╌>

Biden expected to face criticism but not be charged in classified document probe: report

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  1stwarrior  •  6 months ago  •  211 comments

Biden expected to face criticism but not be charged in classified document probe: report

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


President Biden and his longtime aides will likely face harsh criticism but be let off the hook and not face criminal charges over the retention of classified material dating back to the commander in chief’s  time as a US senator from Delaware.

Special counsel Robert Hur’s team is crafting a report on its monthslong probe that is expected to be sharply critical of the 80-year-old president and his staff’s handling of sensitive materials, but isn’t expected to charge anyone over the matter,  CNN  and the  Wall Street Journal  reported Thursday.

The lengthy report could be released before the end of the year, and it is expected to go into significant detail about what Hur’s team uncovered over the course of their investigation. Hur, aware that his report will be scrutinized, has reportedly been scrupulous in conducting interviews with anyone who would have been near the classified material.

After the report is out, the Justice Department is likely to make Hur available to answer questions from congressional lawmakers, many of whom have cast doubt on Biden’s explanation of the chain of events that led to the discovery of more than a dozen classified documents.

The outcome is far from surprising, as the Justice Department has a longstanding policy against indicting a sitting president on the grounds that it would “undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”

Hur, a former Trump appointee, was named special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland  Jan. 12 to investigate the Biden classified document  matter.

Almost exactly two months earlier, Garland had tapped Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate former President Donald Trump’s hoarding of national security material at his Mar-a-Lago resort.

Smith’s team has since slapped 40 counts against the former president in that case.

Biden sat down for a voluntary interview with Hur on at least two occasions last month,  the White House previously confirmed .

As Hur’s investigation into Biden winds down, House Republicans have already begun signaling plans to turn up the heat on the classified document scandal.

Earlier this week, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.)  subpoenaed ex-White House counsel Dana Remus  for information about the matter.

Comer is leading a three-committee impeachment probe against Biden that has largely focused on the first family’s foreign business machinations.

Last month, Comer  indicated that his Oversight Committee is looking  the document situation and pointed to alleged gaps in the White House’s  timeline of events .

In January, the White House confirmed that personal attorneys for Biden discovered classified material in his post-presidency office at Washington’s Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement the previous November, days before the midterm elections.

CNN reported at the time that around 10 classified documents, some marked “top secret,” were found and  related to the United Kingdom, Ukraine and Iran .

Other classified documents were recovered from Biden’s Wilmington, Del., home — where images from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop show a  beaten up box of “Important Doc’s”  and indicate Hunter  had access to the family garage  where documents were stored not far from where Biden’s 1967 Corvette Stingray was parked.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment from The Post.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
1  seeder  1stwarrior    6 months ago

Lemme get this straight - bumbling Joe has spent over 40 years in Congress/Fed payroll and was found with classified documents covering those 40 years - and they ain't gonna do shyte to him???

Oh yeah - Clinton had 317 classified documents on an unsecure/unauthorized server in her downstairs BATHROOM CLOSET - and - oops - nothing done.

Trump - oh yeah - HANG'M HANG'M HANG'M - gotta luv the existing DOJ two-facism.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  1stwarrior @1    6 months ago

And the lies told by Biden.

They did NOT notify the proper authorities when first learning of the possession of classified documents. They waited a long time, so now the question is WHY?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  1stwarrior @1    6 months ago
Oh yeah - Clinton had 317 classified documents on an unsecure/unauthorized server in her downstairs BATHROOM CLOSET - and - oops - nothing done.

Precedent set.

Trump - oh yeah - HANG'M HANG'M HANG'M - gotta luv the existing DOJ two-facism.

And there's the Democrat / Left hypocrisy.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @1    6 months ago

 Who don't love liberal left winger double standards? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3    6 months ago

The only standards republiCONS and CONServatives have are double standards.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2  Ozzwald    6 months ago
President Biden and his longtime aides will likely face harsh criticism but be let off the hook and not face criminal charges over the retention of classified material dating back to the commander in chief’s  time as a US senator from Delaware.

And before this is attacked by the right wing, we should point out that if Trump had immediately returned the documents when he left office or discovered them, or even when he was 1st requested to return them, he would most likely not be charged with anything.  But his refusal to return them over and over and over again, combined with his actions to actually hide them and obstruct their return is the primary difference between him, Biden, Pence, and others who have been found with classified documents.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2    6 months ago

Biden didn't immediately return them, but it appears you are holding Trump and Biden to different standards. 

shocking.

/s

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    6 months ago
you are holding Trump and Biden to different standards

... and you are claiming that both sets of circumstances are the same.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.1.1    6 months ago

Either show me (quote me) doing that or your post is a LIE.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @2    6 months ago
And before this is attacked by the right wing, we should point out that if Trump had immediately returned the documents when he left office or discovered them, or even when he was 1st requested to return them, he would most likely not be charged with anything.

Biden didn't "immediately return them.  Not by a long shot.  But you keep pushing the lefts false narrative.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2    6 months ago
Biden didn't "immediately return them.

As soon as they were found by Biden's people, they were reported to the proper authorities.  Compare that to Trump's actions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.1    6 months ago

that is a lie

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
2.2.3  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2    6 months ago

Funny how the left keeps ignoring the FACT that Biden had classified documents from his 40 YEARS of government service - 40 FRIGGIN' YEARS - and they see no issue with that?????

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.4  George  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.3    6 months ago

Come on man! Bidens documents were in a locked garage overseen by his crack head son, of course they were perfectly safe.

.256

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  George @2.2.4    6 months ago

You have a case of HBDS, Hunter Biden Derangement Syndrome.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.2.6  arkpdx  replied to  George @2.2.4    6 months ago
crack head son

I think you meant his son on crack 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.2.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.1    6 months ago

They were found in 2021.  Not turned in until November 2022.  Tell me another line of utter bullshit.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.2.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.3    6 months ago

and they see no issue with that?????

And they expect to be taken seriously.  Another shining example of their hypocrisy.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2.7    6 months ago
They were found in 2021. 

Where did you get that timeline?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.2.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.9    6 months ago
Where did you get that timeline?

See #3.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2.10    6 months ago

see @3.2

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2.10    6 months ago

How are we supposed to believe anything coming from the Biden WH?

The Biden camp has been lying the whole time.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.13  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.3    6 months ago

Lol.  Yes, and every day he probably went to the garage, pulled them out of storage, and took them to the country club to show off to a bunch of rich losers.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.13    6 months ago

His beloved son may have given the info to some of his Chinese, Russian, or Ukraine "business partners".

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @2    6 months ago
"But his refusal to return them over and over and over again, combined with his actions to actually hide them and obstruct their return is the primary difference between him, Biden, Pence, and others who have been found with classified documents."
These are merely accusations, not established facts.
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3    6 months ago
These are merely accusations, not established facts.

