcacharya 8y ago
>Impeachable would be when the former Secretary of State did not exercise care when handling classified information Its remarkable that some people are still keeping up this charade, 3.5 years after it was revealed and 2 years after it was put to rest. C'mon, man. It's intellectual dishonesty. Apparently we judge a former SoS by the rules of cricket and the President by the rules of Calvinball.
- tomohawk 8y ago
  Charade? She sent and received classified emails: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/ https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-class... Here's the relevant statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 (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.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/ https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negli... > Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11432/why-might-title-18-section-793-be-unconstitutional https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11432/why-might-titl...
wahern 8y ago
The conduct is still impeachable even if he can declassify, explicitly or impliedly. (And I agree he can disclose whatever he wants to whomever he wants. But I also believe the Secretary of State has similar powers, albeit more narrowly circumscribed. Note that both Hillary Clinton and her predecessor, Colin Powell, used private e-mail servers.) The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" means the opposite of what people intuitively think. Elected officials entrusted with state powers are held (or were at the time of the founding deemed to be held) to higher ethical and moral standards than regular citizens. A "high crime" would be misbehavior by someone in a high office. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors Wantonly reckless behavior wrt to national security is, I would hope, indisputably impeachable. But in any event what's impeachable is entirely up to Congress as a practical matter--their decision is unreviewable except by the ballot box.

craftyguy 8y ago

Interesting. So does the president have a free ticket to declassify anything, even if it puts the nation at risk (e.g. during a time of war)? For example, if trump posted the location of a surprise invasion force on twitter, can the rest of the government just "lol, trump on twitter again" and move on?

s_m_t 8y ago
The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces so pretty much anything the military does is under the presidents authority or by authority delegated down the chain of command from him/her. The president could personally lead troops into battle if he wanted to. I think the only president to have served as an actual general during their time as president was George Washington during the whiskey rebellion.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  President Lincoln wasn't leading troops into battle, but he was (briefly) under fire in 1864, during Early's raid on Washington.
wahern 8y ago
This is why we have impeachment and removal. "High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't require breaking an actual criminal statute. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors and my reply to tomohawk.

akhilcacharya 8y ago

>Impeachable would be when the former Secretary of State did not exercise care when handling classified information Its remarkable that some people are still keeping up this charade, 3.5 years after it was revealed and 2 years after it was put to rest. C'mon, man. It's intellectual dishonesty. Apparently we judge a former SoS by the rules of cricket and the President by the rules of Calvinball.

tomohawk 8y ago
Charade? She sent and received classified emails: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/ https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-class... Here's the relevant statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 (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.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/ https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negli... > Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11432/why-might-title-18-section-793-be-unconstitutional https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11432/why-might-titl...

wahern 8y ago

The conduct is still impeachable even if he can declassify, explicitly or impliedly. (And I agree he can disclose whatever he wants to whomever he wants. But I also believe the Secretary of State has similar powers, albeit more narrowly circumscribed. Note that both Hillary Clinton and her predecessor, Colin Powell, used private e-mail servers.) The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" means the opposite of what people intuitively think. Elected officials entrusted with state powers are held (or were at the time of the founding deemed to be held) to higher ethical and moral standards than regular citizens. A "high crime" would be misbehavior by someone in a high office. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors Wantonly reckless behavior wrt to national security is, I would hope, indisputably impeachable. But in any event what's impeachable is entirely up to Congress as a practical matter--their decision is unreviewable except by the ballot box.