Special counsel named to probe Biden's handling of documents | Reuters

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  evilgenius  •  3 weeks ago  •  78 comments

By:   Sarah N. Lynch,Jarrett Renshaw (Reuters)

Special counsel named to probe Biden's handling of documents | Reuters
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday announced the appointment of a special counsel to investigate President Joe Biden's handling of sensitive government documents - an inquiry that could cast a shadow over the Democrat's expected run for re-election in 2024.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



By Sarah N. Lynch and Jarrett Renshaw
WASHINGTON, Jan 12 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday announced the appointment of a special counsel to investigate President Joe Biden's handling of sensitive government documents - an inquiry that could cast a shadow over the Democrat's expected run for re-election in 2024.
The top U.S. law enforcement official made the announcement hours after a White House lawyer on Thursday disclosed that Biden's legal team had found a second set of classified papers from his time as vice president at a storage space at his Delaware home. The White House on Monday disclosed that classified documents from his vice presidential days were discovered in November at a think tank in Washington.
Garland said Robert Hur, a former U.S. attorney in Maryland, would serve as special counsel.
Special counsels are sometimes appointed to investigate politically sensitive cases and they carry out their responsibilities with a degree of independence from the Justice Department leadership, including Garland, who was appointed by Biden. Special counsels sometimes, but not always, pursue criminal charges.
Garland in November named a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee Justice Department investigations related to Donald Trump including the Republican former president's handling of classified documents and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump, defeated by Biden in 2020, in

visit seeded article for remaining content

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
1  seeder  evilgenius    3 weeks ago

Republicans called for it and it's done now.

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

...with a former trump appointee.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago

I'm shocked!  lol

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
2  gooseisback    3 weeks ago

Democrats see the handwriting on the wall, time for Joe to go. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @2    3 weeks ago

Republicans don't care about optics at all.

Ken Paxton has been under SEC investigation for years, yet was re-elected.

Abbott booted the Texas freeze/electric crisis down the road again after firing innocent board members who were following his orders.

Kevin McCarthy ignored subpoenas but now expects others to honor his subpoenas.

Gaetz is still under investigation for sexual something or other.

George Santos, if that's his real name, was sworn into Congress as a known fraud.

Jim Jordan, ignored lawful subpoenas, but expects to be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee as well as the "Weaponization of the Government" witch hunt Committee.

Newt skewered Bill Clinton over a blow job while having an affair and served Mrs. Gingrich #2 divorce paper as she was in the hospital with cancer.

The list goes on and on all the way back to Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixons tax evasions.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
2.1.1  gooseisback  replied to  Split Personality @2.1    3 weeks ago
The list goes on and on all the way back to Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixons tax evasions.

Ok, so what's your point? I think the Democrats are throwing Biden under the bus, not Republicans. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  gooseisback @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

Isn't that what you want?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2.1.3  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  gooseisback @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
I think the Democrats are throwing Biden under the bus, not Republicans. 

I think the DoJ and Garland are doing their jobs. Nothing more, nothing less.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
2.1.4  gooseisback  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
Isn't that what you want?

No, I don't want him impeached. 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
2.1.5  gooseisback  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
I think the DoJ and Garland are doing their jobs

Is Garland doing his job sending the DOJ after parents at school board meetings?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2.1.6  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  gooseisback @2.1.5    3 weeks ago
Is Garland doing his job sending the DOJ after parents at school board meetings?

Your deflection is noted.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
3  al Jizzerror    3 weeks ago

This seed must have hit the NT front page while I was writing my article about the Special counsel.

I apologize for stepping on your seed evilgenius.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
3.1  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  al Jizzerror @3    3 weeks ago

It's all good.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    3 weeks ago

This is also predictable.

In the end, the documents for Trump and Biden will be recovered and properly stored.    Trump and Biden will be chastised for their respective failures.   Neither will face much more than embarrassment.    And there will be another investigation to determine how to ensure our national security is not compromised in this way in the future.    Followed, likely, by a "Secure Documents" bill that will mostly be pork unrelated to national security issues.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4.1  1stwarrior  replied to  TᵢG @4    3 weeks ago

Concur - after all, Hillary was "caught" with an unauthorized server in her basement, had quite a few "classified" documents in her "secure" basement, Comey said her behaviour was "grossly negligent" - nothing happened.

