And everyone with anti-Trump, pro-Biden points get a huge pass.

“Listen to Ben Bail out Wallstreet Bernanke”….I’ll pass.

The proof is in the pudding.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0L1E?output_view=pct_12mths

Biden bears no responsibility for the American economy. His American Rescue Plan Act, his Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, have little to no effect on inflation and the economy…unless the economy is good, of course.

The question as to weather a president can declassify at will or has to follow a process are addressed in the quotes I cited, all of which contradicts your assertions saying otherwise. That you’d shift focus to their opinions on an impeachment strategy in order to avoid this accounting is obvious.

“Different people say different things but as I understand it, if you’re the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it’s declassified, even by thinking about it. Because you’re sending it to Mar-a-Lago or wherever you’re sending it. There doesn’t have to be a process. There can be a process, but there doesn’t have to be.”

Trump’s statement is true, and that’s probably why the phrase “by thinking about it” was torn from its context and served as fodder for those who fall for those sorts of efforts.

Article 2 says NOTHING about classified information.

But the Supreme Court has long ago determined that his classification powers come from his authority under Article II of the Constitution.

According to Executive order 13,526, which established the detailed process through which secret information can be appropriately declassified, he is obligated to follow procedure. Executive orders have the force of law. Only a subsequent executive order can overturn an executive order. Trump did not do that and could not do that by thinking it.

As Lawfareblog determined:

Let’s dispense with one easy rabbit hole that a lot of people are likely to go down this evening: the President did not “leak” classified information in violation of law. He is allowed to do what he did. If anyone other than the President disclosed codeword intelligence to the Russians in such fashion, he’d likely be facing a long prison term. But Nixon’s infamous comment that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal” is actually true about some things. Classified information is one of them. The nature of the system is that the President gets to disclose what he wants.

The reason is that the very purpose of the classification system is to protect information the President, usually through his subordinates, thinks sensitive. So the President determines the system of designating classified information through Executive Order, and he is entitled to depart from it at will. Currently, Executive Order 13526 governs national security information.

The Supreme Court has stated in Department of the Navy v. Egan that “[the President’s] authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this Constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.” Because of his broad constitutional authority in this realm, the president can, at any time, either declassify information or decide whom to share it with.

Michael’s reasoning attempts to make us believe that a President must follow “established procedures” as outlined by another president’s executive order, and that the lower courts get to decide what the leader of the entire American military can and cannot declassify.

I’m aware that the case has to do with the inadvertent declassification of documents, and said as much.

“Your ruling shows that the president cannot inadvertently declassify documents.”

“Designated officials” are those designated by the commander in chief, the president. The power to declassify at will is satisfied by article 2 of the US constitution. He is not obligated to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed.

The ruling says “we decline to hold that the judiciary may conclude that certain executive branch statements may trigger inadvertent declassification because such determinations encroach upon the President’s undisputedly broad authority in the realm of national security”. The judiciary has no say on this matter. The “procedure” is that the president is the highest authority on classification, has “undisputedly broad authority”, and can declassify anything at will. Trump is right. “You’re the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it’s declassified, even by thinking about it”.

The president can do whatever he wants with classified documents. He is ultimate authority.

Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures.

...

Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.

“Established procedure” is that the president is the ultimate authority on classified materials and can declassify at will. Your ruling shows that the president cannot inadvertently declassify documents.

Heritage Expert: Americans Have Lost $4,200 in Annual Income Under The Biden Administration

Under former President Trump’s low-inflation economy, the average American worker’s real annual earnings increased by $4,000. That has been completely wiped out in about a year and a half under the Biden administration. Despite seeing the failure of various policies, such as paying people more to stay home than remain employed, the Biden administration has doubled down on these mistakes so that families can no longer afford to live in Biden’s America.

At least there are no more mean tweets.

The danger or threat is found wherever it becomes authoritarian, for instance the idea that one must, as a duty, dismiss his own grammar and furnish it with another’s. If it’s about choice, all parties involved ought to be able to use whatever pronouns they wish. Isn’t that so?

Other than that I think the only concern for me is the normalizing of drastic and irreversible medical interventions in young people, such as using puberty blockers, which often amounts to chemical castration.

