A side-by-side look at the Trump, Biden classified documents | AP News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tig  •  3 weeks ago  •  311 comments

By:   MEG KINNARD (AP NEWS)

A side-by-side look at the Trump, Biden classified documents | AP News
The revelation that potentially classified materials were discovered at think tank offices formerly used by President Joe Biden has prompted questions on how the circumstance compares to the seizure last year of hundreds of documents marked as classified from Mar-a-Lago, the Florida residence of former President Donald Trump.

Facts for those inclined to use such things.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The revelation that potentially classified materials were discovered at think tank offices formerly used by President Joe Biden has prompted questions on how the circumstance compares to the seizure last year of hundreds of documents marked as classified from Mar-a-Lago, the Florida residence of former President Donald Trump.

A side-by-side look at the similarities and differences between the two situations:

HOW MANY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

BIDEN: "A small number of documents with classified markings" were discovered on Nov. 2, 2022, in a locked closet at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, a think tank in Washington, as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the offices, according to Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president.

Biden kept an office at the Penn Center after he left the vice presidency in 2017 until shortly before he launched his 2020 presidential campaign. It was affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania and continued to operate independently of the Biden administration.

TRUMP: Roughly 300 documents with classification markings — including some at the top secret level — have been recovered from Trump since he left office in January 2021.

In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents, telling Justice Department officials they contained "a lot" of classified material. In August, FBI agents took about 33 boxes and containers of 11,000 documents from Mar-a-Lago, including roughly 100 with classification markings found in a storage room and an office.

HOW QUICKLY WERE THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS TURNED OVER?

BIDEN: His personal attorneys immediately alerted the White House counsel's office, who notified NARA, which took custody of the documents the next day, Sauber said.

"Since that discovery, the President's personal attorneys have cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession of the Archives," Sauber said.

TRUMP: A Trump representative told NARA in December 2021 that presidential records had been found at Mar-a-Lago, nearly a year after Trump left office. Fifteen boxes of records containing some classified material were transferred from Mar-Lago to NARA in January.

A few months later, investigators from the Justice Department and FBI visited Mar-a-Lago to get more information about classified materials taken to Florida. Federal officials also served a subpoena for some documents believed to be at the estate.

In August 2022, FBI agents conducting a search retrieved 33 boxes from Mar-a-Lago. The search came after lawyers for Trump provided a sworn certification that all government records had been returned.

COULD EITHER PRESIDENT FACE CHARGES RELATED TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE DOCUMENTS?

BIDEN: Despite the discovery of classified materials in a Biden office, there is no indication Biden himself was aware of the existence of the records before they were turned over.

The administration has also said that the records were turned over the same day they were discovered, without any intent to conceal. That's important because the Justice Department historically looks for willfulness, or an intent to mishandle government secrets, in deciding whether to bring criminal charges.

But even if the Justice Department were to find the case prosecutable on the evidence, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has concluded that a president is immune from prosecution during his time in office. Former special counsel Robert Mueller cited that guidance in deciding not to reach a conclusion on whether Trump should face charges as part of his investigation into coordination between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

Attorney General Merrick Garland asked U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois John Lausch — one of the few U.S. attorneys to be held over from Trump's administration — to review the matter after the Archives referred the issue to the department, according to a person familiar with the matter but not authorized to discuss it publicly.

TRUMP: The former president possibly faces exposure for obstruction over the protracted battle to retrieve the documents themselves. And, since he's no longer in office, he wouldn't be afforded protections from possible prosecution that would apply to a sitting president.

In November, Garland appointed Jack Smith, a veteran war crimes prosecutor with a background in public corruption probes, to lead investigations into Trump's retention of classified documents, as well as key aspects of a separate probe involving the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and efforts to undo the 2020 election.

WHAT DID THE PRESIDENTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE DISCOVERY OF THE DOCUMENTS?

BIDEN: Answering questions from journalists at the North American Leaders Summit in Mexico on Tuesday, Biden said he was "surprised to learn" that the documents had been found at his think tank. He said he didn't know what was in the material but takes classified documents "very seriously."

He said his team acted appropriately by quickly turning the documents over.

"They did what they should have done," Biden said. "They immediately called the Archives."

In September, speaking of the situation with Trump, Biden told CBS' "60 Minutes" that the discovery of top-secret documents at Mar-a-Lago raised concerns that sensitive data was compromised and called it "irresponsible."

TRUMP: Trump has claimed at times that he declassified the documents that he took with him — though he has provided no evidence of that. He said in a Fox News interview in September that a president can declassify material "even by thinking about it."

The former president has called the Mar-a-Lago search an "unannounced raid" that was "not necessary or appropriate" and represented "dark times for our Nation."

Of Biden, Trump weighed in Monday on his social media site, asking, "When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?"

WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE DOCUMENTS?

BIDEN: While unlikely to affect the Justice Department's decision-making with regard to charging Trump in his own case, Biden's document disclosure could intensify skepticism among Republicans and others who are already critical that politics is the basis for probes of the former president.

There are also possible ramifications in a new, GOP-controlled Congress where Republicans are promising to launch widespread investigations of Biden's administration.

Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, said Monday that the American public deserved to know earlier about the revelation of Biden's classified documents. The Ohio Republican is among House Republicans pushing for the creation of a "select subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal government" within the Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Mike Turner, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has requested that the U.S. intelligence community conduct a "damage assessment" of the documents found at the Penn Center.

TRUMP: In its immediate aftermath, Trump and his supporters seized on the Mar-a-Lago search as a partisan attack from Democrats who had long been desirous of removing him from office.

During his 2024 campaign launch in November, at the same club agents had searched months earlier, Trump referenced the probes against him, casting himself as "a victim" of wayward prosecutors and the "festering, rot and corruption of Washington."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1  seeder  TᵢG    3 weeks ago

Biden and Trump both had classified documents and thus violated the PRA.

After that, the two circumstances are profoundly different.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 weeks ago

this should be fun. I anxiously look forward to all the back filling responses by the false equivalency crowd.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago

A number are already obtusely claiming that these two situations are equivalent.

Do not expect rational, objective commentary from the Trump apologists.   They will not even read the seed.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

I listen to rwnj radio whenever I drive my car. I know what they're thinking before they do. I'm disappointed in myself for missing out on so many sales in my past career because of not completely realizing the actual numbers of willfully ignorant and gullible people in the US. I regret not ripping them off whenever presented with the many opportunities. it's not hard to understand how those with absolutely no ethics or virtue can gain wealth so quickly in this country.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

No one is supporting Trump on this issue. But some here are apologists for befuddled Biden.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

You mean like the Clinton's and the Pelosi's?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.3    3 weeks ago
No one is supporting Trump on this issue. But some here are apologists for befuddled Biden.

Look in the mirror.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.6  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
A number are already obtusely claiming that these two situations are equivalent.

Well, I have to admit, I stopped reading this article when it asked...

HOW MANY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

...Which, to me, had the same sort of tone as, "how many kids id Biden actually molest, how many people did Biden actually kill or some similar comparison.

Biden and Trump both had classified documents and thus violated the PRA. After that, the two circumstances are profoundly different.

Well, obviously, TiG. "Trump" and "Biden" don't share any letters in the alphabet! That's pretty profound. And that's just the tip of the ice burg. I mean, compare....

"A small number of documents with classified markings"

to 

Roughly 300 documents with classification markings

Obviously, there probably isn't even a number yet discovered that can accurately represent "a small number of documents" that had classified markings compared to what Trump was claimed to have. And let's not forget the completely relevant fact that, however many documents the as yet to be invented number there were, those docs were locked in a closet rather than in a room in a basement. 

I can just about see the visuals now. What Trump was claimed to have done would be the elevator scene in "The Shining", where an ocean of blood was released and, in Biden's case, an image of a hoarders room where an arrow points ambiguously toward something that, had we the resolution to see it, would show a container that claimed no MSG was used in the product. 

HOW QUICKLY WERE THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS TURNED OVER?

Another obvious difference between the demonic Trump coven and the angelic Biden administration. 

BIDEN: His personal attorneys immediately alerted the White House counsel's office, who notified NARA, which took custody of the documents the next day, Sauber said.

What more needs to be said? Biden's personal attorneys immediately notified Biden of a crime he committed six years ago by Biden! I mean, seriously, would anyone object to "Biden for life"? 

I could keep going but, really, what's the point? The only people who are going to believe that what Biden has done is comparable to what Trump did are those who are concerned with reality. You know, those fanatics. In reality, Biden is not Trump, so therefore whatever Biden did or does, is okay. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.6    3 weeks ago
Which, to me, had the same sort of tone as, "how many kids id Biden actually molest, how many people did Biden actually kill or some similar comparison.

If Biden had one classified document outside of the PRA would that be less of a national security problem then if he had 1,000 classified documents?

The volume of documents matters.   

Another obvious difference between the demonic Trump coven and the angelic Biden administration. 

You deny that Trump was NOT cooperative in his classified documents fiasco?

You deny that Biden IS being cooperative in his fiasco?

This is pretty easy to observe.   

Biden's personal attorneys immediately notified Biden of a crime he committed six years ago by Biden! 

As soon as it was discovered, they immediately took action to secure the documents.   Biden's staff then proactively started looking for more.    That is about as cooperative as one can be.

The only people who are going to believe that what Biden has done is comparable to what Trump did are those who are concerned with reality.

Biden and Trump both violated the PRA.   

The level of violation is substantially different.

The cooperation level between the two men is substantially different (which goes to intent).

Of course Trump apologists will seek to equate Trump's violations with Biden's.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.8  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.7    3 weeks ago
If Biden had one classified document outside of the PRA would that be less of a national security problem then if he had 1,000 classified documents? The volume of documents matters. 

Okay. Let's assume your reasoning is correct. Everything I've read concerning this issue describes the documents that were classified as "a small number". Let's assume that this number represents just one document, as your question assumes. Is it your position that it's okay for Biden to do because it was only one document? If so, please explain your reasoning concerning volume. 

You deny that Trump was NOT cooperative in his classified documents fiasco? You deny that Biden IS being cooperative in his fiasco?

Whether or not I deny or confirm anything seems rather irrelevant, don't you think? I mean, do you think the reason they are going after Trump for the same thing Biden did rests upon what I deny or confirm? No? Then what does it rest upon?

As soon as it was discovered, they immediately took action to secure the documents.   Biden's staff then proactively started looking for more.    That is about as cooperative as one can be.

 Well, who can argue with that, TiG? It's so obvious! I mean, who would question that this only came to light after the Trump issue? And lockable closets are so ubiquitous that one wonders why it's even mentioned? One wonders how many freaks out there do not have locked closets? But, to drop the sarcastic tone of my post, I have to admit that the near instantaneous reaction to a crime committed at least six years ago, one that Trump is being accused of at this moment, persuades me to your way of thinking. (and if you don't recognize the sarcasm in that, I'm wasting my time here)

The level of violation is substantially different.

It absolutely astounds me that someone who constantly promotes the idea of following the truth would say such a thing. You have zero evidence to make this claim. All you have is what the media has stated. What would you do, TiG, if, by whatever chain of events, you were in charge of this whole thing? Would you really exonerate Biden on the basis of what you read in the MSM?  

The cooperation level between the two men is substantially different (which goes to intent).

I can agree with this to a point, yet, is it really meaningful? If the justice arm of the government is politicized, as many claim, then the relevance of such a statement loses all meaning. Whether or not what Bided did compares to what Trump did becomes an issue of ideological goals rather than justice: something you seem to ignore. 

Of course Trump apologists will seek to equate Trump's violations with Biden's.

And here we have it. For you, the issue is with the personalities involved, not whether laws were actually broken. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
Is it your position that it's okay for Biden to do because it was only one document?

NO!!!   Drakk, I have written volumes today on this.   At almost every turn I have stated that this is a failure on Biden's part, that he violated the PRA.

My position on volume is as I stated.   The more classified documents in a non-secure environment the worse it is for national security.    And I have also noted that the higher the classification level of said documents, the worse for national security.    The worse the situation is for national security, the more severe the failure.

Well, who can argue with that, TiG? 

Seriously now.   Do you recognize the difference between Biden's forthright, immediately dealing with the discovery and then proactively looking for more violations and the behavior of Trump?   If Trump had cooperated in the immediate return of his documents and initiated a search for other potential documents, there would never have been a forced search at Mar-a-Lago and this never would have been much more than a blip.   By now, it would have been forgotten.   

But that is the opposite of how Trump handled his situation.

You have zero evidence to make this claim. All you have is what the media has stated. 

The reporting on this by all media = zero evidence?    Do you disregard everything you hear from general media, Drakk?    If so, what on Earth are you doing commenting on a social forum which predominantly is based on news?   And, indeed, this very seed is based on news presented by the media (in general).   Do you intend to do your own hands-on, on site investigation into this matter?  Your objection is ridiculous.   The media is reporting the same basic facts;  the reporting is very consistent.  

Whether or not what Bided did compares to what Trump did becomes an issue of ideological goals rather than justice: something you seem to ignore. 

I have never stated that comparing Biden with Trump does anything regarding justice itself.   Adjudication of these cases is necessarily independent.   The comparison is in response to those (Rs) who are attempting to equate the circumstances of Trump with those of Biden.

For you, the issue is with the personalities involved, not whether laws were actually broken. 

You should read what I write instead of just making stupid statements like that.    I have written a ton on this matter today.   If you cannot see my concern over national security, violation of the PRA, potential violation of the espionage act, etc. then you are being intentionally blind.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.10  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
You should read what I write instead of just making stupid statements like that.    I have written a ton on this matter today.   If you cannot see my concern over national security, violation of the PRA, potential violation of the espionage act, etc. then you are being intentionally blind.

Complete horseshit. Everything you've said has been for the purpose of distancing what Biden did from what Trump did. Although Biden did what Trump did, it doesn't count, because, Trump!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.11  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.10    3 weeks ago

Everything I have written was in response to Trump apologists trying to equate Trump's circumstances with Biden's so as to dilute the severity of Trump's offenses and his uncooperative behavior.

Get a clue Drakk.   

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.12  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
You deny that Trump was NOT cooperative in his classified documents fiasco? You deny that Biden IS being cooperative in his fiasco?
Whether or not I deny or confirm anything seems rather irrelevant, don't you think? I mean, do you think the reason they are going after Trump for the same thing Biden did rests upon what I deny or confirm? No? Then what does it rest upon?

Waffling on a question. Interesting. So, how many direct and relevant questions does it take to qualify for a relevant yes or no? 3 letter word or two letter word? And to boot you pummel TiG with 'mountainous' questions of your own! PRICELESS.

Happy New Year, Drakkonis!  I felt compelled to comment on this part of your comment, at the least!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.13  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
All you have is what the media has stated. What would you do, TiG, if, by whatever chain of events, you were in charge of this whole thing? Would you really exonerate Biden on the basis of what you read in the MSM?  
The cooperation level between the two men is substantially different (which goes to intent).
I can agree with this to a point, yet, is it really meaningful? If the justice arm of the government is politicized, as many claim [conservative media], then the relevance of such a statement loses all meaning. Whether or not what Bided did compares to what Trump did becomes an issue of ideological goals rather than justice: something you seem to ignore. 

Here also you are going after the 'messenger' instead of the perceived culprits.  In bold above I have pointed a bias out in your 'examination' of two of a kind forces. That is, you want us (TiG) to be highly concerned and focus on the trustworthiness of the "MSM" - while in the next 'breath' you "as many claim [conservative media]" denoting assent to their insistence that "the justice arm of the government is politicized."

Drakkonis, you ought to know better than to allow this to issue from your 'desk.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.14  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
the issue is with the personalities involved, not whether laws were actually broken. 