Let's ignore all the pictures and Trump's own admissions...right?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.3.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @2.3.1    6 months ago

No one told him any different. He was never in politics and had no training on yeas and nays. And since they were packed up and moved where they were moved to, why wouldn't he think they were his to keep? You people think so damned black and white when trying to analyze gray, it is pathetic. And you wonder why, even though many here are not going to vote for him, that we, in your world, defend him. It isn't that we defend him. It is that you are so ingrained in the pre Trump status quo elitist GovCo bullshit (and miss it it seems), that anything out of YOUR norm is incomprehensible. That is your shame.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.3  devangelical  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.3.2    6 months ago
He was never in politics and had no training on yeas and nays

yeah, see how far that ignorance of the law defense gets you in any court...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.3.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  devangelical @2.3.3    6 months ago

I am not talking court of law. I, as well as everyone with a functioning brain, know that he fucked up thinking they were ALL his. I am talking about the court of public opinion right here on these very pages where it seems NO ONE has ever thought one thing and was shocked to find out they were full of shit. It's arrogant and pathetic.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
2.3.5  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  devangelical @2.3.3    6 months ago

Hmmmm - does the phrase "I don't recall", that was uttered 47 times by Ms Clinton, ring a bell???  While she was UNDER OATH??????  Ignorance????  BS - just being a Left winger and getting away with it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.3.3    6 months ago

Always the excuses for the former 'president' and the endless defense of the indefensible.  Like you said, and may I paraphrase, being an ignorant fucking moron, is no defense.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.7  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.5    6 months ago

What does Hillary have to do with this?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.7    6 months ago

I thought this article was about President Biden?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.5    6 months ago

You have CDS, Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.3.10  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.6    6 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.3.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.5    6 months ago

Yep, George H.W. Bush in the Iran/Contra hearings. "I have no clear recollection of those events." Still a classic!

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.4  arkpdx  replied to  Ozzwald @2    6 months ago
if Trump had immediately returned the documents when he left office or discovered them, or even when he was 1st requested to return them, he would most likely not be charged with anything.

You mean like Hillary did? Oh wait! She didn't turn over any of them! She denied having any. They documents were only after experts were used to look at her server. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    6 months ago
In January, the White House confirmed that personal attorneys for Biden discovered classified material in his post-presidency office at Washington’s Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement the previous November, days before the midterm elections.

So we are supposed to believe that these documents were "discovered" in November 2022.  Yet there is this:

The House Oversight Committee has learned, however, that the real timeline began in 2021 . President Biden used significant federal resources, including five White House employees and a Department of Defense employee, to access and secure items at the Penn Biden Center. “President Biden’s timeline was incomplete and misleading. It omitted months of communications, planning, and coordinating among multiple White House officials, Ms. [Kathy] Chung, Penn Biden Center employees, and President Biden’s personal attorneys to retrieve the boxes containing classified materials. 

He "immediately turned them in" my ass.  The bastard LIED about them.  And yet the democrats and the Bidenistas are silent. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    6 months ago

The Bidenistas will be very slow recognizing that fact, if indeed they are capable of ever doing so.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    6 months ago

I sincerely doubt they are.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    6 months ago

As is often the case, there is no direct statement in your link that states that Biden's people discovered (actually knew of) classified documents in 2021.   The closest it comes is that they moved boxes in 2021 that were later found to contain classified documents.

This is indeterminate.   We do not have evidence that Biden knew of the classified documents until Nov, 2022 when he reported their discovery.   He might have known prior to that, he might not have.    At this point, we do not know.

What we do know, however, is that the Biden classified documents were made known by the Biden team.   They volunteered the information, complied with the safe return of the documents and looked for other violations of the PRA.    This is similar to what Pence did.   Both men cooperated with the safe return of the documents.

That remains in stark contrast to Trump who, based on sound evidence, intentionally tried to keep classified documents by playing stalling games with authorities and even went so far to try to conceal them from authorities in the middle of the investigation.    Biden and Pence violated the PRA.   Trump violated the PRA and then engaged in criminal activities rather than cooperate with authorities.   Big difference.   This is why Trump has been indicted and the other two have not.

If it is later determined that Biden knew of the classified documents in 2021 and pretended that they were discovered in 2022, then that is clearly a wrongful, dishonest, inexcusable act in violation of the PRA.   But because he cooperated in their safe return, he is not subject to the criminal charges raised against Trump.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    6 months ago
The closest it comes is that they moved boxes in 2021 that were later found to contain classified documents.

So why wait until 2022 to notify the right people?  They knew about them and held them for almost a year before turning them it.  Does away with the whole "he did the right thing" narrative you all have been trying to push.  

At this point you are all just making pathetic excuses.  Couple this with what was mentioned in #1, and there is the left's normal hypocrisy as well.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.1    6 months ago

Don't you know by now that WH attorneys are often involved in "moving boxes"?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    6 months ago

Who would have thought WH attorneys would be moonlighting as movers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.1    6 months ago
So why wait until 2022 to notify the right people? 

If they knew that those boxes contained classified documents then they should have reported it immediately.   I stated this in my post!

If they moved boxed but did not go through the contents and discover the classified documents then it is obvious why they did not report them — they would have not known that they were inside the boxes.

As I stated, this is indeterminate.   We do not know what they knew.   

At this point you are all just making pathetic excuses. 

As usual, you do not read what people write.   I made no excuse for Biden.   Indeed I stated this:

TiG@3.2 ☞ If it is later determined that Biden knew of the classified documents in 2021 and pretended that they were discovered in 2022, then that is clearly a wrongful, dishonest, inexcusable act in violation of the PRA.

Pay attention to what people write.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.4    6 months ago
We do not know what they knew.

The first thing you said that has been correct.  WE don't know.  But those investigating do.  Yet you still try to play the "what if" game to generate excuses.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.5    6 months ago

The only game at play is coming from you as you ignore what is written and simply declare "excuses".

It is pathetic, no way to ever have a civil discussion with someone who ignores what is written and just generates spin.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.6    6 months ago
no way to ever have a civil discussion with someone who ignores what is written and just generates spin.

You mean like asking different variations of the same question? [deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.3    6 months ago
Who would have thought WH attorneys would be moonlighting as movers.

The same gullible folks who believe the WH notified authorities immediately. The same gullible folks who think Joe Biden and his family haven't profited from the sale of Joe Biden.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
3.2.9  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    6 months ago
Biden's people discovered (actually knew of) classified documents in 2021

Why would Biden have classified documents in the first place?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @3.2.9    6 months ago

He should have not had them.   

How would I know why he had them?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  goose is back @3.2.9    6 months ago
Why would Biden have classified documents in the first place?

Because our whole system for safeguarding secret documents SUCKS.

Hell, no one even knew the docs were missing for YEARS!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  goose is back @3.2.9    6 months ago
Why would Biden have classified documents in the first place?

