Biden's '68 days of silence' on the documents farce

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  1stwarrior  •  one week ago  •  242 comments

Biden's '68 days of silence' on the documents farce
White House used group of loyalists including Joe's sister to keep discovery secret for six weeks in failed plot to prevent a Special Counsel and make debacle go away, bombshell report claims

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



President Joe Biden and a small team of trusted advisers, including his sister Valerie, plotted to keep the discovery of classified documents a secret, betting that they could quietly handle the problem without it becoming public knowledge, a bombshell new report claimed on Friday.

For 68 days they succeeded. Then it blew up in their faces.

Biden and six of his closest advisers, all of whom were aware of the initial discovery of   classified documents at the president's D.C. think tank   on Nov. 2 -   gambled they could keep the matter a secret   and   deal with the Justice Department privately .

They chose to keep silent and try to convince the DoJ it was a simple mistake, unlike Donald Trump's refusal to return the classified material - at the National Archives' request - kept at his Mar-a-Lago estate,   The New York Times   reported. 

But their plans backfired when CBS News reported on the existence of the Biden documents on January 9th, leading to a chain reaction that developed into a full-blown crisis for the White House where Biden's reputation took a hit, Republicans accused him of hypocrisy, and even Democrats questioned the administration's judgement in the matter.

Both their attempts to control the story and to handle the Justice Department failed: Attorney General Merrick Garland ultimately appointed a special counsel to look into the matter as he did for the Trump classified documents' case.

Biden, himself, has taken a personal hit, with his refusal to disclose the discovery immediately to the public - especially when it was revealed the initial discovery was made six days before the 2022 midterm election.

The president grew defensive on the matter when asked about it in California on Thursday, berating the media for not asking him about the efforts the federal government was making to help the flood-damaged state.

'What, quite frankly, bugs me is that we have serious problem here we're talking about - we're talking about what's going on and the American people don't quite understand why you don't ask me questions about that,' he said.

He then read from a prepared statement, where he said he had 'no regrets' and 'there's no there there.' 

'As we found we found a handful of documents were failed -filed - for the wrong place. We immediately turn them over to the archives of the Justice Department. We're fully cooperating looking forward to getting this resolved quickly,' he said. 

'I think you're gonna find there's nothing there. I have no regrets. I'm following what the lawyers have told me they want me to do. It's exactly what we're doing. There's no there there.'

The initial discussions on how to deal with the discovery were tightly held by a core group of Biden loyalists led by the husband and wife team of Bob Bauer, who is Biden's personal attorney, and Anita Dunn, who serves as a senior adviser in the White House. 

Also in the discussions were Biden's sister Valerie Biden Owens; White House senior adviser Mike Donilon; White House counsel Stuart Delery; and White House lawyer Richard Sauber.

But taking the public beating has been White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who is grilled in her daily press briefings with questions about why the discovery wasn't publicly disclosed, the validity of the information she is giving to the public, and what else is being kept hidden.

Jean-Pierre has admitted she and her press team learned about the documents' existence when CBS News asked about it for their story - which was two months after the initial discovery.

She's also made a series of misstatements - including saying six times the search for more documents was completed, only for five more to be found - that are compounding the public relations problems for the White House.

All of this - the lack of disclosures, the misstatements, and Biden's testiness - has contributed to the impression the White House has not been forthcoming and that their strategy on this has been a mistake. 

Even some Democrats are questioning the wisdom of the White House's decision making on the matter. 

'I definitely think that we want to get answers from the White House,' said Democratic Rep. Katie Porter.  

Complicating the matter is the discovery of documents in Biden's garage in Wilmington, Delaware, home. 

That December 20th discovery wasn't made public until five days after the discovery of the think tank documents was revealed - leading to questions about why it wasn't disclosed when the White House confirmed the initial tranche of classified information.

The White House has repeatedly insisted it is cooperating with the Justice Department and following all legal procedures properly. The administration argues it was transparent with the federal government - immediately informing the National Archives of the materials - even if it didn't disclose it to the general public.

Officials have not answered questions on why the discovery was kept a secret from the American people for so long.

In total, there have been four discoveries of classified materials: at the Penn-Biden Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C.; in Biden's garage at his Wilmington, Del., home; one document discovered in his 'personal library' in the same home and then four more documents found in his home.

All date back to Biden's time as vice president under Barack Obama but the White House won't answer as to what topics the materials cover. 

Administration officials had plenty of opportunities to disclose each discovery.

But it was Garland who gave a timeline for when each discovery was made and when it was revealed to the Justice Department, demonstrating the long gap between when Biden's team knew about the documents and when they publicly admitted to their existence. 

In the wake of the scandal, Biden's approval rating is getting back toward the lowest numbers of his presidency - despite coming off a strong performance by Democrats in the midterm election and the growing economy. 

A Reuters-Ipsos poll - conducted amid the fallout of the documents scandal - found only 40 percent of Americans approved of Biden's performance as president. 

Politically, in addition to hurting Biden's reputation, the White House handling of the matter has also taken the issue off the table for the 2024 presidential campaign.

Biden personally criticized Trump for holding onto classified documents from his time in office.

'How that could possibly happen? How anyone could be that irresponsible? And I thought what data was in there that would maybe compromise sources and methods?' he said to CBS' 60 Minutes at the time. 'And it just – totally irresponsible.'

Now the White House is trying to compare their handling of the situation to Trump's, hoping they come out as having taken the high road.

It was Anita Dunn, a longtime Democratic operative and adviser to Biden who founded the powerful Democratic firm SKDKnickerbocker, who pushed that strategy,   The New York Times   reported. 

She and other officials are betting that the public views Biden and Trump differently, banking on Biden's long reputation as a public servant to ultimately come out in their favor. 

Aides also say they are wary of speaking about the case publicly as they don't want to be seen as trying to influence the Justice Department.

Bob Bauer, Biden's personal attorney, argued public disclosures were limited in an effort not to influence the investigation.

'The President’s personal attorneys have attempted to balance the importance of public transparency where appropriate with the established norms and limitations necessary to protect the investigation’s integrity. These considerations require avoiding the public release of detail relevant to the investigation while it is ongoing,' he said in a statement this weekend.

He also added that 'regular ongoing public disclosures also pose the risk that, as further information develops, answers provided on this periodic basis may be incomplete.'

Ultimately Biden's aides hope their cooperation with the Justice Department and trying to avoid the public appearance of influencing the investigation will pay off in their favor in the long run.

Only time will tell if that bet has paid off. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1  seeder  1stwarrior    one week ago

Oh yeah - and the "documents" found at the think-tank had been moved there from another location by one of Biden's aides who was not an attorney, but a friend of Hunter's.  Why not part of this discussion peps?

Biden classified files were sent to ANOTHER D.C. location before they were stored at think tank - by team led by aide who'd been recommended by Hunter - sparking more questions about the documents debacle

The initial discussions on how to deal with the discovery were tightly held by a core group of Biden loyalists led by the husband and wife team of Bob Bauer, who is Biden's personal attorney, and Anita Dunn, who serves as a senior adviser in the White House. 

Also in the discussions were Biden's sister Valerie Biden Owens ; White House senior adviser Mike Donilon; White House counsel Stuart Delery; and White House lawyer Richard Sauber.

And all those "friends" had the specific security clearances to handle the documents - if they did??

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2  Texan1211    one week ago

Oh, well, Joe says there is no there there.

Of course, that changes everything!

Some liberals will undoubtedly downplay this report because of the source. Which is typical when they can't argue the facts successfully.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @2    one week ago
Oh, well, Joe says there is no there there.

That's good enough for me & Corn Pop.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3  Ronin2    one week ago

There needs to be a full investigation of this coverup by the White House, DOJ, NARA, and the FBI.

This is the shit China and Russia leaders pull off; it is not supposed to happen in the US.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4  Sparty On    one week ago

Yep, 68 days is bad but two years is worse.

Two years of inaction on the border.    Only now is he starting to talk about securing it.   

Sorry for the off topic First but it felt like it fit ....

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Sparty On @4    one week ago

No problem Sparty - but ya know it's been SIX YEARS + Corn Pop has had the classified documents and ya notice that the Dems just don't give a shyte.

Impeach him - lock him up - he is a total disgrace.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1    one week ago
Impeach him - lock him up - he is a total disgrace.

Are y'all really ready for a POTUS named Harris?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
4.1.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.1    one week ago

Even diehard Dems who voted for the basement Biden/Harris ticket in 2020 don't want her to be POTUS. She's always been his insurance policy!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.1    one week ago

Is that a threat to keep Brandon in charge?

Not working. 

He has been such a disaster that she can't be much worse. Better still she will really be one and done. Not even leftists like her. No way she wins reelection.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.1    one week ago

No, I don’t support her or vote for her.

How about you?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
4.1.5  Jasper2529  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1    one week ago
but ya know it's been SIX YEARS

There are a lot of suspicious and mysterious heads to the Biden Family Crime Syndicate Snake. 

Word on the street is that Biden has also withheld Classified Docs from his US Senator years (decades!). And, nobody seems to know where the 3.1 carat diamond CCP connections gifted to Hunter while Joe was VP.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5  Ed-NavDoc    one week ago

I can believe Biden has "..no regrets." But then again Biden, his family, and his minions have zero shame either about anything.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
6  Jasper2529    one week ago

"I have no regrets. There's no there, there." - President Joe Biden, 19Jan2023

Really, Joe? You and your handlers actually think that all Americans believe anything you read off a piece of paper? Think again! Even many Democrats no longer believe the crap you spew.

 
 
 
Have Opinion Will Travel
Professor Participates
7  Have Opinion Will Travel    one week ago

Not like I believed him anyway, but we do have video of him saying anybody that treated classified documents as he has should not be allowed to hold office.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @7    one week ago

Well, yeah, but hasn't the WH issued a statement 'clarifying' what Biden really meant?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
7.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    one week ago
Well, yeah, but hasn't the WH issued a statement 'clarifying' what Biden really meant?

The Biden WH staff clean-ups to clarify what he really meant are legion.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
8  Snuffy    one week ago

I thought the White House cleared it up that the Wilmington house had been fully searched and all classified material had been found and turned over to the DOJ.  So why another search Friday where they found another six items consisting of documents with classification markings and surrounding materials.

FBI investigators on Friday found additional classified material while conducting a search of President Joe Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, home .

Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney, said in a statement that during the search, which took place over nearly 13 hours Friday, “DOJ took possession of materials it deemed within the scope of its inquiry, including six items consisting of documents with classification markings and surrounding materials, some of which were from the President’s service in the Senate and some of which were from his tenure as Vice President. DOJ also took for further review personally handwritten notes from the vice-presidential years.”

Those six items are in addition to materials previously found at Biden’s Wilmington residence and in his private office.

And an interesting double standard at play.  Also in the same article...

The federal search of BIden’s home , while voluntary, marks an escalation of special counsel Robert Hur’s probe into the president’s handling of classified documents and will inevitably draw comparisons to his predecessor, former President Donald Trump – even if the FBI’s search of Trump’s residence was conducted under different circumstances.

The FBI five months ago obtained a search warrant to search Trump’s Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago, an unprecedented step that was taken because federal investigators had evidence suggesting Trump had not handed over all classified materials in his possession after receiving a subpoena to turn over classified documents to the National Archives. Trump’s handling of classified material at Mar-a-Lago is also the subject of a special counsel investigation led by Jack Smith.

The search shows that federal investigators are swiftly moving forward with the probe into classified documents found in Biden’s possession. Hur, who was appointed a little more than a week ago, is investigating how the president and his team handled Obama-era classified documents that were recently found in Biden’s private possession.

The FBI search was done with the consent of the president’s attorneys, people briefed on the matter said. The FBI also previously picked up documents found at the residence, which the Biden team disclosed last week.

The search did not require a search warrant or subpoena, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Bauer said that representatives of Biden’s personal legal team and the White House Counsel’s Office were present during the “thorough search,” during which they had “full access” to the Biden home.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @8    one week ago
So why another search Friday where they found another six items consisting of documents with classification markings and surrounding materials.

Because the DoJ wanted to ensure the search was thorough and the way to accomplish that is to have experts in searching conduct the search.   Biden's team worked with the DoJ (not against them).

And an interesting double standard at play. 

The search of Biden's home was voluntary.   No search warrant was necessary since Biden is fully cooperating and is not engaging in delay tactics.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
8.1.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  TᵢG @8.1    one week ago

TiG - you really need to understand how the government is "supposed" to work and the team's "voluntary" efforts are nothing more than pure sham.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  1stwarrior @8.1.1    one week ago

"Voluntary" is used to connote cooperation as opposed to non-cooperation.

Don't read so much into the use of an English word in a brief comment.   None of us write dissertations designed to cover all the semantic nuances of language to make a very specific point.   We rely upon good word choice and a level of reasonableness in the reader.

Of course I understand that Biden had no practical political choice other than to cooperate.   But we have just had a former PotUS NOT cooperate when he also had no practical political choice other than to cooperate.   The two situations are quite different and the words "voluntary" to connote Biden's willingness to not force the DoJ to secure a search warrant (weeks if not months down the road) is quite different from Trump's unwillingness to cooperate and the need to issue a search warrant to force a search of his home.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.2    one week ago

Brandon apologist.

Brandon's sanitation team couldn't even do it's damn job correctly. As the FBI found more classified documents in his house that had been supposedly fully search. Brandon's sanitation team also didn't have security clearance to view classified documents. They knowingly violated the law in their search. DOJ and FBI condoned it be not only letting it occur w/o supervision; but then allowing these same people to oversee the FBI search of the residence.

Funny how that same privilege wasn't extended to Trump's lawyers that were on hand for the Mar-a-Lago raid. Guess the FBI just had to have some of Melania's dresses for their Hoover fashion show. Not mention their passports; and whatever else they made off with in those containers full of boxes- many of which weren't the size of anything that could have ever contained classified documents. 

I have said repeatedly that the laws either apply to everyone or no one.

Leftist apologists are the reason we have a two tier justice system now; and while soon laws will apply to no one.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.3    one week ago

Emotional partisan who cannot distinguish countering partisan nonsense from 'defending' Biden.    I have stated repeatedly that Biden is at fault.   My comments on this topic have exclusively focused on countering the nonsense claims of those trying desperately to inflate and twist the facts of this case.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.4    one week ago

The only fact twisting is being done by you.

Brandon should not be allowed to have a hand picked paid for sanitation team search for the documents. Especially one that that doesn't have proper security clearance to handle classified documents. Throw in the fact they missed classified documents in a home they claim they cleared.

You can spin it any way you want. The facts will never change that Brandon (who violated the law handling classified documents while both a VP and Senator) is being allowed a special privilege by the DOJ and FBI. 

Cooperating 30 years plus after the fact is not cooperating. It is covering up.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.6  bugsy  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.5    one week ago

Some will go to the ends of the earth to defend their savior Brandon.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.5    one week ago

Didn't they just find more documents in the house that Biden's lawyers previously searched and declared nothing was there?

And what in hell is Biden doing with anything classified from his Senate days?

Does anyone in DC know a damn thing about securing documents?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.5    one week ago
The only fact twisting is being done by you.

Typical bullshit.  

FACT:  Biden's team worked with the DoJ (not against them).

FACT:  The search of Biden's home was voluntary.   No search warrant was necessary since Biden is fully cooperating and is not engaging in delay tactics.

I state facts to counter partisan bullshit.

The facts will never change that Brandon (who violated the law handling classified documents while both a VP and Senator) is being allowed a special privilege by the DOJ and FBI. 

What is this 'special privilege'?   Be specific.

Cooperating 30 years plus after the fact is not cooperating. It is covering up.

Ridiculous.    Here you are claiming that Biden's cooperation in recovering these documents is not really cooperation.   If this is not cooperation, what in your bizarro land would constitute cooperation?

What nonsense.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.1.6    one week ago
Some will go to the ends of the earth to defend their savior Brandon.

In lieu of an argument you (big surprise) invent a strawman. 

You know all too well that I hold Biden accountable for his violation of the PRA.   But you, et. al. cannot stick with the facts.   You seem driven to extend the facts with hyperbole and fantasy.    Look at the post you just voted up:   claiming that Biden is not cooperating.   So what would Biden have to do to cooperate in your bizarro world?

