Counterintelligence - FBI

[inertia]

Would you slow down for one moment and think about how galactically stupid this argument you're making is? Congress can't unilaterally change the constitution,...

About declassification and U.S. history: WSJ (9/2/2022)

___

 

[Thistle]

Did you change your mind and are now arguing against a sitting presidents' constitutionally entitled discretion in how a president handles sensitive government information? ( If so, that was a significant 180. )

Again I have explained this very clearly. It is not the prerogative of any person in any one of the branches of the United States to change the powers granted to the article to executive. That includes the article to executive himself. This is really easy concept to understand. That's why the emancipation proclamation had to be followed by constitutional amendments.

^That^ was an equally strange response.

Not if your objective is to defend the content of the United States Constitution. Now if you're trying to defend the stupid arguments of very stupid people, then maybe this doesn't make a lot of sense to you.

Donald Trump's record demonstrates a sitting president's power of declassification as the constitution states. ( No one is arguing to "change the constitution". ) The Supreme Court interprets the constitution.

Which is what the Supreme Court was doing when it issued the Dred Scott decision. So obviously we're on notice that the Supreme Court is not infallible. As for what Donald Trump did or didn't do in other instances of declassification, that is still irrelevant to the powers granted to him by the constitution. If he declassified while standing on his left foot, that doesn't mean he couldn't declassify while standing on his right foot. You really seem to be inexplicably committed to an insanely illogical argument. Just look at the energy you're expending to defend it!

Again, Donald Trump's decision to declassify information is not without constitutional basis.

The fact that he did classifies at all has a constitutional basis. We're talking about the ability of something other than a constitutional amendment's ability to limit his article 2 powers granted by the constitution. Only a constitutional amendment can do that.

That's right. Memoranda are executive orders called by another name, and they have the force of law.

If they could override the constitutions grant of powers the amendment process to the constitution would be absurd and superfluous.

Because government secrets are also a product of executive order, executive orders can be changed at the whim of any sitting president, at any time. Evidence of declassification is necessary, especially concerning sensitive national security matters.

Says you, who has no constitutional authority over anybody in the United States, or possibly says some clerk working in some administrative agency getting paid by the US taxpayer. On this topic, I don't care what either one of you say, because the constitution gets the say.

 

[inertia]

A "go to" charge when they have nothing else.

If charged, the legal process will uncover a determination.

Then EVERYONE needs to be held to the same standard. Bleach bit anyone? Hammers-Are-Us!!!!!

It's broad indeed.

A charge that would largely be at the whim of whoever is looking at it. Having an "unsecured" server in suburban New York State would qualify, right?

Some even believe that Snowden is an upstanding U.S. Citizen. A number of people even believe that the spies that provided the Soviet Union with atomic bomb secrets performed a service to enhance nuclear parity so that "no nation had a monopoly". ?

___

 

[inertia]

....

Says you, who has no constitutional authority over anybody in the United States, or possibly says some clerk working in some administrative agency getting paid by the US taxpayer. On this topic, I don't care what either one of you say, because the constitution gets the say.

WSJ article above disagrees with your assessment.

___

 

[Misfit]

A number of people even believe that the spies that provided the Soviet Union with atomic bomb secrets performed a service to enhance nuclear parity so that "no nation had a monopoly"

Yep, there were crazies even back then.

 

[Thistle]

WSJ article above disagrees with your assessment.

I'm sure Ann Coulter also disagrees with me. Why people and institutions traditionally associated with the right suddenly decide to switch sides and destroy their credibility has always been something hard for me to imagine. But if you are laboring under the impression that I ever needed the Wall Street Journal or Ann Coulter to tell me what I think you gravely miss apprehended the fact of the matter.

 

[inertia]

About declassification and U.S. history: WSJ (9/2/2022)

___

From the NYT (8/28/2022):

"Can a president secretly declassify information without leaving a written record or telling anyone?

That question, according to specialists in the law of government secrecy, is borderline incoherent.

If there is no directive memorializing a decision to declassify information and conveying it to the rest of the government, the action would essentially have no consequence, as departments and agencies would continue to consider that information classified and so would continue to restrict access to documents containing it."

___

 

[Thistle]

From the NYT (8/28/2022):

"Can a president secretly declassify information without leaving a written record or telling anyone?

That is the only way a discussion with a foreign leader on any of these topics that they might be negotiating, could possibly happen.

That question, according to specialists in the law of government secrecy, is borderline incoherent.

Excuse me, but when you say "experts" do you mean people who've been president of the United States of America? Because the only "experts," on this topic, happened to be people who also have been president of the United States of America. I have this sneaking suspicion that that is not at all what you're talking about.

