Hacker News Reader

Comment by advisedwang | Hacker News Reader

The article talks about classification but this isn't really about classification or national security. It's about who has the fundamental rights over the documents after all that is sorted out. It's about can congress or the public force documents that embarrass or incriminates the president (after sufficient time and declassification has happened)

View on HN

Classified information is covered by Executive Order 13526, issued by President Obama in 2009. Section 1.7 explicitly states:

(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(3) restrain competition; or

(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html

Being an EO, any following POTUS can rescind an EO of a previous POTUS. If you want a law to remain in effect across administrations, you have to get Congress to pass a law. Trump spent a lot of time in his administrations writing EOs that reverse Obama and Biden's EOs. If Trump ever came close to being in violation of this order, he would quickly rescind it. I put no weight in this being used against Trump

> If Trump ever came close to being in violation of this order, he would quickly rescind it.

Sure but the actual penalties for violating the EO are based on laws not the EO.

Like the actual penalties for sharing classified information are based on the information not the classification - https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...

You say this as if Trump cares about a law passed by the congress. If congress had passed this law, Trump would still face no consequences. Courts will take many years to process it and then the Supreme court will dismiss it anyway as some sort of official action etc. Note that the Supreme Court will rule in a way that it can be reversed in case a similar case arises for a Dem admin.

This is a very astute comment! "Sell on eBay <TM>" is likely just a stupid narrative to stimulate the reactions of both camps. The real issue is whether all of the written records of this openly criminal conspiracy can be unilaterally taken/destroyed under the guise of "private property" when it's inevitably time for the regime to flee.

It was a hypothetical posed to the DoJ from a judge. The lawyer answered in the affirmative that they believe selling the documents with confidential information could be sold on eBay.

"with Judge Patricia Millett asking: “Can the president then offer on eBay to sell them, all of our national security secrets, to the highest bidder?”

The government’s response was, in short, “yes.”"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com