Post a ridiculous alternate reality and you invite a challenge to your nonsense.   

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.10  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.9    one week ago
You know all too well that I hold Biden accountable for his violation of the PRA

Never said you didn't.

I said you hold them to different standards, and now are twisting in the wind to defend Biden for his MULTIPLE LOCATIONS of classified documents, where Trump only had one location. Also, as you have been educated more than once, Trump, whether he did or not, had authority to declassify, where Biden did not.

Now we find that some documents go back to Biden's senate days, so, how far back are we going? Biden was in the Senate for decades.

As far as cooperating....how do you really know? Because you heard it on the news? Because the press secretary told you?

Because Biden told you?

Are they cooperating because they got caught? Did they hem and haw about cooperating when it was first found out way back in November? How many more locations are we needing to find out about before your defense of Biden wanes?

You sure do believe a lot to be able to defend Biden?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.11  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.9    one week ago

BTW...there are reports that Biden's aides tried to hide the finding of the documents from the public

How is that being transparent and cooperating?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @8.1.11    one week ago

How is that being transparent and cooperating?

To many liberal Democrats, that IS 'cooperating'.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
8.1.13  Jasper2529  replied to  bugsy @8.1.10    one week ago
How many more locations are we needing to find out about before your defense of Biden wanes?

Well, so far, there have been either 4 or 5 locations before the documents were finally found at Penn/Biden and the Wilmington house. If I'm not mistaken, Biden's Rehoboth house hasn't yet been searched.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.14  bugsy  replied to  Jasper2529 @8.1.13    one week ago
Well, so far, there have been either 4 or 5 locations before the documents were finally found at Penn/Biden and the Wilmington house.

There are reports that a woman, at the recommendation of Hunter, moved the boxes found at Penn state to a location in chinatown in DC and were left there approximately 6 months before they were moved to Penn State.

Who knows how many foreign eyes were laid upon those documents during those 6 months?

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
8.1.15  Snuffy  replied to  Jasper2529 @8.1.13    one week ago
If I'm not mistaken, Biden's Rehoboth house hasn't yet been searched.

If I remember correctly, the White House said early in this mess that Bidens staff (don't remember if it was staff members or lawyers) did search his Rehoboth house and didn't find any classified documents.  But that's all I have on that, cannot find that article anymore as it was from the very early days.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.16  bugsy  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.15    one week ago

Well, we have found that most things the admin has been saying about this has been lies, so it would be yet another one.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.1.10    one week ago
and now are twisting in the wind to defend Biden

And yet again you conflate countering exaggerations with defending Biden.  

... MULTIPLE LOCATIONS of classified documents, where Trump only had one location ...

I would think the number and severity of the documents matters more than the number of locations.    And what should matter the most (besides securing these documents) is what Biden is doing.   Is he playing games like Trump did (claiming executive privilege, claiming declassification, claiming private property, stonewalling, etc.) or is he cooperating to find all classified docs?

Also, as you have been educated more than once, Trump, whether he did or not, had authority to declassify, where Biden did not.

You pretend someone educated me on that fact?   Here you go putting forth a false claim implying that I was unaware of an obvious fact.   Now, on this fact, you are wrong on details.

  • Trump had the authority to declassify while he was PotUS and to use that authority he would have to formally declassify (meaning there would be records).   He did not do so.   So his past ability to declassify is entirely irrelevant.
  • Biden did indeed have the ability to declassify anything that he personally classified while V.P.    But, unlike Trump, Biden has not claimed that these documents were declassified so this is also entirely irrelevant.

So basically you are tossing shit out to see if anything sticks.   Get an argument.

As far as cooperating....how do you really know? 

Well, Bugsy, do you have any evidence whatsoever that suggests Biden is not cooperating?    All information thus far consistently affirms that Biden is cooperating and nothing to the contrary.    Here you go again with wishful thinking instead of simply following the evidence.  

Are they cooperating because they got caught? 

Biden's attorney found the original documents.   How is that getting "caught"?   More twisting of reality for partisan purposes.


It is funny watching you twist and turn in a misguided attempt to amplify Biden's violation of the PRA in order to make Trump's more 'acceptable'.   Pathetic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.1.11    one week ago
BTW...there are reports that Biden's aides tried to hide the finding of the documents from the public

There are 'reports'?    LOL    

How desperate.   Biden is clearly cooperating and you are so desperate to counter what is obvious that you now put forth "there are reports".   

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.19  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.17    one week ago
Look, I am not going to get caught up in one of your "Biden is not as bad as Trump" arguments.
Face it. Biden got caught...with MULTIPLE documents in MULTIPLE locations....all of them unsecure
"It is funny watching you twist and turn in a misguided attempt to amplify Biden's violation of the PRA in order to make Trump's more 'acceptable'.   Pathetic.
It's funny watching you twist and turn a misguided attempt to downplay Biden's multiple theft of classified documents and hiding them in multiple locations in order to make Trump's one location of documents unacceptable.
Pathetic.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
8.1.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.18    one week ago
There are 'reports'?    LOL 

Is that the new "some people are saying?"

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
8.1.21  Jasper2529  replied to  bugsy @8.1.14    one week ago
There are reports that a woman, at the recommendation of Hunter, moved the boxes found at Penn state to a location in chinatown in DC and were left there approximately 6 months before they were moved to Penn State. Who knows how many foreign eyes were laid upon those documents during those 6 months?

Yes. Her surname is Chung. After she oversaw the moving of boxes to various locations in DC and Wilmington, she got a job with the CCP. Curiouser and curiouser, but typical Biden Syndicate.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.1.19    one week ago
Look, I am not going to get caught up in one of your "Biden is not as bad as Trump" arguments.

Good choice, since your position is a loser.

Face it. Biden got caught...with MULTIPLE documents in MULTIPLE locations....all of them unsecure

Funny how you try to change the circumstances into Biden getting "caught" instead of Biden's attorney discovering classified documents.    More partisan spin.

And you end with a Pee Wee Herman retort ... simply restating my words with substitution.   

You claim Biden "stole" and "hid" the documents implying he intentionally took them.   Where is your evidence for this claim?  

Nothing but partisan exaggerations.

Do you also believe that Trump "stole" and "hid" documents?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.20    one week ago

Odd how some will take a whiff of a rumor and run with it when it is negative for 'the other side' but will blindly defend to the point of utter absurdity for those on 'their side'.

Partisanship kills objectivity and critical thinking.

Nowadays this seems to afflict the R side more than the D side.    I strongly suspect this is a byproduct of the Trump infection.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.9    one week ago

Facts shmacts

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @8.1.14    one week ago

Citation?

Plus

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.17    one week ago

Hilarious that some claim that they are educating you!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.18    one week ago

Let's see those 'reports' then, right TiG?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @8.1.21    one week ago

Citation needed

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.20    one week ago

Or 'is that what they're calling it these days?'

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.26    one week ago

Slimy tactics, invented "facts", and taunting is to be expected from those who have no argument yet continue to try to defend Trump thinking that this is (somehow) defending the GoP.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.27    one week ago

Thing is there can be all sorts of reports the Biden and/or aides were trying to not release these findings to the public.    And if true, then Biden was wrong to try to hide this.   But if Biden and aides were working with government departments to find and secure classified documents then they were cooperating.   It is bizarre watching people desperately try to "argue" that Biden has not been cooperating.   Back to trying to change the meaning of a well-established English word to pursue some partisan objective.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
8.1.32  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.28    one week ago
Citation needed

Glad to oblige. I've c/p only a portion of the article. If you wish to read all of it, please click on the "citation" I provided.

Published   January 12, 2023 9:03pm EST

A former top aide to President Biden — who reportedly was questioned by federal investigators as part of the   probe into the president's handling   of classified documents — exchanged emails with Hunter Biden on numerous occasions, according to a Fox News Digital review.

Kathy Chung , Biden's executive assistant when he was vice president and the Pentagon's current deputy director of protocol, is among several former aides to the president to be interviewed by law enforcement, NBC News reported Thursday . Chung and the others questioned reportedly helped move materials and belongings from Biden's office at the end of the Obama administration in early 2017.

Hunter Biden's attorney and Chung did not immediately respond to a Fox News Digital media inquiry.

Re: Kathy Chung herself, there are no photos of her that I can find - very unusual for someone who was a top-tier aide to a VP who, along with his son, had deep financial ties with China, both privately and publicly. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.1.33  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @8.1.32    one week ago

Let me point out a few things here from your citation.

A former top aide to President Biden — who reportedly was questioned by federal investigators as part of the   probe into the president's handling   of classified documents — exchanged emails with Hunter Biden on numerous occasions, according to a Fox News Digital review.

So investigators did their jobs by interviewing a top aide of Biden.  Whoopdee do! 

And that top aid had the audacity to email Biden's son.  Wow, the reaching here is ridiculous.  In other words, "SO WHAT!"

Kathy Chung , Biden's executive assistant when he was vice president and the Pentagon's current deputy director of protocol, is among several former aides to the president to be interviewed by law enforcement, NBC News reported Thursday .

Again, they are interviewing someone from Biden's time as VP.  Again, Whoopdee do!

Chung and the others questioned reportedly helped move materials and belongings from Biden's office at the end of the Obama administration in early 2017.

You expected Biden to move everything by himself?  No mention of them moving "classified" documents.  They helped move boxes and stuff.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.34  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.33    one week ago

Do you have any reasonable, plausible explanation as to why Biden would STILL have in his possession classified documents from either his time as a Senator or VP?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
8.1.35  Jasper2529  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.33    one week ago
And that top aid had the audacity to email Biden's son.  Wow, the reaching here is ridiculous.  In other words, "SO WHAT!"

Please keep spinning.

You missed the part stating that Hunter's emails show that he made the first contact in order to recruit her for the job. With his deep ties to the CCP, I'm not surprised! 

You also missed the part stating that she was in charge of moving VP Biden's boxes to a location in Chinatown (one of many locations yet to be searched).

Hey ... do you have any info about where that 3.2 karat diamond the CCP gave Hunter might be these days?

[Bartiromo] And we just showed a picture of the diamond, 3.2-karat diamond that Hunter Biden accepted from Chinese officials . This, we know from the laptop. We know that there is -- there are ways to hide wealth in diamonds, because you don't have to put it in a will. You don't have to pay taxes. You just give it to somebody else. He accepted this diamond.

What powers are left to combat this?

COMER: Look, we know a lot more about the diamond than I need to talk about right now.

That diamond was given to Hunter at about the time these documents were being transported to different locations. It's very concerning. Two ways the Chinese try to launder money into the United States are through the art world and through diamonds.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.1.36  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.34    one week ago

Do you have any reasonable, plausible explanation as to why Biden would STILL have in his possession classified documents from either his time as a Senator or VP?

More than likely because he forgot he had them.  There has been no evidence that he took them for nefarious reasons like a certain former POTUS (45).

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.1.37  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @8.1.35    one week ago
Please keep spinning.

You think it is unusual for someone that knows Biden, and his family, might have reason to email Hunter?  Why don't you tell us all what the emails were in reference to?

As to everything else in your comment...

a-foil-hat-actually-amplifies-some-radio-frequencies.png?w=350&h=298&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format%2Ccompress&blend=000000&blendAlpha=45&blendMode=normal

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
8.1.38  Jasper2529  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.37    one week ago

I provided accurate citations in comments 8.1.32 and 8.1.35 but all I've gotten in return are silence, excuses, and a tin foil hat. Please forgive me for not being surprised! 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.36    one week ago

Given Biden's diminished mental state, that is certainly possible.

Nice deflection to Trump since there is no good reason Biden had any of those documents.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.1.40  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @8.1.38    one week ago
I provided accurate citations in comments 8.1.32 and 8.1.35 but all I've gotten in return are silence, excuses, and a tin foil hat.

And as I pointed out here , your citations were worthless.  At no time did your citations point out any wrongdoing.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.1.41  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.39    one week ago
Given Biden's diminished mental state, that is certainly possible.

[deleted,] I assume since there is just as much evidence for yours, as for his, I see no point in trying to force you to understand facts.  

Nice deflection to Trump since there is no good reason Biden had any of those documents.

And you seemingly cannot grasp the fact that nobody is defending Biden's having the documents.  Everyone is pointing out the fact that Biden did what was proper once they were found.  Unlike someone else.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.42  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.20    one week ago

OK, how about THIS report?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.41    one week ago
Removed for context

[deleted]

There are articles all over the place about Trump.

I know this may prove painful, but not everyone is obsessed with Trump and have to drag him into an article about Biden. It is a waste of time and pretty damn dumb.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.44  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.22    one week ago
Good choice, since your position is a loser.

Nope. I have never lost an argument with you or anyone else on here.

"Funny how you try to change the circumstances into Biden getting "caught" instead of Biden's attorney discovering classified documents. "

Funny how you believe everything Biden and his lackeys are telling you. Your defense of Biden is almost sickening.

"You claim Biden "stole" and "hid" the documents implying he intentionally took them. "

If he had classified them, then declassified them, you may have a point, but since no one in the admin has has made this claim, it is pretty much assured that is not the case.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.45  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.24    one week ago
[deleted]
[member is not the topic]
 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.46  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.25    one week ago
Citation?

See 8.1.42.

[deleted, member is not the topic]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.47  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.36    one week ago
More than likely because he forgot he had them. 

In several different locations, including his office in his home?

Holy shit the defense of Biden is deafening.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.48  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.43    one week ago
It is a waste of time and pretty damn dumb.

[deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.49  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.22    one week ago
Do you also believe that Trump "stole" and "hid" documents?

I believe he initially thought he had the right to keep those documents, but if he can't prove he declassified them, then yes...he stole them. I wouldn't say hid because the FBI and the archives always knew where they were.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.1.44    one week ago
Nope. I have never lost an argument with you or anyone else on here.

Proof of delusion.   

If he had classified them, then declassified them, you may have a point, but since no one in the admin has has made this claim, it is pretty much assured that is not the case.

I am not aware of anyone claiming that Biden declassified documents.   That was one of Trump's bullshit claims.    But if Biden were to claim declassification then it would only apply to documents that he personally classified and, as with Trump, there would need to be a record (proof) that the declassification was done.

You claim that Biden "stole" and "hid" these documents has zero supporting evidence.   But note that your allegation of intent (theft and hiding) on Biden would apply in even stronger terms to Trump.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.1.49    one week ago
TiG @8.1.22 ☞ Do you also believe that Trump "stole" and "hid" documents?
Bugsy @8.1.49 ☞ I believe he initially thought he had the right to keep those documents, but if he can't prove he declassified them, then yes...he stole them. I wouldn't say hid because the FBI and the archives always knew where they were.

Okay, well if you claim that Trump stole his documents then you have logical license to claim Biden stole his.   Because clearly you are completely convinced that both men knowingly took these documents.    Your conviction lacks good evidence, but it is your right to leap to pure speculation as fact.    The rest of us have the right to laugh at your leaps.

As for hidden, DoJ and NARA did NOT always know where the documents were as evidenced by the fact that they conducted a detailed search of Trump's residence.  Part of the problem with our national security is that they were looking for any classified documents rather than having a specific list of documents they knew Trump had and were out to secure.

But if you claim Biden hid documents then by the same token you would have to assert Trump hid them as well because in neither case did the officials responsible for said documents know specifically the contents at the locations.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.52  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.50    one week ago
I am not aware of anyone claiming that Biden declassified documents. 

My God.....that's why I posted "but since no one in the admin has has made this claim,"

"But if Biden were to claim declassification then it would only apply to documents that he personally classified and, as with Trump, there would need to be a record (proof) that the declassification was done."

No shit. I've been making this point to you incessantly.

"You claim that Biden "stole" and "hid" these documents has zero supporting evidence."

His stole and hid them. Your unwavering defense of Biden simply will not let you see this"

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.53  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.51    one week ago
Okay, well

Moving the goal posts now. Not buying your bs.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.54  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.1.52    one week ago
No shit. I've been making this point to you incessantly.

You have no argument so you just deliver more bullshit.

