And now this - Trumps says, " I've declassified", White House says "No, he didn't""

[Buck_Godot]

I see this statement as that indicating a judge who if frustrated by the blatant disdain for the rule of law and shattering of norms exhibited by this administration, and is trying to hoist him on his own petard.

"If you are going to claim that there is a deep state conspiracy that is preventing your actions from being followed, then you can’t hide behind them and say they speak for you. "

[Hari_Seldon]

@Northern_Piper

Just spitballin’ but I would assume that the federal Freedom of Information statute would give the courts the power to order the department in question to disclose the documents requested in the FOI request. If the department fails to do so, I would assume there are statutory remedies, such as contempt orders. But I’d be interested to hear from someone familiar with the US process.

Sure but it is up to the DOJ to enforce the contempt orders.

[Northern_Piper]

Really? Civil contempt orders in Canada are enforced by the private party.

[Joey_P]

@Northern_Piper

Isn’t that the schedule for his release of his beautiful health care plan that he’s been working on for four years?

At some point he was called out on that and he replied by telling the reporter something to the effect of ‘I said it would be out in weeks, but I didn’t say how many weeks.’ That’s some grade school BS right there.

[Northern_Piper]

And the Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, has clarified in a court filing today that the Blowhard-in-Chief in the White House crawls down:

The President indicated to me that his statements on Twitter were not self-executing declassification orders and do not require the declassification or release of any particular documents, including the FD-302 reports of witness interviews prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, III. Instead the President’s statements related to the authorization he had provided the Attorney General to declassify documents as part of his ongoing review of intelligence activities relating to the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters. The President’s statements do not requiring altering any redactions on any record at issue in these or any other cases, including, but not limited to, any redactions taken to any discretionary FOIA exemptions.

https://www.axios.com/mark-meadows-trump-tweets-russia-25ac5379-c19a-4978-bdd7-ab9577fe800e.html

As usual, the Blowhard-in-Chief shot his mouth off without understanding the meaning. What he really meant to say was “I’ve told Billy Barr he can look at the documents to see if he can dig up any political dirt that I can use for my re-election.”

[MikeF]

Just as a reminder - the October 6 Tweets:

“I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”

Same day - “All Russia Hoax Scandal information was Declassified by me long ago. Unfortunately for our Country, people have acted very slowly, especially since it is perhaps the biggest political crime in the history of our Country. Act!!!”

I wonder if Leslie Stahl broached the subject.

[BobLibDem]

" The President’s statements do not requiring altering any redactions on any record…"
Does that make grammatical sense to anyone? Shouldn’t it be “do not require…”?

Meadows must feel a bit like the guy who cleans up after the elephants in a parade. You can only shovel so much at a time. He said he’s declassifying everything, so I think he should be taken at his word. If that isn’t the desired result, then don’t say it is.

[Northern_Piper]

Could just be me. The PDF in the article didn’t allow for copying, so I typed it.

[Northern_Piper]

Yup, my bad. Sorry.

[BobLibDem]

I thought I saw the same “requiring” language on the tv last night, so I thought it was Meadows. Yes I hate having to transcribe pdf files too.