Laws were actually broken and the politicians (Trump/Biden), two presidents no less, are at fault and responsible. Now then, shall the solution be a political one or rule of law in a legal setting?  We are all set to 'Stay tuned.'

Something circuitous happens in the political realm as if these politicians play off each other in many of the same set of actions and reactions. It keeps 'happening'!  Weird, huh?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.15  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.10    3 weeks ago

One major difference which you rather cleverly or deceptively are overlooking; Trump has yet to drop his 'ownership' of the documents belonging to the archive for which he claims are 'his' to do with as he sees fit. Trump went to court over these documents. And, demands to be made 'whole' about documents he was warned he had in his possession; did not completely turn over, and had his private residence searched to retrieve. One more thing: Trump did his mishandling as a former president not distracted by the office of the presidency and its 'business.'  Biden essentially has that office as political cover, at the least.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.16  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.10    3 weeks ago
Although Biden did what Trump did, it doesn't count, because, Trump!

If you had read even a fraction of what I have written on this topic you would know that what you just wrote is pure fantasy ... you just dreamed this up in your head.

My comments at almost every turn note that this is a failure on Biden's part, that he violated the PRA.   It most definitely counts; Biden failed.   The fact that Trump's circumstances were far worse has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Biden violated the PRA.    Your imagination is working overtime.

My first comment in this seed:

TiG @1Biden and Trump both had classified documents and thus violated the PRA.

Buy a vowel.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.17  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.15    3 weeks ago

To me, the most profound difference is the argument one can make on intent based on the evidence.

  • Biden's intent was to correct his mistake as soon as possible and get the classified documents to a secure facility.
  • Trump's intent was to deflect blame and hold onto as many documents as he could.
  • Biden did not realize he had violated the PRA.   As soon as he knew, he cooperated and even proactively looked for more violations.
  • Trump knew of his violation (at the least when he was told by NARA) and proceeded to NOT cooperate.

The above are my views based on the evidence but I think any rational, objective mind would come to a similar conclusion.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.18  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.17    3 weeks ago
To me, the most profound difference is the argument one can make on intent based on the evidence.

This is what's so frustrating about trying to have any sort of intelligent conversation with you. Specifically, what evidence????? A freaking news story? Do you get that? Whether we're talking about Trump or Biden, everything you think you know is from a freaking news story. And then, you want to be all incredulous when people point out your Biden apologetics. One wonders how you would react to a news article claiming Elvis is still alive. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.18    3 weeks ago
A freaking news story?

Well where else can one get information to form an opinion? I'm certain TiG doesn't have exclusive access to the DOJ investigation

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.20  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.18    3 weeks ago
Specifically, what evidence?????

A question like that suggests that you dismiss ALL (and there has been a ton of it) reporting on Trump's document fiasco.    Every article, newscast, report on legal proceedings, etc. is to be 100% ignored.      

A freaking news story? 

No, not A freaking news story, the collective news from myriad sources that has been available for months.    


Your rant suggests that you reject the collective news (just incredible!) thus you essentially reject all sources of information available to you.

In other words, where do you get your information about current events ... from the Bible?


I wonder where Snuffy, Jeremy and Just Jim get their information since they apparently agree with you that the collective news must be ignored.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
1.1.21  Jasper2529  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

Wait until people read that Biden also kept classified documents in the garage of his Wilmington, DE home!

During his presser that just ended, he said that the classified documents in Wilmington were in a file cabinet in his "personal library" in a GARAGE (along with his Corvette!).  

As far as the Penn/Biden building - It didn't open until at least a YEAR after Biden's VP term ended. Where did he keep all of these classified documents until it opened?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.22  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.19    3 weeks ago

Gotta say, TG, I am not usually surprised by bizarre commentary in social forums, but this one is special.   

Some guy in a news forum deems the collective news available to the public on current events to be unworthy of consideration in one's analysis and three active members actually vote up that insanity.

Okay, ignore all the collective sources of public information folks.    We are now going to just invent our own reality and debate it.

Unbelieveable.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.22    3 weeks ago

Nothing new. Same old, same old.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.24  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.22    3 weeks ago
We are now going to just invent our own reality and debate it.

I'm doing what I can to help quell christo-fascist fantasy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.25  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @1.1.23    3 weeks ago

Nothing new in the sense of stupid, emotive commentary.

But I have never heard anyone suggest that facts consistently reported (e.g. the discovery of TS/SCI documents) cannot be evidence (in this case evidence of a severe violation of the PRA).  

I have never heard one argue that we must ignore the entire corpus of public information.   We must ignore all 'friggin news stories'??

That is beyond crazy talk.    

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.26  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.1.21    3 weeks ago
Wait until people read that Biden also kept classified documents in the garage of his Wilmington, DE home!

The more documents discovered, the worse Biden's offense.   Do you agree?


By the way, it has been posited (and agreed upon by others) that news sources cannot be considered evidence of anything.   So, by that reasoning, your links should be discarded and you are not allowed to use any of the contents of said articles in your analysis.

Sound right to you?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.27  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.26    3 weeks ago
more documents discovered

Does away with the "he's cooperating" excuse you've spouted off with.  What are you going to switch to this time?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.28  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.27    3 weeks ago

How does the discovery of more documents translate (in your mind) to 'Biden is not cooperating'??

By the way, is it okay to use our collective public information in our analysis?   Can we use links to articles ("freaking news story[ies]") now?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.29  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.28    3 weeks ago

Did Biden come forward with this second batch of documents or did somebody else find them.  If Biden come forward with them, then there is the remotest chance he's cooperating (still had them illegally for 6 years - a fact you willfully have been omitting).  If somebody else found them then there is no cooperation.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.30  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.29    3 weeks ago
Did Biden come forward with this second batch of documents or did somebody else find them. 

Biden aides found the second batch.

If somebody else found them then there is no cooperation.  

Explain your logic.   

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.31  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.30    3 weeks ago
Biden aides found the second batch.

So Biden (the person who took them) didn't bring them forward.  Doesn't sound like cooperation (especially 6 years after they were taken)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.22    3 weeks ago
We are now going to just invent our own reality and debate it.

Why not? It worked before

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.33  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.26    3 weeks ago
Wait until people read that Biden also kept classified documents in the garage of his Wilmington, DE home!

Oh! Let's all jump for joy because Brandon is going down!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.34  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.31    3 weeks ago

Okay, so in your bizarro world, Biden must physically do a lone search for documents and bring them forward.   If he does not do this physically with his own body, he is not cooperating?

Do you consider this nonsense to be objective/rational in any sense of the word?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    3 weeks ago

One of those votes up all ignorance here

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.36  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.34    3 weeks ago

Cooperating would be realizing you had classified document illegally 6 years ago and turning them in.  Not storing them in the closets of a think tank and home.

The ship to claim cooperation sailed 6 years ago.  But you go right ahead and keep making pathetic excuses and trying to spin this so that the human fuck up machine somehow looks good.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.37  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.33    3 weeks ago

Woo Hoo! Praise be to Jeebus!

Funny that donald is walking around and not arrested. Hmmm

I guess Biden has nothing to worry about.....

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.38  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    3 weeks ago
since they apparently agree with you that the collective news must be ignored.

Are you kidding? The gist of the comment was not about sources. It was about the poster of the comment and the tendencies of said member to badger trying to get 100% agreement with a point of view.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.39  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.36    3 weeks ago
Cooperating would be realizing you had classified document illegally 6 years ago and turning them in. 

What do you think he is doing now??   He is trying to find classified documents and is turning them in.

Not storing them in the closets of a think tank and home.

You apparently assume that he knowingly stored those documents.   If so, then that worsens his case.   But that does not change cooperation because cooperation is determined by what he is doing now.

The ship to claim cooperation sailed 6 years ago.

Ah, so in your bizarro alternate reality, it is impossible for Biden to now cooperate with the discovery of all improperly stored classified documents.    


So it was wrong for Biden to store classified documents outside of a secure location, right?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.40  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.36    3 weeks ago

So no one can cooperate ever because donald didn't?

Ok.....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.41  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @1.1.40    3 weeks ago

Don't try to make sense of that utter nonsense.

jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.42  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.39    3 weeks ago
What do you think he is doing??

6 years too late.

You apparently assume that he knowingly stored those documents.

If you don't know where you store classified materials then there is no reason to have access to them.  Especially after the fiasco with the previous President.

Ah, so in your bizarro alternate reality, it is impossible for Biden to now cooperate with the discovery of all improperly stored classified documents.    

Pretty much.  If he practiced better management of his documents and followed the proper channels 6 years ago this wouldn't be a problem.  With other people FINDING the documents the cooperation excuse is not applicable.  Bottom line - Biden should have turned them in himself 6 years ago instead of relying on others to find them.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.43  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @1.1.40    3 weeks ago
donald

I see your TDS is kicked in as well.  If you look, I never mentioned him.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.44  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.17    3 weeks ago

It is an understanding of 'degrees.' As we all understand a  thermometer tests and allows us to factually distinguish a hot, warm, cold day or set of days. As water is not at a boiling point until it reaches it. As ice can not form until it drops to and below freezing. As a man who shaves can not be called a man with a beard.

Of course, some politicians and people like to ignore what is obvious and feign to be truthful while playing "truthless" games with others in discussion.

This situation is "messed up," but the dynamics at play are different legally: in the sense (to the degree) that one participant was non-compliant, uncooperative, partially helpful, and vainly tried to 'combat' the archival processes when found to be out of order. The other participant appears (as of now) to be compliant, cooperative, and helpful, even cordial (if that is possible). 

That is all we know at this juncture.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.45  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.38    3 weeks ago

You totally missed the foundation of evidence and "freaking news article"?    A perfect example of reading what you wish out of pretty much anything.


Set the record straight.    Do you hold that we cannot use public information to establish facts (at some level of confidence) as part of our debates and analysis?  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.46  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.43    3 weeks ago

So just alluding to him then....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.47  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.42    3 weeks ago

I think I have hit my tolerance for irrational nonsense so I am moving past this insanity.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.48  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    3 weeks ago
I wonder where Snuffy, Jeremy and Just Jim get their information since they apparently agree with you that the collective news must be ignored.

it could be that something yourself, ender, trout and a few others seem to not have the ability to do.  Apply common sense and be objective.  Look at an opposing opinion and work with it.  Instead of trolling the same moronic comments trying to force somebody else to agree with you.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.49  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.48    3 weeks ago

Who in the world could force any of you all to change your minds?

Like you actually would.

Opposite views are now people trying to coerce you into thinking their way....

smh

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.50  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.45    3 weeks ago
Do you hold that we cannot use public information to establish facts (at some level of confidence) as part of our debates and analysis?

No, no I don't. Please don't try goading me into more banter when it is clear we are not now, nor probably ever will be on  the same page. Have a great day TiG.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.51  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @1.1.49    3 weeks ago

All you have to do it read the thread. It is quite evident that is what goes on.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.52  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.48    3 weeks ago

I do not try to force others to agree with me;  I 'force' them to deal with their poor logic and/or poor facts.

Some people are not suited to debate.   They whine about mistreatment when they do not prevail.   I have no sympathy for that.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.53  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.51    3 weeks ago

So that is what me and Trout and TiG do huh?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.54  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @1.1.53    3 weeks ago

We all probably should get off this stuff and back to the topic.    I am at fault too.    So I suggest we all just end the meta.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.55  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.52    3 weeks ago
I 'force' them to deal with their poor logic and/or poor facts.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.56  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.54    3 weeks ago

What's the meta with you?

Haha.   Sorry, Dad joke.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.57  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @1.1.53    3 weeks ago

Nope. It isn't a group thing.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.58  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @1.1.56    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.59  Drakkonis  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.19    3 weeks ago
Well where else can one get information to form an opinion?

Um... Am I supposed to treat this as a serious question? I'm wondering what sort of effort I'm supposed to put into answering it when you recently stated that my posts were long winded and preachy. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.60  Trout Giggles  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.59    3 weeks ago

Treat it any way you want. If you don't think it's a serious question please ignore it

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.61  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.59    3 weeks ago

Explain to me how people are to discuss current events without relying upon public information?    Explain how facts from one article, which are consistent with those of other sources, are to not be used.

Explain how a site like NT is supposed to engage in discussions of current events if "freaking articles" are to be categorically disregarded.


Evidence comes in different forms and depends upon the nature of the claim.

Evidence for the existence of a supreme creator is fundamentally different than evidence supporting current events.    Evidence to convict someone of a crime is fundamentally different than evidence sufficient to form an opinion.

For example, there is evidence from public information that George Santos lied about his resume.   Do you consider the public information expressed in articles, etc. about Santos to not be evidence that he lied about his resume?

In short, WTF are you talking about when you rant about using articles as a source of information for current events?   What is your alternative?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.62  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.61    3 weeks ago

I think we're just supposed to pull crap out of thin air

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.63  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.62    3 weeks ago

Judging from what I have seen lately, that is exactly what is taking place with a number of members.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.64  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.36    2 weeks ago

Funny that one Democrat in Congress today said that said documents in Biden's possession were planted there!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.65  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.64    2 weeks ago

There will always be nutcases who make up wild stories and engage in all sorts of conspiratorial nonsense.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.66  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.61    2 weeks ago
Explain to me how people are to discuss current events without relying upon public information?    Explain how facts from one article, which are consistent with those of other sources, are to not be used.

Propaganda. Look it up. It is a real thing.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.67  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.64    2 weeks ago

That I didn't hear about.  I'd love to hear the "logic" they dreamed up.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.68  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.65    2 weeks ago
There will always be nutcases who make up wild stories and engage in all sorts of conspiratorial nonsense.

that's why I like visiting political forums and reading about trumpster comedy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.69  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.66    2 weeks ago

You think that all public information is propaganda???

You do not see how one can analyze public information and logically discern what is more likely to be true from that which is likely to be false???

And in the case of this seed, you simply declare that an AP article is propaganda??    Based on what ... acute cynicism?


Bottom line Drakk (and Just Jim), current event news and facts come to us through public information.   Rarely do we have a connection with the "inner circle" where we as individuals can vet the source and look at their supporting material.    We ALL necessarily use publicly available information as the corpus of information from which we derive the most likely truths.

To dismiss this seed (an AP article no less) as mere propaganda ... especially given the information is easily found elsewhere with a simple web search is truly nutty.

Again, Drakk (and Just Jim) where, outside of general public information, do you think we get the information to discuss and debate?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.70  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.64    2 weeks ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.71  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.64    2 weeks ago
one Democrat in Congress today said that said documents in Biden's possession were planted there!

I found it.  This is the same blithering idiot who claimed Guam would sink due to overpopulation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.72  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.71    2 weeks ago

That has to be stupid Hank Johnson and that's been all over the news.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.73  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.72    2 weeks ago
That has to be stupid Hank Johnson

That's exactly who it is.  But, reality is, this is what we've come to expect from Democrats.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.74  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.73    2 weeks ago

I guess CNN and MSNBC are the only places were public information is "readily available"

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.75  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.64    2 weeks ago

It was in fact Hank Johnson that made that claim..

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.76  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.74    2 weeks ago

They've proven, time and again, their lack of objectivity in reporting.  They've relegated themselves to the equivalent of bloggers in their parent's basement.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.77  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.70    2 weeks ago

I do in fact get much of my info from publicly available news sources. In addition , as regards Southern border issues in my home state of Arizona, much is first hand observation and directly speaking to CBP field agents that are my friends and neighbors.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.78  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.77    2 weeks ago
I do in fact get much of my info from publicly available news sources.