Obama denied knowing that Hillary had the server yet hundreds of mails between the two were on the server.

Nothing happened to either of them - but, they are "D's" and it won't.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1    3 weeks ago

But you concur that nothing will happen to Trump, right?    Trump is not a D.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1    3 weeks ago
“My Corvette is in a locked garage, OK? So it’s not like they’re sitting out on the street,” Biden replied, seeming to brush off the significance of the discovery.

“So it was in a locked garage?” Doocy persisted.

Yes, as well as my Corvette,” Biden admitted.

“But as I said earlier this week, people know I take classified documents and classified material seriously,” the president insisted.

It's truly amazing how similar Biden and Trump are.  But let's see how the "near my corvette" defense plays in a Court of Law.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

Do you recognize any difference in cooperation between the two men?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

 Does "it's okay because they were strored next  to my corvette" sound like a defense Trump would use? 

Cooperation is a defense against obstruction. It is not a defense when the issue is removing SCI documents from their proper place and then improperly storing them in a garage/office. . 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.1.5  gooseisback  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
Do you recognize any difference in cooperation

If there is a crime you think if you cooperate they should just forget about it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.4    3 weeks ago
Does "it's okay because they were strored next  to my corvette" sound like a defense Trump would use? 

Not sure I can offer much on that.   That is a lame excuse regardless of who offers it.   

Cooperation is a defense against obstruction. It is not a defense when the issue is removing SCI documents from their proper place and then improperly storing them in a garage/office. . 

Yes.  Never suggested or even hinted otherwise. 

So are you going to answer my question?   

Do you recognize any difference in cooperation between the two men?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @4.1.5    3 weeks ago

Are you able to answer a direct question?

Instead of answering my question you dream up some ridiculous claim and pretend as though I have made it.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.1.8  gooseisback  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.7    3 weeks ago
ridiculous claim and pretend as though I have made it

The way you frame your question is ridiculous.  Trump's claim is he had the right to declassify the documents, Biden has no such authority whatsoever to be in possession of classified documents after he left the White house while Vice President. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

It appears Biden is cooperating more. But again,  that's not relevant to the actual crime of removing SCI from its proper place of storage. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
"Do you recognize any difference in cooperation between the two men"

It has nothing to with anything. Both probably thought it was OK. More important would be the intent of keeping the documents.

Trump and Biden obviously had some purpose to keep this documents, or....the people packing them screwed up..

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @4.1.8    3 weeks ago

I made no mention of declassification in my question.

Nothing but dishonesty and deflection from you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.10    3 weeks ago
It has nothing to with anything. 

Deflection.   Pathetic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.9    3 weeks ago
It appears Biden is cooperating more.

Yeah, substantially more.

But again,  that's not relevant to the actual crime of removing SCI from its proper place of storage. 

Yes, Sean, both men violated the PRA.   That is not in question.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

Yes, when one got caught they went through the motions of co-operating, even to the point of lawyers signing avadavats as to the finality of the case. Of course that wasn't the end of it because multiple people told the NARA and the FBI that there were many more documents.  To this day, we don't know where else the FBI could or did look in the multiple residences and offices of the former POTUS, who never denied knowing the docs were there and at times even insisted they were his and according to hearsay made numerous excuses as to why he had them. The former POTUS is conducting a heated public relations campaign against the FBI, the DOJ and the Special Counsel.

When the other's lawyer found classified docs as part of the process of closing down an old office, they were reported to and turned over to NARA the next day and the lawyers started a thorough search of both residences, garages and old offices resulting in more discovery.  The current POTUS denied knowing they were there and is cooperating with DOJ and the Special Counsel.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.1.15  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.9    3 weeks ago
It appears Biden is cooperating more. But again,  that's not relevant to the actual crime of removing SCI from its proper place of storage. 

