2

Yesterday President Trump tweeted this:

The Deep State and the Left, and their vehicle, the Fake News Media, are going Crazy - & they don’t know what to do. The Economy is booming like never before, Jobs are at Historic Highs, soon TWO Supreme Court Justices & maybe Declassification to find Additional Corruption. Wow!

I’m interested in the part in bold. My question is, what is the “Declassification to find Additional Corruption” that President Trump is referring to? What is the classified information that would be declassified?

Have any White House officials shed light on what he’s referring to?

  • 13
    Do keep in mind that Trump frequently makes vague and impressive-sounding promises. He may not have particular documents in mind. – Obie 2.0 Sep 8 '18 at 9:16
2

As per Axios Sep 9 report:

President Trump is expected to declassify, as early as this week, documents covering the U.S. government's surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and the investigative activities of senior Justice Department lawyer Bruce Ohr, according to allies of the president.

2

It's impossible to say, without a direct clarification from the White House, which particular classified documents the President has in mind.

Saying that there were multiple calls from some of the congressional Republicans on the President to declassify and release the documents related to the Carter Page investigation and the Steele dossier.

Most recently, on Thursday, September 6, 2018 the group of House Republicans held a press conference to call on President Trump to declassify some of these documents.

Here's the relevant excerpt from the opening statement by Representative Lee Zeldin (NY-1):

I'm joined here today by several of my colleagues, including congressmen Meadows, Jordan, Gates, and others to call on the President of the United States Donald Trump to declassify and release important information for the American public:
...
There are three parts to our request:

One. We're calling for a declassification and release of the Carter Page FISA applications. While we strongly favor of releasing the entirety of the FISA applications except for the necessary reduction of any sources and methods that must truly remain classified we most specifically want to ensure that the President declassifies and releases 20 pages in particular of the last FISA renewal. This includes pages 10 to 12 and 17 to 34 along with the associated footnotes. We're confident that the FISA applications will prove that the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI failed to provide the FISA court with critically important information when they requested a warrant to spy on Carter Page and others.

Part two of our request is that we're calling on the President to declassify and release all twelve of the Bruce Ohr 302s. We're confident that these 302s contain critically important information that should have been provided to the FISA court but wasn't.

Part three. We're also for the declassification and release of the documents provided to the Gang of Eight that contain exculpatory evidence regarding Carter Page and others. We're confident that these documents also contain critically important information that should have been provided to the FISA court, but wasn't.

Later in the conference, representative Mark Meadows (NC-11) said that he already discussed the need for transparency with the President.

So here we have at least one package of documents the President might be referring to.

-2

There's little legitimate public purpose served by a leader flaunting a yet to be played winning hand. Leaders should not, and generally do not, warn their enemies in war of a surprise attack. Honest police generally do not tip off criminals before a bust... Wow!

It resembles Joe McCarthy's "I hold in my hand a list", where the list is claimed to be an important secret MacGuffin, but may actually just be a useless Shaggy Dog Story, or a Snipe Hunt, or a form of political vaporware, calculated to waste the mass media's limited news-cycle bandwidth while accumulating celebrity-hours for the speaker. (Trump was an admiring employer of McCarthy's dishonest counselor Roy Cohn.) Wow!

Political clickbait to entertain with serial suspense; not the product of consideration so much as the routine production of it, redirecting public attention with yet another evolving narrative, like an episodic cliffhanger, pivoting to suit the needs of the audience. Wow!

For speakers that tease and goad public opinion with speculative tales about the impact of their someday revealing unsubstantiated and undisclosed alleged secrets, an apposite scientific maxim applies: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. What's extraordinary is that there is no claim, particularly when a speaker is famous for boasting and bluffing. We should consider whether paying any attention to such claims, even in hopes of testing them, is wise or foolish. Wow!

  • 1
    This doesn't really answer the question, or even usefully present a frame challenge to it. – Bobson Sep 9 '18 at 14:03
  • 1
    I think it does answer the states question: namely that Trump was merely making stuff up. Which is not an unreasonable answer considering that the same sentence mentions the wild and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories of "deep state" and "fake News Media". The answer could be improved by being a bit more to the point about that, and a bit less about the motivations for doing so; I, for one, don't think this is some masterplan from Trump, but that this is just his personality. – user11249 Sep 9 '18 at 15:46
  • @Bobson, The Q is unanswerable, which might be the point of it. "Wow!" – agc Sep 9 '18 at 21:32
  • Well, if the premise is that it's all basically bluster, and there really is nothing that he had in mind, then, in terms of having a concrete "X, Y and Z," no, it's not answerable. However, the explanation of why it is unanswerable is a bit of an answer in and of itself. "He's not actually considering a declassification, he's just making important-sounding noise" - would still answer the question. – PoloHoleSet Sep 10 '18 at 14:13
  • @PoloHoleSet, Thanks for the feedback. Re "He's not actually considering a declassification, he's just making important-sounding noise" -- well that implies it's possible for others to know the considerations of a bluffer, but we don't even know that anything is being considered. If T. were scrupulously honest, perhaps we might allow it the benefit of the doubt, but here we don't know. Perhaps whether the noise in question even sounds important is subjective. Anyway, I've reworked this answer somewhat, but it's still perhaps more general than literal. – agc Sep 11 '18 at 3:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.