"Executive Order 13526 was issued on December 29, 2009 by United States President Barack Obama.[1] It is the latest in a series of executive orders from US Presidents outlining how classified information should be handled. It revokes and replaces the previous Executive Orders in effect for this, which were EO 12958 (text) and EO 13292 (text)." wiki
-----------------
Listen up, pilgrims! The system of classifying most US government information originates in an Executive Order, not in federal law.
If you watched the senate hearing yesterday presided over by Lindsay Graham it quickly became evident that he was to some extent channeling Roy Cohn in the long ago Army-McCarthy hearings (1954). I was a boy then but, freaky kid that I was, I was glued to our tiny black and white TV set to watch. "Have you no sense of decency left? " Lawyer Welch asked Senator Joe McCarthy. I had the feeling yesterday watching Senators Feinstein and Whitehouse try to torture responses into new meanings that this was a "star chamber" proceeding in the fullest meaning of the term. A clear example was Feinstein's attempt to twist the former AG's statement that Flynn "could have been compromised" into "Flynn compromised the national security of the US." It seems evident to me that a certain element in the Democratic Party is intent on portraying both Flynn and Trump as traitorous agents of Russis.
Well, pilgrims, life is not just a bowl of cherries and fire should be fought with fire. The president is the ultimate declassification authority. As noted above, the classification and security clearance structure and procedures are created thought Executive Orders (with the exception of atomic energy information). In other words, with that exception, the president can declassify anything that is presently classified.
It is not a crime to talk to Russian officials. Flynn talked to the Russian ambassador on circuits that were commercial and unencrypted telephones. Presumably they spoke in English. The whole world knows that these conversations took place. The New York Times revealed this to the world after someone in the government told them. The whole world knows that all capable governments eavesdrop on foreign government officials. This is a secret without effective secrecy. Was the information collected by a cooperating foreign service? Well, that is just too bad! The political situation in the US is so toxic that exceptional disclosures by the US government are justified.
IMO, the president should declassify the transcripts of the intercepted Flynn/Russian ambassador conversations and the present DNI should release them himself at a presser with release of hard copies of the documents to the press.
If Flynn was guilty of something more than chatting with this Russian diplomat or any others, the transcripts will show that. pl
If you were advising the President, we would all be better for it. However logical your suggestion may be, I believe our US government has a far too enigmatic approach to how we define - and deliver - transparency for that to happen.
Posted by: eakens | 09 May 2017 at 11:39 AM
Sir
Your advise would be the most sensible action. It seems both Yates and Clapper were hiding behind classification.
Is Flynn being railroaded? Robert Parry believes so.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/08/turning-gen-flynn-into-road-kill/
Why is Trump not de-classifying the call transcript?
Posted by: Jack | 09 May 2017 at 11:46 AM
Col. - Thank you for this information. You have perhaps hit on exactly why those transcripts will not be declassified.
Ms. Yates did not strike me as a "pants of fire" type of public servant. If anything, her testimony led me to the conclusion that there is something on those transcripts that this administration does not want to release.
I wonder if we will ever know?
Posted by: Laura | 09 May 2017 at 11:56 AM
Laura
you are just guessing and from a partisan point of view. In fact, neither she nor Clapper could reveal the contents of the transcripts so long as they are classified because of sources and methods no matter how empty of incriminating information they may or may not be. In any event, the president should declassify them. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 09 May 2017 at 12:39 PM
I really doubt that Trump, or the people around him (the dumbest guys in the room) know that he has this power.
If he knowa he has this power, why isn't he kicking the FBI's ass to discover the leakers?
Posted by: TV | 09 May 2017 at 12:58 PM
TV
It may be that they do not know. In any event the FBI already has the transcripts, so it is up to Trump to de-classify them. They cannot. They do not have the authority. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 09 May 2017 at 01:10 PM
He will not release. It has now been reported both sons talked about Russia funding Trump Organization for some time. Trump is hiding something or he would reclassify and release.
Posted by: Blrturner | 09 May 2017 at 02:21 PM
I don't understand why Trump isn't simply saying "So Flynn talked to Russian ambo. That's okay. That was his job. I told him to do so."
Nobody could say anything about the (incoming) president doing foreign policy work in the interest of the United States. If he sends a trusted advisor to do a talking part of the job that is fine. Doesn't he have at east on in his team could show him that obvious way out?
Posted by: b | 09 May 2017 at 02:32 PM
"If Flynn were guilty of something more than chatting with this Russian diplomat or any others, the transcripts will show that." Agreed. I don't expect to see the transcripts, but I doubt it is Flynn that they are shielding. White House reactions so far indicate a mix of fear of the potential effects and acceptance of the substance of whatever happened. I know of no reason to suppose that Flynn was a rogue operator acting on his own.
All of which is not to accuse anyone of "treason". But at least purposes and affinities that they don't want becoming public.