His stole and hid them. Your unwavering defense of Biden simply will not let you see this"

Your use of emotive language is what I object to.   You can technically use "stole" if you wish to connote "illegally take without intent to return".   That technically, works.   However, in normal conversation, if you claim that someone "stole" something that typically connotes to a willful intent to break the law.    As I have written, if Biden is telling the truth, then he did not have a willful intent to break the law.   Trump, however, has already stepped in it by trying to claim that he declassified the documents.   That is evidence that he knew that he had to declassify the documents and, since the documents were not declassified, that the documents were still classified.

You are so blinded by partisanship that you cannot see that most of your allegations of Biden apply to Trump and often at a worse level.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.55  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.1.53    one week ago

Yet again, you have no argument so you offer bullshit.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.56  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.54    one week ago
Your use of emotive language is what I object to.   You can technically use "stole" if you wish to connote "illegally take without intent to return".   That technically, works.   However, in normal conversation, if you claim that someone "stole" something that typically connotes to a willful intent to break the law.    As I have written, if Biden is telling the truth, then he did not have a willful intent to break the law.   Trump, however, has already stepped in it by trying to claim that he declassified the documents.   That is evidence that he knew that he had to declassify the documents and, since the documents were not declassified, that the documents were still classified.

No one asked for your opinion and no one gives a crap what you "object to"

"You are so blinded by partisanship"

Right back atcha

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.57  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.1.56    one week ago

Again, you have no rebuttal.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.1.58  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @8.1.47    one week ago
In several different locations, including his office in his home?

How does location fit in with memory?  All documents were old, some decades old.  This seems to indicate he simply forgot about them.

Holy shit the defense of Biden is deafening.

Once again your failure to understand my position, despite my outlining it in the comment you are responding to, is telling.

Nobody is defending his possession of the documents, he should not have them....PERIOD.  What is being pointed out is that once discovered the actions he took were the proper actions. 

  • He is not trying to legitimize his having them (like someone else).
  • He is not trying to come up with various excuses (like someone else).
  • He is cooperating with the proper authorities to return them and find any others that may remain (unlike someone else).

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @8    one week ago
  So why another search Friday where they found another six items consisting of documents with classification markings and surrounding materials.

Will be interesting to see how many documents that is. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
8.2.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2    one week ago

"surrounding materials, some of which were from the President’s service in the Senate and some of which were from his tenure as Vice President."

Telll you what - some bells outta be ringing now - Some of which were from the President's service in the Senate?????  Biden was in Obama's admin as VP for EIGHT years.  It's been SIX years since he was the VP - that's TEN years of him having/holding classified materials.

And, how many of those years of his over 36 years as a Senator do those "newly found" documents will the new documents cover???

Voluntary or not, Biden has violated the Secrecy Act big time - he needs to be tarred, feathered and cashiered outta DC.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.1    one week ago

Yes, Biden must be held accountable for this irresponsible behavior.   Trump even more so given the circumstances.

But worse is the fact that our system even allows this to occur.   This is the most troubling thing to me.   Our national secrets are clearly not even remotely close to secure (as we would expect them to be).

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.2.3  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.2    one week ago

When you are going to spout BS; do so bigley.

Trump as president can declassify documents- including all of those at Mar-a-Lago. The FBI, DOJ, and NARA don't get a say in any of it.

But as an ABA Legal Fact Check posted Oct. 17 explains, legal guidelines support his contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents that are not statutorily protected, while they are in office.

The system of classifying national security documents is largely a bureaucratic process used by the federal government to control how executive branch officials handle information, whose release could cause the country harm. The government has, however, prosecuted cases for both mistaken and deliberate mishandling of information. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through use of executive orders.

Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies.

In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case,   New York Times v. CIA,   underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said.

As the new ABA Legal Fact Check notes, the extent of a president’s legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials — without following formal procedures — has yet to be challenged in court.

Since Brandon has now been proven to have classified documents not only from the time he was VP; but a Senator as well; he has outstripped Trump on any violation. Of course Hilda-beast has them both beaten; but Comey let her off the hook completely.

Funny how leftists always use euphemisms like "irresponsible behavior" or "mistakenly mishandled" when referring to Hilda-beast or Brandon; but jump straight to criminal when referring to Trump.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
8.2.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.2    one week ago

The Federal Archives folks also have to be held accountable for their shoddy practices of releasing and tracking classified documents and who has them.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
8.2.5  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.2    one week ago

I was a CSO (Classified Security Officer) in the Coast Guard and while working with DoD and, as Ronin mentions below, there are very strict reporting standards/requirements for classified documents.

When we classified an action/document, the registration/accountability standards were, we thought, iron-clad.  All classifications were submitted to our proper chain of command through our numbering/letter classification system and would be listed with the Feds super classification board.

When a member of the CSO was transferred/discharged/relieved of duty, all documents associated with that member were checked off their list of accessibility/"need-to-know".  If there was an irregularity, you better believe a very thorough investigation was conducted.  In many cases, the issue was "simple", such as the transposition of a number or letter and it was clarified and "fixed".  There were a few cases where an individual would actually get charged for mishandling of the material and, if in the military, a court martial would occur, and, if a civilian, some form of punitive punishment based on the levity/seriousness of the occurrence would result.

All of the materials listed would be cross checked with the Feds for verification and the unit/organization would receive notification from the Feds that all was good to go.

How Biden/Trump/Obama/Bush and those other folks got a pass is a wonder to me - but, then again, I used to work for the gvnmnt for 50 years so I shouldn't be surprised.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @8.2.3    one week ago
When you are going to spout BS; do so bigley.

You certainly follow your own advice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @8.2.4    one week ago

Just amazing to me that so many classified documents were/are "roaming free".   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.5    one week ago
All of the materials listed would be cross checked with the Feds for verification and the unit/organization would receive notification from the Feds that all was good to go.

Exactly what I would expect.   It is so easy to establish a secure protocol and ensure that it is followed.   WTF is going on?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.2.9  bugsy  replied to  Ronin2 @8.2.3    one week ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.2.10  bugsy  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @8.2.4    one week ago
The Federal Archives folks also have to be held accountable for their shoddy practices of releasing and tracking classified documents and who has them.

Very good chance that many of these documents could have been copied and the originals kept in the archives, making them believe they were accounted for, until documents (original or copied, we don't know) were first found and reported.

If that is the case, the shit will really hit the fan over security concerns and why Brandon copied classified documents to avoid being caught stealing them.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
8.2.11  Jasper2529  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2    one week ago
Will be interesting to see how many documents that is. 

From what I understand, an "item" might be a box filled with Top Secret/Classified documents that Biden had no business stealing as a senator or VP. It should make everyone with an ounce of honesty wonder what incriminating evidence the Biden Family Syndicate has been hiding for decades.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.2.10    one week ago
... why Brandon copied classified documents to avoid being caught stealing them.

More invented 'facts' from you for partisan purposes.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.2.13  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.12    one week ago
More invented 'facts' from you for partisan purposes.

No, [deleted] they are hypothetical.You know...something that COULD have happened.

Your defense of Biden is getting more and more pathetic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.2.13    one week ago

Dulay?   Really?   You think I am Dulay?    Good grief man, get a grip.

... they are hypothetical.You know...something that COULD have happened.

Most anything "could" happen.   That is how conspiracy theories evolve.    Better to follow the evidence and use (even) basic logic.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.2.15  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.14    one week ago
Dulay?   Really?   You think I am Dulay?    Good grief man, get a grip

[deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.2.16  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.14    one week ago
Most anything "could" happen.

That's right. That's why they are called hypothetical. Most post stands as written.

"That is how conspiracy theories evolve"

You mean like the Russian collusion hoax, or any number of "we got Trump now" conspiracy theories that you swallowed hook, line and sinker?

Those conspiracy theories?

"Better to follow the evidence and use (even) basic logic."

What evidence do you need to have your defense of Biden waver?

How many more locations do we need to find out about that contained classified items ( not single pages, but items) before you start seeing that what Biden did is far worse than what Trump did?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.2.16    one week ago
That's why they are called hypothetical.

Hypothetical musings are pointless.   Especially when they veer so far away from facts.

You mean like the Russian collusion hoax, or any number of "we got Trump now" conspiracy theories that you swallowed hook, line and sinker?

As usual, you make shit up.   I do not buy bullshit conspiracy theories.   I wait for sound evidence and if it does not arrive, the stories are meaningless.   You will never find any comment from me giving credibility to any of those conspiracy theories.   You are just pulling crap from thin air ... you have no clue what you are talking about.

What evidence do you need to have your defense of Biden waver?

A vague and stupid question which ignores everything I have written.

How many more locations do we need to find out about that contained classified items ( not single pages, but items) before you start seeing that what Biden did is far worse than what Trump did?

You think that the number of locations is the dominant factor?

I do not.   The most important factors, in order of importance, as I see things is:

  1. Criticality of document related to national security
  2. Number of critical documents
  3. Intent of the holder (accidental, gross negligence, purposeful)

So, to explain this to you in very simple terms:

  1. If Biden had 1 TS/SCI document that exposed nuclear locations and Trump had 300 classified documents that contained benign information on private conversations then the 1 Biden document would outweigh the 300 Trump documents.
  2. If Biden had 20 TS/SCI documents and Trump had only 1 TS/SCI document then the number of equivalent critical documents would mean Biden's failure was worse than Trump's.
  3. If Biden were to stonewall, make excuses (e.g. claim executive privilege, claim declassification, etc.) and Trump cooperated to help recover and secure ALL documents in his possession then Biden's actions would be worse than Trump's.

And, of course, the reverse is true.   And, in fact, the reverse is more aligned with the evidence thus far:

  1. Trump, thus far, is most likely to have held higher security / more critical documents because he had hundreds of them and because he was PotUS whereas Biden was only V.P.   A PotUS has access to more and higher classified documents than a V.P.   So Trump's national security exposure is greater than Biden's.
  2. Trump had over 300 documents whereas Biden had 1/10 that amount (latest reports).   So Trump's factor by exposure is very likely worse than Biden's.
  3. Trump is the one who stonewalled, claimed executive privilege and declassification whereas all reports show Biden is proactively cooperating.

If you would like to add number of locations then I would agree that having documents spread around is worse than having them in one spot.   But that factor does not compete with the three I listed.   In my opinion.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.2.18  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.17    one week ago
Hypothetical musings are pointless.

They are a contention for debate....something in which you despise to do with someone who dares have different points of view than others. The MO of a true far lefty.

"As usual, you make shit up."

Exactly what was made up? The Russian collusion hoax turned out to be just that, and you, like many other far lefties, fell for it for years, with some still believing it today.

" vague and stupid question which ignores everything I have written."

Nothing but a narcissist response. No surprise.

" thus far:"

Noooooowwwwww you're getting it. You are making claims of fact before everything is said and done. You have zero idea of what the subject matter of documents that Biden was holding, but you continuously claim that what Trump did was far worse that what Biden did.

"In my opinion."

Something you refuse to respect from others, but demand we accept yours as fact.

Not a good look.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.2.18    one week ago
Exactly what was made up?

Your claim that I bought that bullshit.   You made that up from thin air since there is no possible way you could have read any comment from me supporting it.

You are making claims of fact before everything is said and done. 

Another vague accusation.   What claims of fact have I made that cannot be supported by the evidence?   Show me.


If you express an opinion that is fine.   If you make a claim of certainty and that claim is weak (or flat out wrong), expect to be challenged.    

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.2.20  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.19    one week ago
Your claim that I bought that bullshit.

You did

"You made that up from thin air since there is no possible way you could have read any comment from me supporting it."

Never said I did....but we know.

"What claims of fact have I made that cannot be supported by the evidence? "....this...

"And, of course, the reverse is true"

This is your opinion, unless you believe everything the Biden admin is telling you.

Wait, your defense of Biden shows you do.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.2.20    one week ago
"And, of course, the reverse is true"

So you are so blind to facts that go against Trump that you cannot see the claims that I made are supported by substantial evidence?

  • Who held more TS/SCI documents: Trump or Biden?
  • Does a PotUS have a better chance of higher classified docs than a V.P. (or a senator)?
  • Did Trump stonewall, claim executive privilege, claim declassification?

Do you need a video for you to comprehend some of the most basic, well-established facts in these cases?

Get a clue.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.2.22  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.21    6 days ago
Who held more TS/SCI documents: Trump or Biden?

Don't know fully yet. Just a couple of days ago, other "items " were found. You, nor anyone else knows how many classified documents are part of those "items"

"Does a PotUS have a better chance of higher classified docs than a V.P. (or a senator)?"

Not really. They all have the same security clearances. A senator may have a need to know to be able to read certain documents. I held a secret clearance for most of my 20 years in the Navy, but even so, I was not allowed to read everything marked secret and below.

"Did Trump stonewall, claim executive privilege, claim declassification?"

Probably, but you are believing everything the media and Biden admin are telling you.

I don't need a video to read your opinions.

Get a clue yourself

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.2.22    6 days ago
Don't know fully yet. Just a couple of days ago, other "items " were found. You, nor anyone else knows how many classified documents are part of those "items"

Correct, we do not fully know.   But what we do 'know' (i.e. consistently reported) is that Trump had hundreds of classified documents and Biden had tens of same.   That may change, but as of right now, if you were to apply basic common sense, you would realize that because Trump was a PotUS he had access to documents at the highest level of classification and no doubt saw more classified documents than a V.P.  (who is subject to a need-to-know protocol).    So would you be surprised if Trump was holding substantially more TS/SCI documents than Biden?

Not really ["Does a PotUS have a better chance of higher classified docs than a V.P. (or a senator)?"]

Yeah, really.   There is no question that a PotUS has the HIGHEST security clearance level (by definition) and that the most critical matters would come before his/her desk and not necessarily that of the V.P.   The role of the V.P. varies.   I suspect Cheney pretty much saw everything Bush saw.   I suspect Biden did NOT see everything Obama saw.   I suspect Pence also did NOT see everything Trump saw.   I hope Harris is kept in the dark.

They all have the same security clearances. A senator may have a need to know to be able to read certain documents. I held a secret clearance for most of my 20 years in the Navy, but even so, I was not allowed to read everything marked secret and below.

So you aware of the need-to-know protocol.   Thus you should realize that a V.P. is almost certainly NOT going to see everything that the PotUS sees (in terms of the highest level secrets of our nation).

Probably, but you are believing everything the media and Biden admin are telling you.

A stupid and demonstrably false claim.   What I am doing is not jumping to conclusions based on a hint.   Although people like you keep making these stupid claims;  no doubt in lieu of an actual argument.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9  bugsy    one week ago

There are reports that the DOJ is "considering" searching Biden's beach home.

Fuck "contemplating". Do it

For every second the idiots in the DOJ are "contemplating", Biden's fuck ups are there destroying everything that may be considered classified....ala Hillary.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1  Ender  replied to  bugsy @9    one week ago

You were saying?

More Biden documents found after DOJ searches his Delaware home

The 13-hour search comes amid a special counsel investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9.1.1  bugsy  replied to  Ender @9.1    one week ago

Hate to have to correct you once again, but the search you posted is of his Wilmington, Delaware home. I am talking about his house in Rehoboth, Delaware...a beach house.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Ender  replied to  bugsy @9.1.1    one week ago

Have them go look. Have them search anywhere they deem necessary, I don't give a fuck.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1.3  Ender  replied to  bugsy @9.1.1    one week ago

I have to add, I say while we're at it, search the VP and the leader of the house and the leader of the senate.

See how deep this goes.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9.1.4  bugsy  replied to  Ender @9.1.2    one week ago
I don't give a fuck

But you had to take the time to try and get a "gotcha" moment and now you are backtracking.

I don't agree with the mass search just because some are in leadership positions. Big time Constitutional no no. Amendment 4 comes to mind.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1.5  Ender  replied to  bugsy @9.1.4    one week ago

Gotcha moment? Ok, It seems you are yelling and screaming about this when just a few months ago were complaining about them doing it to trump.

If you think only one office in all of the government, is the only office to have ever done this.....

Since both sides have been caught doing it, I would think we could come together and see how negligent they have all been.