It would be interesting to find out if any of the docs in Biden's possession were related in any way to any of Hunter's businesses.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
3.2.13  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.10    6 months ago
He should have not had them. 

Is possessing classified documents outside of a secure facility a crime? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  goose is back @3.2.13    6 months ago
Is possessing classified documents outside of a secure facility a crime? 

Well, sometimes.

Seems like it may depend on who it is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @3.2.13    6 months ago

No, it violates the PRA, but it is not a crime.

Attempting to obstruct authorities from securing return of said documents once discovered is a crime.

Trying to hide the documents from authorities is a crime.

Showing the content of said documents to unauthorized individuals is a crime.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.14    6 months ago

Who has been charged with a crime for merely possessing classified documents outside of a secure facility?

Trump has not been charged with that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.16    6 months ago
Who has been charged with a crime for merely possessing classified documents outside of a secure facility?

I don't know, do you?

Has anyone here specifically stated that possessing classified material outside a secure facility is a crime? What post?

Trump has not been charged with that.

Weak strawman argument.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
3.2.18  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.15    6 months ago
Showing the content of said documents to unauthorized individuals is a crime.

So where is the documentation that none of these classified documents that were in multiple location where not shown to unauthorized individuals?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  goose is back @3.2.18    6 months ago
So where is the documentation that none of these classified documents that were in multiple location where not shown to unauthorized individuals?

Didn't Hunter have access to the documents in Joe's garage?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.17    6 months ago
Has anyone here specifically stated that possessing classified material outside a secure facility is a crime?

You saw the question.   I answered it.   You should not be confused at this point.

Weak strawman argument.

Learn what a strawman argument is.

Trump has not been charged with a crime for merely possessing classified documents.

That is a statement of fact.   It is not an argument and certainly is not a 'strawman argument'.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @3.2.18    6 months ago
So where is the documentation that none of these classified documents that were in multiple location where not shown to unauthorized individuals?

You want a document that proves a negative??    

Do you think the authorities should charge Biden with a crime of showing classified documents to unauthorized individuals because there is no proof that he did not do so?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.20    6 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
3.2.23  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.21    6 months ago
Do you think the authorities should charge Biden with a crime of showing classified documents to unauthorized individuals because there is no proof that he did not?

Have no idea if Biden showed anything to anyone but, these classified documents were in an unsecure location because of him. There is no log of who has viewed these classified documents. So to claim he has not broken a law is unknown.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.20    6 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @3.2.23    6 months ago
So to claim he has not broken a law is unknown.  

Nobody has claimed he has NOT broken a law.   There simply is no evidence that he HAS broken a law.

Possessing classified documents violates the PRA, but the PRA does not carry criminal charges.   

Criminal charges come if one attempts to obstruct the return of discovered classified documents or willingly shows the content of a classified document to an unauthorized individual.

There is no evidence that Biden obstructed or disclosed;  there is indictable evidence that Trump did obstruct and disclose.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.26  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.15    6 months ago

Things have changed. In my day it was certainly a crime.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2.26    6 months ago
In my day it was certainly a crime.

It never was a crime, Ed.   The PRA resulted from the Nixon era and was intended to impose authority over presidential records.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2.26    6 months ago
Things have changed.

Hard to believe the lack of oversight regarding documents, isn't it?

Lackadaisical record keeping, I'm sure.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.27    6 months ago

Title 18 U.S.C. 1924 says, “(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be….”

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.29    6 months ago

Now that you cited code, make your point.

Focus on the word 'knowingly' and the phrases 'without authority' and 'with the intent to'.

Also, I was speaking of the Presidential Records Act as it applies to Trump, Biden and Pence.   Merely having those documents is not criminal.  Merely violating the PRA is not criminal.  To be criminal, more factors must be in play.   Only in the Trump case are those factors in play.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.29    6 months ago

I would suggest that Biden did indeed intend to keep the records from his Senate days. Why else still have them all these YEARS later?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.32  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.29    6 months ago

Also (from your link):

This law has come into sharp focus recently as the unlawful removal of classified materials is a central issue in one of the Justice Department's investigations into Former President Donald Trump's storing of classified materials at his home in Mar-al-Lago.

If the investigations lead to an indictment, this could be one of the crimes for which he is charged. But first, let's talk about what the law entails.

First, for an individual to be convicted of this crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt three elements:

  1. The defendant was a government officer or employee, contractor, or another person who lawfully had custody and control of classified documents;
  2. The defendant unlawfully and knowingly removed such documents from their designated locations; and
  3. The defendant intended to retain such documents at an unauthorized location.
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.31    6 months ago

Well if you were an attorney, you would have to make a case showing intent.   I doubt your case, thus far, would be very persuasive.

And if you can divine intent for Biden then surely you recognize intent by Trump since he stupidly first tried to claim that the documents were all declassified by him.   This establishes knowledge and intent and thus wrongdoing.   Do you acknowledge Trump's wrongdoing based on the evidence?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.34  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.30    6 months ago
Now that you cited code, make your point.

Simply that there is a federal offense punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment for knowingly taking classified documents to your home garage or private office.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.35  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.32    6 months ago

1 and 3 are easy, 2, not so much.  I’m sure his defense is sloppy record keeping, failure to review documents before taking them home, etc. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.34    6 months ago
  • Custody
  • Knowingly
  • Unlawfully (without approval)
  • Intent

It is not a crime to merely have possession of classified documents in your home, garage or private office.

As I have stated all along.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.37  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.33    6 months ago
Well if you were an attorney,

I'm not, just a person with some common sense despite what the 'law' says.

As much as I admire your persistence in dragging Trump into this, I am not talking about him.

Do you acknowledge the article isn't about Trump?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.38  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.34    6 months ago
Simply that there is a federal offense punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment for knowingly taking classified documents to your home garage or private office.

Is the argument really so weak that now Joe didn't know he had them?  Or didn't even know he moved them? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.39  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.37    6 months ago
I'm not, just a person with some common sense despite what the 'law' says.

When discussing what is criminal or not, it is the law that matters ... not your 'common sense'.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.40  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.39    6 months ago
Well when discussing what is criminal or not, it is the law that matters ...

The law is an ass.

I am sure Joe really meant to return the docs from his Senate days, it has just slipped his mind lo these many years.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.41  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.40    6 months ago
The law is an ass.

You are not a supporter of the rule of law?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.42  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.36    6 months ago

Yes, the knowingly might be hard to prove, it would somewhat depend on the process used to pick the files and where/how they were previously stored.  If in a safe used on to store classified, then yes, it’s reasonable to conclude that whoever took them out, knew they were classified.  If however, classified documents where intermingled with unclassified in boxes, then maybe it was unintentional.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.43  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.41    6 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.44  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.35    6 months ago
1 and 3 are easy, 2, not so much.

Show me how 3 is easy to prove.

I’m sure his defense is sloppy record keeping, failure to review documents before taking them home, etc. 

