Re: POTUS 45.10 - Stage Two in Perpetuity
While it's true the POTUS can technically declassify just about anything they choose, I'd like to hear if he followed the required process in attempting to do so. Something tells me this particular POTUS couldn't name step 1 of said process.
Ugh. There is no "required process" if it's the President. The President has control of information, period.
Congress could pass a law tomorrow that seeks to define what should or shouldn't be classified or declassified or how it should be done. But that law would be struck down as it would seek to usurp the authority of the Executive branch granted by the Constitution. You can try to slice it 20 different ways but it is NOT illegal for the President to come to your house or Putin's and divulge that aliens crashed landed at Roswell. It is just not. When it comes to information, the President decides.
The correct question to ask is should he have done so in this case? Was it sensible? Not -- was it legal? If everyone wasn't so focused on whether any particular action Trump takes is impeachable or not, perhaps that argument would have a better chance of gaining more traction outside the left. At this point though the left is crying wolf every other day and exactly like the parable, the louder the left shouts about impeachment, certainly the right is, but even the middle tunes it out and grows skeptical.
But that is obviously the strategy. The same one employed by Mrs. Clinton and pretty much all R challengers for the last two years. Be unrelentingly negative on Trump, period. Continuing on with the same strategy that gave the right control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency is a bold move Cotton. We'll see if it pays off.
Lastly, to the relevant question of whether or not Trump should have said whatever he said to the Russian foreign minister-- I don't actually know, mainly because we have so little knowledge of context. On one side we have WaPo, The NYT, CNN, (etc.) and anonymous sources (presumably) in the intelligence community parsing out selected bits of information that undermine Trump for giving out this highly secret information.
Of course, I myself, sitting in my living room now know that the info was related to ISIS developing bombs in electronic devices and plotting to use them on airliners; that the info was developed by the Israelis; that it was developed from a source in a Syrian city controlled by ISIS. (so Dabiq or Raqqa, 95% it's Raqqa.) A portion of this info was apparently given to Russia, and presumably by proxy to Assad, and the Ayatollah. Surprisingly, Trump didn't tell me, or ISIS, or the rest of the world any of that. So is it really a secret and someone leaking has committed a felony? Or was it not really so secret at the point Trump discussed it?
At any rate, on the other side we have McMasters, who unequivocally denies anything said was improper. If it was indeed improper as the press and Dems insist, then McMasters is incompetent, a liar, or both. I don't see any way around that. At this point, I myself don't feel inclined to doubt McMasters, but opinions will naturally vary.