But no, it is only a partisan side thing.

So no, I don't take everything you say at face value.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9.1.6  bugsy  replied to  Ender @9.1.5    one week ago
Gotcha moment? Ok, It seems you are yelling and screaming about this when just a few months ago were complaining about them doing it to trump.

Yea...gotcha moment. I posted that there are reports of contemplation to search his beach house. You had to throw up a post that said his Wilmington house with "you were saying" added..........a failed attempt at a gotcha moment.

Show me where I was yelling and screaming about Trump. You won't because you cant

"f you think only one office in all of the government, is the only office to have ever done this"

Never said this. It would be appreciative of you did not try and put words in posts I did not make.

"Since both sides have been caught doing it, I would think we could come together and see how negligent they have all been"

Probably has been  but the Constitution says you can't just go in a search someone's home without a reason or consent.

"But no, it is only a partisan side thing"

Again....words in a post I did not make

"So no, I don't take everything you say at face value."

Didn't ask you to, nor do I care if you do or not.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1.7  Ender  replied to  bugsy @9.1.6    one week ago

So what is your solution? Yell and scream about Biden it seems. Nothing beyond that.

You are the one treating this whole thing as a gotcha moment.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Ender @9.1.7    one week ago
So what is your solution?

My solution tis if there is solid reasoning r proof that someone may be storing classified information, then by all means go and search, you know, the legal way.

"Yell and scream about Biden it seems. Nothing beyond that"

Show me where I have done that. Again...you won't because you can't.

"You are the one treating this whole thing as a gotcha moment"

Typical liberal MO. Accuse someone of doing something they themselves have blatantly done.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1.9  Ender  replied to  bugsy @9.1.8    one week ago

So what do you think should be done?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9.1.10  bugsy  replied to  Ender @9.1.9    one week ago

I already told you above.

That, and when someone leaves office, a controlled pack out of their offices to ensure no classified docs there. Delegated and qualified personnel, not the politician, their family or their aides.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1.11  Ender  replied to  bugsy @9.1.10    one week ago

How about classified documents are not allowed to go to people's offices...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9.1.12  bugsy  replied to  Ender @9.1.11    one week ago

I'm OK with that

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1.13  Ender  replied to  bugsy @9.1.12    one week ago

I think that is reasonable. If any of them need to read a document, they can go to a safe room and when done leave the documents there.

This taking of documents that we now know has been done by several administrations is stupidity all around.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @9.1.5    one week ago

I take NOTHING he says at face value, nothing

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @9.1.7    one week ago

I see he is the one whining and ranting and raving about Biden yet not a word about {Deleted} except in his defense.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9.1.16  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.15    one week ago
I see he is the one whining and ranting and raving about Biden yet not a word about {deleted} except in his defense

Show me where I am whining about anything or ever defending Trump. This seed is about Biden, not Trump but [Deleted]

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
9.1.17  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Ender @9.1.7    one week ago

Try reading the thread - it's about Biden - something outside your vision?

How 'bout 50 years of mishandling classified documents - ya wanna discuss what's in the thread or go with your own article???

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1.18  Ender  replied to  1stwarrior @9.1.17    one week ago

I read your crappy thread and crappy responses.

Nothing of substance.

Bored today? As you had to come to a four day old thread and say that.

One I wasn't even going to look at anymore....

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
10  Jeremy Retired in NC    one week ago
President Joe Biden and a small team of trusted advisers, including his sister Valerie, plotted to keep the discovery of classified documents a secret, betting that they could quietly handle the problem without it becoming public knowledge, a bombshell new report claimed on Friday.

So much for that "cooperation" the Bidenite apologists are blathering on about.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10    one week ago
So much for that "cooperation" the Bidenite apologists are blathering on about.

Dealing with the DoJ is cooperating (in the seed):

Biden and six of his closest advisers, all of whom were aware of the initial discovery of   classified documents at the president's D.C. think tank   on Nov. 2 -   gambled they could keep the matter a secret   and   deal with the Justice Department privately .

Lack of cooperation would involved stonewalling, claiming executive privilege, claiming "declassified", etc.     Working with government departments to secure the documents is cooperation.

Trying to keep this from the public (if true) is wrong, but that does not change the fact that Biden is cooperating to find and secure all classified documents in his possession.   

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
10.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    one week ago

Still making excuses I see.

Lack of cooperation would involved stonewalling, claiming executive privilege, claiming "declassified", etc.

And illegally holding the documents for 6 years.  You always seem to miss that bit of fact.

Working with government departments to secure the documents is cooperation.

Telling the DOJ there are no more documents then them FINDING MORE is not cooperating.  

Trying to keep this from the public (if true) is wrong

You mean something like, I don't know...not cooperating?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.1.1    one week ago

Another round of explaining the obvious to the willfully blind.

If Biden is telling the truth that he did not know he had classified documents then it makes logical sense that the documents would not be discovered for six years.

You continue to try to redefine the word "cooperate" and "cooperating".     If Biden is working with the government to find and secure these documents then he is cooperating.   Political moves to keep this behind closed doors have nothing whatsoever to do with cooperating with government departments to find and secure the documents.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
10.1.3  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    one week ago
but that does not change the fact that Biden is cooperating to find and secure all classified documents in his possession.   

Does Biden's "cooperation" also include documents, notes, memos, etc. generated after these 6 years in his possession or just the classified documents themselves?

Using private lawyers is a way of not cooperating by letting them glean out all other documents other than the classified ones only, whereas a DOJ search, like they did to Trump, catches everything pertaining to the classified documents even things generated later.  In Trump's case the DOJ wasn't concerned with securing the classified documents, they were more concerned with what may have been generated using/with them, which would've been illegal, as for Biden, it seems they aren't interested in anything generated later and let them, through the use of Biden's lawyers, be destroyed or hidden elsewhere.

So yeah, there is a big difference between Biden and Trump, Biden's classified document scandal is much worse.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  bccrane @10.1.3    one week ago

There is also a difference between cooperating with the government and being transparent with the public, which Biden has not been. Let's stay ahead of them on this. Their first narrative was that there is a difference between what one did and another did. Now we keep finding another traunch of documents, so their new spin is "why can't we find a way to stop the documents from being taken by officials." 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
10.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.2    one week ago
Another round of explaining the obvious to the willfully blind.

Exatly what I did in 10.1.1.

If Biden is telling the truth that he did not know he had classified documents then it makes logical sense that the documents would not be discovered for six years.

So with that premise he's unfit to hold the necessary clearance making him unfit for office.  But it's not like that is an issue for Democrats.  Swallwell is another example of that failure.

You continue to try to redefine the word "cooperate" and "cooperating".

I'm not a Democrat or a liberal.  I don't need to change definitions.  

 If Biden is working with the government to find and secure thesU e documents then he is cooperating. 

You mean like saying that they have all been turned in only for the DOJ to find more afterward?  

Political moves to keep this behind closed doors have nothing whatsoever to do with cooperating with government departments to find and secure the documents.

Political moves could be seen as election interference.  Why delay the notification until after the midterms?  Why keep Biden's mishandling of classified material quiet while the left and Democrats are still raving on over Trumps?  The whole situation is dripping of Democrat  / the lefts hypocrisy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.1.5    one week ago
So with that premise he's unfit to hold the necessary clearance making him unfit for office. 

Biden is unfit to hold office because he did not know he had classified documents?    Then surely you must think Trump is also unfit to hold office (if you believe Trump did not know).   And if you believe Trump knew then he knowingly took classified documents and then engaged in stonewalling, lying about declassification, etc.    Do you consider Trump fit to hold the office of PotUS?

See, Jeremy, I hold both Trump and Biden accountable.   You, in contrast, refuse to ever hold Trump accountable.   It is funny watching you desperately try to argue (against overwhelming evidence) Biden is not cooperating yet every time you open your mouth you indict Trump too.

And this apparently does not even register with you.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
10.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.6    one week ago
Biden is unfit to hold office because he did not know he had classified documents? 

With YOUR excuse, he can't keep track of classified material.  If he can't keep track of it then he shouldn't have the clearance needed to hold office.  With out the clearance, he can't hold office.

But, as I said, with Swallwell having no clearance and on the Intelligence committee shows the left or Democrats don't really care about any of that failure.  Just as long as they are Democrats.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  bccrane @10.1.3    one week ago

Cooperating = working with the government to find and secure classified documents in his possession.

Also, are you aware that Biden has had a DoJ search too and the reason was to bring in professionals to ensure they find all the documents?

Trump stonewalled and lied in an attempt to keep classified (~300 in total) documents in his possession.

Biden immediately turned over documents when discovered and proactively looked for more.

If these cases ever go to trial (not likely) the notion of intent will be glaringly different between the two.     The factor of gross negligence is common but different.   Biden had far fewer documents but for a longer period of time.   Trump had ~300 documents, arguably at a net higher level of classification and importance, but for a shorter period of time.   Biden, if telling the truth, did not act willfully.   Trump, in contrast, did.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.1.7    one week ago

And again you refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump.    Yet your continued blind focus on Biden indicts Trump as well.   

Just cannot register through your partisan barrier.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
10.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.9    one week ago
And again you refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump.

Don't get all pissy because I won't follow your distraction.  The article is about BIDEN mishandling Classified Material and his lack of cooperation.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.1.10    one week ago
The article is about BIDEN mishandling Classified Material and his lack of cooperation.  

Fact that is often being ignored just so someone can let their TDS fly!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
10.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.11    one week ago

There are A LOT of facts being overlooked and a lot of false comparisons being made.  

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
10.1.13  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.8    one week ago
working with the government to find and secure classified documents in his possession.

What about other documents that may have been generated using the classified documents over the past 6 years?  That was my point, I don't believe these documents sat in Biden's possession in pristine condition unopened, there may have been a paper trail surrounding them and it seems the lawyers may have destroyed all of that.

        Biden has had a DoJ search too and the reason was to bring in professionals to ensure they find all the documents?

Yeah now, do you think the reason would be "optics"?  The documents that the DOJ found now, were they intentionally left behind by Biden's lawyers for the DOJ to find to make the claim that now the professionals have found all of them, so there is no longer any need to look further.

        Biden immediately turned over documents when discovered and proactively looked for more.

Again "optics".

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  bccrane @10.1.13    one week ago
What about other documents that may have been generated using the classified documents over the past 6 years? 

Do you have some information or are you just engaging in wild, vague speculation?

I don't believe these documents sat in Biden's possession in pristine condition unopened, there may have been a paper trail surrounding them and it seems the lawyers may have destroyed all of that.

That's nice.   You do not believe something.   You have no evidence suggesting this is true so what is the point of speculating?    Speculation has no bounds ... it does not bear information ... it does not get to the truth.   It is, in a word, pointless.

Yeah now, do you think the reason would be "optics"?

Yes, bccrane, the most sensible reason for Biden to cooperate is both optics and good old fashioned commonsense.

The documents that the DOJ found now, were they intentionally left behind by Biden's lawyers for the DOJ to find to make the claim that now the professionals have found all of them, so there is no longer any need to look further.

More pointless speculation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.1.10    one week ago

I have always stated that Biden was wrong and is accountable.   Same for Trump.

You state Biden was wrong and accountable.   But you refuse to acknowledge this is also true for Trump.

Blind partisanship often results in foolish commentary.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
10.1.16  bugsy  replied to  bccrane @10.1.3    one week ago
Does Biden's "cooperation" also include documents, notes, memos, etc. generated after these 6 years in his possession or just the classified documents themselves?

Actually longer than that as there are documents dating from his Senate years, so THEORETICALLY, those documents could date from the 70s.

Maybe an early start at the Biden criminal enterprise?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
10.1.17  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.6    one week ago
Biden is unfit to hold office because he did not know he had classified documents?

How uniformed does one need to be to know some of these documents have been dated back to his Senate years.

Your defense of Biden is getting sickening to say the least.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
10.1.18  bugsy  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.1.10    one week ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @10.1.17    one week ago
How uniformed does one need to be to know some of these documents have been dated back to his Senate years.

Where do I claim otherwise?   Get a clue.   

As I noted, the more documents found in Biden's possession, the more one can make a case for negligence.    Biden is responsible for any classified document improperly in his possession.   I have stated this upfront and repeated it.   

Older documents is disturbing because clearly that means our national security failures have been in place for many decades.   The evidence supports negligence, it does not support willfulness (intent).   Trump's actions, in contrast, imply knowingly holding classified documents and attempting to keep them.   The case of intent against Biden is weak at best, not so much for Trump.

Your defense of Biden is getting sickening to say the least.

My countering your exaggerations and speculations with facts and logic makes you sick?   Works for me.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
10.1.20  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.14    one week ago

Wasn't that what the FBI did to Trump, speculation that there could be documents generated from the classified documents in his possession, otherwise if they just wanted the documents back they would've let Trump's lawyers observe and protest removal of other documents besides the classified ones, but they didn't, if you read the warrant, the FBI cast a big net to catch not only the classified documents but everything surrounding them, because they speculated that there could possibly be illegal activity from the use of the classified documents in the paperwork near them.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  bccrane @10.1.20    one week ago
Wasn't that what the FBI did to Trump, speculation that there could be documents generated from the classified documents in his possession, otherwise if they just wanted the documents back they would've let Trump's lawyers observe and protest removal of other documents besides the classified ones, but they didn't, if you read the warrant, the FBI cast a big net to catch not only the cl

The FBI was called to action after months of stonewalling by Trump.    The warrant gave them the right to search for any classified documents.   That is logical given they were responding to Trump not be forthright (and stonewalling).    Why do you find that to be unexpected?

Further, per the PRA, Trump did not have the right to any official documents generated while he was PotUS.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.1.22  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    one week ago
Biden and six of his closest advisers, all of whom were aware of the initial discovery of   classified documents at the president's D.C. think tank   on Nov. 2 -   gambled they could keep the matter a secret   and   deal with the Justice Department privately .

No, that is called an organized coverup between Brandon, his advisors, Garland, and the DOJ.

None of which had any problem being very public about Trump's handling of classified documents.

Allowing Brandon's hand picked sanitation team to handle the investigation is a criminal act by Garland, the DOJ, and FBI.

They purposely tried to cover this up until after the midterm elections; only one of their media sycophants turned on them by publishing . How long would have this stayed hidden if they were outed?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.22    one week ago
No, that is called an organized coverup between Brandon, his advisors, Garland, and the DOJ.

A coverup typically means an attempt to keep something secret within a particular private circle.    Nixon's acts were a coverup.    Informing and then working with the agents responsible for securing classified documents with the intent of finding any other documents to secure is not what people mean by "coverup".

Allowing Brandon's hand picked sanitation team to handle the investigation is a criminal act by Garland, the DOJ, and FBI.

Using "Brandon" is childish; attempt to engage me at an adult level.   

Criminal?   Possibly, but you would need to show me how allowing Biden's attorneys to search for more classified documents is a criminal act.   

They purposely tried to cover this up until after the midterm elections; ...

Well of course they did!   Do you expect political operatives to behave differently?    Distinguish between political moves and cooperating to find and secure classified documents.  

If Biden, et. al. tried to keep the discovery of documents secret among themselves (i.e. not inform the proper agencies of government), then you would have a coverup.   That is not the case.   They immediately engaged the proper authorities and then proactively started looking for other violations of the PRA.

The facts are well established and obvious.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.22    one week ago
A timeline of the discovery and disclosure of classified records tied to Biden

Key dates related to the discovery of classified documents tied to President Joe Biden, based on statements from the White House, the president, his attorneys, and Attorney General Merrick Garland:

Jan. 20, 2017:   Biden’s two terms as vice president to President Barack Obama end.

Mid-2017-2019:   Biden periodically uses an office at the Penn Biden Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Jan. 20, 2021:   Biden is sworn in as president.

Nov. 2, 2022:   Biden’s personal attorneys come across Obama-Biden administration documents in a locked closet while packing files as they prepare to close out Biden’s office in the Penn Biden Center. They notify the National Archives.

Nov. 3, 2022:   The National Archives takes possession of the documents.

Nov. 4, 2022:   The National Archives informs the Justice Department about the documents.

Nov. 8, 2022:   Midterm elections.

