If this is true, then it’s even worse. The former president verbally declassified SAP info for the sole purpose of taking it back to Mar A Lago? Why in the world would you do that? That’s such a brazen disregard for security practices that Hillary should be taking notes!*
Even if this declassification statement is true, if Trump runs and is re-elected he should never see classified information again. Such flagrant disregard for even basic security practices just boggles my mind. It’s bad enough that he tweeted about compartmented shit. Sure, if he did declassify this material, then this whole investigation is a moot point and he dodged charges. But man, if anyone is paying attention to this had any sort of opinion on Hillary’s emails, they should be extremely pissed about this.
*Hillary was not and never will be president, which is a good thing
Let's talk "precedent". I completely understand I have only copied your quote, and that those aren't your words. But they do open up a valuable conversation I think we should explore.
The President holds unilateral and plenary power to declassify anything and everything he wants. Literally wave his hand over a box and says *Trumps voice* "Declassified" and poof- no longer classified. That's as far as the process goes. Caveats and read-ins don't matter.
If a president exercises his power alone, does he still have power? The charge here- when/if/did he/didn't he declassify what he had prior to leaving office- is an absolute fool's errand. And it rejects the basic premise that we can't get past until it's answered-
Is it appropriate to raid a political opponent's house, ever? Was it appropriate in this instance? Does it follow previous precedent?
If there was something huge in the raid to get our collective panties in a bunch about, it would have leaked. It didn't, because the democrats want to hold it till after the election. "We found some empty marked folders!"... ruh-roh. That doesn't sound like nuke secrets and it looks less and less likely that he was malicious in nature.
All other issues here are moot not because "whataboutism", but because equal application of the laws in like circumstances is expected in a free and fair society. I COMPLETELY agree with the bolded above.
Hillary had no power to declassify the truly SCI stuff she housed on a personal email server she destroyed *after* she was subpoenaed. No charges, no raids, no inquiry. So, that's the precedent for this stuff now. If you weren't chanting "LOCK HER UP!" a couple years ago, save the drama for me now. (not you directly,
@Salt USMC ; the royal and non-specific "you"). So on this case, I agree with the sentiment, but I feel as if you're on the wrong side of it.
The statement isn't, "
Well, if you were mad about Hillary, you should be ready to rain hellfire on this Donald Trump guy! He did it but WORSE!".
The statement *should be*-
"Like it or not, we set a precedent with a Secretary of State; that precedent is now solidified. This isn't that big of a deal. Let President Trump go in front of congress and shriek 'EVEN IF I DID WHAT WOULD IT MATTER?!' and then he's good."
Collectively, we have made our bed. Don't complain now that you cant sleep in it. (royal you, not specific).