Or Pence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence_classified_document...
It's apparently a problem for many high ranking government officials. The differentiator is what one does when it's discovered.
It's apparently a problem for many high ranking government officials. The differentiator is what one does when it's discovered.
This is the point that many, so so many, either miss or refuse to see.
Consider too that no executive branch agency can have authority over the president - that would be violation of Article 2 of the constitution. The only legal option route for legal punishing a president requires impeachment first.
[1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/22/tapes-store...
>“We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 297 (D.D.C. 2012)
Additionally:
>“The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 300-1 (D.D.C. 2012)
Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not. [https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pd...]
>...Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b)
https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives...
The room for judicial review of a President's determination of personal vs. presidential records is so narrow the chances of it actually being successful in court are slim.
> Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not.
Looking at the context in which the statements were made, it is clear that Trump's primary intent was to signal the authoritative nature of the documents - in order to demonstrate that a senior military official had been lying about him (with regard to plans to invsde Iran).
His statements about whether they are classified mean very little when his very act of retaining them makes them personal records. Saying "I could have declassified them" is simply another way of saying "I could have made them public" and is not a statement about his right as president be the sole arbiter over what constitutes a presidential record.