November-December 2022:   Biden’s lawyers search the president’s homes in Wilmington, Delaware, and Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, to see if there are other documents from his vice presidency.

Nov. 9, 2022:   The FBI begins an assessment of whether classified information has been mishandled.

Nov. 14, 2022:   Garland assigns U.S. attorney John Lausch to look into whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate the matter.

Dec. 20, 2022:   Biden’s personal counsel informs Lausch that a second batch of classified documents has been discovered in the garage at Biden’s Wilmington home. The FBI goes to Biden’s home in Wilmington and secures the documents.

Jan. 5, 2023:   Lausch advises Garland he believes that appointing a special counsel is warranted.

Jan. 9, 2023:   CBS News, followed by other news organizations, reveals the discovery of   the documents at the Penn Biden Center . The White House acknowledges that “a small number” of Obama-Biden administration records, including some with classified markings, were found at the center. It makes no mention of the documents found in Wilmington.

Jan. 10: 2023:   Biden for the first time addresses the document issue. During a press conference in Mexico City, he says he was “surprised to learn that there were any documents” in the Penn Biden Center and doesn’t know what’s in them. He does not mention the documents found in Wilmington.

Jan. 11, 2023:   Biden’s lawyers complete their search of Biden’s residences, find one additional classified document in the president’s personal library in Wilmington. NBC News and other news organizations reveal a second batch of documents has been found at a location other than the Penn Biden Center.

Jan. 12: 2023:   Biden’s lawyer informs Lausch that an additional classified document has been found. Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, reveals publicly for the first time that documents were found in Biden’s Wilmington garage and one document was found in an adjacent room.   Garland announces   that he has appointed Robert Hur, a former U.S. attorney in the Trump administration, to serve as special counsel.

Jan. 14: 2023:   The White House reveals that Biden’s lawyers   found more classified documents   at his home than previously known. Sauber said in a statement that a total of six pages of classified documents were found during a search of Biden’s private library. Sauber said Biden’s personal lawyers, who did not have security clearances, stopped their search after finding the first page on Wednesday evening. Sauber found the remaining material Thursday as he was facilitating their retrieval by the Justice Department.

Jan. 19, 2023:   A frustrated Biden said  there is “no there there” when he was persistently questioned about the discovery of the documents. “We found a handful of documents were filed in the wrong place,” Biden said to reporters who questioned him during a tour of the damage from storms in California. “We immediately turned them over to the Archives and the Justice Department.” Biden said he was “fully cooperating and looking forward to getting this resolved quickly.”

“I think you’re going to find there’s nothing there,” he said. “There’s no there there.”

Jan. 21, 2023:  Biden’s attorneys say   the FBI searched Biden’s home   in Wilmington, Delaware, and located additional documents with classified markings and also took possession of some of his handwritten notes. The search lasted nearly 13 hours. The FBI took six items that contained documents with classified markings, said Bob Bauer, the president’s personal lawyer. The items spanned Biden’s time in the Senate and the vice presidency, while the notes dated to his time as vice president, he said.

NARA was immediately informed.   The focus on finding and securing classified documents started immediately.

The public was NOT informed and that almost certainly was a political calculation.   It sucks that partisan politics operates this way, but you should not find it to be unusual that Biden, et. al. did not want a November surprise to ensue (and we all know that it would have).

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.25  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    one week ago

It was kept from the public for the 6+ years that he had them in his possession. Any cooperation on Biden's part seems to amount to having little or no choice on his part.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.25    one week ago

Do you believe Biden knew he had classified documents prior to their discovery?   If so, you believe he is lying.   Do you consider the possibility that he is not lying?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.27  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.26    one week ago

My two cents.

Do you believe Biden knew he had classified documents prior to their discovery?   If so, you believe he is lying.   Do you consider the possibility that he is not lying?

I think it's not that simple because using the word "know" in its usual context is problematic in Biden's case. I am not trying to be cynical or derogatory in saying that. I question Biden's grasp of reality, which seems to be more and more justified as time passes. Did he know in the past that he had classified documents? Who can say? Does he remember it now? I would have no trouble believing he does not remember ever having classified documents today. In my opinion, anyone who says Biden isn't suffering some form of dementia is fooling themselves. 

If what I've said here has any validity, then your questions don't really have any relevance in light of it. That is, although Biden may have known at some point that he had classified documents in the past, that he quite literally may honestly not remember it now doesn't do much for the current situation. A dementia patient who murdered someone 30 years ago but does not remember it doesn't really change anything. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.27    one week ago

My take is that I have no way of knowing, given what is in evidence, whether Biden is lying or telling the truth.   It would not be out of character for him to lie (ask Corn Pop) but, by the same token, I can easily see documents being misfiled and placed into boxes which then are simply stored.    I can also see Biden never going through those boxes (and thus never finding classified docs).    I can also see Biden in the past not thinking anything of the potential of having classified documents but with the Trump case realizing the glaring political ramifications.

The fact that his attorney found these documents and immediately informed NARA followed by the Biden team immediately searching for more classified documents gives them credit in the cooperation department.   Not sure one can read much more into that.

Bottom line, people need to get a grip.   This incessant reading between the lines (and the more ridiculous reading beyond the lines ... conspiracy theories) not only makes the claimer look foolish / emotional / partisan / etc., but contributes to the ever-increasing partisan animosity that has become the mainstay for contemporary USA politics.

Finally, what really bothers me in all of this is that it can occur.   Classified documents, in themselves, can range from totally benign to critically important.   So what troubles me is not so much that classified documents are intermingled but rather that TS/SCI documents have been found.   That is incredibly serious in terms of compromising our national security.    So while people are busy playing politics they seem to miss the big picture:  how is it that our system allows this to happen?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.29  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.22    one week ago

You are quoting a news source that is the equivalent of the National Enquirer

as if it is factual?

Biden's lawyers turned over the first Docs to NARA on 11/03 and had no

reasonable expectation that someone at NARA or the DOJ would not leak the

news eventually.

SCOTUS isn't even immune from leaking material anymore.

It's a given that someone eventually talks or sells.

The whole Maralago thing should have taught everyone that.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.30  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.28    one week ago
My take is that I have no way of knowing, given what is in evidence, whether Biden is lying or telling the truth.   It would not be out of character for him to lie (ask Corn Pop) but, by the same token, I can easily see documents being misfiled and placed into boxes which then are simply stored.    I can also see Biden never going through those boxes (and thus never finding classified docs).    I can also see Biden in the past not thinking anything of the potential of having classified documents but with the Trump case realizing the glaring political ramifications.

Pretty much mirrors my own thoughts. 

The fact that his attorney found these documents and immediately informed NARA followed by the Biden team immediately searching for more classified documents gives them credit in the cooperation department.   Not sure one can read much more into that.

Given what you say in the first paragraph, I wonder how you consider this a fact? How do you know it is so, rather than a carefully orchestrated strategy to mitigate damage? 

Bottom line, people need to get a grip.   This incessant reading between the lines (and the more ridiculous reading beyond the lines ... conspiracy theories) not only makes the claimer look foolish / emotional / partisan / etc., but contributes to the ever-increasing partisan animosity that has become the mainstay for contemporary USA politics.

Given that our government consistently ranks as one of the least trusted institutions in our country, I have to wonder at your position. 

Finally, what really bothers me in all of this is that it can occur.   Classified documents, in themselves, can range from totally benign to critically important.   So what troubles me is not so much that classified documents are intermingled but rather that TS/SCI documents have been found.   That is incredibly serious in terms of compromising our national security.    So while people are busy playing politics they seem to miss the big picture:  how is it that our system allows this to happen?

Another area where we agree. I was recently talking to my brother about this. I postulated some magic artifact that, when invoked, would cause every unsecured classified document to shine a beam of light into the sky like the coherent lasers of science fiction, pointing to each. I think we'd find an astonishingly depressing amount of light. People are lazy, or think that the rules don't apply to them because they are going to be careful or that they need to take it home so they can do their work. 

Where we may disagree is that I think this is way more common than we think. For instance, I don't believe for a hot second that Obama didn't do exactly the same thing. I don't believe that every agency head or assistant director of whatever hasn't. Every secretary of whatever. It's simple human nature. In fact, the only part of society that I think has any sort of discipline over such things is the military but, probably, even the highest levels of the military abuse it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.30    one week ago
Given what you say in the first paragraph, I wonder how you consider this a fact? How do you know it is so, rather than a carefully orchestrated strategy to mitigate damage? 

Easy.   Our source of information for current events is the media.   So, establishing a fact in this reality boils down to a) preponderance of evidence and b) logic.   The media is extremely consistent in the reporting that Biden's attorney discovered the first batch of classified documents by accident and then he (the Biden team, in general) immediately reported this to NARA and proactively began searching for more classified documents.  

It is impossible to know if this is some extremely well orchestrated story, the actual truth or somewhere in between.   But given that this was NOT discovered outside of Biden circles (per all sources I have read), it stands to reason (logic) that they would choose to go to NARA and cooperate.   Not cooperating would make Biden criminally liable but also, if caught, would become a scandal that might rival Watergate.    

If these documents were discovered outside of the Biden circle, then one must believe a "House of Cards" level scenario where the outsiders were effectively silenced so that the Biden team could pretend that they discovered the documents and are just being forthright.

Logically, the most likely scenario in my view is that Biden was unaware that he had classified documents, that they were indeed found by accident and that they then realized that the best course of action is to go to NARA and furiously look to find others so as to control the political damage (and to limit national security exposure).

Now, if someone can offer evidence that counters the consistent reporting of the Biden team discover, etc. that could make a difference in my analysis.   Until then, consistent reporting of the same basic information is as close to a fact in current events that an ordinary member of the public is ever going to get.

Given that our government consistently ranks as one of the least trusted institutions in our country, I have to wonder at your position. 

This is obvious.   Not trusting government is a sensible position.   Assuming that what we hear is ALWAYS entirely false is pure cynicism.   To be practical, one must work between those two extremes.   Conspiracy theories are not helpful; the wild-assed 360° extrapolation is silly and pointless.   A much better approach is to include the possibility that we are being lied to (I think I stated that upfront), consider the facts (preponderance of evidence, consensus), and then determine a likely, reasonable working hypothesis.    As more information is released, factor it in and adjust accordingly.

Where we may disagree is that I think this is way more common than we think. 

Not sure we disagree on this either.   The fact that a single TS/SCI document was out in the open (much less multiple) shocked me.   That showed that our national security protocols are woefully inadequate.   

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.32  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.31    one week ago
Easy.   Our source of information for current events is the media.   So, establishing a fact in this reality boils down to a) preponderance of evidence and b) logic.   The media is extremely consistent in the reporting that Biden's attorney discovered the first batch of classified documents by accident and then he (the Biden team, in general) immediately reported this to NARA and proactively began searching for more classified documents.

I guess my problem is that you seem to connect 'preponderance of evidence' with that it was reported in the media. So far as I can see, the only evidence available that we can assume to be factual is that a) Biden has classified documents and that b) the media says the Biden administration claims they notified NARA as soon as it was discovered. It should be noted that this doesn't mean that in the case of b) there is any shred of evidence that this is true. Simply that the media reports that the Biden admin claims such. That isn't exactly evidence in my book. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.32    one week ago
I guess my problem is that you seem to connect 'preponderance of evidence' with that it was reported in the media.

There is no way for a normal member of the public to verify facts underlying current events.   We cannot interview Joe Biden and his team, review the documents they found, interview the DoJ, etc.   The absolute best we can do is take that which is reported as the foundation for our decision making.

If you have a better way to get information about current events then please let me know.    It certainly is not possible to disregard everything that is reported as irrelevant.

So far as I can see, the only evidence available that we can assume to be factual is that a) Biden has classified documents and that b) the media says the Biden administration claims they notified NARA as soon as it was discovered. It should be noted that this doesn't mean that in the case of b) there is any shred of evidence that this is true. Simply that the media reports that the Biden admin claims such. That isn't exactly evidence in my book. 

I have stated repeatedly that Biden could by lying.   That is taken into consideration.   The evidence (the preponderance of that reported) leads me to find it more likely that his attorney did indeed discover the initial batch by accident and that the Biden team did indeed immediately contact NARA.

Evidence does not mean 100% certain truth.   We go by bits and pieces and, logically, integrate same into an hypothesis that is best supported by all available information (recognizing that not everything reported is true) and by logic.   So if Biden is lying I would expect to see at least a trickle of credible reporting to that effect.    The lack of such causes one, logically, to hold that Biden is most likely not lying.   That might change as we learn more, but right now my hypothesis is based on the presumption that the Biden documents were discovered by accident and that Biden did not know he was holding those classified documents.

Also, I sense that you do not factor in the notion that media in general does engage in due diligence.   Not 100%, but as rule.   Media sources who care about credibility will seek facts rather than fiction.   And when reporting, it is a much better story if they can report the Biden is lying.    So given the general tendency toward credibility and the desire for exciting news, the very consistent reporting of Biden mundanely being ignorant of these documents and seeking to find any others is not that hard for me to accept as likely true.

That isn't exactly evidence in my book. 

If we were in a scientific venue, the meaning of evidence would be based on empirical observations, formal methods, etc.

If we were in a court of law, the meaning of evidence would be based on charges and categorized based on factors of reliability (e.g. hearsay is not as good as a smoking gun)

Given we are dealing with current events in a public venue, evidence is that which leads one in a particular direction.   It is typically informal and of lower quality than that of science or law.


In summary, I have not once stated that I know Biden is being 100% truthful.   I have routinely stated that Biden might be lying.   Because, obviously, he might be.   I have also offered scenarios which vary based on the assumption of a) Biden is lying and b) Biden is not lying.

You seem to presume that I hold as truth that Biden is telling the truth ("It should be noted that this doesn't mean that in the case of b) there is any shred of evidence that this is true. Simply that the media reports that the Biden admin claims such.").   Not sure how I can be more clear that this is incorrect.


Now, a question for you.   Do you reject everything reported in the media or do you logically consider what is reported and factor in a likelihood based on the aggregate of what you have learned?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.34  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.33    one week ago
The absolute best we can do is take that which is reported as the foundation for our decision making.

Again, this is where we disagree. I see no reason or need to do so, especially when I have no confidence in what is reported. That is, I'm confident that what was reported accurately states that the Biden admin claims that they reported the 'discovery' as soon as they learned of it but I don't see that as a basis for making a judgment on the issue, since there is no evidence of it being factual. Sure, I could give an opinion on the assumption of it being true, but that has as much veracity as assuming a report of a sighting of the Loch Ness Monster being true simply because it was reported in the media. 

The evidence (the preponderance of that reported) leads me to find it more likely that his attorney did indeed discover the initial batch by accident and that the Biden team did indeed immediately contact NARA.

I find this mystifying. To my mind, you seem to be saying that because that Biden's attorneys stated what they did, it is more than likely true.  

Evidence does not mean 100% certain truth.

Of course. But I have to reiterate that simply taking a news article as evidence is more than problematic, in my opinion. 

We go by bits and pieces and, logically, integrate same into an hypothesis that is best supported by all available information (recognizing that not everything reported is true) and by logic.

Agreed, to a point. Thing is, the only confrimable information we have is that Biden has classified documents and where they were. That, as far as I can tell, are the only verifiable facts. One can't take a news report that his attorneys reported it as soon as they discovered this as an actual fact because there is no evidence for it. 

So if Biden is lying I would expect to see at least a trickle of credible reporting to that effect.    The lack of such causes one, logically, to hold that Biden is most likely not lying.

Perhaps, but this isn't a sort of 'instant revelation' sort of thing. New things are being revealed as time passes. This is normal. Further, whether Biden is lying, from his perspective, is problematic. If he is suffering from dementia, trying to claim he is intentionally lying has its problems. Regardless of what he knew in the past, he may genuinely not know he had them now. 

That might change as we learn more, but right now my hypothesis is based on the presumption that the Biden documents were discovered by accident and that Biden did not know he was holding those classified documents.

I get that. I'm not faulting you for it. I just don't understand why someone who constantly claims 'follow the evidence' would push the narrative you do based on what you know is assumptions. That is, your opinion rests on the assumption that the reporting is more accurate than not, or so it seems to me. 