If there is no directive memorializing a decision to declassify information and conveying it to the rest of the government, the action would essentially have no consequence,

Are you out of your ever loving mind? The executive is the embodiment of the country acting on its own behalf in foreign policy, security, and every other matter. This is why people swear to submit to the orders of the President of the United States.

as departments and agencies would continue to consider that information classified and so would continue to restrict access to documents containing it."

Which will hurt absolutely nothing. Just because they didn't get the memo doesn't mean that it's still classified. You might be able to argue there's some functionary in the administrative state who was trying to violate the security status of a document and was "bailed out" by the fact that the president already declassified it. Whether that person could be prosecuted on the ground that they intended to violate the law but simply failed as a matter of fact is an interesting question. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the president himself can't be guilty under even that doubtful speculation.

Perhaps this will make it easy for you. The executive is not the administration. The executive is the president. The constitution doesn't enshrine power in the administration. The constitution gives 100% of the authority of the executive to the president. It is delegated only to the extent that the president delegates it.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

From the NYT (8/28/2022):

"Can a president secretly declassify information without leaving a written record or telling anyone?

That question, according to specialists in the law of government secrecy, is borderline incoherent.

If there is no directive memorializing a decision to declassify information and conveying it to the rest of the government, the action would essentially have no consequence, as departments and agencies would continue to consider that information classified and so would continue to restrict access to documents containing it."

___

Trump haterz keep posting New York Times fake news.

You are fond of sources that hate Republicans.

 

[inertia]

That is the only way a discussion with a foreign leader on any of these topics that they might be negotiating, could possibly happen.

err... It's not the "only way" by far, and secrets are not available as negotiation currency. Snowden probably disagrees but he currently resides in Russia where the meaning of freedom takes on a whole new perspective.

In article II, section II of our constitution the president has the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the senate with provisions.

" He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;..."

...
Excuse me, but when you say "experts" do you mean people who've been president of the United States of America? Because the only "experts," on this topic, happened to be people who also have been president of the United States of America. I have this sneaking suspicion that that is not at all what you're talking about.

Well, if one absolutely requires a former presidents' official expert insight, Bush updated Clinton's Executive Order concerning the management of classified documents, and later, Obama updated the same document. As we know, Donald Trump or Joe Biden did not make any refinements, and Biden can still make adjustments or produce another order as he sees fit since he is a sitting president.

About those suspicions - since references to my sources are provided throughout this thread, one doesn't need instinct to arrive at a "sneaking" err...anything. Lawfare is a good resource on legal matters of counterintelligence among other topics. For example, from the former DOJ Chief of the Counterintelligence & Export Control, dated 9/1/2022:

"...given recent developments, these discussions about presidential declassification authority appear more plainly to be an intellectual diversion than a serious legal argument. Whatever declassification authority President Trump might have had up until Jan. 20, 2021, at 11:59 a.m., such authority expired the moment that President Biden was officially inaugurated. "

...
Are you out of your ever loving mind? The executive is the embodiment of the country acting on its own behalf in foreign policy, security, and every other matter. This is why people swear to submit to the orders of the President of the United States.

However, former Trump officials have denied said declassification orders. The truth of this matter will come out.

Which will hurt absolutely nothing. Just because they didn't get the memo doesn't mean that it's still classified. You might be able to argue there's some functionary in the administrative state who was trying to violate the security status of a document and was "bailed out" by the fact that the president already declassified it. Whether that person could be prosecuted on the ground that they intended to violate the law but simply failed as a matter of fact is an interesting question. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the president himself can't be guilty under even that doubtful speculation.

About not getting the memo - Statements from the DOJ:

• “When producing the 15 boxes, the former president never asserted executive privilege nor claimed that any of the documents in the boxes had been declassified.”
• “When producing the documents [on June 3, 2022], neither counsel nor the custodian [of records for the former President’s post-presidential office] asserted that the former President had declassified the documents or asserted any claim of executive privilege.”
• “Instead counsel handled them in a manner that suggested counsel believed the documents were classified: the production included a single Redweld envelope, double wrapped in tape, containing the documents.”

TBD on intending to violate the law.

This ongoing event will be interesting in many ways.

___

 

[inertia]

Trump haterz keep posting New York Times fake news.

You are fond of sources that hate Republicans.

The OP is about counterintelligence w.r.t. the FBI - specifically national security awareness. Antifa was also a part of the topic not too long ago. (Republicans and Antifa minded people probably don't get along.)
___

 

[Thistle]

err... It's not the "only way" by far, and secrets are not available as negotiation currency.