I suspect that too;  basically that the records were boxed up by staff and the boxes were stored away.   So the classified documents were simply part of the moving out process.   The failure then was not reviewing each document before it was stored.   

Without evidence to reasonably establish knowledge and intent, there is no crime.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.45  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.36    6 months ago

Soldiers and FBI analysts have recently received prison sentences for having classified at their home.  Most lose their clearance at a minimum.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.46  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.45    6 months ago
Soldiers and FBI analysts have recently received prison sentences for having classified at their home.  

Show me the law where it is criminal to merely have classified documents at their home.

I would expect that the cases you cite in the abstract will have additional factors that trigger criminal code.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.47  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.44    6 months ago

Yep, the either weren’t trained or the proper procedures weren’t enforced.

Perhaps Biden didn’t obey Obama’s Executive Order 13526 on Classified National Security Information.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.48  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.46    6 months ago

I showed you the law.  A garage doesn’t meet the requirements of Secure Storage for classified documents. 

In the two 2023 case I mentioned, the two individuals pled guilty during plea bargaining.

Once a year I receive tested, training on the proper handling of classified material.  Our seniors aren’t held accountable to the same standards as juniors ate.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.49  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.47    6 months ago
Perhaps Biden didn’t obey Obama’s Executive Order 13526 on Classified National Security Information.

Ultimately, the reason Biden (and Pence) are not charged but Trump is charged is because Trump's additional actions violated the law.   Trump went beyond merely having possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and that is what turned his situation criminal.

If Trump had cooperated in the return of the documents, his situation would be in the same category as that of Biden and Pence and he would have not been charged.   Indeed, I doubt that this would have even become public information.   NARA would have likely secured the documents in stealth with the public being none the wiser.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.50  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.48    6 months ago
I showed you the law.  A garage doesn’t meet the requirements of Secure Storage for classified documents. 

And I illustrated that mere possession is insufficient to break the law.   I even quoted directly from your link @3.2.32

You acknowledged the other necessary factors beyond mere possession to make this criminal, so why write your post implying that possession alone is criminal??

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.51  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.49    6 months ago

I don’t disagree, but I know the little people in government are punishes for what the big people get away with.

 Handling classified can be tedious and frequently things are over classified, but instead of changing the rules or classifying less, our decision makers operate on their and their offices conscience.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.52  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.50    6 months ago

I never implied that.  It’s fine if you want to minimize Biden and his office handling of classified material, I didn’t classify it or store or have anything too with writing the law or the Executive Orders.  

I simply say that we put little people in prison and usually excuse the big people that can’t be bothered to know and/or enforce the rules that they approve for others.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.53  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.52    6 months ago
I never implied that.

Then what, precisely, are you implying?

It’s fine if you want to minimize Biden and his office handling of classified material, I didn’t classify it or store or have anything too with writing the law or the Executive Orders.  

I am not minimizing Biden's actions, I have been stating what the PRA states, what the law states, what Biden did, what Pence did and how that differs from what Trump did.    

I simply say that we put little people in prison and usually excuse the big people that can’t be bothered to know and/or enforce the rules that they approve for others.

And I stated that the law you produced does not make mere possession criminal.   That there are other factors.

I have stated ALL of this quite clearly multiple times now.   The PRA, the law, the cases are what they are.  


The idea that there is a difference between "little people" and "big people" is certainly true in reality, but that is a tangent.   We were discussing Biden's classified documents and how that relates to the actions of Pence, Trump and how the PRA and the law apply.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.54  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.53    6 months ago
Then what, precisely, are you implying?

That a federal law exists against story classified documents at one’s residence.  I don’t understand why that confuses you.

I have been stating what the PRA states, what the law states, what Biden did, what Pence did and how that differs from what Trump did.    

I haven’t commented on the PRA.

We were discussing Biden's classified documents and how that relates to the actions of Pence, Trump and how the PRA and the law apply.

Sorry, I thought the discussion was on the prediction that while Biden was expected to face criticism but not be charged for his mishandling of classified material.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.55  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.43    6 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.56  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.54    6 months ago
Sorry, I thought the discussion was on the prediction that while Biden was expected to face criticism but not be charged for his mishandling of classified material

Is any discussion considered complete if no one talks about Trump?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.57  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.56    6 months ago

Not here at NT.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.58  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.56    6 months ago

This topic is about Biden's classified documents.  That topic immediately invites the Trump comparison.  The seed content itself brings up the Trump classified documents case.

Read the seed, get informed.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.59  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.58    6 months ago
That topic immediately invites the Trump comparison. 

And perhaps a Hillary comparison.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.60  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.58    6 months ago
Read the seed, get informed.

I have read it.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.61  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.59    6 months ago
And perhaps a Hillary comparison.

LMAO!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.62  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.27    6 months ago

I was referring to unauthorized possession by military personnel or civilian of any classified material. That was and I believe still is in fact a huge violation of the UCMJ for military personnel. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.63  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.32    6 months ago

Where is that in 18 CFR §1924?  When I read it I see:

§1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, §808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)

Amendments

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “under this title” for “not more than $1,000,”.

Since you don't provide a link to your "information" we can only assume you've fabricated it.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.64  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.63    6 months ago
Since you don't provide a link to your "information" we can only assume you've fabricated it.  

That is a truly stupid assumption;  I stated in my comment that I copied the information from Drinker's link.   Go to Drinker's link and you will see it plain as day.

Now, read what you quoted:

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

The conditions are possession AND knowingly remove AND without authority AND intent to retain.

AND, not OR.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.65  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2.62    6 months ago
I was referring to unauthorized possession by military personnel or civilian of any classified material. That was and I believe still is in fact a huge violation of the UCMJ for military personnel. 

Are you thinking of 18 CFR §1924?    If so, see @3.2.64 regarding the AND conditions.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.66  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.64    6 months ago
I stated in my comment that I copied the information from Drinker's link

And what does that have to do with what you stated not being in the CFR?

The conditions are possession AND knowingly remove AND without authority AND intent to retain.

So you're contention is Biden didn't know he had the records, didn't know he had them and had no intent in having them?  Now THAT is pretty fucking stupid.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.67  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.66    6 months ago
And what does that have to do with what you stated not being in the CFR?

You claim I made it up.   I stated that this came from Drinker's link.   What is confusing you here?

So you're contention is Biden didn't know he had the records, didn't know he had them and had no intent in having them?  Now THAT is pretty fucking stupid.  

I have made no such contention.   I have stated that to be a crime, it must be demonstrated with evidence that the individual in possession (whoever it is) must have knowingly removed the documents without authority with the intent to retain them.

There is no evidence supporting this for Biden and Pence, but plenty of evidence against Trump.

Calm down, and attempt to understand what is written.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.68  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.67    6 months ago
I have made no contention. 

Then why make excuses that contradict the CFR?