I think we all do.   Unless one has a special inside connection, we rely upon others to do the research and report.   We then consider the facts, the logic, the source and extant corroboration and make our judgment calls as to what is likely true.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.79  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

the similarity stops at classified documents not being where they're supposed to be. what happened after that is the difference between an oversight sought to be corrected versus criminal intent that continues to be obstructed.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.80  devangelical  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.10    2 weeks ago
Biden did what Trump did

pretty shaky. coming from anyone willing to believe anything without a shred of evidence...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.82  devangelical  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.81    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.83  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @1.1.68    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.84  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.66    2 weeks ago

One last time since this is so over-the-top bizarre.

This seed is an AP article.   It does not make wild claims and is easily corroborated with other public information available to us all.   If we cannot use sources like this to form our base of evidence / potential facts (to which we then apply logic and judgment) regarding current events, where do we get our information?

Where do you (and Snuffy, Jeremy and Just Jim) get your information on current events if not tapping the corpus of public information?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.85  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

but, but, but what about...

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
1.2  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 weeks ago

Circumstances? Yes completely different. At its core though the issue is the exact same.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @1.2    3 weeks ago

The common element is technical violation of the PRA.

That in itself could be handled routinely.   In fact, there was plenty of this routine activity with Trump prior to his issue escalating due to his lack of cooperation.

The differences in number and criticality of documents is substantial.   The cooperation differences between Biden and Trump are profound.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.2.2  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
The differences in number and criticality of documents is substantial.

This is where I disagree with  you.  One or one thousand, doesn't matter.  Wrong is wrong regardless of volume.

Due to Biden being caught with classified records now  (and twice according to just recent news reporting) I don't believe that Trump will be prosecuted for having classified records.  I believe the possible chance of Trump being charged with obstruction.  But we shall see eventually.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
1.2.3  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

The common element is the risk to national security.  And yes, as I agreed before, the circumstances are completely different. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
The common element is technical violation of the PRA.

Taking SCIF documents from a secure facility is a "technical violation" of the PRA?

Funny. Progressives on this site were calling for Trump to be executed under the Espionage Act for doing that just few months ago.  

Amazing how mishandling SCI documents is now just a "technical violation of the Presidential Records Act"  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.4    3 weeks ago
Progressives on this site were calling for Trump to be executed under the Espionage Act for doing that just few months ago.

The Biden documents would not qualify under the Espionage Act, since as soon as they were discovered, they were immediately turned over to the proper authorities.  Not so much with Trump's documents.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.2    3 weeks ago
Wrong is wrong regardless of volume.

What makes you think that I do not deem it wrong for Biden to have even a single classified document in his old office?   When I write:  "The common element is technical violation of the PRA." does that not translate in your mind into:  it is categorically wrong to violate the PRA, period?

So there is no disagreement there.

Now, there is a major difference between the volume.    It is understandable to have 'some' documents due to carelessness / incompetence.   That is something most rational people could accept as reasonable (even though it still is against the law).   But thousands (using your example) surely cannot be reasonably seen as mere carelessness.

Literally, if one had thousands of classified documents and another had 20, would you actually consider that to be the same level and nature of violation?

And do not forget how the two PotUS' dealt with this.   Trump resisted, lied, made excuses, etc.   Biden handed the docs over the instant they were discovered by his staff and then continued to proactively to search for more (that is how the other batch was found).    Surely you see the difference here.

Due to Biden being caught with classified records now  (and twice according to just recent news reporting) I don't believe that Trump will be prosecuted for having classified records.  I believe the possible chance of Trump being charged with obstruction.  But we shall see eventually.

Trump is not going to be prosecuted.   Even if Biden had a single classified document at his old office, the optics will kill any action against Trump.   Our judicial system is integrated with our political system.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
The common element is the risk to national security.  And yes, as I agreed before, the circumstances are completely different. 

That is correct.   The PRA exists because of security concerns.   Further, classified documents should never leave a secure facility.

So it is wrong to take classified documents from a secure facility and store them in a private establishment.

I see all sorts of people noting that this is wrong now with Biden.    Have to wonder if these folks will be able to realize that given this was wrong for Biden then (surprise) it was wrong (to a greater degree) for Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.8  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.4    3 weeks ago
Amazing how mishandling SCI documents is now just a "technical violation of the Presidential Records Act"  

Who said that?   Are you suggesting that is what I wrote?   If so then you are fundamentally misrepresenting what I wrote.

Also, I have yet to see reporting that the documents from Biden were TS/SCI.   They have only been labeled as classified.   Do you have a link showing that Biden also had TS/SCI level documents?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.4    3 weeks ago
Taking SCIF documents from a secure facility is a "technical violation" of the PRA?

You did not know this?

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.2.10  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.6    3 weeks ago
Wrong is wrong regardless of volume.
What makes you think that I do not deem it wrong for Biden to have even a single classified document in his old office?   When I write:  "The common element is technical violation of the PRA." does that not translate in your mind into:  it is categorically wrong to violate the PRA, period?

Because you also said this 

The differences in number and criticality of documents is substantial.

And that is where I said I disagreed with you.  The difference in numbers is meaningless, one or a million documents doesn't matter.  Wrong is wrong regardless.  And you try to indicate that the criticality of documents is different, simple fact is we just don't know what's in the documents.  For Trump we received a count of confidential vs secret vs top secret,  we have not seen any such counting for Biden  So you cannot use that as a comparison.  Simple as that.

Literally, if one had thousands of classified documents and another had 20, would you actually consider that to be the samelevel and natureof violation?

I've answered that in the post you responded to.  One or a million, doesn't matter.  Wrong is still wrong regardless of volume.  IMO there is no difference between stealing $1 million and stealing a candy bar,  it's still theft.  

And I'm not discounting the actions taken by Trump thru this entire process.  But if you think we're getting the whole truth about the actions of Biden from main-stream media,  you wanna buy a bridge?

Simple matter is, I disagreed with you based on the one sentence I copied into my initial post.  Because to me that read as if you were trying to find a way to excuse Biden for his involvement in this because his offense wasn't as bad as Trumps.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.2.11  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.8    3 weeks ago
Amazing how mishandling SCI documents is now just a "technical violation of the Presidential Records Act"  
Who said that?   Are you suggesting that is what I wrote?

Might I suggest you go back and read your very first sentence in 1.2.1

The common element is technical violation of the PRA.
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.12  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.10    3 weeks ago
Because you also said this 

Yes, do you not recognize that there is major difference between 300 classified documents and 20 (or so)?     Do you not recognize that TS/SCI documents are a significantly deeper classification?

One or a million, doesn't matter. 

You would claim that holding a million classified documents is exactly the same situation as holding one classified documents.

Then there is no point attempting to discuss this with you.

Because to me that read as if you were trying to find a way to excuse Biden for his involvement in this because his offense wasn't as bad as Trumps.  

You have leaped into the absurd in your attempt to equate Biden's violation and behavior with Trump's.   Yeah, Snuffy, you are absolutely defending Trump.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
1.2.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.8    3 weeks ago
Also, I have yet to see reporting that the documents from Biden were TS/SCI.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has asked the US attorney in Chicago to review the material, some of which bore the marking “sensitive compartmentalized information” – showing that it came from intelligence sources.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.14  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.11    3 weeks ago

If the technical violation of the PRA is not the common element then state what is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.15  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.13    3 weeks ago

I do not see that in your link, but that does not matter.   When you have some news that shows Biden actually had TS/SCI documents then I would be interested in the link.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.12    3 weeks ago

He always defends trump, NO MATTER WHAT, no matter how bi-partisan/independent minded he alleges he is.  So tiresome.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.17  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.15    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.2.18  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.12    3 weeks ago
Yes, do you not recognize that there is major difference between 300 classified documents and 20 (or so)?     Do you not recognize that TS/SCI documents are a significantly deeper classification?

Why is there a difference because of volume?  As I've said repeatedly now,  IMO it doesn't fucking matter if it was one document or one million because the action was wrong regardless.   And there is reporting out of CNN that Garland has asked the US attorney in Chicago to review the material

Attorney General Merrick Garland has asked the US attorney in Chicago to review the material, some of which bore the marking “sensitive compartmentalized information” – showing that it came from intelligence sources.

So DAMN,  Biden had some SCI documentation also.  

You have leaped into the absurd in your attempt to equate Biden's violation and behavior with Trump's. 

The violation, the offense?  Yes,  what Biden has done is equal to what Trump has done.  I never said anything about Biden's behavior on this, you added that in.  I can only guess to give yourself some breathing room.  Too fucking bad.  The violation is the same and I really don't fucking care about volume.  

Yeah, Snuffy, you are absolutely defending Trump.

Only in your mind.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.2.19  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.14    3 weeks ago
If the technical violation of the PRA is not the common element then state what is.

go back and re-read your own post of 1.2.1.  That's where it's at.  If you cannot understand the words that you wrote then I can't help you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.20  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.19    3 weeks ago

Stop being so pompous and pretentious.  He understands perfectly

YOU deflect.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.2.21  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.20    3 weeks ago

It's his own fucking words.   Stop trying to provide cover for someone else who refuses to read what he posted.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.22  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.19    3 weeks ago

Here is @1.2.1 in its entirety:

TiG @1.2.1 ☞ The common element is technical violation of the PRA.  That in itself could be handled routinely.   In fact, there was plenty of this routine activity with Trump prior to his issue escalating due to his lack of cooperation. The differences in number and criticality of documents is substantial.   The cooperation differences between Biden and Trump are profound.

Slimy tactics are not going to work.  

So if technically violating the PRA is not the common element in these two cases, state clearly what is.

You will fail to deliver on this (again).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.23  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.21    3 weeks ago
It's his own fucking words.   

Yes, they are my words.   That part is true.   What is not true is the fantasy you are spinning which does not match what I wrote.   Slimy tactics.

Go by what I wrote, not by your strawman mangling of what I wrote.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
1.2.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.15    3 weeks ago

13th paragraph.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.25  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.24    3 weeks ago
Attorney General Merrick Garland has asked the US attorney in Chicago to review the material, some of which bore the marking “sensitive compartmentalized information” – showing that it came from intelligence sources.

So let's see what the review shows.  

If Biden had TS/SCI documents then that means his offense was worse.

You agree, right?   The presence of TS/SCI documents makes the offense worse.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
1.2.26  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.25    3 weeks ago

Yes, worse in the sense of potential damage to the US if the info is compromised.  Maybe we will see an FBI photo with the documents displayed on the floor.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.27  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.18    3 weeks ago
So DAMN,  Biden had some SCI documentation also.  

Oh so you actually do recognize that the presence of TS/SCI classified documents is worse than simply having classified documents?

Well, congratulation on at least that part.   But it took the potential that Biden might have them too to get you to recognize this.

The violation is the same and I really don't fucking care about volume.  

Sure.   You have already stated this:

Snuffy @1.2.10 One or a million, doesn't matter. 

You see holding a million classified documents is exactly the same situation as holding one classified documents.

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.28  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.26    3 weeks ago

Indeed.   The more classified documents that are unsecured and especially the more at a higher level of classification, the more national security is compromised.

Explain this to Snuffy.  He sees no difference between one classified doc and a million.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
1.2.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.28    3 weeks ago

Army Regs and the Espionage Act don’t make a distinction between, Confidential, Secret, TS or TS/SCI but in my experience, how the situation is handled of level of punishment typically considers classification level.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
1.2.30  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.28    3 weeks ago

That would depend on how much damage that one doc does or could do, wouldn't it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.31  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @1.2.30    3 weeks ago
That would depend on how much damage that one doc does or could do, wouldn't it?

Sure, but that was not the statement.   It was generically one document vs. a million.   No other conditions.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.32  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.21    3 weeks ago

I'm not providing cover for shit.

You're the one who refuses to admit the truth

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.33  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.18    3 weeks ago

You are always defending him, absolutely

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.34  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.29    3 weeks ago

There are all sorts of rules and nuances in handling complex cases like these so let's just acknowledge that.

Bottom line.

There is a profound difference between having some classified documents (say 20) in a non-secure area in violation of the PRA and hundreds.

There is a profound difference between immediately handing over discovered documents and then proactively searching for more  versus engaging in stalling tactics, lies, etc. dragging out for months and then claiming the documents were declassified, etc. which indicates a knowledgeable intent to keep the documents.

There is a profound difference between levels of classification.   So as GregTx notes @1.2.30 the nature of the documents do indeed matter.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
1.2.35  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.34    3 weeks ago
There is a profound difference between immediately handing over discovered documents and then proactively searching for more  versus engaging in stalling tactics, lies, etc. dragging out for months and then claiming the documents were declassified, etc. which indicates a knowledgeable intent to keep the documents.

Obviously, that said the mishandling of 20 or 100 classified documents is irresponsible and perhaps criminal.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.36  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.35    3 weeks ago

Clearly.   

And ultimately this is serious shit.

Instead of some trying to defend Trump (or downplay the severity by trying to equate it with Biden's failure) responsible minds would raise concerns about both men and indeed the general administration of our government.

If national security fuck-ups occur in the highest executive offices, then imagine what might be taking place elsewhere.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
1.2.37  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.36    3 weeks ago

Completely agree.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.2.38  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.27    3 weeks ago
You see holding a million classified documents is exactly the same situation as holding one classified documents.

As far as having a classified document out of a secure area, yes.  Stop being so condescending and realize that all I have been talking about is the act of either idiot having classified documents in their possession in an unsecured area when they should never have removed them in the first place.  

Stop playing stupid by trying to compare the severity to national security due to the volume of documents when all I have been saying all along is that neither party should have had the classified documents in the first place.  In this matter, it doesn't matter to volume and it doesn't matter to level of classification because all I am saying is having a classified document in an unsecured setting is wrong.

If you want to have a conversation then respond to what I actually say rather than what  you want me to say.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.39  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.38    3 weeks ago

Both Biden and Trump violated the PRA.

As soon as you go past that and equate the two circumstances you step in it.

The very first pile you step in is that Biden's staff immediately reported the finding upon discovery and then proactively looked for other violations (finding some in another source).   They did not lie.   They did not play games with NARA.   They did not claim executive privilege.   They did not claim the documents were declassified.   They did not claim the documents were private or that Biden 'owned' them.   They sought to secure classified documents that were illegally (and improperly) stored.

Now if you are able to apply the same scenario above by replacing 'Biden' with 'Trump' then you are living in a fantasy world.

And if you are unable to do so then you now understand what I have been telling you.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
1.2.40  George  replied to  GregTx @1.2    3 weeks ago
Circumstances? Yes completely different.

Agree, We have a businessman and reality TV star who has never handled let alone seen a classified document before, and on the other hand we have a person who has been in the senate for 100 years, a VP and now a President who leaves documents laying around in multiple locations unsecure.  Of course we should treat the reality star more harshly. If we are a partisan fuck with a ax to grind that is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.41  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  George @1.2.40    3 weeks ago

True, Biden should have known better.   He has no excuse for this failure in protocol.   Trump has a mild excuse because he had fewer years as a politician but after being PotUS for four years, I think the American public should expect the protocols for handling national security should be followed.   And what happened with his staff?   The whole idea is that there is a large support structure that handles logistics and protocol.   How did this failure occur?    Makes one wonder about our national security in general.

But both Trump and Biden did indeed fail and both violated the PRA.

The key difference is that Biden took immediate action to secure the documents and to proactively look for more.

If Trump had done that (instead of his attempts to delay, claim executive privilege, claim declassification, claim personal property, etc.) then his violations would be old news by now.

Big difference between how the two handled the discovery of PRA violations.    That goes to intent and brings the espionage act into the equation for Trump.   That would never have been the case if Trump has simply cooperated like Biden is doing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.42  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.38    3 weeks ago

You are the only one here being condescending

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
1.2.43  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.15    3 weeks ago
I do not see that in your link, but that does not matter.

