[dukeofdoom]

There are rules for people under the president that are followed for them to disclose information. That doesn't mean the president is restrained under such rules.

Imagine you're the chief executive officer of your household (dad). You can make rules that your kids have to follow, but that doesn't mean you have to follow the same rules. You can have a rule that says "no TV after 10 pm" That doesn't mean you can't watch TV. It just means your kids can't watch TV after 10. As the Dad you're the source of the rules. It would be meaningless for you to restrain yourself to such rules, as you could just as easily unrestrain yourself (being the source of the rules).

Let's assume there's a secret document that says Israel has nuclear weapons.

The president is meeting with the prime minister of Israel, are you saying that the president can't talk to prime minister about their nuclear weapons because congress (DOJ? FBI?) restrained him from disclosing this secret... It would be nonsensical.

Hypothetically, suppose you are correct. Which branch of government would you like to be telling the president what he can and can't disclose. DOJ? FBI? CIA? Congress?

[_kbh_]

> There are rules for people under the president that are followed for them to disclose information. That doesn't mean the president is restrained under such rules.

This is precisely not the contents of the article, I see you did not read it all.

The article entirely about the president and his ability to declassify.

Are you tying to suggest you know more than the American Bar Association?.

> Hypothetically, suppose you are correct. Which branch of government would you like to be telling the president what he can and can't disclose. DOJ? FBI? CIA? Congress?

I quoted the answer to this, did you not bother reading it?.

>> Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies.

[dukeofdoom]

The article is bunk, full of double speak jargon, and statements that amount to nothing of value. No wonder it has no author credits.

The BAR association, has proven itself to be a biased leftist controlled organization that wanted to strip anyone that question the integrity of the last election of their Law license.

As to the article:

Misrepresentation of Experts' Views: The article states that "Most national security legal experts dismissed the former president’s suggestion that he could declassify documents simply by thinking about it." However, it does not provide any evidence or references to support this claim.

Inconsistent Information on Presidential Declassification Authority: The article initially states that legal guidelines support the former president's contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents. However, it later contradicts itself by mentioning that a formal procedure is required for declassification and that declassification cannot occur without officials following specified procedures. These statements create confusion regarding the extent of a president's authority to declassify materials.

Lack of Clarity on Statutory Protection: The article mentions that documents not statutorily protected can be declassified by the president. However, it does not provide specific information on what qualifies as "statutorily protected" documents. This lack of clarity hinders a comprehensive understanding of the declassification process.

Limited Scope of Court Challenge: The article states that the extent of a president's legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials without following formal procedures has yet to be challenged in court. However, it does not provide any additional context or explanation as to why this issue has not been challenged. This omission leaves the reader with an incomplete understanding of the legal landscape surrounding declassification authority.

[_kbh_]

> The article is bunk, full of double speak jargon, and statements that amount to nothing of value. No wonder it has no author credits.

The article references most of its claims unlike you, who just spurts out a couple paragraphs random nonsense.

> The BAR association, has proven itself to be a biased leftist controlled organization that wanted to strip anyone that question the integrity of the last election of their Law license.

Screeching about bias because we have no substantive evidence for anything I see.

I think you will find the bar associations around america striped those lawyers of their licenses because they broke the ethical rules associated with being a lawyer.

> Misrepresentation of Experts' Views: The article states that "Most national security legal experts dismissed the former president’s suggestion that he could declassify documents simply by thinking about it." However, it does not provide any evidence or references to support this claim.

Here’s another article with three different presidents that disagrees with your rant and agrees with the actual lawyers (the ABA).

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-donald-trump-...

> Inconsistent Information on Presidential Declassification Authority: The article initially states that legal guidelines support the former president's contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents. However, it later contradicts itself by mentioning that a formal procedure is required for declassification and that declassification cannot occur without officials following specified procedures. These statements create confusion regarding the extent of a president's authority to declassify materials.

This is untrue the president can have broad declassification powers and still be limited to a formal procedure.

This is not a limitation of the article but more a limitation in your understanding of the article.

> Lack of Clarity on Statutory Protection: The article mentions that documents not statutorily protected can be declassified by the president. However, it does not provide specific information on what qualifies as "statutorily protected" documents. This lack of clarity hinders a comprehensive understanding of the declassification process.

It literally references the definition of restriction data for the DOE at the end of the article but because you seem to be unable to read even quotes I’ll just link it.

https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/rdfrdhtm.html#:~:text=R%20e...

> Limited Scope of Court Challenge: The article states that the extent of a president's legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials without following formal procedures has yet to be challenged in court. However, it does not provide any additional context or explanation as to why this issue has not been challenged. This omission leaves the reader with an incomplete understanding of the legal landscape surrounding declassification authority.

It’s never been challenged because it’s never been taken to court before.

It’s never been taken to court before because prior to Trump we didn’t have a president that thought he could declassify anything with his mind nor one that didn’t cooperate when they had taken/removed classified documents.