Also, I sense that you do not factor in the notion that media in general does engage in due diligence.

That would be correct in its entirety. You need not consider it as something you sense. I am telling you in the most unambiguous terms I can express that I think the media has an agenda and conducts itself accordingly. 

And when reporting, it is a much better story if they can report the Biden is lying.

From my perspective, this is only true insofar as it fits their agenda. 

In summary, I have not once stated that I know Biden is being 100% truthful.   I have routinely stated that Biden might be lying.   Because, obviously, he might be.   I have also offered scenarios which vary based on the assumption of a) Biden is lying and b) Biden is not lying.

I understand. I'm not attacking your position. You need not defend yourself. I'm trying to explain the differences between how you see this and how I do. 

You seem to presume that I hold as truth that Biden is telling the truth ("It should be noted that this doesn't mean that in the case of b) there is any shred of evidence that this is true. Simply that the media reports that the Biden admin claims such.").   Not sure how I can be more clear that this is incorrect.

Not exactly. I think your position is more "if A, then B". That doesn't mean A is factual, if one understands the meaning of 'if.' I understand that you are saying that 'if' the reporting is true 'then' the rest of your position. 

My position is that I can't even get to that stage, since I have no faith that there is any basis for A. 

Now, a question for you.   Do you reject everything reported in the media or do you logically consider what is reported and factor in a likelihood based on the aggregate of what you have learned?

The answer is complicated. It depends on how much I feel I know about the subject being reported. If I feel I know little, then I tend to actively choose not to have an opinion because I don't want pure bias to make the decision for me. Instead, I try to remember the details of the report and keep them in mind as I read other reports about the subject. Sometimes, if I feel I get enough information, I tend to form an opinion based partly on the aggregate of the reports and the rest on my understanding of human nature. But even then, even when I have an opinion, I don't trust it because I'm always plagued with thoughts of all the things that I don't know or haven't considered. 

But this is a description of how I react to media, not whether media is trustworthy. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
10.1.35  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.15    one week ago
You state Biden was wrong and accountable.

Exactly.  And it goes back DECADES.   

But you refuse to acknowledge this is also true for Trump.

Has nothing to do with Biden's mishandling of classified materials for decades.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
10.1.36  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  bugsy @10.1.18    one week ago
Some with TDS riddled minds can't get over that.

That's true.  Ever notice the excuses they'll come up with? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.1.37  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.24    one week ago

Timeline of cover up.

Nov. 2, 2022: Biden’s personal attorneys come across Obama-Biden administration documents in a locked closet while packing files as they prepare to close out Biden’s office in the Penn Biden Center. They notify the National Archives.

Nov. 3, 2022: The National Archives takes possession of the documents.

Nov. 4, 2022: The National Archives informs the Justice Department about the documents.

Nov. 8, 2022: Midterm elections.

November-December 2022: Biden’s lawyers search the president’s homes in Wilmington, Delaware, and Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, to see if there are other documents from his vice presidency.

Nov. 9, 2022: The FBI begins an assessment of whether classified information has been mishandled.

Nov. 14, 2022: Garland assigns U.S. attorney John Lausch to look into whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate the matter.

Dec. 20, 2022: Biden’s personal counsel informs Lausch that a second batch of classified documents has been discovered in the garage at Biden’s Wilmington home. The FBI goes to Biden’s home in Wilmington and secures the documents.

Jan. 5, 2023: Lausch advises Garland he believes that appointing a special counsel is warranted.

Jan. 9, 2023:CBS News, followed by other news organizations, reveals the discovery of the documents at the Penn Biden Center . The White House acknowledges that “a small number” of Obama-Biden administration records, including some with classified markings, were found at the center. It makes no mention of the documents found in Wilmington.

From Nov 2 2022 to Jan 9 2023 complete and utter blackout from the Brandon administration, NARA, FBI, and DOJ. Jan 9 CBS News breaks the story which is leaked. Think releasing that information on Nov 2 wouldn't have influenced midterms in the slightest? Think that Brandon, his advisors, Garland, NARA, and the FBI didn't know that? They wanted this concealed for as long as possible. There is no indication that any of the entities involved would ever have informed the public if the information hadn't been leaked.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.34    one week ago

On the road, so quick response.    I have stated repeatedly that Biden could be lying.   

I have also explained my method for drawing conclusions given only what we ALL get from the media.

We all necessarily take information, weigh it against other information and apply logic.    

Unless you have some other method for drawing hypotheses regarding current events, what I have explained should be clear and not unusual.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.39  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.26    one week ago

I do believe that Biden was well aware he had classified documents in his possession prior their alleged discovery. And yes I believe he is lying. I consider the possibility that he is not lying but consider it highly unlikely.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.37    one week ago

Of course it would have affected the midterms ( as I have already noted).   That is why it was kept from the public.   Again, as I have noted.    It was NOT kept from NARA and thus was not a coverup.  Watergate was a coverup; the differences are obvious.   You are desperate to apply emotive labels to exaggerate the facts.   

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
10.1.41  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    one week ago

Lack of cooperation would/does also involve taking classified documents to your personal residence during your 50 YEARS OF FED SERVICE - a HUGE violation of numerous Fed laws.

Why don't you discuss the severity listed in the thread - a gvnmnt employee who, FOR 50 YEARS, has taken classified documents from their proper storage/filing locations to his/her PERSONAL RESIDENCE - for personal use??????? (sure as hell wasn't in his job description).  

Under what authority is he/his handlers going to "justify" his need to take EVEN ONE SINGLE PAGE of classified documents to his PERSONAL RESIDENCE?

You do realise, don't you, that each "take" was/is a violation of Federal law - so, how many violations of Federal law will he stand muster for?

Many it seems.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
10.1.42  George  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.39    one week ago

Great choices for the President of the United States, he is lying or incompetent.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
10.1.44  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.21    one week ago

Ya need to read that again - 

Trump had the right to ALL official documents generated while he was POTUS - but, not after. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
10.1.45  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  George @10.1.42    one week ago

Both - lying and incompetent.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.46  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.38    one week ago
Unless you have some other method for drawing hypotheses regarding current events, what I have explained should be clear and not unusual.

It is clear and it isn't unusual. Why do you persist in making this about me finding fault with your position. I'm simply using your position in comparison to mine. 

At the same time, I'm also expressing a lack of understanding as to why you accept such weak evidence given your 'follow the evidence' philosophy. I mean, I get that you're just going with what average, powerless people like us have access to because there isn't anything else, but given your standards for evidence, I'm surprised your position isn't closer to mine, which is that the only true, verifiable fact we can be assured of is that Biden has classified documents. 

I guess what I am getting at would be best illustrated by the Nick Sandmann, or the 'Covington Kid' incident. Like this Biden document issue, all we knew was what the media told us was the reality of the situation at the time. People made comments, condemnations, defenses and whatever else. Then, later, we find out the situation was entirely different from what the media had intentionally portrayed it as.

This event was hardly a one-off. This repeatedly happens over and over again, to the point that it is the rule rather than the exception, in my opinion. While you may not fully agree with this, I have little doubt you recognize there is certainly more truth to it than anyone interested in truth could wish for. 

Given that, I'm not arguing against your opinion on the Biden documents scandal. I'm expressing surprise that you make an argument at all, given your standards for what constitutes evidence you've expressed in the past. I have no problem with your expressing your arguments concerning the Biden documents. I understand that you recognize that the information you base your arguments on may later turn out to be false and that you take care to point out that you're simply making your argument with the caveat that the information is 'assumed' to be true for the purpose of making the argument at the given moment. I'm simply expressing surprise that you're willing to make the argument at all, concerning the quality of the 'evidence'. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.47  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.40    one week ago
Of course it would have affected the midterms ( as I have already noted).   That is why it was kept from the public.   Again, as I have noted.    It was NOT kept from NARA and thus was not a coverup.  Watergate was a coverup; the differences are obvious.   You are desperate to apply emotive labels to exaggerate the facts.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You are making these statements based on what the media has reported, not on verified facts. For all we know, Biden has always known he's had classified documents. For all we know, he didn't. What is reported in the media isn't evidence one way or the other at this point. All we have is that the media reported that the Biden admin says they reported it as soon as they discovered it. That doesn't make it a fact. Yet you're willing to make statements like this as if they were facts. That's the thing I've been talking about. I don't understand how you, being an evidenced based individual, are comfortable with doing so. Please note. I'm not saying your argument is wrong. I'm saying it isn't based on verifiable evidence, something that appears to be foundational to your worldview. 

And yes, I get that it is all you have to go on. What I'm asking is, given your penchant for verifiable fact, why do you feel the need to suspend this for the sake of making comments like this one? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.48  Split Personality  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.47    one week ago
For all we know, Biden has always known he's had classified documents. 

Ridiculous.

If Joe Biden knew he had any questionable documents anywhere he would have emulated the previous POTUS and fed them to a toilet or a fireplace.

Yet, he took the embarrassing path of returning the first batch of docs discovered and

then searching other places and searching again and again

according to the media you don't trust?

smh

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.49  Drakkonis  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.48    one week ago

Um, yeah. You go with that. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.1.50  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.40    one week ago

How cute. You think keeping this from US voters to influence midterms isn't a cover up.

Again, would this ever have come to light if someone hadn't leaked to the media? 

Brandon, Garland, DOJ, FBI, and NARA all wanted this handled in house and away from public view. That type of shit only happens in Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
10.1.51  Ender  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.50    one week ago

So what about Pence. Should the FBI raid his home?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.52  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.48    one week ago

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.    Actually, not knowing would actually make it worse.    Anyone who has ever had a US Federal Security Clearance understands that legal concept.

Not knowing how secret documents are being handled via your security clearance?

Egregious!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.53  Drakkonis  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.52    one week ago
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.    Actually, not knowing would actually make it worse.    Anyone who has ever had a US Federal Security Clearance understands that legal concept.

Thank you!!! Finally! Someone gets down to the real issue. So far, the issue has been about who it is that has the docs. Are you kidding me??? Every single person who has classified documents knows the rules concerning them. All the people who work for them know it, too, yet here we are. The freaking problem is not who's got them. The problem is no one is taking procedures concerning classified documents seriously, with the exception of most of the military. I don't doubt that the highest echelons of the military are violating this as well. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.54  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.52    one week ago

Tell Mike Pence.  It took CNN 7 days to discover  that he too "unknowingly" had similar

documents and turned them over to NARA on 01/18/2023.

Maybe they should audit all of Congress and the current and past Cabinet Secretaries?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.55  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.54    one week ago

So, if you think what Mike Pence did was bad, which it was.   You must think what Biden did was much worse.

Right?

The illegal aspect of mishandling secret documents can not be ignored.

Not even for Mr Wizard Joey Biden.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.56  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.48    one week ago
Yet, he took the embarrassing path of returning the first batch of docs discovered and then searching other places and searching again and again

Biden tried to keep it all secret.

His cooperation is greatly exaggerated by leftist apologists.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.54    one week ago
Maybe they should audit all of Congress and the current and past Cabinet Secretaries

Or maybe, just maybe, we should audit the people supposedly in charge of these documents and how they are so inept they don't even know who has what files or where the fuck they are.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.58  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.54    one week ago
It took CNN 7 days to discover  that he too "unknowingly" had similar documents and turned them over to NARA on 01/18/2023.

Wow, that was pretty fast compared to the over TWO months it took to break the Biden story.

Perhaps Pence wasn't as secretive as Biden.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.59  Split Personality  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.53    one week ago
I don't doubt that the highest echelons of the military are violating this as well. 

Petraeus? Already documented.  

He signed an exit interview document swearing that he had no classified docs, knowing full well he had several black books in his possession.

 “contained classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings, and defendant David Howell Petraeus’s discussions with the President of the United States of America.” Further, they “contained national defense information, including Top Secret/SCI and code word information.” A Department of Defense (DOD) historian had organized and, following Petraeus’s retirement from the DOD, transmitted his materials to the  National Defense University, which houses the department’s classified documents. However, Petraeus “personally retained the Black Books.” Lessons from Petraeus's Guilty Plea for Trump’s Classified Docs Investigation (justsecurity.org)

He lied to the FBI that Paula Broadwell never had control of the documents.

Punishment?  A Plea deal for a misdemeanor, not a felony or lying to the FBI.

Plea Agreement

In the plea agreement, prosecutors and Petraeus agreed to two years of probation and a $40,000 fine. Certain Justice Department officials, and FBI agents in particular, were reportedly upset about the lenient terms of the plea. They worried Petraeus’s case would set a precedent that would make it more difficult to secure prison sentences in future government leak cases. 

The judge agreed to the probation term in Petraeus’s plea agreement, but increased the fine to $100,000. The court wrote in adding to the recommended fine that it desired the sentence to “reflect the seriousness of the offense,” and “promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and afford adequate deterrence.” It noted that given various sentencing factors and the defendant’s ability to pay, that the fine, taken together with other sanctions, “should be punitive.”

Lessons from Petraeus's Guilty Plea for Trump’s Classified Docs Investigation (justsecurity.org)

So if this prick can get away with obvious lying, hiding and evading

the willful removal of classified crap to help his mistress write a bestseller,

then treat Trump, Biden and Pence the same.

I would even contribute gladly to a Go Fund Me account for Mike Pence if he asked,

as he and Biden don't have a fraction of the net worth of 45 who has been lying and

fighting in court instead of turning things over to NARA and inviting the FBI to search

their homes.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.60  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.56    one week ago

Well, Susan and Obama didn’t want them to be found.

Biden is their useful idiot.    Nothing more.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.61  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.56    one week ago
Biden tried to keep it all secret.

Simple.  Prove it.

They turned over the first batch within a day then notified the FBI & DOJ.

Per long standing policy DOJ policy ( Comey's behavior not withstanding) the FBI did not announce the investigation until the day after an election.

Per FBI long standing policy, they don't advertise their ongoing investigations.

Would it have been better if Biden admitted to this earlier?

I can't think that that would have been any different than the current situation.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.62  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.58    one week ago
Wow, that was pretty fast compared to the over TWO months it took to break the Biden story.

But according to the published timeline the  DoJ was notified promptly, the FBI started an investigation within 7 days and the AG assigned a US ATTY on November 14th.

Where is the law that says one must notify the public?

In a matter of speaking isn't Mr. Biden as entitled to take the 5th as much as Mr. Trump?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.63  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.61    one week ago
Simple.  Prove it.

Ok, easy peasy.

Did you ever hear about it until CBS broke the story?

If you didn't then it was kept secret. See how that works?

They turned over the first batch within a day then notified the FBI & DOJ

And where is YOUR proof that it was the Biden Administration that informed the FBI and DOJ?

The Biden lawyer who found the first documents reported it to the Biden WH, not the DOJ or FBI.

The Biden Administration then reported it to NARA. NARA was not then or now the DOJ or FBI.

The NARA IG reported it to law enforcement. Not Biden or his Administration.

Would it have been better if Biden admitted to this earlier?

Gee, your question leads me to think that even you know that Biden kept it under wraps, or there would be no need for such a question at all.  Biden admitting it doesn't have a thing to do with his guilt in having the records.

I can't think that that would have been any different than the current situation.

Spoken like a true apologist.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.64  Drakkonis  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.59    one week ago

Um, thanks? Thanks for proving my point about the likelihood of the upper echelons of the military likely doing the same thing as all the other politicians. 

So if this prick can get away with obvious lying, hiding and evading

the willful removal of classified crap to help his mistress write a bestseller,

then treat Trump, Biden and Pence the same.

Separate issue, to my mind, but I agree. That they have the docs is one issue, how they respond to discovery of same is another. On the one hand, I don't care about any extenuating circumstances. They had the docs and something should be done about that. What they did concerning them once found out is a separate issue and needs a separate conclusion. 

Everyone who's mishandled classified documents should have their security clearance revoked immediately. One benefit of this would probably be that nearly every single politician in D.C. would lose their jobs. Yay!!! But those who came after would take classified docs seriously.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.65  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.62    one week ago
Where is the law that says one must notify the public?