Actually it does say that in the CNN story at his link just above the sub-heading "Questions Biden Must Face" .

Attorney General Merrick Garland has asked the US attorney in Chicago to review the material, some of which bore the marking “sensitive compartmentalized information” – showing that it came from intelligence sources.

So it is possible that some of the material is as highly sensitive as the materials found in Trump's possession. We will see after it is reviewed further.  The article also says:

Fairness and respect for the law dictate that Biden should answer many of the same questions that Trump is facing, regarding whether he was entitled to the records, why they were not previously turned over, whether they were securely stored and how they ended up in his office in the first place.

Critics will also wonder why Biden didn’t immediately disclose the discovery of less than a dozen documents last fall to the public , given the huge sensitivity of the Justice Department probe of Trump on a similar question. And the president will be sure to face accusations of hypocrisy given his sharp criticisms that Trump did not take the proper steps to secure classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Still, even if there are adequate answers to these issues, any distinctions in the severity of the Biden and Trump documents will be obliterated in the political torrent that is already stirring and with conservative media likely to draw false equivalencies between the two cases.

Underlined bit is the first that I've heard that Biden didn't immediately disclose the discovery of docs last fall.  It will be interesting to hear the answers to some of those questions, but in the meantime, and likely even after those questions are answered, you can bet the conservative media will indeed continue to " draw false equivalency between the two cases ".  It is the nature of the politically polarized beast.

 Above you said:

Trump is not going to be prosecuted.   Even if Biden had a single classified document at his old office, the optics will kill any action against Trump.   Our judicial system is integrated with our political system.

Interesting supposition.  Could it be the reason why Biden did not immediately disclose the discovery of documents he had stored (knowingly or not) in these locations?  They probably realized that making it public was going to derail any case against Trump and had to think about that for a bit.  But they did disclose it and are cooperating which itself is the biggest difference between how Trump handled it and how Biden handled it in my mind.

The article goes on to describe "Garland's Dilemma" and the political ramifications.

The Biden document disclosures will also deepen the already intense political headache facing Garland as he contemplates an eventual decision on whether to charge Trump, whose status as an ex-president and an active 2024 candidate carries huge political implications.

Garland insists that investigations will go where the evidence and the law demands as he seeks to stress the independence of the Justice Department — which was perpetually in question when Trump was president. But now, inevitably and however the Biden vice presidential documents issue is resolved, a decision to charge Trump over the classified documents case but not to take the same action against Biden would incite political uproar among conservatives who would be sure to allege double standards.

The former president’s legal team issued a temperate response to the Biden report that sought to broaden openings that could shield their client. One lawyer said that the Biden story was “indicative of a larger problem with trying to keep track of classified information in the offices of the President and the VP. There is an over classification problem, and at the end of an Administration, things get packed up and moved and it’s hard to keep track.”

It does draw into question the classification and management systems for sensitive documents as a concern... and as an excuse.  There has got to be a better way to manage such documents.  As it is set up now it invites this political wrangling and puts political considerations where only the rule of law and justice should be.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.44  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @1.2.43    3 weeks ago

What bugs me most about this is the systemic failure to secure classified documents.

The discovery of a single document of Biden’s is probably all it would take to dissuade any bringing of charges against Trump.   The public operates on optics and an over simplified understanding of circumstances.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
1.2.45  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.44    3 weeks ago
The discovery of a single document of Biden’s is probably all it would take to dissuade any bringing of charges against Trump.   The public operates on optics and an over simplified understanding of circumstances.

Yep - Unfortunately.

What bugs me most about this is the systemic failure to secure classified documents.

Yep again.  That is what should bug ALL of us the most about this.  Instead the focus is on whose violation is bigger and how can we damage the other guy, or protect our guy, politically.  Clearly this isn't the only important matter where the focus is blurred by political polarization. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.46  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.44    3 weeks ago

It's ridiculous to me to not charge #45 because of this.

Freaking insane as far as I'm concerned

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.47  Ender  replied to  Freewill @1.2.45    3 weeks ago

Sometimes I think that is what some people want, to blur lines.

It is almost like a smokescreen around what is going on.

Obviously there is failure in how documents are handled, if some aide can find them in a drawer or whatever.

Then I wonder how sensitive can the documents be if they are just lying around or stuffed in some box that anyone could get to.

There has to be some protocols in place, I would think.

With documents that seem to be lying around everywhere, it would be easy to be a spy these days.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.48  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.46    3 weeks ago

Trump has dodged another bullet.   This time Biden deflected it.

My main concern regarding Trump is still his Big Lie campaign and the horrible precedent set if he is not held accountable.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.49  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @1.2.47    3 weeks ago

I think all Executive Staff should have a Classified Documents 101 training. Then maybe this stuff won't keep happening

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.2.50  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.41    3 weeks ago

"The key difference is that Biden took immediate action to secure the documents and to proactively look for more."

No...Biden's second batch were not secured. Apparently they were only in a locked garage.

Trump's documents were locked up safely, and FBI was aware.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
1.2.51  Freewill  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.46    3 weeks ago
It's ridiculous to me to not charge #45 because of this.

You sitting down for this Tessy?  I agree 100%!  

These are two separate cases and they should be adjudicated separately.  There should be no dilemma (as described in the CNN article) for Garland whatsoever.  He should be looking for all the facts in each case and be making independent decisions based only on those facts and the law PERIOD.  There should be no political consideration weighing on his job at all. 

And as such all this discussion about whose infraction was worse, or comparing the cases for severity, or who might gain or lose politically is all just white noise. It should not have any bearing on the judicial process, yet it apparently does.  THAT needs to be fixed as well.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.52  Tessylo  replied to  Freewill @1.2.51    3 weeks ago

I disagree with your last paragraph.

IMHO there is no real comparison between which was worse - it was #45 by FAR

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.53  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.52    3 weeks ago

With #45 it was deliberate and with President Biden - no malicious intent or deliberate IMHO

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.54  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.50    3 weeks ago

No, #45's documents were not locked up safely.  Anyone at Mar-a-Lardo would have been able to view those top secret/classified documents.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
1.2.55  Freewill  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.49    3 weeks ago
I think all Executive Staff should have a Classified Documents 101 training. Then maybe this stuff won't keep happening

Well I'm sure there is training, the trick is identifying why it apparently isn't working. My guess after perusing it is that it is overly complicated and lacks oversight.

See info on the ISOO Here .

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.56  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.50    3 weeks ago
No...Biden's second batch were not secured. Apparently they were only in a locked garage.

Good grief man how can you possibly not understand what I wrote?

The immediate action to secure the documents was what Biden did ONCE THEY WERE DISCOVERED.

Secure was used as a verb to indicate the action Biden took upon discovery.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.57  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @1.2.51    3 weeks ago

But you also know that this will now go nowhere.

And as such all this discussion about whose infraction was worse, or comparing the cases for severity,

My key reason for engaging people on this is to counter the partisan noise which seeks to equate the two situations to again excuse Trump.

The judicial process will not be fixed;  it is far too integrated with politics.   We will not see even a hint of resolution of this integration in our lifetimes.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
1.2.58  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.41    3 weeks ago
The key difference is that Biden took immediate action to secure the documents and to proactively look for more.

Came across this article , and this was alluded to in the CNN article to which DoTW linked, that called into question when the Biden docs were discovered and when they were actually disclosed and secured. 

It would appear that some of the classified docs were actually discovered back on Nov 2, 2022 by Biden's personal lawyers and they were immediately delivered to The National Archives and Records Administration and secured, but this was not disclosed publicly until just recently. 

The documents found appear to be from the Obama administration, in which Biden had served as vice president for two terms, according to Richard Sauber, special counsel to Biden.

Sauber said on the same day the documents were discovered, the White House Counsel’s Office notified the National Archives and Records Administration of that fact.

“The Archives took possession of the materials the following morning,” Sauber said in a statement.

So that clears up the question brought up in the other CNN article and the point you made above TiG.  Even though the discovery of the docs was not made public just before the November elections, they had been delivered to the National Archive and secured immediately.  That does, however, leave the door open to speculation as to why the discovery was not publicized back in November rather than waiting until now and so far the Administration has not been up front about that..  

KEY POINTS
  • The White House Counsel’s Office would not answer why it failed for more than two months to publicly disclose that classified government documents had been found in a private office in Washington, D.C., that had been used by President Joe Biden before his election in 2020.
  • Biden, during a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the North American Leaders’ Summit in Mexico, did not respond to a question from reporters about the documents, which were found by personal lawyers.
  • former President Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that the Justice Department kept quiet about the documents’ discovery in order not to affect the outcome of November’s congressional elections when his fellow Republican candidates underperformed expectations.
 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
1.2.59  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.57    3 weeks ago
My key reason for engaging people on this is to counter the partisan noise which seeks to equate the two situations to again excuse Trump

Understood.  I'm not saying these things shouldn't be discussed in the court of public opinion, they just shouldn't matter in the court of actual law.  These are two separate cases with two separate sets of facts and variables, and the "partisan noise" should have no bearing on the legal process.  But you are correct, the judicial process has been politically compromised and we likely won't see that corrected in our lifetimes.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.60  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.5    3 weeks ago
The Biden documents would not qualify under the Espionage Act, since as soon as they were discovered

That's 100% false.  There's no such exception to the statute. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.61  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.2.44    3 weeks ago

A reminder: The charges brought against Trump are 'clouded' by his aggressive action to thwart turning the documents detailed/listed over to the proper authorities even under threat of legal action. Indeed, he, the former president, even took "authorities" to court over the documents in a blatant act of defiance. And even now, the archive does not know if all in his possession have been delivered properly.

And yes, the archivists should go to congress and get authority to properly track documents through official channels/desks/and releases from the sharing authorities. Enough of trusting time-hurried/self-absorbed politicians to look after them in some sort of honor system of return and handling.

One other thing: It needs to be determined if any of the documents were classified when taken out by "participants" at their current classification level. Apparently, time can change-up or down- the need for classification and security protocols.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.62  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @1.2.58    3 weeks ago
Even though the discovery of the docs was not made public just before the November elections, they had been delivered to the National Archive and secured immediately

Yes

That does, however, leave the door open to speculation as to why the discovery was not publicized back in November rather than waiting until now and so far the Administration has not been up front about that..  

I think you know the answer to that question:   politics

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.63  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @1.2.59    3 weeks ago
... the "partisan noise" should have no bearing on the legal process. 

And we all know that it does (and did).   As soon as one document was discovered the optics would almost ensure that no legal movement against Trump will take place.

But you are correct, the judicial process has been politically compromised and we likely won't see that corrected in our lifetimes.

Unfortunately.   The momentum is far too great and the movement I see is even in the wrong direction.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.64  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.60    3 weeks ago
That's 100% false.  There's no such exception to the statute. 

The espionage act puts a lot of weight on intent.   If the evidence does not suggest an intent to do harm it is very unlikely that a PotUS or former PotUS would be charged under the espionage act.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.65  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.64    3 weeks ago

The espionage act puts a lot of weight on intent

It absolutely does not.  The statute does not require intent to mishandle classified data, one can violate it by being grossly negligent.  

But by all means, link the specific statutory provision that does so.  

intent to do harm it is very unlikely that a PotUS or former PotUS would be charged under the espionage act.

An "intent to do harm" is the creation of Jim Comey, which was necessary to avoid charging Hillary Clinton. So yes, if the DOJ applies the imaginary standard it created to avoid charging Clinton, it's essentially impossible to charge Trump or Biden, even though they violated they both pretty clearly express terms of the Espionage Act. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.66  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.65    3 weeks ago

Try to not overlook the use of the word 'intent' in the text.

Also, I did not state that intent is a requirement but rather that there is a lot of weight on intent.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.67  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.66    3 weeks ago

Try and read a little closer.  Pay particular attention to the difference between Each subsection and understand those differences exist for a reason.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.68  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.67    3 weeks ago

A bullshit response.

Are you actually denying that legal consideration of intent is important in this act??

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.69  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.2.62    3 weeks ago

It is the Department of Justice's firm position that it does not leak ('drop') unsettled information into the political/election cycle/sphere until all is determined. There need is to not affect outcomes based on 'half-measures' and incomplete data-points.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.70  CB   replied to  Tessylo @1.2.46    3 weeks ago

AG Garland has grabbed this unwieldy 'beast' in the political sphere and put its head down on the field. While some of 'us' were still questioning the need for a Special Counsel, 'regular order' has one assigned already and underway. There are TWO Special Counsel assigned independent of each other and their findings will yield singular outcomes. Away with the cries that Garland is favoring one side or the other. Garland, the 'messenger' figuratively won't take one for the team this time! jrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.71  CB   replied to  Ender @1.2.47    3 weeks ago

Clearly, Washington, D.C. has too many "leaders" and not enough "followers" and these folks are cutting each other slack upon slack until it crashes in on them! The exposures are last desperate acts by "workabees" trying to stay out of the messiness caused by sloppy politicians who do what they want, when they want, how they want.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.72  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.68    3 weeks ago
bullshit response.

Lol. Just admit you were wrong.  Don't get all puffy because you actually read the statute and now recognize you are wrong.  

re you actually denying that legal consideration of intent is not important in this act??

Of course not. The required level of Intent varies depending on the subsection. Each subsection is an individual  crime with its own intent requirement. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.73  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.49    3 weeks ago

They know. What will 'fix' this is when 'asses' are stuffed in jail cells and costly fines are loaded to bear. You will see immediate results as those last minute documents still flying around without a proper home, come winging it back!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.74  CB   replied to  Freewill @1.2.55    3 weeks ago

It's probably a 'dirty secret' in D.C. that document protection is lapse as people take materials out and keep them overlong and busily forget to return them until  "Oh-oh!" - happens. (Think about it like you would that checked out library book that the librarian is too busy to discover it's missing.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.75  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.72    3 weeks ago
Just admit you were wrong.

Is that the very best you can do?    Give a nuh'uh bullshit reply and then return with nothing more than another mere declaration?   

I gave you the text of the bill and you delivered bullshit.   Now I will include summary commentary inline:

Generally, an espionage conviction requires U.S. prosecutors to prove the following elements:
  1. Information transmitted is   classified   government information or   relates to national defense   ; and
  2. The accused acted with the   intent or reason to believe  the information will harm the United States or help a foreign nation (not necessarily an "enemy" of the United States); and
  3. There was a   willful   communication, transfer, or receipt of the information; or
  4. There was an   overt act   in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit espionage.

It takes no effort to find this same basic information repeated elsewhere in legal venues.

You delivered bullshit ... yet again.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.76  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.75    3 weeks ago
h'uh bullshit reply and then return with nothing more than another mere declaration?

A "mere declaration" based on your own link. Lol

I assumed you read and understand your own link.  My bad.  I'll spell it out for you. 

Here's Paragraph  e

whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

Do you understand what those words mean? Pay particular attention to the words gross negligence, helpfully highlighted.  

ow I will include summary commentary inline:

You should look up the meaning of the word GENERALLY from your summary.   I'm pointing to the specific.  Get the difference?   

All your bloviating and misdirections  can't change the language of the statute.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.77  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.76    3 weeks ago

You ignore all language in sections a) through d) to get to e) where you cherrypick one of the factors involved.

This is what you think is a persuasive rebuttal?

Section 1
That:
(a)whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information, concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defence, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, coaling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, or other place connected with the national defence, owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control or the United States, or of any of its officers or agents, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired. or stored, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place within the meaning of section six of this title; or

(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe , copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing or note of anything connected with the national defence; or

(c) whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another [all intent ] to receive or obtain from any other person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defence, knowing or having reason to believe , at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this title; or

(d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, willfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through   gross negligence  permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

You cherry-pick the gross negligence criterion in section e) and imply it is the ONLY criterion while ignoring all language speaking to intent and willful acts in the text that preceded it.