Posted by: Fredw | 09 May 2017 at 02:34 PM
b
I seem to remember that Trump tried that early on and then gave up on it. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 09 May 2017 at 02:51 PM
I'm partisan, yet I agree 100%.
Presumably, one doesn't release the transcripts because such a release has already been subjected to cost and benefit analysis. At the same time it is impossible to make true assumptions about Flynn's actions/intent, as if one knows what the transcripts contain, unless one knows what the released transcripts contain.
I will hazard a prediction that the (currently mostly hidden) shape of the pre-election relations between the Trump campaign and the Russian government will eventually see the daylight. I have no idea whether this spells trouble.
Posted by: Dr.Puck | 09 May 2017 at 03:41 PM
Blrturner,
is it illegal for Russian nationals to invest in US companies? When did that happen?
Posted by: Fred | 09 May 2017 at 03:44 PM
There is perhaps another reason the transcripts remain classified, even if they are clean. Trump's team must be realists about the Dems sticking with the secret Russia links 'story' whatever happens to Flynn. Letting his name fill the allotted media space may actually be judged to be better than having another name there - or another story.
Flynn twisting in the wind with impossible to prove allegations swirling keeps the attack dogs busy. If this premise is correct, expect to see Flynn dangled for a while yet.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 09 May 2017 at 04:21 PM
Perfectly legal - as long as a significant contribution is also made to the Clinton crime family AKA Clinton Global Initiative.
Posted by: TV | 09 May 2017 at 04:29 PM
Any one know?
How did Flynn ever get ANY stars, much less three?
Not the brighterst bulb on the porch.
Posted by: TV | 09 May 2017 at 04:32 PM
Certainly not! If Boris Badenof (see Wikipedia) buys the American corporation/person named "Billy Bob's Burgers" and then spends all of its profits on contributions to American politicians, that's just Freedom of Speech (see Supreme Court's Citizens United decision).
Posted by: Markf | 09 May 2017 at 04:33 PM
IMO the National Security Act of 1947 vests exclusive classification authority in the President. Many disagree with me!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 09 May 2017 at 04:38 PM
IMO the National Security Act of 1947 vests exclusive classification authority in the President. Many disagree with me!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 09 May 2017 at 04:38 PM
Colonel Lang, IMO no matter what these conversation' transcripts say, the media pundits, democrats and certain republicans will spin it against the administration and Flynn,
As you said make them look like traitors. I have old Russian American client( she left and immigrated back in early 90s) who she is in a successful business of artistic high end greeting cards, and lives and works in LA and NY, the other she told me, ever since the election and heavy democratic losses, alegedly due to Russian interference, Russians Americans are even afraid of calling Russia and check on thier parents and relatives, It reminded me of Iranians back in 80's. Now days calling or talking to Russians is an un American act?
Posted by: Kooshy | 09 May 2017 at 05:05 PM
Just an exercise in hopefully informed speculation, but what in the Flynn -> Kislyak conversations would have crossed a line that created the FBI/IC concerns? We're all agreed, I hope, that just talking about mutual national interests and views and hopes for the future would have been a perfectly legitimate thing for Trump's national security guy to have done.
Beyond that, what might it have been? Some sort of explicit quid pro quo, where the quid was active Russian help in getting Trump elected seems a possibility for line-crossing. What else?
Posted by: Allen Thomson | 09 May 2017 at 05:12 PM
Yes, except for atomic info which is created by a special law. But there also the president is the supreme classifying authority. Pat
Sent from my iPhone
Posted by: turcopolier | 09 May 2017 at 05:29 PM
Protege of McChrystal in the great post 9/11 CT world pat
Sent from my iPhone
Posted by: turcopolier | 09 May 2017 at 05:33 PM
The sources and methods for collecting an unencrypted telephone conversation over commercial carrier are well known. I can explain it here if anyone is interested.
Government agents go to each major public carrier and say, "Here's some black boxes, we want one of these inserted into each of your major links so we can tap off whatever we feel like."
The telco gives the traditional response of any person with a gun at their head, "Yes sir! No problem."
After that, they just tap off any data or phone call at any time. There you go... all sources and methods. Nothing to worry about.
As for the phone call itself, Flynn was merely scheduling a meeting, or that's the official story at any rate. Are you expecting me to believe the Russians have some super special way to fill in a diary? I'd say the concept of meeting invites is pretty widespread by now. Even if the North Koreans do discover how to book a room, they probably can't do a whole lot of harm with that knowledge.
Posted by: Tel | 09 May 2017 at 05:40 PM
tel,
The only thing I am expecting you to understand is that the product is classified because the government does not want to admit that it phone taps foreign ambassadors. This gives Yates and Clapper a perfect excuse not to discuss the matter in public. Have you ever been in government? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 09 May 2017 at 05:46 PM
Well I guess we now know. Comey is s-canned.
Posted by: scott s. | 09 May 2017 at 06:01 PM