Are you completely brain dead? Do you think the stuff that we negotiate treaties about with other foreign countries is not classified? If you think the answer to that question is "no that stuffs not classified" then you need to learn something about the world before continuing this discussion. Because you don't have the baseline requisite knowledge.

 

[inertia]

Are you completely brain dead? Do you think the stuff that we negotiate treaties about with other foreign countries is not classified? If you think the answer to that question is "no that stuffs not classified" then you need to learn something about the world before continuing this discussion. Because you don't have the baseline requisite knowledge.

The difference between keeping ongoing negotiations about treaties a secret, and providing military secrets that undermine the effectiveness and security of the United States is larger than the combined volumes of water contained in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Special Agent (Bob) Robert Hansen understands this all too well.

__

 

[Thistle]

The difference between keeping ongoing negotiations about treaties a secret, and providing military secrets that undermine the effectiveness and security of the United States is larger than the combined volumes of water contained in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Special Agent (Bob) Robert Hansen understands this all too well.

__

Your theory, or Bob Hanson's theory, about how the world works doesn't Trump the constitution and there's a lot more wisdom in the constitution! Now on to the point that I think you're alluding to, the reduction of 75% of all nuclear weapons that was negotiated between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev could not have happened if the world works the way you suggest. And that was all about the most sensitive national security secrets that we have. If somehow you've got the impression that it could you left your thinking cap at the cleaners.

By the way, Ronald Reagan understood perfectly well that there are a lot of blithering idiots in Washington DC who take the kind of argument that you're advancing here as gospel so in order to accomplish that or arms reduction treaty Reagan literally set up back channels to Mikael Gorbachev, because secretary of state George Schultz was making it impossible to make any headway in putting a deal together of any description. Remarkably similar to the foreign policy establishment losing their mind when Donald Trump shook hands with Kim Jong-un. One skill the Ronald Reagan had that I'm not sure Donald Trump has to the same degree, is the ability to smile and nod his head, and completely ignore what he's being told by the so-called "experts."

There was an excellent book that I have somewhere in storage I just scanned my bookshelf and see that I don't have it there. The details the entire multiyear project of denuclearizing largely the world that Ronald Reagan accomplished in spite of the experts rather than with their assistance. I'm sorry I cannot remember the name of the book but I think if you Google the right search string you'll run across it. But don't think that you're going to get an understanding of foreign-policy by reading the latest opinion piece in the New York Times or some policy journal because what you're going to get there is a full throated defense of whatever the majority sentiment is of the Council on foreign relations.

If you're gonna have an understanding of these issues you're not gonna get there without reading some books.

 

[inertia]

Your theory, or Bob Hanson's theory, about how the world works doesn't Trump the constitution and there's a lot more wisdom in the constitution! Now on to the point that I think you're alluding to, the reduction of 75% of all nuclear weapons that was negotiated between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev could not have happened if the world works the way you suggest. And that was all about the most sensitive national security secrets that we have. If somehow you've got the impression that it could you left your thinking cap at the cleaners.

By the way, Ronald Reagan understood perfectly well that there are a lot of blithering idiots in Washington DC who take the kind of argument that you're advancing here as gospel so in order to accomplish that or arms reduction treaty Reagan literally set up back channels to Mikael Gorbachev, because secretary of state George Schultz was making it impossible to make any headway in putting a deal together of any description. Remarkably similar to the foreign policy establishment losing their mind when Donald Trump shook hands with Kim Jong-un. One skill the Ronald Reagan had that I'm not sure Donald Trump has to the same degree, is the ability to smile and nod his head, and completely ignore what he's being told by the so-called "experts."

There was an excellent book that I have somewhere in storage I just scanned my bookshelf and see that I don't have it there. The details the entire multiyear project of denuclearizing largely the world that Ronald Reagan accomplished in spite of the experts rather than with their assistance. I'm sorry I cannot remember the name of the book but I think if you Google the right search string you'll run across it. But don't think that you're going to get an understanding of foreign-policy by reading the latest opinion piece in the New York Times or some policy journal because what you're going to get there is a full throated defense of whatever the majority sentiment is of the Council on foreign relations.

If you're gonna have an understanding of these issues you're not gonna get there without reading some books.

- The terms of ongoing agreements were, of course, secret as treaties are negotiated. This is normal. Military secrets are in another sphere entirely. History records that Soviet officials directly specified Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative as a critical component in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union. Only by carefully guarding secrets were we able to keep them guessing about a potential outcome - and it was breaking their economy.

