Opinion Should it be legal for a former president to remove sensitive documents from the white house?

[Source]

No, it shouldn’t. However I have a really hard time believing he is the only one to do so especially after having people like Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr/Sr with all the crap they pulled.

You agree with the non partisan premise of the OP. Why turn it into a whatabout?

 

[Belaya Smert]

You agree with the non partisan premise of the OP. Why turn it into a whatabout?

Because it reinforces the point that every president has skeletons in their closet they keep from their successor.

 

[Source]

Because it reinforces the point that every president has skeletons in their closet they keep from their successor.

Unfortunately that’s not what it does. What it does is makes it look like a desperate attempt by you at deflecting. The reality is no deflection was necessary because the op specifically removed any specific person from the premise.

 

[chardog]

It’s up to their discretion, they are the president, should hold some sort of power

 

[Oddmonster]

I'm not surprised that you don't care if someone other than President Trump did wrong and broke US law without suffering any repercussion. Some people are so partisan that they can't be bothered to hold certain people accountable. Bill Clinton lying under oath. Hillary's server. Bush and going to war over bogus "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

What did Trump do? What, specifically is "way worse" then a data spill of classified information on an unsecured server which threatens national security in ways you and I can't speak of?

He "might have" shown/given/sold information? Did he or did he not?

I'm seeing a lot of speculation on your part. Feel free to clear it up and tell us all of the horrible things involved in this Mar-a-lago debacle.

It seems this is hard for you to understand, but I will try to explain - when I am saying what Trump did is way worse, this is not based on my feelings. It is based on what legal experts and the justice Department is saying. (I know, I know, you don't trust any source or goverment official unless they agree with you, which makes it hard to have a serious debate with you, and rightwingers in general.) Just getting the warrant for a former presidents residence has demanded EXTREME evidence that a search was needed - and that is according to legal experts.

We do not know what he did - yet. We will have to wait for FBI to go through the documents and videos.


You seem convinced that I love Hillary when I have told you several times, I don't give a shit about her. The facts of the case is - The republicans would have loved, and would still love, to throw Hillary in jail - BUT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT. Trump did NOTHING about her because - THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE. It is 6 years ago. Stop fucking talking about emails. Republican comittees did not find enough evcidence, FBI did not find enough evidence. Do you know why most republicans besides trump stopped talking about the emails? Because there was not enough evidence. Imagine what you would think of me, and how much a moron I am, if I started talking about Nixon to discredit Trump. Move the fuck on dude.


And why did they not investigate Ivanka Trump when she did what Hillary did, just worse? Do you think they should investigate Ivanka and throw her in jail? Do you think the republican deep state system protected her? And do you think the Fbi protected her because they are all on Trumps side?

 

[Oddmonster]

In your scenario I don’t believe that should be allowed. However, if a sitting president decides something is no longer classified or deemed a threat I have no issue with them declassifying it and taking it. This has never been an issue till now. Some can say it’s because Trump but other presidents have declassified and taken documents with them as well without incident. They are the highest ranking member so there is no one for them to notify for approval. If it turns out they declassified something in bad faith there should be an addendum to the espionage act with very clear circumstances and actions to be taken in that scenario.

A president can not singlehandedly declassify anything. He will need to go through propper channels.

 

[lsa]

It’s up to their discretion, they are the president, should hold some sort of power

That was not the question.
The question was for a FORMER president.

 

[Source]

That was not the question.
The question was for a FORMER president.

He thinks the former president is still the current president.

 

[G-19]

A president can not singlehandedly declassify anything. He will need to go through propper channels.

See, that is the issue. Most officers with the ability to classify documents were given that authority from the presidents position. They are just a continuation of the presidents will in that regard. I don’t really use this source outside of finance but I found this to be a really good read that challenges both sides perception of what is actually legal/illegal and within the president’s authority. As it stands, outside of an administrative formality there isn’t a channel or process that technically needs to be followed and that’s where the issue is stemming from.

https://thebusinessnewspaper.com/2022/08/14/presidential-power-to-declassify-information-explained/