At any rate, I do not see transgenderism as some threat to the concept of gender. Gender is largely incoherent, anyways, and can be dropped altogether.

Those with gender dysphoria deserve as much respect and dignity as anyone else. My empathy ends the moment I am told to conform my language to another’s demands, that I must concede grammar and truth to people who are knowingly misidentifying themselves. So there is an ethical component to it as well.

Past and future are posited beyond all things, so no, they don't exist.

Trump didn’t torpedo the deal. He withdrew from it citing Iran’s failed compliance. Now Iran continues to violate it right in Europe’s face and Biden is considering going back to it. Laughable.

I guess we could have given them another 20 years and another couple trillion dollars to get our “allies” ready to stand on their own feet, but really, no amount of counterfactuals can justify more intervention there.

He was legally allowed to do it, therefore there is no national security issue

That’s not what I said, though. I said I’m not concerned; and I’m not concerned until I have reason to be concerned; and because he had those powers there is no reason to believe something untoward or nefarious has happened.

At any rate, “national security” is an excuse to abuse power. So many lives and livelihoods have been sacrificed on that alter. You can almost see the foam at the mouth of chickenhawks whenever they invoke it, and you can predict with decent accuracy that someone is about to lose their rights. I don’t like thinking in imposter terms such as that.

It is not simply that the material belongs to the national archives, it is that the material contains classified documents. Having them in his personal possession raises national security issues. The fact that he did not protect them from a whole host of people raises national security issues. Is it that you are not able to see why it is of concern, or are you just pretending not to?

I am not concerned. He was the president of the United States, the commander in chief, and had the unilateral power to do whatever he wanted with those documents, including taking them home. What concerns me is a political DOJ and FBI raiding a former president’s house and stealing these documents, among other personal items.

If someone were to read this without having read what comes before it they might assume you are talking about Trump.

And they’d be wrong.

Spoken like a true Trumpster. The allied interests of the world are our interests. It is not as if we are separate and safe from a nuclear threat that only affects the rest of the world.

They’re your interests, maybe. Trump has done more for peace in the Middle East in one term than decades of your allied interests.

They should be evaluated on the basis of accuracy or other measures. The potential of how others might use them is irrelevant to the philosophies themselves. Not only that, but it is a dangerous grammatical mistake to treat words as subjects and human beings as their objects. Philosophies in particular and words in general do not act upon human beings in the way we pretend they do.

Based on what you have said you have made it clear once again that you did not read the article. What do you hope to gain by providing further evidence of it?

I don’t care about the article or the book of some establishment bureaucrat. I read what you quoted and what you tried to sell from it. The suggestion of yours and the reviewer that Trump’s concerns were partisan is still nonsense. The idea that using the FBI to raid political opponents over national archives disputes is in any way comparable to “pressuring” federal prosecutors to do their job is also nonsense.

So, because Iranian soldiers were busy killing US soldiers while US soldiers were busy killing Iranian soldiers (it's called "war") efforts to salvage a nuclear arms deal made by several world powers should not have taken place? The allied interests of the world, not the unilateral interests of Trump or what he thinks are the interests of the US are at issue.

The efforts of former bureaucrats to undermine the president of the United States and coddle one of America’s adversaries while it was killing American soldiers should not have taken place. I don’t give a straw for the “allied interests of the world”.

You can’t name a single return on investment. Iran gets everything, United States gets nothing. A shoddy deal.

The reviewer quotes Berman. Perhaps I assumed too much, that you would know what an advanced copy is and how quoting sources work.

Yes, I know how quoting works, and I know that he was not in fact quoting Berman in the content you provided. If he did quote Berman, you’d be able to provide the quote. But you can’t. So all this condescending talk about reviews and quoting is hilarious.

The problem is with your characterization of the meetings as rogue.

According to a report in The Washington Times, Zarik also met with Robert Malley, who was President Obama’s Middle East adviser and Obama-era Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. All were top U.S. negotiators of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The fact of the matter is that there were efforts throughout the Trump years to minimize the harm being caused by him. Kerry's allegiance was not to Trump, but to the US. And this failure to demonstrate allegiance to him is why Trump pushed for an investigation.

In 2019, Trump himself, according to the article, sought to open his own back channel of communication with top Iranian officials.