Lessons learned: Embarrassment was a result of releasing Reagan's secret project in an attempt to free hostages with a arms-for-hostages deal.

SALT and INF Treaties:

It was the value of on-site-inspections, and the establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers that supply a routine exchange of launch notifications that contributed to success, not giving away military secrets.

"The arms control negotiations began in December 1981 and had to overcome numerous obstacles, disagreements, and one Soviet walk-out. Nonetheless, they eventually led to agreement on what was referred to as the “double-zero” option: the complete elimination of all intermediate-range and shorter-range nuclear missiles. The resultant INF Treaty required each party to destroy its 500- and 5,500-kilometer ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as associated launchers, support structures, and equipment. Within a three-year elimination period—commencing on June 1, 1988, the date the Treaty entered into force—the two sides eliminated all Pershing II and SS-20 missiles and other systems covered by the Treaty.

The INF Treaty was ground-breaking in the history of arms control negotiations between the nuclear superpowers because it gave both sides their first experience with on-site inspection—a verification technique that was almost unthinkable at the time in the Cold War. Other firsts attributed to the INF Treaty were establishment of the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers in the capitals of both sides and the routine exchange of launch notifications—accomplished through those Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers—for missile launches permitted by the INF Treaty under limited circumstances, for research and development purposes.

VI. 1991–2009: START IN FORCE Its most significant accomplishment, however, was eliminating an entire class of weapons—intermediate-range nuclear missiles."



___

 

[Thistle]

- The terms of ongoing agreements were, of course, secret as treaties are negotiated. This is normal.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I have just argued. Your problem is you can't comprehend the argument. The president is negotiating. That means for purposes of negotiating he has his open agenda and he has his secret agenda but in order to address any of this there's all kinds of things are classified top secret and higher that he's gonna have to get into in order to engage this discussion. That doesn't mean that he's going to lay all the cards on the table and talk about everything we don't want the other side to know. Somehow you can't comprehend that. I can't figure out why, you're an intelligent person.

Military secrets are in another sphere entirely.

I'm sorry but that is a galactically idiotic statement.

History records that Soviet officials directly specified Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative as a critical component in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union.

By blithering idiot who know exactly zero facts.

Only by carefully guarding secrets were we able to keep them guessing about a potential outcome - and it was breaking their economy.

Only you could conclude that I mean to say that the president is supposed to be an open book in a treaty negotiation. Inertia that is a galactically idiotic supposition. This is a discussion about the president having instant declassification capabilities like the constitution says he has. Has absolutely nothing to do with the generic concept that the president doesn't want to say a lot of things that we want to keep secret. The president decide what we want to keep secret. The president is the executive not the administrative state. The president is in charge not the administrative state. The president has authority not the administrative state. What about this are you not getting?

Lessons learned: Embarrassment was a result of releasing Reagan's secret project in an attempt to free hostages with a arms-for-hostages deal.

This is completely unrelated to my argument.

SALT and INF Treaties:

It was the value of on-site-inspections, and the establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers that supply a routine exchange of launch notifications that contributed to success, not giving away military secrets.

Again this is a galactically stupid thing to advance in this discussion. Nobody is saying that the president isn't going to keep secrets from our adversaries. The president decides what those secrets are. Nobody else. Any delegation of the presidents authority is not a ratchet by which the president has given that authority away. It's the president's authority and if somebody's gonna use that on the presidents behalf, pursuant to rules or regulation, it's still the president's authority. Those rules don't apply to the president.

How did I know that you were going to go to the Internet and Google a bunch of completely irrelevant drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with my argument to create an impression that you know what you're talking about. You don't.

You don't seem to appreciate the fact that the first military intelligence chief was George Washington. Nothing has changed fundamentally. The executive is a person not an administration. The administration is an extension of the person, an extension the person wants them to be fulfilling that function.

 

[inertia]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I have just argued. Your problem is you can't comprehend the argument. The president is negotiating. That means for purposes of negotiating he has his open agenda and he has his secret agenda but in order to address any of this there's all kinds of things are classified top secret and higher that he's gonna have to get into in order to engage this discussion. That doesn't mean that he's going to lay all the cards on the table and talk about everything we don't want the other side to know. Somehow you can't comprehend that. I can't figure out why, you're an intelligent person.

I'm sorry but that is a galactically idiotic statement.

By blithering idiot who know exactly zero facts.