That is a ridiculous question from one who claims Biden has been cooperative and transparent. Instead, he tried to keep it secret, and you keep claiming he didn't, which is rather absurd.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.66  Texan1211  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.64    one week ago
Everyone who's mishandled classified documents should have their security clearance revoked immediately. One benefit of this would probably be that nearly every single politician in D.C. would lose their jobs. Yay!!! But those who came after would take classified docs seriously.

The saddest part is that the people in charge of safekeeping those documents didn't even know they were missing!

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.67  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.66    one week ago
The saddest part is that the people in charge of safekeeping those documents didn't even know they were missing!

Good of you to admit it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.68  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.67    one week ago
Good of you to admit it.

That comment had a chance at making sense.

If only I had ever claimed something else!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.69  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.67    one week ago

You have your proof yet that Biden or his Administration notified law enforcement of his possession of classified documents?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
10.1.70  bugsy  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.48    6 days ago

Holy crap I couldn't stop laughing at this defense of Biden.

Simply pathetic.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.71  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.52    6 days ago

Had said clearances when I was in the Navy and OPSEC and proper handling of classified material was drilled into us on a regular basis.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
10.1.72  bugsy  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.71    6 days ago

Every year we went through classified handling documents classes.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.73  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.69    6 days ago

No one needs proof.

NARA has it's own Inspector general ( the primary investigative and law enforcement officer for that department)

When NARA was trying to get Trumps docs returned and reached out to DOJ, "they" referred the matter back to the NARA IG. 

Eventually it was again elevated to the FBI and DOJ.

When Bidens team reported the first batch to the NARA they were following a lawful procedure and were well aware of the legal implications.

Within 7 days the FBI was investigating and within 12 days Garland had appointed a US Atty to oversee.

Sorry you see it as cloak and dagger and deceipt.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.74  Split Personality  replied to  bugsy @10.1.70    6 days ago

Then I can tell my sainted mother that I did a good deed today.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
10.1.75  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.61    6 days ago

Not even close to "immediately".

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
10.1.76  bugsy  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.74    6 days ago
Then I can tell my sainted mother that I did a good deed today.

I hate to tell you this but I think your sainted mother would be fully embarrassed by your unwavering defense of Biden.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
10.1.77  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.71    6 days ago

Roger that, it’s not difficult or confusing, just inconvenient at times, especially if wanting to work from home or while traveling.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.78  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.75    6 days ago

Ok, that link goes to one of Drak's comments, not mine.

The only comment where I saw "immediately" was in one of TiG's where he said the 

docs went to NARA "immediately".

We don't know what time of day Biden's lawyers found the docs but we know they were turned over the next day.

So within 32 hours? 

Contacting a government agency and arranging for a hand over the next day isn't "immediate" in your 5 decades of government experience?

Have you tried to contact the IRS  or Social Security lately? Gone to Vet hospital for an appointment and never get to be seen?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.79  Split Personality  replied to  bugsy @10.1.76    6 days ago

What defense?

All three appear to be guilty as hell of possession.  Not stealing or hiding.

Throw in Mark Meadows who was witnessed burning docs in the WH fireplace several times.

NARA can prove that Trump routinely tore up docs. 

The WH plumber can testify as to the causes of multiple WH toilets clogged with documents.

All of them had chiefs of staff who were ultimately responsible for packing them out.

Trump created his own mess by fighting the system and hiring idiot "yes men" for attorneys.

Biden could have done better.

Pence has followed the same path as Biden, used a private lawyer to look for anything he shouldn't have and turned those "dozen docs"   "over to NARA" who turned over to the DOJ and did not announce it, rather it was leaked and announced by the media.

The whole system seems to be the problem.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.80  Sparty On  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.71    6 days ago

Yep, mishandling of classified documents is a Federal offense.

At least to those of us “unwashed” who served.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.81  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.39    6 days ago
I consider the possibility that he is not lying but consider it highly unlikely.

Do you believe that Pence was lying when he stated a couple of weeks ago that he had no classified documents?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.82  TᵢG  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.41    6 days ago
Lack of cooperation would/does also involve taking classified documents to your personal residence during your 50 YEARS OF FED SERVICE - a HUGE violation of numerous Fed laws.

Once the documents were discovered, did Biden cooperate with NARA to secure them and to search for more violations of the PRA?    Easy question to answer.

Why don't you discuss the severity listed in the thread - a gvnmnt employee who, FOR 50 YEARS, has taken classified documents from their proper storage/filing locations to his/her PERSONAL RESIDENCE - for personal use??????? (sure as hell wasn't in his job description). 

That is a case for gross negligence, not lack of cooperation.   Worse, how is it that our system allows this to happen?   How many other classified documents are sitting in storage boxes of former officials?

Under what authority is he/his handlers going to "justify" his need to take EVEN ONE SINGLE PAGE of classified documents to his PERSONAL RESIDENCE?

There is no justification for it.   As I have noted from day one, Biden is accountable for the PRA violations (at the least).   

You do realise, don't you, that each "take" was/is a violation of Federal law - so, how many violations of Federal law will he stand muster for?

I really wish that you would read what I wrote instead of just presuming.   I have written extensively on this.    Every document taken by Biden (and Trump and Pence) that was related to their work while in office falls under the PRA.   Only private, personal documents are excluded.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.83  TᵢG  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.44    6 days ago
Trump had the right to ALL official documents generated while he was POTUS - but, not after. 

Where do you see me suggesting that Trump, while in office, did not have a right to ALL official documents?   The PRA clearly states that the sitting PotUS has those rights.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.   I was saying that Trump (as former PotUS holding classified documents) did not have the right to hold the documents he had access to while PotUS.   He had the right while PotUS (including the right to declassify) but as soon as he left office the right to hold and the right to declassify no longer existed.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.84  TᵢG  replied to  George @10.1.42    6 days ago
Great choices for the President of the United States, he is lying or incompetent.  

The classified documents problems are bad for Trump, Biden and Pence.   And will be bad for any new individual where classified documents are found in their possession.

In every case it is wrong and a violation of the PRA.    In the case of Biden, his problem appears to be negligence (or arrogance);  if he is found to by lying then his problems will skyrocket.   In the case of Pence, I strongly suspect he simply did not know.   That these documents were packed by aides and the process for verifying classified documents were properly handled broke down.   If many more documents show up for Pence, a case of negligence might form.   Trump, in contrast, knew the documents were classified.   That is an entirely different matter since it would be willful (or ignorant) violation of the PRA (and willful intent raises a criminal liability ... which Trump will not see given the Biden and Pence discoveries).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.85  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.50    6 days ago
How cute. You think keeping this from US voters to influence midterms isn't a cover up.

You should be embarrassed that you cannot distinguish a cover-up from non-public-disclosure.   If every willful act by a politician to not immediately disclose certain information to the public was a cover-up then every administration would be guilty of myriad cover-ups.    A Biden cover-up in this case would mean the Biden circle kept the discovery of the classified documents to themselves and did not involve the proper authorities.   Not the case.   NARA was immediately informed.   

Again, would this ever have come to light if someone hadn't leaked to the media? 

No way to know.   How many months did NARA, et. al. work with Trump to get his documents back before the media found out?    Do you think that was a cover-up by NARA and Trump??   

Brandon, Garland, DOJ, FBI, and NARA all wanted this handled in house and away from public view. That type of shit only happens in Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc.

Calling Biden "Brandon" is childish.   

Your point would apply to Trump too.   See above.   Do you acknowledge that?   You are surprised that shit happens in government that we do not hear of?    

I will say this, if NARA and the DoJ never disclosed these violations of the PRA, given the number of TS/SCI documents in play, then I would consider that a cover-up by NARA and the DoJ (and the offender).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.86  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.55    6 days ago
So, if you think what Mike Pence did was bad, which it was.   You must think what Biden did was much worse.

Yes.   At this point what we know suggests that Pence believed the classified documents process was properly followed and that he did not have any classified documents in his possession.   Quite believable factoring in what is known of Pence and his circumstances.

Biden's problem is more severe.   He had more classified documents for a much longer period of time.   It is also very likely that the sensitivity of Biden's documents was greater than that of Pence.   On top of that, Biden's belief that he had no classified documents grows more suspicious as more documents are found.   

Trump's problems are even more severe.   Unlike Pence and Biden, Trump has (stupidly) already admitted that he knew he was holding classified documents (by lying that they were declassified when it is clear they were not).    Pence and Biden can still claim that they believed they had no classified documents;  Trump cannot.    Further the volume of Trump's documents dwarfs Biden and Pence.   Finally the severity of his documents (focusing on the TS/SCI documents) makes the security violation worse.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.87  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.56    6 days ago
Biden tried to keep it all secret.

From the public or from NARA?    Makes a massive difference.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.88  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.58    6 days ago
Wow, that was pretty fast compared to the over TWO months it took to break the Biden story.

Did you forget how long NARA was working with Trump before the public knew this was going on?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.89  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.34    6 days ago
Again, this is where we disagree. I see no reason or need to do so, especially when I have no confidence in what is reported.

Do you recognize that no confidence is an extreme position?   You should not have NO confidence or FULL confidence.   Instead you should take the information provided by the only sources we have (the media) and then apply judgment.   Apply, in a sense, a probability to each claim.   Then use logic and your knowledge accumulated during your lifetime to come to a reasonable hypothesis to approximate the truth.

That is, I'm confident that what was reported accurately states that the Biden admin claims that they reported the 'discovery' as soon as they learned of it but I don't see that as a basis for making a judgment on the issue, since there is no evidence of it being factual.

Use judgement.   

Would it not be Biden's best interest to immediately notify NARA of this discovery?   If he tried to cover this up by keeping this within his inner circle, would that be a smart political decision?    I think Biden, having lived through Watergate, very quickly realized that he must cover his ass legally (informing NARA does this).    I also have little doubt that he worked to keep this from getting out to the public prior to the midterms.   

Now why would you not come to that very same hypothesis given the information available to us?

Sure, I could give an opinion on the assumption of it being true, but that has as much veracity as assuming a report of a sighting of the Loch Ness Monster being true simply because it was reported in the media. 

A reported sighting of the Loch Ness Monster would be, given the history of information on this, properly presumed to be bullshit.   Holding that Biden immediately informed NARA does not compare.   Note what I just wrote above (in box).

I find this mystifying. To my mind, you seem to be saying that because that Biden's attorneys stated what they did, it is more than likely true. 

See above (in box). 

Of course. But I have to reiterate that simply taking a news article as evidence is more than problematic, in my opinion. 

That is not what I have done.   A news article is simply one of many delivery mechanisms for news of current events.    Take all that one consumes in aggregate as the foundation for forming a hypothesis.   One news story would be ridiculous.   How you can think that is how I operate is bizarre.

One can't take a news report that his attorneys reported it as soon as they discovered this as an actual fact because there is no evidence for it. 

Have you seen any credible information that shows this did not happen?    We have an aggressive, adversarial media that would love to expose this as a lie.   Why would you presume it more likely that Biden did not involves NARA right off the bat?    By what reasoning?   (Again, see the boxed scenario.)

I get that. I'm not faulting you for it. I just don't understand why someone who constantly claims 'follow the evidence' would push the narrative you do based on what you know is assumptions. That is, your opinion rests on the assumption that the reporting is more accurate than not, or so it seems to me. 

Apparently, no matter how much I explain this, you cannot see that following the evidence is exactly what I am doing.    You recognize that media information is not even remotely as high quality as evidence in a trial or scientific evidence.   I have stated that I recognize this too and work with media information accordingly.   I do not dismiss information simply because it came from the media.   I use an analytical process that works with likelihood of truth.    I suspect you do too.   Anyone who attempts to form an opinion on current events based on logic and available information would necessarily do the same thing.

I am telling you in the most unambiguous terms I can express that I think the media has an agenda and conducts itself accordingly. 

Of course media sources are biased and have agendas.   Factor that in.   I do.    

You seem to presume that I hold as truth that Biden is telling the truth ("It should be noted that this doesn't mean that in the case of b) there is any shred of evidence that this is true. Simply that the media reports that the Biden admin claims such.").   Not sure how I can be more clear that this is incorrect. Not exactly. I think your position is more "if A, then B". That doesn't mean A is factual, if one understands the meaning of 'if.' I understand that you are saying that 'if' the reporting is true 'then' the rest of your position. 

My method is a Bayesian-like analysis.   It is not formal logic with established truths, it is based on probabilities (the likelihood of truth).

My position is that I can't even get to that stage, since I have no faith that there is any basis for A. 

Working at the extreme of 0% confidence or 100% confidence is impractical.   I believe it is impossible to form a valid hypothesis of current events working only with extremes.

If I feel I know little, then I tend to actively choose not to have an opinion because I don't want pure bias to make the decision for me. Instead, I try to remember the details of the report and keep them in mind as I read other reports about the subject. Sometimes, if I feel I get enough information, I tend to form an opinion based partly on the aggregate of the reports and the rest on my understanding of human nature. But even then, even when I have an opinion, I don't trust it because I'm always plagued with thoughts of all the things that I don't know or haven't considered. 

Sounds like a reasonable process.    It also does not seem consistent with the balance of your comment.    And not trusting your opinion at a 100% level is also something I find to be entirely practical.   


Bottom line.   I find it wrong for people to take a tidbit of information from media about current events and then extrapolate all sorts of truths from it.   In fact, 'wrong' is too mild, the word is 'preposterous'.    But people do this all the time.   Especially partisans.

The better approach is to evaluate each item of information with one's own likelihood of being true.   Consider all your probabilistic information in aggregate, factor in your life's experience and do so with sound reasoning.    That is following the evidence as it applies to the informal, squishy domain we call current events.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.90  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.88    6 days ago

There are many issues.

One is that anyone with security clearance in the military or even the alphabet agencies are vetted, checked, threatened, re-vetted, pee pee tested, vetted again and again, sometimes subjected to lie detector tests, all to do routine jobs and not share anything with Boris and Natasha.  I get it they are hyper sensitive about protecting their clearances.  

Politicians are not vetted, security clearance comes with the position or committee assignment.  They aren't subject to lie detector tests or drug tests, they fill out financial disclosure forms incorrectly and are subject to a toothless Ethics Committee.

Since Nixon and Watergate there is no system to hold people accountable for common everyday secret and confidential docs.  It's an honor system.

Only Top Secret docs are assigned serial numbers and inventoried and tracked.

Accounting for every single confidential doc would create a lot of jobs and very little  return.  We mock the former USSR for doing it that way.

At a Cabinet meeting do you think they pass around one TS document at a time

or do they all get a copy? 

Somethings going to change.

The question is what is it going to be?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.91  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.90    6 days ago

Something damn well better change.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.92  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.89    6 days ago
Do you recognize that no confidence is an extreme position?

Given the state of affairs, I think it simply sensible. 

Instead you should take the information provided by the only sources we have (the media) and then apply judgment.

I do take the information provided. I just don't trust it. But I do keep it in mind. As further information develops, I piece together what I think the likely truth may be, but I wouldn't comment on it in here based on it because I don't trust any of it. I would have to so heavily qualify everything I said that, in the end, what would be the point? 

Apply, in a sense, a probability to each claim.   Then use logic and your knowledge accumulated during your lifetime to come to a reasonable hypothesis to approximate the truth.

I do. But I also understand how tenuous such a thing is and, therefore, would not usually express an opinion in this forum concerning it. 

Use judgement.

Why? That is, I'm assuming you mean make a judgement based on what is reported, acknowledging while doing so that these things may not be actual facts but it's all we've got. Seriously. I see no need to do so. I don't see what purpose it would serve to do so. So, again, why? 

A reported sighting of the Loch Ness Monster would be, given the history of information on this, properly presumed to be bullshit.   Holding that Biden immediately informed NARA does not compare.   Note what I just wrote above (in box).

Doesn't compare? Really? Simply because of a news article that Biden claims to have immediately informed NARA? There is not a shred of evidence that Biden wasn't aware for years that he had such documents. But you're going to base your argument on a news article? Seems pretty similar to me. 

That is not what I have done.   A news article is simply one of many delivery mechanisms for news of current events.    Take all that one consumes in aggregate as the foundation for forming a hypothesis.   One news story would be ridiculous.   How you can think that is how I operate is bizarre.