And, again, one of the many consistent summaries: 

Generally, an espionage conviction requires U.S. prosecutors to prove the following elements:
  1. Information transmitted is classified government information or relates to national defense ; and
  2. The accused acted with the intent or reason to believe  the information will harm the United States  or help a foreign nation (not necessarily an "enemy" of the United States); and
  3. There was a willful communication, transfer, or receipt of the information; or
  4. There was an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit espionage.

The espionage act puts a lot of weight on intent.    Denying that (what we all can read in blue ) is blatant intellectual dishonesty.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.78  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.77    3 weeks ago

Each section is an independent crime. SO if you violate Section, E, it doesn't matter what Section A-D says, each of which is the basis of a separate crime.

This isn't difficult. 

Claiming Section E requires an intent to do harm is blatant intellectual dishonesty.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.79  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.78    3 weeks ago

You do not understand my claim?:   The espionage act puts a lot of weight on intent.

That claim does not state that intent is the ONLY criterion.  It speaks of the act as a whole and the preponderance of concern for acts of intent.   You know, the stuff in BLUE.

Claiming Section E requires an intent to do harm is blatant intellectual dishonesty.  

I made no such claim.   More intellectual dishonesty from you.


So, back to my original point, the more the circumstances suggest bad intent the more applicable the espionage act (as a whole).   Just read the text in BLUE to see why.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.2.80  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.44    2 weeks ago

Seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the federal archives people have to have had a significant hand in this records foul up. They obviously did not keep proper track of what classified documents went where and when.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.81  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.80    2 weeks ago

No doubt about it.   It disturbs me that the national security protocols are either this weak and/or that they were not followed.

And where is the oversight?    Where are the cross-checks that monitor the location / disposition of every classified document?

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
1.2.82  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.63    2 weeks ago
The momentum is far too great and the movement I see is even in the wrong direction.

Agreed.  Although it does sound like Special Counsel Robert Hur has been assigned to the Biden case, just as was done in the Trump case with Special Counsel Jack Smith.  I found a pretty good "explainer" of the differences between the two cases HERE .  Their conclusion after covering each case with various legal experts was:

It is a crime only if the retention and removal of classified records is intentional.

Prosecutors typically won't pursue charges for the accidental retention of classified records, but if there is evidence of possible obstruction of justice, that could change things.

For that reason, legal experts say, Trump faces considerably more legal peril than Biden.

To date, there has been no suggestion by the Justice Department that Biden knowingly retained the records or refused to return them to the government.

Also, as president, Biden is unlikely to face prosecution. The Justice Department has not changed its long-standing policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

The same policy helped insulate Trump when he was president and under investigation by then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In that case, Mueller declined to determine whether Trump had obstructed his investigation into possible ties between Russia and Trump's 2016 election campaign because of the department's policy.

Tune in tomorrow for the next exciting episode of As the World Turns...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.83  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @1.2.82    2 weeks ago

Yeah, well as is normal on sites like this, every fact has someone who will nuh'uh it.    I just dealt with an individual who claims I was wrong when I noted that intent is a major consideration in the Espionage act.    Forget the actual text of the act where intent and willfulness is a key consideration in the majority of its enumerated crimes.    

Most Trump supporters / defenders seek to change reality in Trump's favor.     I find that to be dishonorable.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
1.2.84  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.83    2 weeks ago
Most Trump supporters / defenders seek to change reality in Trump's favor.   I find that to be dishonorable.

Agreed, although isn't that true of most who rabidly support a specific politician or party?  Political polarization creates a political multiverse if you will, alternate realities created and clouded by irrational belief in an individual or an ideology despite the facts.  And of course, like with all other aspects of one's personality, or the tribal beliefs of a group of individuals, there are varying degrees of subjective realities. 

I suppose that could be seen as dishonorable by those of us who seek truth (actual or objective reality).  But I tend to look at it as more misguided than dishonorable, and as such capable of self-examination, correction or perhaps even epiphany if presented calmly and rationally with facts, logic and reason. It might take a great deal of time and repetition, and it might not work at all, but well worth it in the long run IMHO if the goal is to agree on truth (a more objective reality) as a basis for working together and making the world a better place for all of us.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.85  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @1.2.84    2 weeks ago
But I tend to look at it as more misguided than dishonorable, and as such capable of self-examination, correction or perhaps even epiphany if presented calmly and rationally with facts, logic and reason.

When I observe intentional, extremely obvious intellectual dishonesty —especially after it has been pointed out—, I find that to be dishonorable.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
1.2.86  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.85    2 weeks ago
When I observe intentional, extremely obvious intellectual dishonesty —especially after it has been pointed out—, I find that to be dishonorable.

Fair enough.  

I've known many people in my life who have acted dishonestly or dishonorably, and after a great deal of self-examination and viewing the world through a wider lens, have come to grips with that and made amends. I'm one of them.  And I'm thankful to those who had the patience and spent the time to open my eyes when I had insisted on keeping them shut.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.87  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.2.81    2 weeks ago

It disturbs me too. Because when these document protocols are not timely followed and there is this 'slack' in procedures, people will get caught up in the 'web' when it is SNAPPED back in place/shape!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.88  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.79    2 weeks ago
So, back to my original point, the more the circumstances suggest bad intent the more applicable the espionage act (as a whole).   Just read the text in BLUE to see why.

I don't understand your reasoning. You've gotten away from Sean's point completely. Recall what he had responded to.

The Biden documents would not qualify under the Espionage Act, since as soon as they were discovered, they were immediately turned over to the proper authorities.  Not so much with Trump's documents. 

I see nothing in any of the listed sections that mentions returning the documents as a factor, regardless of how fast it is done or under what circumstances. Given that, I'm not sure what relevance your argument about intent has to do with this point. But even if it does, it is irrelevant when speaking of section E. The last word in sections A through D end with the word "or", not "and." In other words A through D are not necessary conditions for determining whether E applies.

If all you mean by "more applicable" is that there's more charges if there actually was intent, I can agree with that, although I think it is a bit misleading, as it sounds like sections A through E are dependent on each other, when they are not. That is, if the individual is guilty of both sections B and E, being guilty of B does nothing to add or take away a violation of E. In that sense, it really isn't right to say things become more applicable with bad intent, as it doesn't' change a thing concerning E. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.89  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.88    2 weeks ago
You've gotten away from Sean's point completely.

I was the one who made the point!   Sean ignored my point that intent is a strong consideration in the Espionage act and instead made his own point that it is possible to use the Espionage Act without considering intent.   That is correct, but that does not counter the point that I made.   My point was about how intent can enable the Espionage act.   And it clearly can since 4 of the 5 sections are predicated on intent / willfulness.

I see nothing in any of the listed sections that mentions returning the documents as a factor, regardless of how fast it is done or under what circumstances.

Look at it from the Trump case:  do you see how NOT cooperating with the return of the documents, falsely declaring executive privilege, falsely declaring declassification, stalling, etc. would provide a foundation for an argument of bad intent / willfulness??    Do you see how it would be substantially more difficult to argue bad intent for Biden given the circumstances known as of today?

I have stated that Trump is the one most likely to have the Espionage act on the table.   And that is mostly due to his lack of cooperation.

But even if it does, it is irrelevant when speaking of section E. 

Yeah, but I have been speaking of sections a) b) c) and d).    I have stated this clearly.    Repeatedly.   I have included the text of the act, highlighted the parts pursuant to my point.    What is left to do to be clearer?

... as it sounds like sections A through E are dependent on each other, when they are not

Where do you get this?   I have made no statement of interdependence.   Not even a hint.   

That is, if the individual is guilty of both sections B and E, being guilty of B does nothing to add or take away a violation of E.

Where on Earth do you get the idea that I have suggested such interdependence.   Where is this coming from?    

Good grief man, my point is so easy to understand.    The Espionage act (as a whole) puts a lot of weight on intent / willfulness.   This is obvious given 4 of the 5 sections deal with intent / willfulness.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.90  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.89    2 weeks ago
I was the one who made the point!

Um, the point to which I was referring was Sean's reply to Ozzwald's statement, not yours. 

Look at it from the Trump case:  do you see how NOT cooperating with the return of the documents, falsely declaring executive privilege, falsely declaring declassification, stalling, etc. would provide a foundation for an argument of bad intent / willfulness??    Do you see how it would be substantially more difficult to argue bad intent for Biden given the circumstances known as of today?

This will piss you off, but no, there isn't enough evidence against Trump for it, as far as I can see. And it isn't because I'm trying to excuse him for anything. Here's why I think this. 

According to (a), the most relevant clause in it for what we are talking about is

a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation,

And if we examine the first words that begin b and c, we have:

whoever for the purpose aforesaid

Which seems to be referencing the cited portion of a. Since there is no evidence yet that I've heard of that links Trump with such intent, I can't see how he could be charged under a, b or c. 

Concerning d, that one might be applicable, although I find the clause:

willfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

The meaning behind the part concerning "communicate or transmit" is not apparent to me. Communicate or transmit to whom? In one sense it almost seems as if it is to the officer or employee of the United States, else how would those individuals know about it in order to demand it, but if so, why would they include "willfully" to the clause, as if telling the government you have it is a bad thing? If the intend of d is simply to make it illegal not to hand over docs upon demand, what's the point of including the rest of it? 

In the end, if Trump is guilty of any of these, most likely it would be d, depending on exactly what it means, or possibly e, but e would be harder to prove. 

Where do you get this?   I have made no statement of interdependence.   Not even a hint. 

Well, as it turns out, we're both wrong about not being interdependent. a, b and c are interdependent, as it turns out but I didn't catch it until this response. So, isn't that fun?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.91  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.90    2 weeks ago
This will piss you off, but no, there isn't enough evidence against Trump for it, as far as I can see.

Why would that piss me off?   Trump is not going to be prosecuted now that Biden has violated the PRA.    It is merely a hypothetical exercise to discuss Trump's case as it relates to the Espionage act.   Justice will not act.

And I am not interested in now debating the nuances of how a legal professional might apply this law to Trump.    I would be interested in G2 or Tacos!' take since they are attorneys, but that is about as far as it matters to me.

Well, as it turns out, we're both wrong about not being interdependent. a, b and c are interdependent, as it turns out but I didn't catch it until this response. 

How am I wrong?   I made no comment about independence or interdependence.    I stated that four of the five sections deal with intent and thus intent / willfulness is a strong consideration when applying the act to a situation.


Comparing the circumstances of Biden and Trump, both have violated the PRA.   The PRA does not involve criminal charges so it is very likely that for both Trump and Biden, our government will focus on securing the classified documents, investigating how such failures in our system occur and seek to correct.   There will be, at best, an admonishment to both and that will be the end of it.

Trump also will get a pass on the Espionage act because of Biden's mistakes.    Prior to this, the volume of classified documents and the manner in which Trump did not cooperate provided, IMO, a good foundation for arguing bad intent.  Trump really stepped in it when he claimed the documents were declassified since that is an admission that he knew he had classified documents.   His further shenanigans made things worse.

But ... due to optics and the simplistic way the public will deal with this ... I am confident the DoJ will not charge Trump with a crime because of a predictable (naïve) public cry of hypocrisy.

The DoJ should focus on the Big Lie campaign.   That was the more important factor anyway due to the horrible precedents (multiple) that it set.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.92  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.90    2 weeks ago
Um, the point to which I was referring was Sean's reply to Ozzwald's statement, not yours. 

Strange then that you replied to me.

Both Ozzwald and Sean have a point.

Ozzwald is correct that the Espionage act would almost certainly not apply to Biden's situation as currently known.   It is very unlikely someone could formulate ill intent at this point and Biden does not have (as of yet) a large volume or a set of extremely critical documents to trigger the act.   Especially since Biden's staff found the documents and did not try to cover up or make excuses but worked immediately to return the documents.   I see no reasonable prosecutor bringing charges.

Sean is correct in that —in the abstract— merely returning documents when discovered  is not enough to technically curtail the Espionage act.   Imagine a situation where nuclear launch codes or arsenal locations were in possession and one could argue that the possession was not merely an oversight.   The severity of the situation coupled with the potential for arguing willful ill intent would likely override an act of immediate return.

IMO of course.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.2.93  bugsy  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.90    2 weeks ago
And it isn't because I'm trying to excuse him for anything.

but that means nothing to some on here. If you don't follow along with one's posts and opinions, then you are labeled as dishonest, or worse.

Sometimes I don't even know why you guys even engage with someone that does not even want to acknowledge someone has a different point of [view....]

[deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.2.94  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.54    2 weeks ago

They were in a safe. Look it up and educate yourself.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.2.95  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.56    2 weeks ago

"Good grief man how can you possibly not understand what I wrote"

Easy...I rarely read anything you write.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.96  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.95    2 weeks ago

That explains your bizarre replies.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.97  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.96    2 weeks ago

... uh, not entirely ...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.98  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.50    2 weeks ago
Trump's documents were locked up safely

Safe from everybody but the treasonous criminal Trump.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.99  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @1.2.98    2 weeks ago

it's a documented fact that trump shared classified info. based upon his past, smart money says he more than likely converted some to cash.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 weeks ago

No Tig....classified is classified. Dem politicians get no exemptions.

And spare us the BS that Biden is cooperating. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Also, another batch has been found at another location.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3    3 weeks ago
No Tig....classified is classified.

There are different levels of classification (e.g. remember TS/SCI?).   But classified is classified in the sense that NO classified document should be outside of a safe facility.   Where do I suggest otherwise?    

And spare us the BS that Biden is cooperating. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Show us where Biden is NOT cooperating.   

Also, another batch has been found at another location.

Correct, this was a result of Biden's proactive search for more documents.   Did you know that?   This was discovered by Biden's aides.


If you want to challenge me then do so based on what I write and not based on presumption or strawman arguments.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.1    3 weeks ago

There are definitely different levels of security clearances. Anyone who served in the military would know that. So  there would be different levels of classification in classified documents. Those levels determine who is allowed to have access to them.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.3.3  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.1    3 weeks ago
If you want to challenge me then do so based on what I write and not based on presumption or strawman arguments.

Sure would be nice if  you gave others the same consideration.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.3    3 weeks ago

Snuffy, you have resorted for some time now to simply stating bullshit.   You make claims about me but do not back them up.   And you pretend to back them up by offering quotes and then ignoring what I actually wrote in the quote and arguing something entirely different.

Be honest.

If you cannot counter a point I have made with a clear, honest rebuttal then I suggest you not reply at all.    I am not going to sit back and allow you or anyone else to play intellectually dishonest games with me.

Now, do you have a point you wish to make?    Make a point that is somehow related to the topic of this article or go elsewhere.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.3.5  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.4    3 weeks ago

Bullshit.  My entire conversation was that both of them had classified documents and in that matter it didn't matter if it was 1 document or 1000, it was wrong for both of them.  That is all I had been saying all along.  You have constantly expanded on what I have been saying in that what Trump did was so much worse.  I have repeatedly stated I was ONLY talking about them having classified documents.  

I've previously stated that what Trump did with regards to him having classified records at Mar-a-Lago was wrong and I have never fucking defended him for his actions around this.  You continue to harass me because of it.

So in light of your comment from 1.3.1,  please respond to what I write or don't respond to me at all.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.5    3 weeks ago
My entire conversation was that both of them had classified documents and in that matter it didn't matter if it was 1 document or 1000,

And I accurately quoted you and responded to that with my rebuttal.

it was wrong for both of them.  

Which is what I opened with.   You are repeating my opening point.   

That is all I had been saying all along.

