“The president is the sole and universal arbiter and classification authority in the United States of America. If he says a document is declassified, or a set of them, that is it, there is no written material required. That is a fiction being created by the fake news and the radical left.”
“In October of 2020, President Trump put out for the world to see a sweeping declassification order and he did it via social media,”
Kash Patel points out:
“Every single Russiagate doc, every single Hillarygate doc, every one, those are his words. That is the precedent that the president of the United States is allowed to operate under. And then in December and January, on the way out, I witnessed him declassify whole sets of documents. So it is not incumbent upon President Trump and his lawyers and he as a target of this investigation to show that he did, in fact, declassify them. It’s up to the government who has the burden of proof, who are trying to deprive a man of his liberty, to show that no such order was, in fact, given.”
“They know they can’t. So what happens?” he continued. “The fake news mafia comes in and says, ‘Oh, but there was no protocols followed.’ You know, when they’re arguing protocols and procedure, it is because they lost the factual argument and the truth. And now they are trying to hide behind this magistrate judge who is going to supposedly play this game of redactions. We saw it in Russiagate. When I was the Deputy DNI, we lifted all those redactions from the Russiagate docs and what did we see? Corruption, FBI and DoJ corruption and breaking of the law. That is the same game they are going to play here and the fake news media is going to attempt to applaud them for their farce in terms of their transparency. We cannot allow them to do that. The President declassified documents, the government has failed to show that that did not occur, protocol do not apply to the president of United States when he is declassifying documents.”
The Espionage Act in this sense simply does not apply to a former president. It does not apply to the president of the United States. It was passed in originally in 1917, it was pushed by Woodrow Wilson to use against his enemies, people who opposed World War I, it was never ever intended to apply to a president.
Judge Bruce Reinhart in a filing announced that formally he rejects “the Government’s argument that the present record justifies keeping the entire Affidavit under seal.”
“The Government argues that even requiring it to redact portions of the Affidavit that could not reveal agent identities or investigative sources and methods imposes an undue burden on its resources and sets a precedent that could be disruptive and burdensome in future cases,” Reinhart wrote. “I do not need to reach the question of whether, in some other case, these concerns could justify denying public access; they very well might.”
“Particularly given the intense public and historical interest in an unprecedented search of a former President’s residence, the Government has not yet shown that these administrative concerns are sufficient to justify sealing,” he added.
This is a stinging rebuke for a Biden administration that was relying on the Florida judge, who is himself an Obama donor, to provide the Department of Justice with political cover for the FBI’s “unprecedented” raid on the former president. If a law enforcement action is “unprecedented,” there is a higher probability that it was unlawful from a judicial point-of-view.