Very well. What other delivery mechanisms can you present? 

Have you seen any credible information that shows this did not happen?    We have an aggressive, adversarial media that would love to expose this as a lie.   Why would you presume it more likely that Biden did not involves NARA right off the bat?    By what reasoning?

You don't seem to understand my position. I make no presumption that it is more likely that Biden did not involve NARA right off the bat. My position is that the only verifiable evidence we have concerning this is that Biden had classified documents. I've stated this several times. I've also stated several times that anything else is simply what media has reported. That is, nothing that can be empirically proven and why I won't take a position beyond him having the docs. 

Apparently, no matter how much I explain this, you cannot see that following the evidence is exactly what I am doing.

Hm. Well, in my opinion, no matter how much I explain this, you cannot see that I am saying I don't understand why you consider it evidence. In my view, you simply seem to be saying 'well, this is the best we got' and then make declarative statements based off of that. I find that hard to digest considering our past conversations and your standards for evidence. 

You recognize that media information is not even remotely as high quality as evidence in a trial or scientific evidence.   I have stated that I recognize this too and work with media information accordingly.   I do not dismiss information simply because it came from the media.   I use an analytical process that works with likelihood of truth.    I suspect you do too.   Anyone who attempts to form an opinion on current events based on logic and available information would necessarily do the same thing.

You would be correct. That is, I do use an analytical process that works with the likelihood of truth. And I agree that 'anyone who attempts to form an opinion on current events based on logic and available information would necessarily do the same thing.' Given that I think these things are true, the only conclusion I can currently reach concerning Biden and the docs is that he has violated the law concerning them. There are no other objectively verifiable facts beyond that. 

You said earlier:

Have you seen any credible information that shows this did not happen?    We have an aggressive, adversarial media that would love to expose this as a lie.   Why would you presume it more likely that Biden did not involves NARA right off the bat?    By what reasoning?   (Again, see the boxed scenario.)

I'm sorry, TiG, but this is naive at best and deceptive at worst. We know for a fact that MSM sat on the Hunter Biden story until after the election for political purposes. Yet you want me to believe that the media are unbiased sharks looking for any blood in the water they can get? Please! 

My method is a Bayesian-like analysis.   It is not formal logic with established truths, it is based on probabilities (the likelihood of truth).

Okay, I can accept that. As long as you understand that your 'probabilities' are based off assumptions and nothing else. Literally. 

Working at the extreme of 0% confidence or 100% confidence is impractical.   I believe it is impossible to form a valid hypothesis of current events working only with extremes.

I guess I don't understand your need to do so in the first place. Since your hypothesis is based on assumptions, what value does it actually have? 

The better approach is to evaluate each item of information with one's own likelihood of being true.   Consider all your probabilistic information in aggregate, factor in your life's experience and do so with sound reasoning.    That is following the evidence as it applies to the informal, squishy domain we call current events.

I actually agree with this. Where we differ, apparently, is that you are willing to make declarative statements such as you did in 10.1.40, based simply on assumptions, no matter how logically thought out. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.93  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.92    6 days ago
I do take the information provided. I just don't trust it.

And I am suggesting that every piece of information can be assigned a confidence level between 0 and 100.   Not literally math ... a judgment.

Seriously. I see no need to do so.

You see no reason to make a judgment call on a matter of interest?   For example, you see no reason to form an opinion on Trump's reason for taking his documents,  whether Biden or Pence is lying?

Doesn't compare? Really? 

Yes, an outrageous claim like a Loch Ness monster sighting that has been made for years and debunked is something that requires substantial, solid evidence to believe.    

Simply because of a news article that Biden claims to have immediately informed NARA? 

Why is it that you insist on a single news article when I have stated repeatedly that a single news article is NOT sufficient but rather it would be part of one's aggregate base of information?

What other delivery mechanisms can you present? 

Videos, radio broadcasts, newspapers.   And again, one article is NOT sufficient.   

 My position is that the only verifiable evidence we have concerning this is that Biden had classified documents. 

We have evidence that he has claimed he did not know they were there and the evidence of an adversarial media has been unable to demonstrate otherwise.   Every reasonable claim by Biden that has not been countered is meaningful.   As I have noted, the level and quality of evidence for current events is not at the same level of evidence for a trial or scientific evidence.   If you limit yourself as you are doing then why even bother opining on current events?   Very little solid evidence exists in this space.

I don't understand why you consider it evidence.

I have explained this repeatedly.   No point doing it again.

There are no other objectively verifiable facts beyond that. 

You are not sitting on a jury.   You are an ordinary member of the public forming an opinion.   It is okay to form an opinion on what you think is likely.   

Yet you want me to believe that the media are unbiased sharks looking for any blood in the water they can get?

How on Earth do you get the notion that I think the media is unbiased??    But yes, the media (in general) definitely wants sensational stories and they are most definitely in a competitive environment.

Okay, I am done responding.   This is pointless.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.94  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.93    6 days ago
You see no reason to make a judgment call on a matter of interest?   For example, you see no reason to form an opinion on Trump's reason for taking his documents,  whether Biden or Pence is lying?

Yes, actually, I do have opinions on these issues. I wouldn't express them here, though, since I don't feel I have anything solid to base them upon. 

Why is it that you insist on a single news article when I have stated repeatedly that a single news article is NOT sufficient but rather it would be part of one's aggregate base of information?

Fine. Make it a thousand news articles. Does that make it more empirically true? 

Videos, radio broadcasts, newspapers.   And again, one article is NOT sufficient.

See above. 

We have evidence that he has claimed he did not know they were there and the evidence of an adversarial media has been unable to demonstrate otherwise.

Okay. At this point I'm just going to bow out. No hard feelings on my part. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.95  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.81    6 days ago

Probably.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.1.96  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @10.1.51    6 days ago

I have already said yes on another seed; so why would I change my mind now?

I will repeat it. WTF is up with these hand pick paid for sanitation teams that do not have security clearance to review classified documents being allowed to search for them and handle them. It is time for the damn DOJ and FBI to get off their asses and do their damn jobs! Also, any sanitation members that saw/handled classified information w/o the proper security clearance need to be charged!

You think I give a fuck who is involved? Treat every last damn one of them exactly the same under the law! No damn exceptions!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.1.97  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.54    6 days ago
Maybe they should audit all of Congress and the current and past Cabinet Secretaries?

Go for it! Time for these self serving assholes to be taken down a peg, two, or even three. Since NARA can't seem to do their damn job; and the politicians are too damn incompetent; woefully ignorant; or corrupt.

As for Pence at least get your facts straight. He didn't turn the documents over to NARA; but the DOJ.

Classified documents have been found in the home of former Vice President Mike Pence and turned over to the FBI for review , multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

A lawyer for Pence conducted the search of Pence's home in Indiana last week and found around a dozen documents marked as classified, sources said. The search was done proactively and in the wake of the news that classified documents from before he was president were found in Joe Biden's home and old office at the Penn Biden Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

The Pence documents are undergoing a review by the Department of Justice's National Security Division and the FBI, the sources said.

Unlike Brandon that turned the documents over to NARA and never informed the FBI or DOJ. NARA did.

I will repeat. The FBI should conduct a full inspection of Pence's home(s), office(s), and anywhere else he could have documents; w/o Pence's sanitation team present!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.98  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.86    6 days ago

A reasonable analysis.

I for one have little doubt Biden knew he had classified documents.    

He’d have to be a complete boob to not know it considering the breadth of the breach.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.99  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.91    6 days ago

Politicians need to start being held accountable for their illegal actions.    That will fix the bulk of the problem if the expectation of a free pass goes away.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.100  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.99    6 days ago
Politicians need to start being held accountable for their illegal actions.  

Agreed.   

In addition, we clearly need a stronger mechanism for handling TS/SCI documents.   It seems we operate on some variant of the honor system.   How is it possible for someone to take copies of these documents out of a SCIF?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.101  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.98    6 days ago
I for one have little doubt Biden knew he had classified documents.    

The more documents found, the less credible his claim that he did not know he had any classified documents.

Pence is still safely in the realm of credibility.    Trump already made it impossible to claim he did not know.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.102  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.100    6 days ago

It’s because politicians are allowed to break existing rules.    Members of military are regularly charged with mishandling classified material and are punished.

Enforce the rules already in place ... for everyone.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
10.1.103  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.100    6 days ago
How is it possible for someone to take copies of these documents out of a SCIF?

There are security protocols that are supposed to be followed when transporting TS/SCI documents.  Short of searching all individuals departing a SCIF, you are relying on their integrity. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.104  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.102    6 days ago
It’s because politicians are allowed to break existing rules.

Clearly that is part of it.   The honor system is unacceptable.

In addition, every copy of every classified document (at the least TS/SCI) should have a record of its current location, date/time or last move, and holder so that it can be retrieved by a proactive agent who will not allow it to be silently misplaced or lost.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.105  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1.103    6 days ago

Seems that way.   Simply asking a senator if s/he has left all documents in the SCIF is not security.   Just because the people elected some bozo to occupy a seat does not mean said bozo should be trusted ... especially with the highest level security documents.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.106  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1.103    6 days ago

I can see that for a file or two but “boxes” are a little more difficult to conceal and/or miss on inspection.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.1.107  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.101    6 days ago
Trump already made it impossible to claim he did not know.

Sigh, Trump never denied it. He claimed he declassified them. Which is in the realm of his power as POTUS. Now if he actually did or not is another matter. One that will be left up to the Special Prosecutor (if he decides to press charges) and the court/judge that presides over the case.

Trump did claim he didn't possess any nuclear classified documents- which the FBI claims they were looking for; and was the reason for the search warrant and the raid. Which will also be taken up by the special prosecutor and court if Trump is charged. (Also, the FBI took far more than they were supposed to including personal affects, clothing, etc. Someone really needs to question the agents as to why; and make sure all material not directly related to classified documents is returned in good order. IMO they did it to tweek Trump and get an even more over the top response from him- which it did. Doesn't make what they did ethical or legal.)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.108  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.88    6 days ago
Did you forget how long NARA was working with Trump before the public knew this was going on?

No. Did you want to yak about Trump instead of Biden now????????

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.109  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.107    6 days ago
Sigh, Trump never denied it.

Correct.   And his subsequent statements make it impossible for him to claim he did not know he had classified documents.   Thus his situation is different from Biden and Pence.   Which is what I noted!

He claimed he declassified them.

Yeah, I have noted that repeatedly for weeks.  I think we all are aware of this fact.   Why do you mention it now as if making some kind of a rebuttal?

Which is in the realm of his power as POTUS.

It is indeed possible for a sitting PotUS to declassify anything.   Who has suggested otherwise??   It is not possible for a former PotUS to declassify.    

Now if he actually did or not is another matter.

The circumstances make if quite clear that he did not declassify.   He has no record of declassification and a PotUS cannot declassify by simply 'thinking'.   

One that will be left up to the Special Prosecutor (if he decides to press charges) and the court/judge that presides over the case.

The special prosecutor asked for evidence of declassification and stated that the absence of such evidence will mean that the documents were not declassified.    This is very old news.

Trump did claim he didn't possess any nuclear classified documents- which the FBI claims they were looking for; and was the reason for the search warrant and the raid.

The search warrant and the search was to secure all classified documents.   Read the warrant, this is clear.

(Also, the FBI took far more than they were supposed to including personal affects, clothing, etc. Someone really needs to question the agents as to why; and make sure all material not directly related to classified documents is returned in good order. IMO they did it to tweek Trump and get an even more over the top response from him- which it did. Doesn't make what they did ethical or legal.)

Meh.   Speculation.   Irrelevant given the severity of the context.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.110  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.108    6 days ago

A lame dodge.   If one is going to claim Biden is getting special treatment then one needs to compare Biden's treatment to Trump's.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.111  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.110    6 days ago
A lame dodge

You are correct, your deflections to Trump surprised me for a second, too!

If one is going to claim Biden is getting special treatment then one needs to compare Biden's treatment to Trump's.

Please direct such comments to someone who has actually done that, it isn't me, so take it elsewhere.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.112  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.111    6 days ago

Running away from your words again:

Texan @10.1.58Wow, that was pretty fast compared to the over TWO months it took to break the Biden story.

You complain that Pence's public revelation was fast compared to Biden's public revelation.    Implying Biden was getting special treatment.

I thus reminded you of the months of interactions with Trump behind the scenes before the public was made aware.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
10.1.113  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.112    6 days ago
You complain that Pence's public revelation was fast compared to Biden's public revelation.    Implying Biden was getting special treatment.

Not an implication ....... As to Biden Special Treatment !

A "Reality".... using what the "News" reports" to the populace, that is.

Why did ... or Why were the "Powers that be" told to wait until after the midterm elections to "Broadcast" this revelation of "Biden Documents" found ?

Pence notified the National Archives that he had discovered them at his residence on Jan. 16.

When did "Brandon" actually Notify the National Archives about "His" find ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.114  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.112    6 days ago

In reality, all I did was remark on the timeline involved. Since when is denoting time frames a defense in liberal la la land?

Your persisting to deflect is duly noted.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.115  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.114    6 days ago

I quoted your words in question.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.116  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.115    6 days ago

Yes you did!!!

Now, if only you could make my words change into whatever the hell you "think" they really said!

Best just stick to deflecting!

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.117  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.97    6 days ago
As for Pence at least get your facts straight. He didn't turn the documents over to NARA; but the DOJ.

Not entirely true.

Greg Jacob, an attorney representing Pence, wrote to the National Archives on Jan. 18 to notify them that Pence had directed a search two days earlier that turned up two boxes with some materials with classified markings.

FBI officials took possession of those two boxes on Jan. 19, as well as two other boxes with copies of administration records, Jacob said.

Pence documents complicate GOP attack lines on Biden | The Hill

It is NARA's job first and foremost. As in the previous cases NARA asked the DOJ to intervene...

Previously the DOJ had asked the NARA to use their own IG as this sort of thing happens "All the time",  That didn't work out so well with 45.

NARA informed the DOJ in Biden's case. Biden could expect nothing less.

While the DOJ routinely prosecutes people for mishandling or deliberately taking classified docs, there was a newsfeed article on Monday that said NARA lets just as many cases avoid prosecution when they voluntarily discover and return anything they should not have.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.118  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.100    5 days ago
In addition, we clearly need a stronger mechanism for handling TS/SCI documents.   It seems we operate on some variant of the honor system.

That is really the problem, although I don't think a stronger mechanism would do a lot to solve it unless they were pretty severe. The mechanisms already in place is enough to inform the people violating them that they are doing something wrong. The problem is, in my opinion, is that they see such mechanisms as applying to everyone else, not themselves. 

To explain, the problem, at its core, is rationalization. Everyone understands that the rules concerning classified information exists to prevent nefarious intent by someone else. The problem is that those who mishandle such documents know their intent isn't nefarious. It is the 'nefarious intent' that allows them to break the rules because, in their minds, since their intent isn't nefarious, they aren't breaking the spirit of the rules. Since they are on the side of light and truth, they don't see such rules as applying to them because of their intent. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.119  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.118    5 days ago

From what I have read, there does not seem to be a single point of record keeping.   A proper system would have every single copy of a classified document (especially TS/SCI) recorded so that we know who has the copy, when they acquired it, and the current status of same.   We should have a proactive system that raises flags when a document has been held too long, etc.

And, of course, there is no honor system.   Everyone leaving a SCIF, for example, is searched to ensure they are not walking away with classified documents.   

In result, it does not matter if a person thinks they are properly justified to keep a copy of classified material.   Nefarious or not, the reasoning is irrelevant.   The rule is that use of classified materials is limited in time and actively managed for compliance.    At least, that is how things should be IMO. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.120  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.119    5 days ago

That is why there is supposed to be a established chain of custody for classified material handling. Something that has obviously fallen by the wayside for quite a while.

 
 
 
Have Opinion Will Travel
Professor Participates
11  Have Opinion Will Travel    6 days ago

Here is the one thing that you can absolutely count on, whatever should happen, won’t happen.

 
 

Who is online

Drakkonis


19 visitors