I have stated that to be a crime, it must be demonstrated with evidence that the individual in possession (whoever it is) must have knowingly removed the documents without authority with the intent to retain them.

The CFR states it is.  There are no "conditions" in the law.  But here you are making excuses for all of it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.69  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.66    6 months ago
So you're contention is Biden didn't know he had the records, didn't know he had them and had no intent in having them?  Now THAT is pretty fucking stupid.  

Biden took them, but didn't mean to. 

Biden had them, but didn't know.

Biden took them deliberately but had no intention.

Wow, what else is there to know?

Just seems smarter to assume that if someone has something they aren't supposed to have and keeps it for years, the intention is to keep it.

But common sense doesn't get a spot here.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.70  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.68    6 months ago
Then why make excuses that contradict the CFR?

Amazing how much effort you put forth to be wrong.

The CFR states it is.  There are no "conditions" in the law. 

The factors are stated clearly.   The English lists these factors as ALL being required.   Undeniable:  

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

The factors are possession AND knowingly remove AND without authority AND intent to retain.

Breaking it down to an elementary level:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, ...

  • becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, ...
  • knowingly removes such documents or materials ...
  • without authority ...
  • and ...
  • with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location ...

... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

All of the bulleted factors are listed as required.   Thus the law states:  possession AND knowingly remove AND without authority AND intent to retain.

Forget about what you ~feel~ and what you wish;  read the law objectively.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.71  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.69    6 months ago
Biden took them, but didn't mean to.   Biden had them, but didn't know.

It must be established that Biden knew he had classified documents.

Biden took them deliberately but had no intention.

AND it must be established that Biden intended to keep the classified documents.


The factors are possession AND knowingly remove AND without authority AND intent to retain.

For Biden and Pence, the factor that has supporting evidence is possession, likely could evidence lack of authority too (unknown).

For Trump, all factors have very strong supporting evidence.   The killer factors are knowingly and intent.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.72  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.69    6 months ago
But common sense doesn't get a spot here.

Oh, it never does.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.73  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.71    6 months ago
It must be established that Biden knew he had classified documents.

So now we are to believe that Biden didn't know what he took. Sorry, I am not buying that brand of bullshit.

AND it must be established that Biden intended to keep the classified documents.

Since he still had some from his Senate days, I think it safe to assume he was keeping them for some reason.

Once again, I am not talking about Trump. Whatever he did, he did fully independent of anything another President did. Biden's actions are his, not Trump's, and muddying the waters is a weak argument.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.74  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.72    6 months ago

We are now going to have to argue that possession for years shows intent because some won't acknowledge the facts.

If Biden didn't intend to keep them, why did he?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.75  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.71    6 months ago
It must be established that Biden knew he had classified documents.

One would have to be exceedingly stupid to believe that Biden didn't know he had them.  

AND it must be established that Biden intended to keep the classified documents.

Some have been in his possession since his time as a Senator.  There's intent.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.76  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.75    6 months ago

As I wrote before, the law is an ass.

WTF good is a law basically doing nothing?

Expecting us to suspend reality again by ignoring that he had some docs for YEARS.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.77  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.70    6 months ago
The factors are stated clearly. 

Yes they are. Now if you could only comprehend how it applies to Biden and quit making pathetic excuses.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.78  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.75    6 months ago

If Biden did not know he had them, that makes a good argument that he lacks the mental acuity to be President.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.79  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.76    6 months ago
WTF good is a law basically doing nothing?

I wouldn't say it's doing nothing.  It's being selectively applied.  We have to remember that those making covering for Biden are the same ones that have pushed unfounded claims for the past 7 years.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.80  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.73    6 months ago
So now we are to believe that Biden didn't know what he took. Sorry, I am not buying that brand of bullshit.

No, you are again not reading what is written and just making shit up.   What is required is evidence that shows Biden knew he had classified documents.   This is how adjudication works; it does not matter what you ‘believe’.   Your belief is irrelevant.

Since he still had some from his Senate days, I think it safe to assume he was keeping them for some reason.

Your assumptions are also irrelevant.   In a court of law, your assumptions mean nothing.

Once again, I am not talking about Trump. Whatever he did, he did fully independent of anything another President did. Biden's actions are his, not Trump's, and muddying the waters is a weak argument

The seed makes the comparison to Trump.  Trump is part of this discussion.   Whining about this is pointless.

Of the three, only for Trump is their evidence of knowledge and intent.   You are clearly trying to equate Biden’s actions with Trump and are failing at each turn.   Trump has a serious legal problem because of his refusal to cooperate, attempt to hide, disclose contents, etc.   Biden and Pence cooperated.   If Trump had behaved similarly, he would not be facing criminal charges on the classified documents situation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.81  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.80    6 months ago
No, you are again not reading what is written and just making shit up

That is a complete and utter falsehood.

Hard to get past such a blatant lie, it taints the entire post.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.82  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.77    6 months ago

Make your case.   Provide evidence that would hold in a court of law that Biden knew he had classified documents and that he intended to retain same.

Your beliefs are irrelevant.   The law needs persuasive evidence (which exists for Trump).

Make your case.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.83  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.74    6 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.84  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.79    6 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.85  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.76    6 months ago
Expecting us to suspend reality again by ignoring that he had some docs for YEARS.

The law does not include a time factor.

What you believe is irrelevant;  adjudication requires persuasive evidence.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.86  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.82    6 months ago

Why wouldn't Biden know what he took and kept?

That is senseless drivel.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.87  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.82    6 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.88  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.85    6 months ago

Sorry, I refuse to be so naive as to think that documents Biden kept for years were just never returned on "accident" because it isn't believable.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.89  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.86    6 months ago

But it's their ONLY excuse.  The problem is by acknowledging that he "didn't know" they also acknowledge he's not mentally fit for office.  ANY office.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.90  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.84    6 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.91  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.87    6 months ago

Just believe that Joe Biden didn't KNOW he took classified documents, believe Joe Biden "thought" he returned what he didn't know he took and kept.

Believe Joe Biden is a liar and incompetent, at least that's believable

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.92  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.86    6 months ago
Why wouldn't Biden know what he took and kept?

You assume that Biden packed up the boxes himself or that he directed classified documents to be placed in boxes.

Your assumption is irrelevant.

Make an argument that would stand up in court.   There is a sound argument for Trump.   Make one now that would be sound for Biden and Pence.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.93  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.88    6 months ago

What you believe is irrelevant.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.94  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.85    6 months ago
The law does not include a time factor

Arguing something absolutely no one is disputing now?

Did anyone claim there was a time factor, or are you deflecting?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.95  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.91    6 months ago
Just believe that Joe Biden didn't KNOW he took classified documents, believe Joe Biden "thought" he returned what he didn't know he took and kept.

That is not how the law works.   

To criminally charge Biden and Pence you must have persuasive evidence of knowledge and intent.   That evidence exists for Trump but does not (as of yet) exist for Biden or for Pence.