And I have argued that 1 vs. 1000 is a major league difference in circumstances.

You have constantly expanded on what I have been saying in that what Trump did was so much worse. 

My rebuttal is "expanding on what you have been saying"?    No, Snuffy, my rebuttal is a counter to your claims.   You claim 1 or 1,000 does not matter and I disagree.   I explained my disagreement in my rebuttal.   

I have repeatedly stated I was ONLY talking about them having classified documents.  

And I have focused ONLY on classified documents in all of my commentary.

I've previously stated that what Trump did with regards to him having classified records at Mar-a-Lago was wrong and I have never fucking defended him for his actions around this

I have acknowledged several times that you have stated this.   I even congratulated you on doing so because most of your cohorts are doing their best to NOT even acknowledge basic wrongdoing by Trump.

You continue to harass me because of it.

First, we are in agreement on the above point.   So harass???   Second, if you think that a rebuttal is harassment, you should not engage in social media forums.


In short, you have made comments.   I have accurately acknowledged exactly what you wrote and have either agreed or rebutted same.

If you disagree, then deliver proof instead of making emotive claims.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.3.7  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.6    3 weeks ago

What started our thread was 1.2.2 where my post was...

The differences in number and criticality of documents is substantial.
This is where I disagree with  you.  One or one thousand, doesn't matter.  Wrong is wrong regardless of volume. Due to Biden being caught with classified records now  (and twice according to just recent news reporting) I don't believe that Trump will be prosecuted for having classified records.  I believe the possible chance of Trump being charged with obstruction.  But we shall see eventually.

As you can see, I was only talking about having classified records and stated the number didn't matter as wrong is wrong regardless.

Your reply in 1.2.6 was ...

Wrong is wrong regardless of volume.
What makes you think that I do not deem it wrong for Biden to have even a single classified document in his old office?   When I write:  "The common element is technical violation of the PRA." does that not translate in your mind into:  it is categorically wrong to violate the PRA, period?

So there is no disagreement there.

Now, there is a major difference between the volume.    It is understandable to have 'some' documents due to carelessness / incompetence.   That is something most rational people could accept as reasonable (even though it still is against the law).   But thousands (using your example) surely cannot be reasonably seen as mere carelessness.

Literally, if one had thousands of classified documents and another had 20, would you actually consider that to be the samelevel and natureof violation?

And do not forget how the two PotUS' dealt with this.   Trump resisted, lied, made excuses, etc.   Biden handed the docs over the instant they were discovered by his staff and then continued to proactively to search for more (that is how the other batch was found).    Surely you see the difference here.

Due to Biden being caught with classified records now  (and twice according to just recent news reporting) I don't believe that Trump will be prosecuted for having classified records.  I believe the possible chance of Trump being charged with obstruction.  But we shall see eventually.

Trump is not going to be prosecuted.   Even if Biden had a single classified document at his old office, the optics will kill any action against Trump.   Our judicial system is integrated with our political system.

While you initially agreed with what I had said, you had to expand to show volume to show that what Trump did was worse than what Biden has done.  You have repeatedly expanded to include the volume and the action Trump did vs what Biden has done in an effort to show that what Trump did was so much worse.  I've repeated thru our entire conversation that I was not talking about volume, only simple fact that they both did something wrong.  You have taken that as defense of Trump which I have not done anywhere except in your mind.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.7    3 weeks ago

Some folks just to have the last word, thousands of words, denial and deflection, not a good look [deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.3.9  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.8    3 weeks ago

Thus spoke the Queen of Denial and Deflection....   [deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.9    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.11  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.7    3 weeks ago
As you can see, I was only talking about having classified records and stated the number didn't matter as wrong is wrong regardless.

Yes, and I acknowledged that and disagreed with your position on number.    What is confusing you?    What in hell do you think I wrote?   

While you initially agreed with what I had said, you had to expand to show volume to show that what Trump did was worse than what Biden has done. 

Expand??    You think volume does not matter.   I disagree.   You are complaining that I disagreed.   

What on Earth do you think happens in a debate, Snuffy?    If you cannot deal with someone providing facts and logic to rebut your position then you should steer clear of forums.

I've repeated thru our entire conversation that I was not talking about volume, only simple fact that they both did something wrong.  

You most definitely were talking about volume because you said it does not matter.   That is your position ON VOLUME.   I disagree with your position and rebutted.

You have taken that as defense of Trump which I have not done anywhere except in your mind.  

Yes, I take your insistence that 1 or one million documents does not matter as a defense of Trump.     The number of documents is absolutely significant in these circumstances.   If Trump had a single classified document, do you think there would have been an issue?    It is the fact that there were many more than one document and the fact that Trump did not cooperate in their return that has caused him so much trouble.   The volume absolutely matters.

And as more documents are discovered in the Biden case, this grows increasingly worse for Biden.   Similar reasoning.   If only one document had been discovered, this can be seen as 'falling through the cracks' and most reasonable people would be comfortable with that.   As the volume increases, the analysis moves from an innocent mistake to incompetence and irresponsibility.   More volume and we get into a justifiable analysis of bad intent.

The volume matters.

And if we find 1 million classified documents (using your extreme) do not tell me, Snuffy, that you are going to state in this forum that there is no difference in finding one Biden classified document versus finding one million Biden classified documents.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.3.12  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.11    3 weeks ago
If Trump had a single classified document, do you think there would have been an issue? 

For me YES.  As I've stated wrong is wrong regardless of volume.  There is no difference between stealing $1 million or a candy bar, both are theft.  

And if we find 1 million classified documents (using your extreme) do not tell me, Snuffy, that you are going to state in this forum that there is no difference in finding one Biden classified document versus finding one million Biden classified documents.

Again, for me YES.  

The rules around the handling of classified documents is fairly simple and these documents are not to be taken home or left lying around by people.  If "reasonable people" can be comfortable with the mishandling of a single classified document then how many does it take before it becomes a problem for them?  As I've repeatedly stated,  IMO the number should be zero.  Classified documents can expose all sorts of things from sources and methods, intelligence estimates, mistakes, etc.  These documents are classified for a reason and should never be left lying around unprotected.

You want to talk about how each party handled things, that's a separate discussion.  From what is reported Biden is cooperating which is in his favor where Trump was not cooperating and was actively trying to push blame elsewhere so he is at risk for an obstruction charge.  But again,  their actions after the fact are a separate discussion.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.3.13  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.12    3 weeks ago
There is no difference between stealing $1 million or a candy bar

According to law, there is.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.3.14  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @1.3.13    3 weeks ago
There is no difference between stealing $1 million or a candy bar
According to law, there is.

Include the entire fucking line please...

There is no difference between stealing $1 million or a candy bar, both are theft.  

Under the law the consequences of stealing $1 million is more, but the simple act of both is theft.  That's all it is.  

But in  your mind, what theft is ok?  What are you willing to ignore?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.15  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.2    3 weeks ago

Emphatically. And while it is definitely true that these life-long professionals and (Trump: "The Combatant") should have done better/best with these documents in a timely manner, I also wonder why the archives is so "loosey-goosey' in picking up its 'load' in a consistently timely manner! What is this great passage of time that is occurring with documents tracking?

Is there even a document tracking system in place? Or is it on a partial 'honor' system for high-ranking officials?  It sounds ridiculous and "dud-worthy" all at the same time.

There is a great amount of criticism to be had all-around.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.3.16  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.14    3 weeks ago

I am not ignoring anything. Just pointing out, according to law, yes there are different kinds.

Ranging from a misdomeaner to felony charges.

Theft may be theft yet not all are treated the same.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.3.17  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @1.3.16    3 weeks ago

So how much theft is ok and allowable in your mind?

Or are you just trying to deflect away my response to TiG?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.18  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.12    3 weeks ago
There is no difference between stealing $1 million or a candy bar, both are theft.  

Well, Snuffy, both are theft but you will find in reality that the theft of $1 million dollars is viewed differently and treated differently by our legal system than the theft of a candy bar.

If you cannot see this already, then reasoning with you is hopeless.

IMO the number should be zero.  

Well of course.   A single document is all that is required to violate the PRA.   The problem is that you are furiously insisting that the number of classified documents does not affect the circumstances.   You are wrong.   It most definitely does:

  • 1 document = Most rational people would consider this to be "falling through the cracks".   A mistake.   A violation of the PRA but mistakes happen.
  • 10 documents = Most rational people would consider this to be incompetence / sloppiness.   Not acceptable.
  • 100 documents = Most rational people would not accept mere incompetence / sloppiness at this point and consider this to be intentional.
  • 1,000,0000 documents (your number) = Most everyone (and I say you too) would be convinced that this was intentional.

The level of intent and forethought goes to severity and brings in the espionage act.

Volume does matter.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.3.19  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.17    3 weeks ago

No. TiG can take care of himself.

It was pointed out to me earlier that neither of the presidents move things themselves.

It actually opened my eyes a little to how careless they seem to be.

I do see a difference though in one team finding it and turning it in to another team yelling and screaming and wanting to keep them.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.3.20  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.18    3 weeks ago

Volume only matters in the punishment, not in the act it self.  That you refuse to see that my conversation was only about the act and continue to badger me on this shows that discussion with you is hopeless.  

I'm done with you.  I'm confident you will view this as a victory for yourself..  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.21  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.20    3 weeks ago
Volume only matters in the punishment, not in the act it self.  That you refuse to see that my conversation was only about the act and continue to badger me on this shows that discussion with you is hopeless.  

Volume affects the charge Snuffy.   It is not just the punishment, it changes the charge, the nature, and the severity.

For example, do you not understand that the dollar amount is the key criterion in distinguishing misdemeanor theft from felony theft??

One document would not likely cause people to consider the espionage act, but hundreds of documents are a different matter.

You keep complaining of mistreatment yet the reality is that you are demonstrably wrong.   If you cannot stand to be shown wrong them you probably should steer clear of any debate.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.22  devangelical  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.20    2 weeks ago
I'm confident you will view this as a victory for yourself.. 

... along with everyone else that is not trying to defend the indefensible.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.23  devangelical  replied to  Ender @1.3.13    2 weeks ago
According to law, there is.

maybe he meant commandment...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.3.24  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.6    2 weeks ago

Trump stole/hid/denied classified documents he stole intentionally.

Biden had no idea that interns/aides had stored documents.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.25  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  cjcold @1.3.24    2 weeks ago

The evidence thus far suggests that Trump knew he had classified documents and sought to keep them.

It also suggests that Biden did not know and that Biden is trying to find any others in his possession.

The evidence suggests that Biden is cooperating and that Trump was NOT cooperating.

Intent is not known with certainty; the evidence does, however, give us some indication of likely intent.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 weeks ago

You are aware that another batch of documents have been found?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4    3 weeks ago

Yes, Vic, I have been commenting on that for hours.    Hell, just look above you @1.3.1

Do you know that they were found because Biden's staff proactively started looking for other violations of the PRA?


The more classified records existing outside of their secure location the more Biden put our national security at risk and the more severe his failure.

And the higher the level of classification, the more Biden put our national security at risk.

Do you agree?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4    3 weeks ago

how many is in a batch? it's already 2 boxes on rwnj radio...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.4.2    3 weeks ago

In two different locations. We don't know much because Biden is lawyered up and I think we won't know much about Biden until he is out of office.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.1    3 weeks ago
Do you know that they were found because Biden's staff proactively started looking for other violations of the PRA?

I'm not sure what prompted that. There is a lot we don't know.


Do you agree?

Yup.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.4    3 weeks ago
Yup.

So you agree then that the more documents and the higher the classification level, the worse the violation (due to the larger national security liability).

Would you also find it to be wrong if Biden were to engage in Trump tactics such as trying to hide documents, lying, claiming executive privilege, claiming declassification, claiming private property, playing delay games with NARA, etc.?

That would make things even worse for national security, right?

Then imagine that Biden has hundreds of classified documents and many at the TS/SCI level.    Worse still, right?

Would you find it to be wrong and gross negligent to expose our national security at that level.   And anything short of immediate cooperation with NARA would be profoundly wrong?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.6  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.3    3 weeks ago

keep dreaming. unlike the mar-a-lardo moron, joe still has the power to officially declassify those documents, doesn't he? funny, I don't recall any letters from the archives, subpoenas, or a search warrant involved in joe's situation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.5    3 weeks ago
Would you also find it to be wrong if Biden were to engage in Trump tactics such as trying to hide documents, lying, claiming executive privilege, claiming declassification, claiming private property, playing delay games with NARA, etc.?

Yup


That would make things even worse for national security, right?

Right


Then imagine that Biden has hundreds of classified documents and many at the TS/SCI level.    Worse still, right?

Yup


And anything short of immediate cooperation with NARA would be profoundly wrong?

Yup


And now if I have a question for you. You have gone to great lengths to distinguish these two cases as apples & oranges. We know very little about the Biden documents. As far as I know, the FBI hasn't even taken possession of them yet, nor have they intervened to see if there are any more. These documents have been out there for 6 years (4 years longer than Trump's).

My question is this: If, as you have stated the Biden documents are the same kind of national security risk as the Trump documents, why hasn't the DOJ/FBI shown the same type of tenacity in getting them and seeing with their own eyes if there are more?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.4.6    3 weeks ago
unlike the mar-a-lardo moron, joe still has the power to officially declassify those documents, doesn't he?

Not when he took them.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.9  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.8    3 weeks ago

there, there... you'll always have the weaponized DOJ and FBI excuses to fall back on...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.10  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.7    3 weeks ago
And now if I have a question for you. You have gone to great lengths to distinguish these two cases as apples & oranges.

I have gone to great lengths to counter Trump apologists' attempts to equate these two cases.    They keep trying to dilute the Trump offenses by equating his circumstances with Biden's.

We know very little about the Biden documents. As far as I know, the FBI hasn't even taken possession of them yet, nor have they intervened to see if there are any more.

And we will know more as time goes on.   In the meantime, what we do know is that Biden has cooperated (as one would expect any rational PotUS to do) and Trump did the very opposite.   

These documents have been out there for 6 years (4 years longer than Trump's).

But they were just now discovered.    

My question is this: If, as you have stated the Biden documents are the same kind of national security risk as the Trump documents, why hasn't the DOJ/FBI shown the same type of tenacity in getting them and seeing with their own eyes if there are more?

Biden's team is cooperating with NARA.   Any interplay involving the DoJ/FBI would be with NARA.   If the DoJ/FBI knew of other credible sources for additional documents they would no doubt work with Biden to secure them.   If Biden were to do as Trump did and resist, then they would escalate as they did Trump (even so, look how many months they spent treating Trump with kid gloves).   

It boils down to cooperation.   Why would you expect any controversy if Biden is fully cooperating?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.4.11  pat wilson  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.10    3 weeks ago
I have gone to great lengths

You do and many appreciate your thoroughness and patience.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.12  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  pat wilson @1.4.11    3 weeks ago

Thanks, Pat.   

It is amazing though to see the fury by which some seek to shape reality to their liking.    

As soon as the documents were discovered I knew exactly what the Trump apologists would argue.   I knew we would have these beyond stupid attempts to whitewash all that Trump did regarding TS/SCI classified documents by stating that it is no different than what Biden has done.

No surprise ... that is exactly what has taken place.

Also, I have been watching to see what the other side (the Ds) has been saying.   I do not see this mass rush of Ds putting forth brain-dead stupid defenses of Biden.   Seems to me, those who have opined agree that Biden was wrong to have these documents and that he violated the PRA.   His forthrightness and proactive search for more documents suggests that he did not do this intentionally, but point of fact he was wrong.

A very stark contrast between that and the average R whitewashing response as well as the absurd attempts to defend Trump when his PRA failures, etc. were in the news.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.13  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @1.4.11    3 weeks ago

I do too, but it's incredible just how many are so far beyond the reach of basic logic and reason.