It will be highly relevant to the specific package of charges brought (if any), and any punishment upon conviction. Based on their behaviors so far, I could see Biden and his team paying a modest fine, while someone from the Trump team could conceivably do jail time. Cooperation matters a lot, eventually.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.10    3 weeks ago
Trump and Biden obviously had some purpose to keep this documents, or....the people packing them screwed up..

The difference being that depending on the time of day and the source, Trump packed his own mementos, White House staff did it secretly, or the movers did it in the final days.  There are rumors that Trump often showed certain documents to visitors which is how his whole investigation gained momentum over the missing docs that NARA was demanding.

Biden appears to have been clueless as to their existence in his office or garage and  why they were there locked away for 6 years. VPs don't get libraries after all.

I would say that they both appear to be in violation of

36 CFR § 1230.12

§ 1230.12 What are the penalties for unlawful or accidental   removal , defacing,   alteration , or destruction of records?

The penalties for the unlawful or accidental   removal , defacing,   alteration , or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both ( 18   U.S.C.   641   and   2071 ).

Removal

Removal means selling, donating, loaning, transferring, stealing, or otherwise allowing a record to leave the custody of a Federal agency without the permission of the Archivist of the United States.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @4.1.8    3 weeks ago
Trump's claim is he had the right to declassify the documents, Biden has no such authority whatsoever to be in possession of classified documents after he left the White house while Vice President.

Nonsense, both men had the ability to declassify only while they were in office,

neither should have had these documents after they left office.

Like any Cabinet member the VP can classify or declassify any documents from any administration's VP office.

One disagrees with reality and is fighting every in of the way quite publicly. 

The other has returned the docs post haste and is cooperating with the DOJ and Special Counsel.

One can be charged with willful retention of classified information,

the other barely qualifies for removal.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.15    3 weeks ago
l be highly relevant to the specific package of charges brought (if any), and any punishment upon conviction

Of course. Obstruction opens up a whole other range of punishments, and admitting guilt can often lead to a more lenient settlement than losing a court fight. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
4.1.19  Snuffy  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.17    3 weeks ago
Nonsense, both men had the ability to declassify only while they were in office,

Not quite.  A sitting president does have greater powers to declassify documents (not the magic 'I can declassify anything; according to Trump) while a sitting vice president can only declassify what he has first classified or was classified by the Vice Presidents office.  The VP cannot declassify any other documents.

neither should have had these documents after they left office.

Presidents and vice-presidents have for a long time had a greater latitude in taking classified documents home after they left office, but they needed to house the documents in an approved SCIF.  Neither Trump or Biden had such a secured office in their homes however.  A locked garage or locked closet does not qualify.

Like any Cabinet member the VP can classify or declassify any documents from any administration's VP office.

I would need to do more digging but I believe that cabinet members can only declassify documents if they first classified them or if they were classified by their office as they are the head of their office.  I do not believe they can declassify documents that were classified by anybody else.

One disagrees with reality and is fighting every in of the way quite publicly. 

The other has returned the docs post haste and is cooperating with the DOJ and Special Counsel.

One can be charged with willful retention of classified information,

the other barely qualifies for removal.

Yes, the actions each took after the discovery of the classified documents will come into play in the charges & penalty phase.  How it will turn out I believe is a long time away however.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4.1.20  1stwarrior  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.18    3 weeks ago

Well, now we have THREE "Oopss - where did that come from" with Biden - SIX YEARS after his term as VP - a position that is not authorized to "DECLASSIFY" classified documents.

OOoppss.

Biden team informs DOJ of third classified document discovery

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.20    3 weeks ago
n - SIX YEARS after his term as VP - a position that is not authorized to "DECLASSIFY" classified documents.

Dude, it's fine.  He kept them with his corvette which means they were totally secure.     Only upstanding  people like his son had access to it. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.1.22  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.21    3 weeks ago
 Only upstanding  people like his son had access to it.

Prove it.  Do you think the SS let's anyone wander around in Biden's homes now?

Mine sure don't have keys, codes or permission.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.1.23  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.20    3 weeks ago
SIX YEARS after his term as VP - a position that is not authorized to "DECLASSIFY" classified documents.

As I was "discussing" with Snuffy, the VP can classify and declassify any documents that he classified within his role as the VP.