You clearly are unable to make a legal argument that applies to Biden or Pence.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.96  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.93    6 months ago

But what YOU believe isn't?

Lol

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.97  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.94    6 months ago
Did anyone claim there was a time limit, or are you deflecting?

I responded to what you wrote.   

Texan@3.2.76Expecting us to suspend reality again by ignoring that he had some docs for YEARS.

It does not matter how long he had the documents (per the law).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.98  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.96    6 months ago
But what YOU believe isn't?

No. 

Are you truly unable to comprehend that I have been speaking about the law and how adjudication works?   

I have not once in this thread expressed my personal beliefs about Biden or Pence.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.99  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.95    6 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.100  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.97    6 months ago

I never made any argument about time, but keep pretending I did.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.101  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.100    6 months ago

I responded to what you wrote.   

Texan@3.2.76Expecting us to suspend reality again by ignoring that he had some docs for YEARS.

It does not matter how long he had the documents (per the law).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.102  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.98    6 months ago
Are you truly unable to comprehend that I have been speaking about the law how adjudication works?   

And there it is, later than anticipated though.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.103  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.101    6 months ago
It does not matter how long he had the documents (per the Law)

Yes, you can repeat that a zillion times, but absolutely no one is arguing that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.104  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.92    6 months ago
You assume that Biden packed up the boxes himself or that he directed classified documents to be placed in boxes.

No, that is what YOU assume I assume, but that is wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.105  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.103    6 months ago

If you are not referring to time (duration), then what did you mean when you spoke of people ignoring that Biden had docs for years?:

Texan@3.2.76Expecting us to suspend reality again by ignoring that he had some docs for YEARS.

No, that is what YOU assume I assume, but that is wrong.

How did Biden know he had classified documents?   Be specific.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.106  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.105    6 months ago
If you are not referring to time (duration), then what did you mean when you spoke of people ignoring that Biden had docs for years?:

My clearly missed point, perhaps deliberately, is that Biden kept the docs for years, If his intent was not to keep them, he should have returned them. Does that not make sense to you? Do you now or have you ever kept something you were supposed to return?

How did Biden know he had classified documents? 

Well, admitting I am going way out on a limb here, perhaps erroneously I assumed an adult possessing classified materials, read them, would know he had them. 

Did he think the Document Fairy returned them?

Is that specific enough, or did you catch my drift?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.107  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.106    6 months ago
If his intent was not to keep them, he should have returned them. Does that not make sense to you?

To have intent, he would have to first know that the had the classified documents.   It does not matter if he had them for years or for hours.   Either he knew he had them or not.   That is the critical factor when it comes to the law.

Do you have persuasive evidence that would stand up in a court of law that Biden knew he had the documents?

If so, present the evidence.   Many people would be very interested in this.

This evidence exists (substantially) for Trump, but thus far nobody has presented any evidence that Biden actually knew he had classified documents in his boxes.

Make your case.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.108  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.107    6 months ago
To have intent, he would have to first know that the had the classified documents.  

Wow, your defense is that Biden never knew he took classified docs?

WTF did the old fool think the docs were?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.109  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.108    6 months ago
Wow, your defense is that Biden never knew he took classified docs?

Where on Earth do you get this nonsense?    I am not making a defense.   I am stating that the law requires evidence of knowledge and thus far there is no such evidence.

Deliver the evidence.   It exists for Trump, but not for Biden or Pence.

If you cannot deliver evidence of knowledge and only have your belief, then there is no chance of bringing charges against Biden (or Pence).

Without evidence your argument is without merit.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.110  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.107    6 months ago
This evidence exists (substantially) for Trump, but thus far nobody has presented any evidence that Biden actually knew he had classified documents in his boxes.

 If he didn't know, either he and/or his office didn't comply with Obama's Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information#:~:text=This%20order%20prescribes%20a%20uniform,to%20defense%20against%20transnational%20terrorism.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.111  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.110    6 months ago
If he didn't know, ...

Do you have evidence that he knew?

We are talking about criminal charges; we are talking about the law.   It does not matter if he complied with an Executive Order or not.   What matters, legally, is knowledge and intent.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.112  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.107    6 months ago
To have intent, he would have to first know that the had the classified documents.
but thus far nobody has presented any evidence that Biden actually knew he had classified documents in his boxes.

So Biden is now incompetent. And you think its a good idea to keep him in his current position.  A late admission is better than none I guess.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.113  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.112    6 months ago
So Biden is now incompetent. And you think its a good idea to keep him in his current position.  A late admission is better than none I guess.

This discussion is not about competence, it is about the law.   

You have failed on each turn to make a legal case against Biden.   You have presented emotion and bias and have played pathetic games denying what the law actually states.

Bottom line, both Biden and Pence have no evidence showing they knew and and had intent to retain those documents.   For Trump, there is substantial evidence and that is why he is in legal trouble.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.114  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.85    6 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.115  Texan1211  impassed  TᵢG @3.2.109    6 months ago
✋🏼
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.116  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.111    6 months ago
It does not matter if he complied with an Executive Order or not.

Of course it matters, if he and his staff were in compliance, someone would know that there were classified documents at his house.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.117  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.116    6 months ago
Of course it matters,

No it does not.   What matters, legally, is what Biden knew and his intention to (knowingly) retain.

... if he and his staff were in compliance, someone would know that there were classified documents at his house.

And if he were not in compliance they would not necessarily know.

So where is your evidence that Biden knew he had classified documents in storage and that he had an intent to retain them?

Without that crucial evidence, there is no case against Biden (or Pence) per the law.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
3.2.118  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.25    6 months ago
willingly shows the content of a classified document to an unauthorized individual.

Is "willing" part of the statute? I would say he was carless and reckless with classified documents. Had Trump had classified documents in say the lobby of Trump Tower, I would say the same for him. 

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.119  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @3.2.118    6 months ago

Yes, if Trump or Biden or Pence had simply been careless and did not know they had classified documents and those documents were then read by unauthorized individuals, they would be responsible for careless handling of documents.   I am not sure that this is a criminal act (would have to research) but it is definitely in violation of the PRA.

Trump, however, knowingly held the documents and, per the evidence, willfully disclosed the contents of at least one document to at least one unauthorized individual.   If the evidence for this stands up to scrutiny in court, this is a felony violation.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.120  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.113    6 months ago
This discussion is not about competence, it is about the law.

Competence does go along with the discussion.  If he's not competent enough to follow the law then why is he still in that position?  

You have presented emotion and bias and have played pathetic games denying what the law actually states.

I quoted the law.  You are the one giving pathetic excuse after another.  

Biden and Pence have no evidence showing they knew and and had intent to retain those documents. 

And, as I stated before, one would have to exceedingly stupid to believe that nonsense.  But you keep on with yourself.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.121  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.117    6 months ago
And if he were not in compliance they would not necessarily know.