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
1.4.14  dennissmith  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.3    3 weeks ago

Hopeflly that will be well before Jan 2025

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.15  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.4.13    3 weeks ago

Same here.  I don't have the patience and it's not worth it with my high BP

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.16  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.4.15    3 weeks ago

for the last 4 months it's been "nothing to see here" and lots of excuses for trump and his possession of SCI/TS documents. but now it's defcon 5 on the right because biden's aides found some classified documents and then called NARA. now trumpsters are trying to equate his past criminal act and obstruction to team biden's discovery of documents, contacting the proper gov't authority, and surrendering those documents and further cooperating with the authorities.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.4.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.12    3 weeks ago
 I do not see this mass rush of Ds putting forth brain-dead stupid defenses of Biden.   

Yeah, the View and a Democratic members of Congress suggesting Republicans planted the documents are totally rational.. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.18  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.4.17    3 weeks ago

I was referring to members here on NT.

Of course we can find examples of Ds in general being irrational.   For any situation, we can find, in the general public, plenty of examples of irrationality regardless of party or ideology.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.19  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.8    2 weeks ago
Not when he took them.

address the other differences I pointed out and defend trump's continued obstruction along the way...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.20  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.4.19    2 weeks ago

oh that's right, ... you can't.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago
Biden and Trump both had classified documents and thus violated the PRA. After that, the two circumstances are profoundly different.

No, that is an incorrect description.  Both Biden and Trump failed to comply with the PRA by retaining executive records.  The Presidential Records Act is not about handling classified material.  Executive records includes non-classified materials, too.

The FBI raid on Mar-a-lago was intended to recover executive records under authority of the PRA.  The National Archives is not responsible for handling of classified materials.  The National Archive actively pursued recovery of executive records in Trump's possession.  However, the National Archive did not make a similar effort to recover executive records in Biden's possession.  And, apparently, the National Archive is not pursuing recovery of those records now that Biden's possession of records has been publicly disclosed.

Focusing attention on classified material is a smoke screen that hides the motivations for the FBI raid on Mar-a-lago and, essentially, takes the heat off the FBI and DOJ.  Biden and Trump possessing classified material doesn't really have anything to do with the PRA.  Handling of classified material is not the jurisdiction of the National Archive.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.5.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.5    2 weeks ago
The Presidential Records Act is not about handling classified material.

It ALSO includes classified documents and that has been the focus.   We are not talking about non-classified documents.

The National Archives is not responsible for handling of classified materials. 

NARA is the organization that was working with Trump.   They most definitely handle classified materials; but they are not the only agency that does so.   Many agencies in the government can classify/declassify and then manage their own classified documents.   But NARA is the one dealing with Trump so that is why we speak of them.   

And, apparently, the National Archive is not pursuing recovery of those records now that Biden's possession of records has been publicly disclosed.

And if so that is largely irrelevant.   The focus is NOT on which agency will deal with which classified documents but rather the existence of improperly stored classified documents and the need to get them all to a properly secured facility.

Focusing attention on classified material is a smoke screen ... 

Oh bullshit!    The attention on classified material is primarily because of national security concerns.     Politics is in everything ... the presence of partisan nonsense here is not noteworthy ... it is expected.


This is what matters:

  • Both Trump and Biden violated the PRA.
  • Both Trump and Biden compromised national security.
  • The classified documents of both Trump and Biden need to be located and properly secured.
  • The process that allowed both Biden and Trump to violate the PRA needs to be investigated and the protocol failures need to be addressed.

And in terms of consequences for Biden and Trump, both the PRA and the Espionage Act are on the table.   How the consequences manifest will depend upon a judgment of intent as well as the volume and severity (national security exposure) of the documents.

Trump, as it stands right now, is in a much worse situation than Biden.   Both were wrong, but there most definitely is a substantial difference between the two cases.

Now, if a new document of Biden's is found (just one) that has TS/SCI information as serious as, say, US nuclear codes / locations then that would substantially change the level of Biden's wrongdoing.    

Stay tuned.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1.5.2  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.5.1    2 weeks ago
This is what matters:
  • Both Trump and Biden violated the PRA.
  • Both Trump and Biden compromised national security.
  • The classified documents of both Trump and Biden need to be located and properly secured.
  • The process that allowed both Biden and Trump to violate the PRA needs to be investigated and the protocol failures need to be addressed.

And in terms of consequences for Biden and Trump, both the PRA and the Espionage Act are on the table.   How the consequences manifest will depend upon a judgment of intent as well as the volume and severity (national security exposure) of the documents.

Trump, as it stands right now, is in a much worse situation than Biden.   Both were wrong, but there most definitely is a substantial difference between the two cases.

Now, if a new document of Biden's is found (just one) that has TS/SCI information as serious as, say, US nuclear codes / locations then that would substantially change the level of Biden's wrongdoing.    

The PRA concerns executive records pertaining to the functions and operation of the Office of President, Office of Vice President, and the various cabinet offices.  Classified material isn't necessarily an executive record.  That's why possession of classified materials is separate from possession of executive records.  The National Archive (NARA) has jurisdiction over executive records but does not have jurisdiction over classified materials.  As you have pointed out, agencies that classify material have jurisdiction over that classified material.  The classification doesn't go away with a change in executive administration so the material is not part of executive records. 

Under the PRA, all executive records are to be located and properly secured.  That was the justification for executing a search warrant on Mar-a-lago.  The FBI raid was about retrieving executive records and not limited to retrieving classified material.  The issue of classified material obscures the motivation for the search warrant executed on Mar-a-lago.  The FBI raid was much broader and far reaching than the narrative concerning classified materials would suggest.

Arguing a matter of degree doesn't alter the fact that Biden is just as guilty of violating the PRA as Trump.  The comparison also indicates that the National Archive (NARA) was actively pursuing recovery of executive records from Trump while not pursuing recovery of records from Biden.  That, at the least, creates a perception of political favoritism. 

Claiming that Trump is in a worse situation than Biden only supports the perception that the handling of the two instances has been influenced by political motivations rather than by the rule of law.  In reality, Biden is not less guilty than Trump.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.5.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.5.2    2 weeks ago
The National Archive (NARA) has jurisdiction over executive records but does not have jurisdiction over classified materials.

Yes they do.   When there is no other agency to properly handle them, the NARA becomes the agency of record.

Arguing a matter of degree doesn't alter the fact that Biden is just as guilty of violating the PRA as Trump.  

The matter of degree comes into play when considering the espionage act.    Violating the PRA is not criminal.

Nerm, I have addressed all of this multiple times.   I am sick of repeating myself.

Bottom line, Trump dug himself a hole because of his lack of cooperation and volume of classified (including TS/SCI) documents.    Trump's circumstances are substantially more serious than Biden's.   As of now, Biden has no concern over the espionage act.

Further, and finally, Trump no longer has any real concern either because Biden's screw-up will wind up giving Trump a pass.   That is my prediction.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2  Ronin2    3 weeks ago

What this amounts to:

Brandon the Human Fuck Up Machine had classified documents in his possession for 6 years. That he was supposedly not aware of. He cannot say who had access to those classified documents during that period of time. Chain of custody has been broken. There is no telling how many more classified documents he has in his possession. 

There needs to be a full FBI search (meaning raid) of all of Brandon's houses and offices for classified information. No room, storage facility, or closet must be left unturned. Any documents found in Brandon's possession that belong to the archives must be seized immediately- classified or not.

There needs to be a special prosecutor assigned to the case of Republican House/Senate choosing. Garland, being the highly partisan POS he is, has lost that right.

Democrats need to treat this classified breach with the same outrage that they are treating Trump's.

All this article amounts to is "Excuses, excuses, excuses!" from Brandon apologists.

 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @2    3 weeks ago
Brandon the Human Fuck Up Machine had classified documents in his possession for 6 years.

Impressive.  Your very first sentence is already false.  Why would anyone bother reading further?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1    3 weeks ago

So why did you?

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
2.1.2  George  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1    3 weeks ago

How is that wrong? Please be specific.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
So why did you?

I didn't.  That's why I didn't correct anything else he said.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @2    3 weeks ago

You know what son - the human fuck up machine(s) are the republicans and gqp/supporters/enablers.

Your PD&D is so fucking tiresome

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @2    3 weeks ago
All this article amounts to is "Excuses, excuses, excuses!" from Brandon apologists.

Clearly you did not even read the article.   

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
2.4  dennissmith  replied to  Ronin2 @2    3 weeks ago

Absolutely a full FBI search instead of Biden's team searching.

Brandon was not authorized to declassify anything when he left office as VP. He was either ignorant of the law or didn't give a shit.

Once he was found out on Nov 2, 2022 they magically disappeared until after the Nov election.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.4.1  Split Personality  replied to  dennissmith @2.4    3 weeks ago
Absolutely a full FBI search instead of Biden's team searching.

Ok, we waste millions of dollars a day anyway,  Why not, just to assuage the Trump supporters for "fairness".

Brandon was not authorized to declassify anything when he left office as VP. 

Of course Biden wasn't authorized, can you show us where anyone claimed that.

He was either ignorant of the law or didn't give a shit.

Wasn't Trump's initial claim, one that he didn't pack out his office personally?

Do you think Biden packed out his office personally?

Once he was found out on Nov 2, 2022 they magically disappeared until after the Nov election.

This article, if you had read it, acknowledges the fact that the first documents discovered on 11/02 were in fact turned over to NARA on 11/03 as required by law.

They did not magically disappear.

What is your remedy?  Should Biden resign and hand the reigns over to Harris?

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
2.4.2  dennissmith  replied to  Split Personality @2.4.1    2 weeks ago

My comment is about Biden not Trump. 

The first documents were not disclosed to the public until after the Nov election. Do you think this is a coincidence?

Yes I think Biden should resign and hand the reigns over to the person he selected as his VP. 

If she is unable to do the job then she should also resign.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  dennissmith @2.4.2    2 weeks ago
Yes I think Biden should resign and hand the reigns over to the person he selected as his VP. 

If you see such severe consequences for Biden then surely you must also see that Trump was wrong to hold many classified (especially TS/SCI) documents and NOT cooperate in their return to a secure facility.

Do you?   Do you acknowledge Trump's wrongdoing?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.4.4  Split Personality  replied to  dennissmith @2.4.2    2 weeks ago
My comment is about Biden not Trump. 

SO very sorry Dennis, social media doesn't work that way.

The Article is about Trump's behavior about "his documents"

versus Biden's behavior about "his documents".

Trump, ignored, bull shifted, bluffed and lied to the

NARA and FBI/DOJ for many, many months.

Biden cured his problems in 96 hours or less, once discovered,

Biden says he didn't know they were there for 6 years, allegedly.

Trump bragged about them and shared them with Maralago visitors.

Yes I think Biden should resign and hand the reigns over to the person he selected as his VP.  If she is unable to do the job then she should also resign

Then you obviously think Trump should withdraw from running for President again.

As for POTUS requirements I clearly remember Karl Rove and others stating they only

needed a Republican candidate who could sign his name to whatever the NRC stuck in

front of him.

Such high standards. /S

Yeah, K Harris fits that bill as well for the Dems I suppose.

Pleasant dreams. /s

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
2.4.5  dennissmith  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.3    2 weeks ago

If you see such severe consequences for Biden then surely you must also see that Trump was wrong to hold many classified (especially TS/SCI) documents and NOT cooperate in their return to a secure facility. I do not see Biden resigning as a severe consequence.

Do you?   Do you acknowledge Trump's wrongdoing?  They are both being investigated 
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  dennissmith @2.4.5    2 weeks ago

Yes, Dennis, we all know they are both being investigated.

I asked if YOU acknowledge Trump's wrongdoing (since clearly you acknowledge that of Biden).

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
2.4.7  dennissmith  replied to  Split Personality @2.4.4    2 weeks ago

I asked you a question that you ignored.

Biden cured his problems in 96 hours or less. If Biden's problems were cured in 96 hours why is he under investigation. 

Biden says he didn't know they were there for 6 years, allegedly. He got caught, plain and simple even for his most ardent supporters and is being investigated.

I do not think Trump or Biden should run in 2024 in spite of you saying I obviously think he should. 

Your deflectin to Karl Rove is noted. He has nothing to do with what Biden has been caught doing. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.8  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  dennissmith @2.4.7    2 weeks ago
If Biden's problems were cured in 96 hours why is he under investigation. 

Because he violated the PRA.   An investigation is normal and expected.

I think it is critical that we investigate (and then fix) compromises to our national security.   Don't you?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.4.9  Split Personality  replied to  dennissmith @2.4.7    2 weeks ago
I asked you a question that you ignored.

What?  The one about coincidence or convenience that they didn't report it?

I wish they had, maybe more people would have voted for the Party that follows

the laws, but they didn't because they were only just getting started looking

more docs and expanding that search.

Hell, I moved here 7 years ago and still have boxes I haven't opened yet.

Now if this had happened on 11/02/2019 I would be outraged if they buried it,

but Biden wasn't on the ballot in 2022.

Satisfied?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4.10  CB   replied to  Split Personality @2.4.9    2 weeks ago

It is a poor 'fool' who thinks that one individual's misery/ies should be spread out for all to get "contagion." It's all so damn petty and insincere. Such people should have

spilled-milk-picture-id183256428?k=6&m=183256428&s=612x612&w=0&h=_hbtUBftKHQuTf4mH9I4l3e1y-Nn0_mVMkQB9MATdAM= .

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.4.11  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @2.4.9    2 weeks ago

I've been laughing my ass off listening to rwnj radio pundits go batshit crazy over this for 2 days. unfortunately for them, their outrageous statements over this incident only provides more judicial motivation to convict their loser hero.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.4.12  Split Personality  replied to  devangelical @2.4.11    2 weeks ago

I saw a compilation of "those people" including MTG & McCarthy saying that Trump only had 13 documents and Biden has already surpassed that.

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

"They" are all spouting the same talking points, the same misinformation.

Surprisingly some of the FOX talking heads are calling them out on it.

Graham was dumbstruck when one of the Fox women asked him to stop evading the question and tell her why the two investigations are the same.

He stonewalled until they dropped him.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.4.13  Greg Jones  replied to  Split Personality @2.4.4    2 weeks ago
"Trump bragged about them and shared them with Maralago visitors."

Sources?  Links?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.4.14  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @2.4.12    2 weeks ago

I've been listening to them attack the newest special prosecutor, Hur, since he was appointed. a trump appointee that was all the way down the trump rabbit hole in 2017. imagine the unhinged hubris coming from the right if the guy actually was anywhere close to being a liberal democrat and what they would be saying about him.

   

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.4.15  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @2.4.13    2 weeks ago

Hearsay from a whistleblower which led to the whole debacle in Maralago.

Is there any coincidence that the warrant specifically targeted the exact

closet/locker, desk drawers and personal safe which all yielded documents 

in violation of the PRA?

Exclusive: An Informer Told the FBI What Docs Trump Was Hiding, and Where (newsweek.com)

Trump Took Kim Jong-un ‘Love Letters’ to Mar-a-Lago – Rolling Stone

Trump employee warned FBI that former president had ordered Mar-a-Lago documents to be moved: report - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.4.16  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @2.4.15    2 weeks ago
Is there any coincidence that the warrant specifically targeted the exact

closet/locker, desk drawers and personal safe which all yielded documents 

in violation of the PRA?

I think those dots may be too close to connect for some...

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
3  TOM PA    3 weeks ago

Here's the fun part, we will have to wait 2 years (at least) until president Biden becomes "citizen Biden" thanks to the "DOJ memo".  Unless the republican house can convince the democrat senate to impeach him.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4  devangelical    3 weeks ago

biden is the sitting POTUS, which now gives him some predetermined options, courtesy of the trumpsters...