Same as any Cabinet position.

Two questions remain.

Can a sitting VP declassify anything from a prior VP's term?

And did Obama or Trump declassify these documents already?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.1.24  Split Personality  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.19    3 weeks ago

I recommend $3,000.00 fine per document and restitution of all Federal legal

expenses, so far so good?

With sincere apologies from both Trump & Biden, LoL

One can dream, eh?

 

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
4.1.25  Snuffy  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.23    2 weeks ago
Can a sitting VP declassify anything from a prior VP's term?

Only if they were the one who classified it prior.  ie,  Harris cannot declassify a document that Biden as VP initially classified.

And did Obama or Trump declassify these documents already?

I don't know the answer to that as we don't know much about the details of the documents found in Biden's possession.

And from my reading I don't believe that an ex VP can declassify anymore, must be a sitting VP.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
4.1.26  Snuffy  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.24    2 weeks ago
I recommend $3,000.00 fine per document and restitution of all Federal legal expenses, so far so good?

Works for me but with the national debt I might be tempted to take it higher.  Maybe $2500 per page as a lot of these documents have multiple pages.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.1.27  gooseisback  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.11    2 weeks ago
I made no mention of declassification in my question.

No, you didn't but you are trying to say "cooperation" somehow effects the law.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @4.1.27    2 weeks ago

The PRA does not consider intent.   So cooperation or not, the violation of the PRA is the same.

The Espionage act, however, most definitely considers intent.    Thus if one is considering charging Biden or Trump with the espionage act, then much of the act includes the determination of intent and/or willful breaking of the law.

If one is cooperating in the safe return (securing of) classified documents then that cooperation supports an argument that the improper storage of the documents was not intentional (a mistake, sloppiness, etc.).   If one is NOT cooperating by claiming executive privilege, private property, declassification and by stalling, then it is much more difficult to argue that the improper storage of these classified documents was unintentional.

That is how cooperation matters.   Human beings adjudicate the law and that is a subjective process.   Cooperation bodes well for the defendant - especially when the law names intent as a key factor.

Now, that established, the volume of classified documents is also a key factor.   So if someone had one or a handful of documents it would be hard to deem that gross negligence  (unless the docs were extraordinarily sensitive).   But, in contrast, if one had hundreds of classified documents, it is very difficult to argue that this was a mistake or sloppiness.   The volume indicates (does not prove, just indicates) an intent to do harm.    Thus even if one were to cooperate in the return of hundreds of classified documents, that would not likely make a significant dent because the volume was so great.


Now, in short.

Biden and Trump both violated the PRA.   Both are wrong.   Both can be punished for their actions (and/or failures) because both are ultimately responsible.

Biden's volume of documents is, thus far, small compared to the hundreds of classified documents found in Trump's possession.   So Biden, (at least for now), will benefit from cooperating.   His defense can still be that this was an oversight and was not intentional.   His punishment then would be dealt accordingly.

Trump, in contrast, not only had hundreds of documents (volume) but he did NOT cooperate.    He made excuses, delayed, etc.   Trump's defense will have a substantially more difficult time arguing that this was merely an oversight and that Trump did not really intend to hold any of these documents.

Okay, that lays it all out in detail.   For more information, read the text of the PRA and the text of the Espionage Act.    

By the way, the PRA does not involve any criminal charges but the Espionage Act does.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
4.1.29  al Jizzerror  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.28    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.1.30  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @4.1.27    2 weeks ago

It affects the punishment, not the law.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.30    2 weeks ago

But it also affects the adjudication of the law with regard to the Espionage act.   If one can make the case, for example, that Biden intended to keep these documents for reasons that could harm the USA then the actual charges would be different (and would be criminal).

Biden, currently, has no reasonable question of intent.   So far it looks like this was a mistake / incompetence.

Trump, however, not so much.   Trump has a real liability because it seems one could make a decent argument that he intended to keep these classified documents.   If they could then complete that with a case that his intentions would harm the USA then Trump could face criminal charges.

