The Biden - Harris Era.

[dislaxxic]

Even if you know from jump street that it is illegal to possess classified information. The ooops I forgot I had those documents becomes the fall back position.

Good second grade understanding of the problem. "Class, what would be the reasonable NEXT STEP be for someone "who forgot they had" classified documents? Anyone? Little Cranky??

..

Forgot??? bullshirt.

Biden knew full well he had, stored, and shared classified intel with someone who had no reason to know, and yet still did it. That is not even asking for forgiveness over permission.....that is just blatant disregard. To the tune of an 8mm book deal. I keep falling back to the rules for me vs thee argument

You're hopelessly confusing the situation and the point being axed of Uncle Cranky. Congrats.

The correct answer to the question axed of Cranky: "This was a mistake, please come retrieve any and all materials and expect my full cooperation with the investigation of this situation."

Flapping of gums about opinions on it NOT necessary.

..

[cradleandshoot]

Even if you know from jump street that it is illegal to possess classified information. The ooops I forgot I had those documents becomes the fall back position.

Good second grade understanding of the problem. "Class, what would be the reasonable NEXT STEP be for someone "who forgot they had" classified documents? Anyone? Little Cranky??

..

Forgot??? bullshirt.

Biden knew full well he had, stored, and shared classified intel with someone who had no reason to know, and yet still did it. That is not even asking for forgiveness over permission.....that is just blatant disregard. To the tune of an 8mm book deal. I keep falling back to the rules for me vs thee argument

You're hopelessly confusing the situation and the point being axed of Uncle Cranky. Congrats.

The correct answer to the question axed of Cranky: "This was a mistake, please come retrieve any and all materials and expect my full cooperation with the investigation of this situation."

Flapping of gums about opinions on it NOT necessary.

..

Is it a mistake or more like a fudge up?? I can see trump stealing documents, I can see Biden stealing classified documents. The difference is trump wasn't repentent when caught. Biden, with his razor sharp memory,simply forgot they were stored right next to his Corvette. Why he practically had to trip over them to drive his Vette. Here is a terrifying scenario. Is more dangerous that Biden had classified documents in his garage? IMO it is way more dangerous that Biden might actually be driving that Vette.

[MDlaxfan76]

Youth, seems to me that you are saying that the act of taking and fact of possession is equivalent regardless of knowledge or intent?

So, equivalent between say Pence and Trump.

While I’m glad that arduous process of filing for a security clearance and the ongoing training has put the fear of god into you re taking and possession, I think the lawyers would all tell you that knowledge and intent to possess illegally matter a ton as elements of the crime, certainly of attaining a guilty jury verdict. And thus would factor into a prosecution decision.

And it seems quite evident that Pence’s and Trump’s actions were worlds different in that regard, and thus no prosecution of Pence. There’s little evidence of intentional taking much less hesitation in return as requested from Pence. Nor lying publicly about it, knowing it’s a lie. Then backtracking and claiming all were declassified, in his mind. So, knowing taking. And then hiding them, having others lie, even under subpoena lying and hiding. And ohh yeah then conspired to destroy evidence.

A mountain of difference, would you not agree?

Of course, those various additional elements and felonies, the criminal intent, need to be proven in court, but you agree that those elements don’t exist with Pence.?

Or should Pence be prosecuted?

Youth, are you ignoring this set of questions?

If so, why? If not, a gentle nudge to please address them.

I'd like to understand whether you agree with this logic or not, re Pence and Trump, and why.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Youth, seems to me that you are saying that the act of taking and fact of possession is equivalent regardless of knowledge or intent?

So, equivalent between say Pence and Trump.

While I’m glad that arduous process of filing for a security clearance and the ongoing training has put the fear of god into you re taking and possession, I think the lawyers would all tell you that knowledge and intent to possess illegally matter a ton as elements of the crime, certainly of attaining a guilty jury verdict. And thus would factor into a prosecution decision.

And it seems quite evident that Pence’s and Trump’s actions were worlds different in that regard, and thus no prosecution of Pence. There’s little evidence of intentional taking much less hesitation in return as requested from Pence. Nor lying publicly about it, knowing it’s a lie. Then backtracking and claiming all were declassified, in his mind. So, knowing taking. And then hiding them, having others lie, even under subpoena lying and hiding. And ohh yeah then conspired to destroy evidence.

