Trumps lawyers are telling us they have no defense in the secret document investigation.

[wnylib]

58. Re: Your second paragraph.

In that hypothetical setting, going on TV with classified information would indicate that the president believed that it was necessary, or at least permissible to declassify it. That broadcast would be evidence that he had, in fact, declassified the information if it was ever questioned in the future.

So where is the indication, in any form, that the material that Trump took to MAL was declassified?

Consider another hypothetical, JFK and the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy went on TV to tell the world as well as the American people that there were Soviet missiles in Cuba, aimed at the US. Until that broadcast, the info was top secret. Kennedy revealed a portion of what was known, for a specific purpose, in that broadcast. He kept other related evidence classified while preparing for a public confrontation with the Soviet Union, revealing it only at the UN for the timing effect of springing it publicly on the Soviet ambassador. Kennedy also did not reveal his step by step decisions on military preparations.

But what if he had "secretly" declassified the rest of that info in the middle of that whole event and sold it to a Soviet agent or to an ally of the Soviets? Why would he do that? For the money if it was high enough. Or because of kompromat about him and his affairs.

Declassification with the intent to give or sell materials to an enemy or ally of an enemy would seriously jeopardize national security, of course. It would be a deliberate act against the security of the US. Intent is hard to prove, but cases have been won by selling juries on probabilities.

So, evidence beyond Trump's very unreliable word that the documents were declassified is important, along with the timing of the declassification and the reason for it.