> The article is bunk, full of double speak jargon, and statements that amount to nothing of value. No wonder it has no author credits.

The article references most of its claims unlike you, who just spurts out a couple paragraphs random nonsense.

> The BAR association, has proven itself to be a biased leftist controlled organization that wanted to strip anyone that question the integrity of the last election of their Law license.

Screeching about bias because we have no substantive evidence for anything I see.

I think you will find the bar associations around america striped those lawyers of their licenses because they broke the ethical rules associated with being a lawyer.

> Misrepresentation of Experts' Views: The article states that "Most national security legal experts dismissed the former president’s suggestion that he could declassify documents simply by thinking about it." However, it does not provide any evidence or references to support this claim.

Here’s another article with three different presidents that disagrees with your rant and agrees with the actual lawyers (the ABA).

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-donald-trump-...

> Inconsistent Information on Presidential Declassification Authority: The article initially states that legal guidelines support the former president's contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents. However, it later contradicts itself by mentioning that a formal procedure is required for declassification and that declassification cannot occur without officials following specified procedures. These statements create confusion regarding the extent of a president's authority to declassify materials.

This is untrue the president can have broad declassification powers and still be limited to a formal procedure.

This is not a limitation of the article but more a limitation in your understanding of the article.

> Lack of Clarity on Statutory Protection: The article mentions that documents not statutorily protected can be declassified by the president. However, it does not provide specific information on what qualifies as "statutorily protected" documents. This lack of clarity hinders a comprehensive understanding of the declassification process.

It literally references the definition of restriction data for the DOE at the end of the article but because you seem to be unable to read even quotes I’ll just link it.

https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/rdfrdhtm.html#:~:text=R%20e...

> Limited Scope of Court Challenge: The article states that the extent of a president's legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials without following formal procedures has yet to be challenged in court. However, it does not provide any additional context or explanation as to why this issue has not been challenged. This omission leaves the reader with an incomplete understanding of the legal landscape surrounding declassification authority.

It’s never been challenged because it’s never been taken to court before.

It’s never been taken to court before because prior to Trump we didn’t have a president that thought he could declassify anything with his mind nor one that didn’t cooperate when they had taken/removed classified documents.