It requires annual training for anyone handling classified.

So where is your evidence that Biden knew he had classified documents in storage and that he had an intent to retain them?

I didn’t conduct the investigation.  I didn’t accuse Biden of knowing.  Perhaps he had an incompetent staff wrt handling classified.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2.122  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.120    6 months ago

Other than personal notes, pictures, and family type stuff, I don't know why in the hell anyone would want to keep/take those seemingly endless records in the first place. Especially, like Biden and Pence, when they didn't even, supposedly, know they were even there? What possible importance could they have.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.123  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.121    6 months ago

Again, none of this matters regarding criminal charges.   If you can show that Biden knew he had classified documents and that he willfully intended to keep them, then that would enable criminal charges.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.124  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.122    6 months ago
What possible importance could they have.

My guess is that there has been no oversight over the packing up of offices for our highest officials.   I would not be surprised if aides pack up whatever is in the office into boxes and ship the boxes to the residence.

While this is entirely irresponsible and inexcusable, this could very well be how it works.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.125  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.122    6 months ago
What possible importance could they have.

Could be the intent of use of those documents that some are vehemently claiming don't exist.  Biden has been in obvious contact with China  and a corrupt government in Ukraine.  Just saying.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.126  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.124    6 months ago
My guess is that there has been no oversight over the packing up of offices for our highest officials.   I would not be surprised if aides pack up whatever is in the office into boxes and ship the boxes to the residence.

Handling classified material, per the cited Executive Order:

  • Document is clearly and conspicuously marked
  • Individuals cleared to handle it receive annual training
  • Stored separate from unclassified
  • An official or employee leaving agency service may not remove classified information from the agency's control
  • Agency head or senior agency official shall establish uniform procedures to ensure that automated information systems, including networks and telecommunications systems, that collect, create, communicate, compute, disseminate, process, or store classified information:
    • Prevent access by unauthorized persons;
  • Agency head shall establish controls to ensure that classified information is used, processed, stored, reproduced, transmitted, and destroyed under conditions that provide adequate protection and prevent access by unauthorized persons.
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2.127  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.124    6 months ago
My guess is that there has been no oversight over the packing up of offices for our highest officials.   I would not be surprised if aides pack up whatever is in the office into boxes and ship the boxes to the residence.

And there you have it. Boxes are packed, shipped to the residence(s) and stored. How can you blame the recipient for the contents and how they ended up in their possession? And I doubt, upon arrival, that the "senior official" takes an inventory. It's bullshit to think that anyone knows exactly what is in them upon receipt. In Trump's case, they were packed and sent to him without as much as a peep that there could be secretive shit in there, why would he not think that they belonged to him otherwise they wouldn't have shipped them to him. The whole thing stinks but by God, we got him this time.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.128  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.21    6 months ago

The pretzel like twisting mind boggling

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.129  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.128    6 months ago

I’ve twisted nothing but I’m not surprised that you’re boggled.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.130  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.127    6 months ago
In Trump's case, they were packed and sent to him without as much as a peep that there could be secretive shit in there, why would he not think that they belonged to him otherwise they wouldn't have shipped them to him.

How funny.

  • Trump (proven) admitted knowing he had classified documents.
  • Trump (proven) tried to interfere with their return (even hiding documents).
  • Trump (per evidence) allegedly disclosed the contents of at least one classified document to an unauthorized individual.

How can you ignore the above?    These are the factors that distinguish the Trump case from the Biden and Pence cases!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.131  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.130    6 months ago

You are leaving out that Trump even sued to keep "his documents", even going so far as to demand a "Special Master" to decide which classified documents he would be allowed to keep. Then Trump got the conservative Special Master he wanted, who determined Trump was full of shit...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.132  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @3.2.131    6 months ago

There are plenty of details I have left out.

Does not matter.   All of it is ignored anyway.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
3.2.133  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.119    6 months ago
definitely in violation of the PRA.

You keep mentioning the PRA, what governs the documents covered by the PRA, are those documents up for debate?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.134  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @3.2.133    6 months ago
You keep mentioning the PRA, what governs the documents covered by the PRA, are those documents up for debate?  

You could simply read the PRA and get a full understanding of it.

Overview: 

Details:  

For the most part, every document that was involved with the PotUS during his administration is subject to the PRA.   There are exceptions for strictly personal items, but by default all documents are part of the presidency and are to be secured by NARA at the end of the term.

Classified documents (and declassified documents) are clearly part of the presidential records and are to be under the stewardship of NARA and not that of the former PotUS.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2.135  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.134    6 months ago
For the most part, every document that was involved with the PotUS during his administration is subject to the PRA.   There are exceptions for strictly personal items, but by default all documents are part of the presidency and are to be secured by NARA at the end of the term. Classified documents (and declassified documents) are clearly part of the presidential records and are to be under the stewardship of NARA and not that of the former PotUS.

Then they damned well better change protocol for the process. NARA gets all of the documents, sorts through them and makes the determination what can and can't be kept, and then and only then do they get shipped to the home address(es)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.136  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.135    6 months ago
Then they damned well better change protocol for the process.

Here we agree.   Obviously our system is woefully broken.   There should be no way for classified documents to leave without approval and their locations being tracked.

But dealing with the system as it is, it is not a crime to merely possess classified documents.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.137  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.65    6 months ago

Under the UCMJ, a violation of 18. CFR 1924 by military members, DoD employees, and contractors is in fact considered a punishable crime by a general courts martial if said violation occurred on a military installation..

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.138  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2.137    6 months ago

Are military members held to a higher standard than what is stated in the law?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.139  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.138    6 months ago

Little government workers are held to a higher standard.  DoJ tells you that they will go for 5 yrs in prison or more and $250,000 in fines plus your legal fees unless you plead guilty.  

If it’s only a couple documents Secret or below that you were working on at home for a couple days, you might only get an Article 15.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.140  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.139    6 months ago
Little government workers are held to a higher standard.

Are "little government workers" held to a standard that goes beyond what the law states?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.141  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.138    6 months ago

Did I state that they were? No, I did not. If you know anything about the  UCMJ, you know that the military has it's own unique legal system that largely follows US legal precents, but they are sometimes applied differently.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.142  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.140    6 months ago

No, but big government workers aren’t held to the same standards.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4  evilone    6 months ago

Trump is not in legal trouble for simply moving classified documents. He's in legal trouble for not giving it back when it was discovered missing, trying to hide it from the FBI and talking to civilians about it.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
4.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  evilone @4    6 months ago

Well, why would he do any of that after every missing document was already declassified with his mind?  Duh.  That is literally one of his mental diarrhea defenses.  What is the point of engaging in political discourse with anyone who thinks that is reasonable.  Siding with that defense is just professional level trolling.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1    6 months ago

The right wants to "litigate" every single scrap of allegation that has ever been made against Trump. It is exhausting. Especially considering the mountains of evidence against him. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    6 months ago
Especially considering the mountains of evidence against him. 