But I personally think that Trump will not face any charges.   Politically, the discovery of a single Biden classified document is sufficient optics to cause our 'system of justice' to not pursue Trump due to the politics involved.    Since many (most) people will not be aware enough to see the profound differences in these two cases (currently), the public opinion would be 'hypocrisy' and the agents of justice know that.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
4.1.32  al Jizzerror  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.31    2 weeks ago
Since many (most) people will not be aware enough to see the profound differences in these two cases (currently), the public opinion would be 'hypocrisy' and the agents of justice know that.

I find it amusing that those who are screaming about "hypocrisy" are the Republican hypocrites.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.32    2 weeks ago

I think I am now well past amusement and have entered what might be called disgust.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.1.35  gooseisback  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.28    2 weeks ago
improper storage of the documents was not intentional

Explain how the documents made it from one point of improper storage in 2016 to a second point of improper storage in 2018 when the Pen Biden Center opened, unless it was intentional? 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.1.36  gooseisback  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.28    2 weeks ago
criminal charges but the Espionage Act does.

Are you mentioning this for Trump or Biden?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @4.1.35    2 weeks ago

I can only speculate.

One possibility is that the documents were in boxes and that the boxes were considered nothing more than old records.    It would be extremely easy to then move the boxes from one site to another.   

Have you ever moved?    Have you ever had anything stored away in boxes that were moved from one home to another without ever unpacking them?    If not, I am here to tell you that this is easily done.    I have old tax records, for example, that moved from one house to another and I have yet to open the box.

Now, why do you presume ill intent?   Based on what, exactly?    Seems to me you presume the worst given zero information.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @4.1.36    2 weeks ago

Biden's circumstances, currently, would almost certainly NOT involve the espionage act.

Trump's however, clearly could.

But don't worry, Trump will not be prosecuted because finding just one classified document of Biden's ended that.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.1.39  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @4.1.34    2 weeks ago

Thanks.

I guess we will have to slander Jill Biden's character next?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.40  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.28    2 weeks ago
s if one is considering charging Biden or Trump with the espionage act, then much of the act includes the determination of intent and/or willful breaking of the law.

As you should know by now,  the actual text of the  Espionage Act, allows someone to be indicted for gross negligence.  

ead the text of the PRA and the text of the Espionage Act.    

You should probably read it again  so you stop mischaracterizing it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.40    2 weeks ago
the actual text of the  Espionage Act, allows someone to be indicted for gross negligence.  

Sean, I have never, not once, suggested that the Espionage Act CANNOT be used to indict someone for gross negligence. 

My claim is and has been that the Espionage act (as a whole) seriously considers intent (and willfulness).   This is beyond obvious when you read a legal summary of the act and when you read the actual text of the act.

Sections a) b) c) and d) all speak about crimes where intent / willfulness is part of the consideration.   Section e) is the only section that does not mention intent / willfulness by name but instead is concerned with gross negligence.

Your ridiculous claim is that because section e) does not mention intent by name that the Espionage act (as a whole) does not consider intent.   That is demonstrably wrong as evidenced in  sections a) b) c) and d).

So knock it off.    You are wrong.   Get over it.


Full text of the espionage act:

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.

One of many legal summaries of the act: 

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.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
4.1.42  al Jizzerror  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.41    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.42    2 weeks ago

I predict a subsequent denial of the blatantly obvious.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.1.44  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.43    2 weeks ago

One defining difference between the two cases is that while both incidents

involve current staff or past staff at the WH or the VP's office or residence,

indicating some level of negligence, said documents only ended up in one

personal safe.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.44    2 weeks ago

To me, the key differences are a) volume of classified documents discovered, b) who found the documents and c) how the dealt with the discovery

  • In Biden's case, there seem to be about 20 documents.   For Trump it is over 300.
  • Biden operatives found his first batch of documents (by accident).    For Trump, it was NARA who initially discovered the missing documents (first batch).
  • Biden proactively looked for more documents.   Trump resisted cooperating (for months) and attempted to falsely claim declassification, executive privilege and then even personal property.

Although this no longer matters since Trump will now almost assuredly NOT be held accountable,  in terms of analysis the situations remain quite different.