That’s right. Smug bureaucrats from the previous administration were undermining the duly-elected president of the United States policy in Iran, and this during a time when Iran was busy killing US soldiers in Iraq. So the idea Trump was mad for partisan reasons is breathtakingly stupid.

What did the US get out of the deal? Maybe you can name one thing.

That is what I did! If you had read the piece you would know that. But you do not even read some of the things you link to, so there is no reasonable expectation that you would read this one.

No, you quoted the reviewer. But you claimed it was Berman’s claim. So why won’t you show me Berman’s claim?

What did he say and where did he say it? Or don't you actually know because he didn't actually read more than a headline?

When asked about reports of him meeting the Iranian foreign minister he said “ Yes, I have. That’s accurate”. It was on the Hugh Hewitt radio show.

And what did the US get out of the deal?

Who is "she"? The reviewer, Benjamin Weiser, is not making any claims. He is reviewing a book by Geoffrey S. Berman. It is Berman who made the claim. How does this lead to your conclusion that the review is breathtakingly stupid?

Then quote him.

You turn a rumor into a fact. Trump himself tweeted that what Kerry was doing was:

Kerry himself admitted it. The Iranian foreign minister confirmed it. You’re turning a fact into a rumor.

I have read it.

Why was it a good deal?

We got nothing for it. Zero return on investment. Why do you think it is a good accomplishment?

She claims that Kerry’s activities “angered Trump” and his pressure was motivated by “partisan concerns”, and not, say, concerns over national security, shadow diplomacy, treason, undermining allies, and so on.

These are principles you hold to no one else while everyone else literally copies and pastes another's work.

I like having the ability to predict possible consequences and the power to generate reasons to explain my actions. I like choosing certain courses of action. There is no better combination for a good and ethical life. They’re all boon and no burden. Why are they a burden for you? I ask because there has to be a reason for it but it’s not made explicit.

However, to the people who disagree that global warming is a threat, that climate change isn't real, I would like to have a polite and interesting discussion about why you feel the way you do.

It always reminds me of the poem “Fire and Ice” by Robert Frost. I’d much rather the climate stave off the ice age and warming is one way to accomplish that. In other words, since climate changes, it’s changing in a suitable direction. I hold with those who favor fire.

What I fear most is the lengths people will go to in order alter what they believe is a terrifying future. Crazy experiments, vast systems of coercion and control, and many lives sacrificed on the alter of safety and planning—all of these are a greater threat, to me.

Wouldn’t it follow that if being just is learned behavior, being unjust is also learned?

It tells of pressure to pursue Mr. Kerry, who had angered Mr. Trump by attempting to preserve the nuclear deal he had negotiated with Iran.

This is a good little reminder, despite the breathtaking stupidity of the review. Kerry had a rogue “back-channel” with Iran during the Trump years. The Iranian Foreign Minister admitted that during their meeting he was surprised when Kerry started talking about Israeli military operations against Iranian assets in Syria. This was happening during when the US was moving to withdraw from the shoddy JCPA. Iran has zero diplomatic relations with the US and are adversaries. Kerry did it anyways, and got away with it. Why wouldn’t Berman look into it?

Not to mention Trump’s medical and tax records and passports. God knows what they found in Melania closet and Barron’s room.

It’s a nothingburger. Zilch. Nada. All this crap about “national security risk” has fallen from the table at which millions of anti-Trump devotees were gorging themselves. Now it’s about a different country’s national security. It could be documents about Chad for all you know. One way or another, you’re following selective leaks from a political DOJ and falling for it.

You also said this, linking to a report alleging the Trump administration was sharing nuclear tech with Saudi Arabia.

Jesus. Imagine they don't find them. What if Trump sold them to Saudi Arabia.

"But I declassified them before I left" would hardly justify it.

Either way, I wasn’t talking about you.

We’re now going to pretend that we haven’t been speaking about US nuclear documents this whole time?

The sands have shifted once again. First it was nuclear documents, now it’s a document describing a foreign government’s military defenses. Rest assured, another nothingburger sending TDS sufferers into a mental spiral.

More so an undying hatred for the establishment uniparty and the State, but tomatoes tomatoes.

When have I ever said anything about nuclear codes?

I re-read your post. You didn’t say anything about nuclear codes, but rather nuclear documents. My mistake.