Then it will be so easy to get convictions, right?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
4.1.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    6 months ago

Donald Trump is like the political version of Dennis the Menace, except not ever being well intentioned.  Even looks like him a bit … an old, decrepit, saggy, smellier version anyways.  He stirs up shit everywhere and makes everything worse for everyone.  It’s a mystery to me how anyone finds that appealing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.3    6 months ago

He's a professional at shit stirring, lol.  I love your descriptions of the turd, very good, again, lol.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5  Texan1211    6 months ago

Biden is such an idiot he didn't know he had classified documents, which absolves him magically of all responsibility!

Finally, something all can agree on.

'nuff said.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5    6 months ago

Pence then is an idiot by the same reasoning.

And Trump is an idiot for admitting that he knew he had classified documents.   By admitting that, he enabled his possession to be a crime.   Worse, his stonewalling and hiding of documents also became a crime.   

Did Trump not know that willfully taking and intentionally retaining classified documents at Mar-a-Lago was against the law?

Did Trump not know that he cannot declassify documents by mere thought alone ... that a formal process of declassification must ensue which would officially record the documents as declassified?

Given you think Biden and Pence are idiots, do you not think Trump is an idiot?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    6 months ago
Pence then is an idiot by the same reasoning.

Do you still not comprehend that I am talking specifically about Biden, while you deflect and derail?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    6 months ago

I doubt anyone misses the fact that you continue to flee from my probative questions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    6 months ago
I doubt anyone misses the fact that you continue to flee from my probative questions.

No one is fleeing.

I have stated quite clearly multiple times now that I am talking about Biden while you continue to deflect.

Do you comprehend that my posts have been about Biden?????

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
5.1.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    6 months ago
probative questions.

Is that code for deflecting or derailing away from the actual comment about Biden being responded to?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @5.1.4    6 months ago

No, it is a very clear reference to on-topic questions that are designed to establish / recognize facts.

The facts are inconvenient, thus the questions are ignored.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @5.1.4    6 months ago
Is that code for deflecting or derailing away from the actual comment about Biden being responded to?

Deflection, definitely.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
5.1.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.5    6 months ago

I think you just won the most convoluted post of the week.  You don't think his comment is worth responding to so you take the opportunity to try to make it about Trump instead of responding to the actual comment so you can establish / recognize the facts.  And then talk about him ignoring your questions because the facts are inconvenient and not because he doesn't want to follow your deflection.

WOW.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @5    6 months ago
Biden is such an idiot he didn't know he had classified documents, which absolves him magically of all responsibility!

Such competence!!!!!! Lets keep him as POTUS.  What could go wrong?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2    6 months ago

I know!

It isn't at all crazy to think Joe Biden took classified documents and failed to return them promptly, even though some seem to think it is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.1    6 months ago
It isn't at all crazy to think Joe Biden took classified documents and failed to return them promptly

It is easy to see how Biden had classified documents and not return them promptly.

If he did not know they were in the boxes, he would not take action to return them.

Still boils down to knowledge and intent.   Apparently nobody can find any evidence that Biden knew had classified documents in the storage boxes and intended to retain them.   Without that, there is no criminal charge.

He (and Pence and Trump) violated the PRA, but that is not criminal.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.2    6 months ago
It is easy to see how Biden had classified documents and not return them promptly.

So now that's not a problem.  

If he did not know they were in the boxes, he would not take action to return them.

There's that incompetence excuse again.

Still boils down to knowledge and intent.

So either he's incompetent and didn't know he had them (and shouldn't be in office) or he knew he had them and there was some intent.  Remember, this is a person being investigated for taking money from the likes of Ukraine and China.

He (and Pence and Trump) violated the PRA, but that is not criminal.

It's criminal under 18 CFR.  But we've already seen your excuses on that.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.2.4  Snuffy  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2    6 months ago

It's amazing that people will continue to argue that there's just no smoking gun here.  Even Biden admitted that there was a classified document found in his personal library at his home in Maryland.  It's not like the documents were accidently put into a box when he left office, it was also moved from a box into his personal library.  

President Biden acknowledged Thursday that a document with classified markings from his time as vice president was found in his “personal library” at his home in Delaware, along with other documents found in his garage

Biden Says Classified Documents Were Found in His Delaware Home – NBC4 Washington (nbcwashington.com)

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.1    6 months ago

It's perfectly sane to think that's the right thing to do.  Then shriek somebody else for doing it.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Snuffy @5.2.4    6 months ago
Even Biden admitted that there was a classified document found in his personal library at his home in Maryland.

You're not supposed to remember that.  It ruins the narrative that he didn't know they were there.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.2    6 months ago

jeez, how can I explain this so ut is understood?

I am talking about Biden

not interested in deflections.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.3    6 months ago
So now that's not a problem.  

Not once did I suggest otherwise.   Instead of imagining what people write, read what the write.   If you are unclear about their words, ask honest questions to gain clarification.

There's that incompetence excuse again.

You cannot seem to comprehend how the law works.   It does not matter what would cause Biden (or Pence) to not know they had classified documents.   Legally, what matters is evidence that shows knowledge and intent.

So either he's incompetent and didn't know he had them (and shouldn't be in office) or he knew he had them and there was some intent.  

He either knew he had them or he did not know he had them.   You continue to throw in irrelevant factors rather than simply fact the legal truths involved.   Do you not care to understand the legal reasons why Trump was indicted and Biden and Pence were not?

It's criminal under 18 CFR.

I have explained this repeatedly.   You are simply denying everything and sticking with a reality that you wish were true.   Well it is not true.   Your fantastic alternate reality does not change anything.

Prove that merely possessing classified documents is criminal.

You cannot do so.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @5.2.4    6 months ago
Even Biden admitted that there was a classified document found in his personal library at his home in Maryland. 

How, exactly, does admitting that a document was found turn into a smoking gun?

Show me with honest, civil discourse exactly what law (other than the PRA) Biden (and Pence for that matter) broke by merely possessing classified documents.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.2.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.9    6 months ago
How, exactly, does admitting that a document was found turn into a smoking gun?

Depends on who put it there and whether he had knowledge it was indeed there. If it was classified, only he or SS (I think) would have authorization to see it and place it there.........................

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.10    6 months ago

Yes!!   It depends on whether or not he had knowledge and then depends on a willful intent to retain said documents.

Merely admitting that a document was found does not show knowledge that it was there or intent to retain it.   

Now, after admitting it was there, any attempt to obstruct the safe return of the document becomes criminal.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
6  seeder  1stwarrior    6 months ago

Thanks for the interest and the edumacation on this topic.

We'll see what happens in the real world of politics and, believe it or not, not everybody's gonna like the results.

Thread closed.

 
 

Who is online



35 visitors