Importantly, the evidence strongly suggests Trump knew of at least some of these documents and tried to NOT return them.   Biden, in contrast, appears to not only seek to return his documents but was proactively trying to find any others that remain.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
4.2  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @4    3 weeks ago

Don't forget the endless Republican Committee investigations. "Benghazi!!!" will be replaced with, "Documents!!!"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @4.2    3 weeks ago

Next up - an investigation of Jim Jordan's head to see if there is anything in there. 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.2.2  gooseisback  replied to  evilgenius @4.2    3 weeks ago
Don't forget the endless Republican Committee investigations. "Benghazi!!!" will be replaced with, "Documents!!!"

Doubtful, the politicizing of the FBI and DOJ are bigger issues.  Documents may come into play when they look into the laptop and trying to sell influence.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisback @4.2.2    3 weeks ago
Doubtful, the politicizing of the FBI and DOJ are bigger issues. 

Imaginary partisan BS always is, isn't it? /s

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
4.2.4  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  gooseisback @4.2.2    2 weeks ago
the politicizing of the FBI and DOJ are bigger issues. 

Yes the Republicans should stop doing that.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.5  devangelical  replied to  gooseisback @4.2.2    2 weeks ago
trying to sell influence

do trumpsters really want to open that can of worms? go for it...

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.2.6  gooseisback  replied to  devangelical @4.2.5    2 weeks ago
do trumpsters really want to open that can of worms? go for it..

Fuck, yes!

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.2.7  gooseisback  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.3    2 weeks ago
Imaginary partisan BS always is, isn't it? /s

Oh, yes. Those terrorist parents that showed up at school board meetings, Ha!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2.8  Ender  replied to  gooseisback @4.2.7    2 weeks ago

I would want security against those wack jobs too.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
4.2.9  al Jizzerror  replied to  gooseisback @4.2.7    2 weeks ago
Those terrorist parents that showed up at school board meetings

Parents never terrorize anyone unless they advocate masks or unless they imagine schools are teaching anything about race or sex.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2.10  Ender  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.2.9    2 weeks ago

There are some dumb ass people around....

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.2.11  gooseisback  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.2.9    2 weeks ago

Is that Jethro Tull?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Sophomore Quiet
4.2.12  afrayedknot  replied to  gooseisback @4.2.11    2 weeks ago

“Really don't mind if you sit this one out
My words but a whisper your deafness a shout
I may make you feel but I can't make you think
Your sperm's in the gutter, your love's in the sink
So you ride yourselves over the fields and
You make all your animal deals and
Your wise men don't know how it feels
To be thick as a brick”

That’s ‘Jethro Tull’…timeless, yes?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @4.2.11    2 weeks ago

You are thinking of  Ian Anderson.   Jethro Tull is the name of the group; it is not a living individual (the source of the name is dead).

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
4.2.14  al Jizzerror  replied to  gooseisback @4.2.11    2 weeks ago
Is that Jethro Tull?

No, butt he could be "Aqualung"

Sitting on a park bench
Eyeing little girls with bad intent
Snot's running down his nose
Greasy fingers, smearing shabby clothes
Hey, Aqualung
Drying in the cold sun
Watching as the frilly panties run
Hey, Aqualung
Feeling like a dead duck
Spitting out pieces of his broken luck
Oh, Aqualung

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

Well, Biden seems to have single handedly fucked any chance of holding presidents accountable for their bullshit. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
5.1  Snuffy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5    2 weeks ago

Obama warned us...

Barack Obama reportedly spoke with a Democrat, expressing his private doubts about Joe Biden  becoming the Democrat presidential nominee  in 2020.

According to Politico , the former president said: "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f... things up."

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2  TᵢG  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5    2 weeks ago

At least accountability for PRA violations.     

The one good thing that might come out of Trump and Biden's respective violations is that maybe our government will get a clue that our national security is at risk and that this can be solved by implementing and enforcing a strict protocol for the management of classified information.   Obviously this already exists but also obviously what exists is imperfect.

 
 

Who is online


Drakkonis
Nerm_L
Hallux
afrayedknot
Jack_TX
Ed-NavDoc
Wishful_thinkin


40 visitors