Only you could conclude that I mean to say that the president is supposed to be an open book in a treaty negotiation. Inertia that is a galactically idiotic supposition. This is a discussion about the president having instant declassification capabilities like the constitution says he has. Has absolutely nothing to do with the generic concept that the president doesn't want to say a lot of things that we want to keep secret. The president decide what we want to keep secret. The president is the executive not the administrative state. The president is in charge not the administrative state. The president has authority not the administrative state. What about this are you not getting?

This is completely unrelated to my argument.

Again this is a galactically stupid thing to advance in this discussion. Nobody is saying that the president isn't going to keep secrets from our adversaries. The president decides what those secrets are. Nobody else. Any delegation of the presidents authority is not a ratchet by which the president has given that authority away. It's the president's authority and if somebody's gonna use that on the presidents behalf, pursuant to rules or regulation, it's still the president's authority. Those rules don't apply to the president.

How did I know that you were going to go to the Internet and Google a bunch of completely irrelevant drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with my argument to create an impression that you know what you're talking about. You don't.

You don't seem to appreciate the fact that the first military intelligence chief was George Washington. Nothing has changed fundamentally. The executive is a person not an administration. The administration is an extension of the person, an extension the person wants them to be fulfilling that function.

Your arguments are largely with Lisa M. Schenck and Robert A. Youmans from the George Washington University Law School, the former DOJ Chief of the Counterintelligence & Export Control, Katie Kedian, Scott Anderson, Senior Fellow with the National Security Law Program at the Columbia Law school, FBI history, and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The existence of executive privilege or any oversight power within congress is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution*. It was the Supreme Court that ruled on executive privilege and congressional oversight based on the doctrine of the separation of powers for each of the three branches.

Note: The increased frequency of employing ad hominem to defend your various premises doesn't enhance your skill sets of persuasion. Once upon a time, on the subject of baptism, attacking the person wasn't in your proverbial box of verbal weapons because you held a higher standard than many others.

Where did that Thistle go?

___

*
Cox, Archibald, "Executive Privilege", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 122, page 1384. 1974

 

[Thistle]

Your arguments are largely with Lisa M. Schenck and Robert A. Youmans from the George Washington University Law School, the former DOJ Chief of the Counterintelligence & Export Control, Katie Kedian, Scott Anderson, Senior Fellow with the National Security Law Program at the Columbia Law school, FBI history, and the Encyclopedia Britannic.

Yes, for quite some time I had an office at the corner of 30th and M in Georgetown just down the street from GW. It was as full of academics telling it like it ain't then is it is now.

The existence of executive privilege or any oversight power within congress is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution*.

That is in no way a analogous to an inference that the presidents constitutional powers become absorbed by the administrative state through some process of osmosis.

It was the Supreme Court that ruled on executive privilege and congressional oversight based on the doctrine of the separation of powers for each of the three branches.

Note: The increased frequency of employing ad hominem to defend your various premises doesn't enhance your skill sets of persuasion.

A lot of people, including yourself, need to wake up to the fact that the super imposition of galactically stupid argument upon galactically stupid argument has been layering now for six years, and people are just accepting these really stupid arguments as some kind of authority. People need to stand back and ask a logical question like, if Trump is such a bad guy why is every single attack on him failed catastrophically.

That's what would happen if people were in touch with reality. But the people who spend all their time attacking Donald Trump, and the people who voted for him, are not in touch with reality. No matter how ridiculous X is, I can repeat it because so-and-so, who is an expert, said it before I did. It was galactically stupid when so-and-so said it.

Once upon a time, on the subject of baptism, attacking the person wasn't in your proverbial box of verbal weapons because you held a higher standard than many others.

As long as I can detect any sincerity in someone's defense of their Soteriology I give them credit for being serious about it, because of the seriousness of the topic itself, and its direct relationship to their own eternal disposition. No matter how much I may personally disagree with their Soteriology, I give them credit for at least trying their utmost to get it right.

Where did that Thistle go?

That Thistle is still here I just see no similar sincerity in the critics of Donald Trump.

___

*
Cox, Archibald, "Executive Privilege", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 122, page 1384. 1974

I do respect Archibald Cox.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2009&context=mlr

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Are you completely brain dead?

Clots happen

Do you think the stuff that we negotiate treaties about with other foreign countries is not classified? If you think the answer to that question is "no that stuffs not classified" then you need to learn something about the world before continuing this discussion. Because you don't have the baseline requisite knowledge.

Your discussion is with someone who hides behind cut and pastes he doesn't understand.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

If you're gonna have an understanding of these issues you're not gonna get there without reading some books.

You hit the nail on the head.
fauchee is a cube farm "book worm" reading papers and out of touch with healthcare. Left wingers read Fake News and Google wickie and do not read books. He fell for quotations from Chairman Tony