  1. he stills holds office so he can't be prosecuted until he leaves...
  2. all he has to do is say those documents are now declassified, or wave his hand over the stack...
  3. if he did it, it must be legal...
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @4    3 weeks ago

BINGO

BANGO

BONGO

HE just has to THINK THEY ARE and - voila!

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
4.2  George  replied to  devangelical @4    3 weeks ago

So Biden is as worthless as trump, high standards for the senile old fool.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  George @4.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.2  devangelical  replied to  George @4.2    2 weeks ago

feel free to add to the worthless column those that think both cases are identical.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.3  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @4.2.2    2 weeks ago

hearing trumpsters weigh in on this topic is ... disturbing, ... in many ways.

 
 
 
Harry Le Hermit
Freshman Silent
5  Harry Le Hermit    3 weeks ago

My 2¢ worth... There is a lot of stuff that falls into the wrist slap and shame on you type of punishment. There is obstruction, which is a felony.

Then there are the classified documents. I doubt Biden was loading up the U-Haul and cavorting around D.C. I doubt Trump has ever picked up anything heavier than a golf driver.

Somebody, sometime, did remove classified documents from their secure location. It may have been accidental, without knowledge of the law, etc. In any case... it is a felony, regardless of the type of classified documents.

Any penalties will have to be assessed later, when all the information has been determined.

It is... terrible optics in a nation already so profoundly divided.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1  Ender  replied to  Harry Le Hermit @5    3 weeks ago

I like your calm, reasoned attitude.

I have to agree with you. I doubt either one of them loaded or moved things themselves. Other people always do things for them.

So basically we have a bunch of people that move belongings for these people and they can grab and have the ability to be able to read and or take classified documents.

What, do these people just keep them lying around, out in the open, on top of a desk...

That aides and underlings all seem to have access to these things....

What it brings to mind though seems to be the casualness of it all from either side.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6  Mark in Wyoming     3 weeks ago

CBS is reporting right now garland has appointed a special council to oversee the investigation of this incident .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6    3 weeks ago

Sorry. Not intended here.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6    3 weeks ago

The natural course of action.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7  CB     3 weeks ago

Of course, Mr. Hur, Special Counsel, is now on the 'turnstile' photo wheel ("Mr. Media" I'm ready for my close-up) of all the television networks. How long will/can it take for him to be investigated and likely diminished because of some negligible 'spot' on his resume or personal life? Somebody will undoubtedly check the Checker to see if he has ever been guilty of hiding classified documents in his. . . whatever.  /s    Real, nevertheless!

In any case, he will be treated to the usual skepticism and callousness from those who don't respect anybody who tries to hold up standards and professionalism as a thing to be desired (and honorable).

Mr. Hur, I hope you have your . . . dirty laundry. . . organized and in order!  There will be a 'maintenance detail' equipped with a set of eyeball squiggles and an accompanying butt-light probe headed in your direction directly.

First check 'up': Hur political party affiliation and voting record. . . . 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
8  Right Down the Center    3 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
9  Freewill    2 weeks ago

Looks like they just found additional classified docs in Biden’s home not previously disclosed.

TiG this article also touches on your point about intent in the prosecution of such matters.  Although as more docs are found, seems to me the scales tip in the direction of intentional retention of the material as opposed to inadvertent or accidental.  But that is what investigations are for so best not to speculate.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @9    2 weeks ago

The more documents found coupled with the severity of same will indeed transform the cooperation and innocent mistake assessment towards negligence.

Our government is clearly well beyond incompetent when it comes to the management of classified information.    Truly shocking.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
9.1.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @9.1    2 weeks ago
The more documents found coupled with the severity of same will indeed transform the cooperation and innocent mistake assessment towards negligence.

Depends on how "Indepth" the media gets, or wants to get, with this Biden ....... Story ?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.2  CB   replied to  TᵢG @9.1    2 weeks ago

It is easy to see why people don't like politics and the cadre of politicians-even the 'likeable' ones! Biden has not excuse for this, since these people, old as they are, have supporting 'cast'/staff to see that they stay out of trouble!

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
9.1.3  Freewill  replied to  CB @9.1.2    2 weeks ago
It is easy to see why people don't like politics and the cadre of politicians-even the 'likeable' ones!

Yet we put up with it and get what we deserve.

Meh, good enough...

   - Mediocrates

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.4  CB   replied to  Freewill @9.1.3    2 weeks ago
Mediocrates

We put up with it, because they keep us divided and fighting among ourselves (for their survival in this 'blood-less sport' of politics). It's quite tragic. That, in this country, we have the best of 'everything' and yet our basic nature is to screw it all up, for its own sake. We set/have standards that our officials fail to maintain-even when the whole of the country is watching! I'm at a loss to write more about how pathetic this subject matter is.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
9.1.5  Freewill  replied to  CB @9.1.4    2 weeks ago
We put up with it, because they keep us divided and fighting among ourselves (for their survival in this 'blood-less sport' of politics).

They keep us divided?  Only to the extent we let them.  We still have agency here.  They certainly can’t force division if we decide amongst ourselves not to remain divided, if we decide not to follow their extreme ideological platforms to the letter without question or considering other points of view, if we realize that we are simply us - not us vs. them.  We don’t have to agree on everything, we just need to agree not to be manipulated, to think for ourselves and keep an open mind so that we can work together to really drain the swamp and not make it swampier.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.6  CB   replied to  Freewill @9.1.5    2 weeks ago

And I wonder whose side do you estimate has/is famous for "open-mindedness"? Remember, what William F. Buckley stated about his party:


A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”
― William F. Buckley 

If you wish to change the status quo, stop yelling "Stop!" This nation needs a proper reset! Or else, it is on a slow incremental crawl to degrading and losing its status and ranking in the world-and that entails a great many rights and privileges the masses of us take so for granted that we scarce even know where to begin to look for the coming shortcomings!

I wish you, us, all the goodness and wholeness we can stomach in 2023, Freewill! :)

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
9.1.7  Freewill  replied to  CB @9.1.6    2 weeks ago
I wish you, us, all the goodness and wholeness we can stomach in 2023, Freewill!

Ditto my friend. 

By the way, Buckley never said, A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop , at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it ."

He said that not about conservatives, but about his newsletter The National Review in its mission statement in 1955.  You can read the entire quote in context HERE.

He was talking about his new publication being tasked with defying what he saw as a "liberal juggernaut" (the status quo of his time and some might argue still to this day), to say “Stop” when it was politically incorrect to do so (i.e. when the other side was not so open-minded when it came to other views).  I have not been a rabid fan of Buckley nor have I consistently read the National Review, but what I do know from my reading is that many of the things Buckley felt compelled to resist have lead us to our current status quo.  What I think he meant in his mission statement was that we must learn from history and embrace what worked and not repeat or gravitate toward what doesn't.  His intent was to create a unique intellectual publication at that time that would dare to say perhaps we should stop for a moment to consider the long term impacts of political changes, particularly those that grow the scope and power of the central government or broaden the control of the state over the life, liberty and happiness of the individual.

Just my humble opinion, and probably way off topic.  Sorry TiG..  Perhaps we can discuss this elsewhere CB.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.8  CB   replied to  Freewill @9.1.7    2 weeks ago

I am sorry. . . did Buckley write it or not even considering context.

Our Mission Statement

By William F. Buckley Jr.

November 19, 1955 1:00 PM

. . . .

Let’s face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did National Review not exist, no one would have invented it. The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that, of course; if National Review is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

Thank you for the correction. The quote comes from online. However, the distinction you are making is fair, but is it really NECESSARY? The bold "It" is Buckley's National Review journal: A conservative weekly journal of opinion. Now then, is it too far afield to extrapolate the context to mean what the online quotation derives from the meaning?

I am going to say," No." Though I accept your warning about the paraphrase. It should undoubtedly be more announced as such!  :)

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
10  Drinker of the Wry    2 weeks ago
I'm at a loss to write more about how pathetic this subject matter is.

Promise?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1  CB   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10    2 weeks ago

Empty rhetoric (again).

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
10.1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @10.1    2 weeks ago

You got that right.

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
12  independent Liberal    2 weeks ago

One man stole candy bar, the other man forgot to pay for it.

Just another dishonest day among the tribal partisans'. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
13  Freewill    2 weeks ago

This just popped up on my news feed.  Interesting summary but still leaves us hanging like the ending of Season 1 of Severance.

Signs the White House is beginning to shift documents strategy

At least the headline is honest about what is important to each party, "shifts in strategy" to better save face or hurt the other guy the most.  How about making it about what is really important, national security, and fixing our broken system of document management and enforcing it?  Words matter.  To me, honesty, truth, and properly aimed concern are much better "optics" than simply strategies designed to manage the "optics".

Awww crap!  Comment 13... just my luck!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @13    2 weeks ago
How about making it about what is really important, national security, and fixing our broken system of document management and enforcing it? 

It seems that our focus is always on partisan advantage and never on what is good for the nation.

"... hoped to use as a launchpad for a reelection bid he is expected to announce soon"

Wonderful.  320

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
13.1.1  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @13.1    2 weeks ago
It seems that our focus is always on partisan advantage and never on what is good for the nation.

Indeed.  That is why the two party system and the power we have allowed them to accumulate does more harm than good to our nation and our society.  The question is, is it too late to change it?  If someone ran for office as an independent and centered their campaign message on what you just said above, I for one would support him/her.  But would anyone else?

TiG for President baby!!!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @13.1.1    2 weeks ago

The two party system has a stranglehold on nominations.    I see no way a third party candidate could win the presidency.  

The third party candidacy is simply a spoiler and will likely remain nothing more than that for the rest of our lives.

Gaad did you see that Biden might be considering a second term?    If that happens we will likely see DeSantis as the R nominee, Biden as the D nominee and Trump as the spoiler for the GoP.    Biden then wins.    And if he sticks with Harris we could very likely see a president Harris.

Every cycle things grow worse.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
13.1.3  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.2    2 weeks ago
The two party system has a stranglehold on nominations.    I see no way a third party candidate could win the presidency.  

Well Perot grabbed 19% of the popular vote in the1992 election, then only 8% in 1996.  Indeed only spoiler levels, but 19% is certainly an indication that if the conditions are right, a shakeup could occur. 

I suppose people need to be absolutely fed up with business as usual and the two party monopoly and ready for significant changes.  Changes might include removal of party affiliation from voter registration, changes in the way candidates make their way to primary and general election ballots, changes in the electoral college process that has been hi-jacked by the two parties in almost every state, and changes in campaign finance rules especially PACs and dark money sources.  Everything that the two parties have built to rig the system and control it has to be changed or removed.  That has to be part of the independent candidate's pitch. 

A positive trend that we are already seeing is the growing roll of independent voters, now the largest voting block at 40% according to polls

Today, more Americans are increasingly identifying as Independent voters. In a 2021 article by Geoffrey Skelley on fivethirtyeight.com, he reports in the 1980s, a third of Americans identified as either Democrat, Republican, or Independent. He states, “ Now 40 percent or more identify as Independent while the share who identify as Democrat or Republican has fallen to around 30 percent or lower .” Recent data from Gallup Polls show a growing trend since 2004 of voters choosing the Independent party and representing the majority. A March 2022 PEW Research Center analysis shows Democrats and Republicans are farther apart ideologically today than in the past 50 years. 35% of Americans under the age of 30 are Independent or unaffiliated, according to a 2020 Harvard Youth Poll. 

More HERE , showing 42% independent voters most recently.

To me that is a good sign, especially the younger group trending toward independent or unaffiliated voter status, and one that bodes well for a candidate willing to fight for such changes and put the country over partisan concerns. Today's highly polarized and extreme partisan divide might be just the atmosphere needed to tip the scales to an independent leader.  Just hope he doesn't turn out to be another Millard Fillmore! jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @13.1.3    2 weeks ago

As with most changes, things do indeed need to hit some extreme before a backlash sufficient to effect change will occur.    Curiously, many voted for Trump initially because they viewed him as an agent of change.    Arguably one of the worst characters of any US PotUS was the agent to "drain the swamp".    jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Everything that the two parties have built to rig the system and control it has to be changed or removed.

Very difficult given these parties control the process.

A positive trend that we are already seeing is the growing roll of independent voters, now the largest voting block at  40% according to polls  . 

Indeed!   I suspect the decline of the GoP (due to its affiliation with Trump) has bolstered the ranks of independents.   

Today's highly polarized and extreme partisan divide might be just the atmosphere needed to tip the scales to an independent leader. 

One can only hope that things need not worsen to trigger change.   I fear that we have not hit bottom quite yet.   And the fact that there remain individuals who still think Trump was a great PotUS (simply because his policies were core GoP policies and disregarding all other factors) is not encouraging.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.5  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.4    2 weeks ago
And the fact that there remain individuals who still think Trump was a great PotUS (simply because his policies were core GoP policies and disregarding all other factors) is not encouraging.

they've seen what happens to those that have jumped off the trump train too soon. loyalty above everything else, including the constitution...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.6  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @13.1.5    2 weeks ago

pathetic lap dogs...

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @14    2 weeks ago

This is a better presentation than the article of this seed, but it does not matter.   The Trump defenders will still stupidly claim that the Biden and Trump cases are "the same" and continue with their counterproductive attempts to defend Trump (the individual that has and will continue to deliver the most harm to the GoP).

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
15  Freewill    one week ago

And the saga continues...

Justice Department found more classified items in Biden home search

WASHINGTON, Jan 21 (Reuters) - A new search of President Joe Biden's home in Wilmington, Delaware on Friday by the U.S. Justice Department found six more items, including documents with classification markings, a lawyer for the president said in a statement Saturday night.

Some of the classified documents and "surrounding materials" dated from Biden's tenure in the U.S. Senate, where he represented Delaware from 1973 to 2009, according to his lawyer, Bob Bauer. Other documents were from his tenure as vice president in the Obama administration, from 2009 through 2017, Bauer said.

The Department of Justice, which conducted a search that lasted over 12 hours, also took some notes that Biden had personally handwritten as vice president, according to the lawyer.

The president offered access "to his home to allow DOJ to conduct a search of the entire premises for potential vice-presidential records and potential classified material," Bauer said.

Neither Biden nor his wife were present during the search, the attorney said. Biden is in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, for the weekend.

Justice Department investigators coordinated the search with Biden's lawyers ahead of time, Bauer said, and the president's personal and White House lawyers were present at the time.
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.1  CB   replied to  Freewill @15    one week ago

Yeah, well, okay now. So this president is guilty of document misplacement, holding, or theft as will have to be determined by officials empowered over the documents. Politically, it's a mess and I don't agree with democrats who want to give President Biden a pass. He should have done/do better! Some of these documents are 'very old' and laying around gathering dust. (Still does not explain why the "officials/authorities" don't have better control over tracking and collection, nevertheless!)

No excuses, nonetheless! P. Biden may not have the same degree or intensity of the former president in these sorts of failures, but the system has (finally) found him out and he must go through the short and long of watching/feeling it play out!

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
15.1.1  Freewill  replied to  CB @15.1    one week ago
Still does not explain why the "officials/authorities" don't have better control over tracking and collection, nevertheless!

Indeed!  One would hope that all of this results in better monitoring and control of sensitive documents and not just the partisan tug of war it has been thus far.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.2  Ender  replied to  Freewill @15.1.1    one week ago

What gets me is now it seems things like this have been going on for decades.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
15.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @15.1    one week ago
So this president is guilty of document misplacement, holding, or theft as will have to be determined by officials empowered over the documents.
  • 18 U.S. Code §