A mountain of difference, would you not agree?

Of course, those various additional elements and felonies, the criminal intent, need to be proven in court, but you agree that those elements don’t exist with Pence.?

Or should Pence be prosecuted?

Youth, are you ignoring this set of questions?

If so, why? If not, a gentle nudge to please address them.

I'd like to understand whether you agree with this logic or not, re Pence and Trump, and why.

Because…Biden.

[cradleandshoot]

I wanna know if any of you libs on this forum would ride shotgun with Biden in his Vette? That is true badass bravery right there...

[Brooklyn]

2024 ELECTION Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e ... rcna143729


President Joe Biden was seething.

In a private meeting at the White House in January, allies of the president had just told him that his poll numbers in Michigan and Georgia had dropped over his handling of the war between Israel and Hamas.

Both are battleground states he narrowly won four years ago, and he can’t afford any backsliding if he is to once again defeat Donald Trump. He began to shout and swear, a lawmaker familiar with the meeting said.

He believed he had been doing what was right, despite the political fallout, he told the group, according to the lawmaker.


... History suggests it will be tough for him to recover. Biden’s 38% approval rating at this stage in the calendar is lower than that of the last three presidents who went on to lose re-election: Trump (48%), George H.W. Bush (39%) and Jimmy Carter (43%), according to Gallup survey data.



more ...


Interestingly, "Biden has long believed that he isn’t getting sufficient credit for an economy that has created 15 million new jobs."

This much is true. Biden has significantly improved the economy as Democratic Presidents usually do. They never get sufficient credit for it but that's their fault as they refuse to openly boast of it like Republicons do. If he and the Dems would wise up and ask forcefully, "are you better off today than you were four years ago under tRump?" it could possibly win him a few more votes.

[MDlaxfan76]

Youth, seems to me that you are saying that the act of taking and fact of possession is equivalent regardless of knowledge or intent?

So, equivalent between say Pence and Trump.

While I’m glad that arduous process of filing for a security clearance and the ongoing training has put the fear of god into you re taking and possession, I think the lawyers would all tell you that knowledge and intent to possess illegally matter a ton as elements of the crime, certainly of attaining a guilty jury verdict. And thus would factor into a prosecution decision.

And it seems quite evident that Pence’s and Trump’s actions were worlds different in that regard, and thus no prosecution of Pence. There’s little evidence of intentional taking much less hesitation in return as requested from Pence. Nor lying publicly about it, knowing it’s a lie. Then backtracking and claiming all were declassified, in his mind. So, knowing taking. And then hiding them, having others lie, even under subpoena lying and hiding. And ohh yeah then conspired to destroy evidence.

A mountain of difference, would you not agree?

Of course, those various additional elements and felonies, the criminal intent, need to be proven in court, but you agree that those elements don’t exist with Pence.?

Or should Pence be prosecuted?

Youth, are you ignoring this set of questions?

If so, why? If not, a gentle nudge to please address them.

I'd like to understand whether you agree with this logic or not, re Pence and Trump, and why.

Youth, another nudge.

[youthathletics]

Youth, seems to me that you are saying that the act of taking and fact of possession is equivalent regardless of knowledge or intent?

So, equivalent between say Pence and Trump.

While I’m glad that arduous process of filing for a security clearance and the ongoing training has put the fear of god into you re taking and possession, I think the lawyers would all tell you that knowledge and intent to possess illegally matter a ton as elements of the crime, certainly of attaining a guilty jury verdict. And thus would factor into a prosecution decision.

And it seems quite evident that Pence’s and Trump’s actions were worlds different in that regard, and thus no prosecution of Pence. There’s little evidence of intentional taking much less hesitation in return as requested from Pence. Nor lying publicly about it, knowing it’s a lie. Then backtracking and claiming all were declassified, in his mind. So, knowing taking. And then hiding them, having others lie, even under subpoena lying and hiding. And ohh yeah then conspired to destroy evidence.

A mountain of difference, would you not agree?

Of course, those various additional elements and felonies, the criminal intent, need to be proven in court, but you agree that those elements don’t exist with Pence.?

Or should Pence be prosecuted?

Youth, are you ignoring this set of questions?

If so, why? If not, a gentle nudge to please address them.

I'd like to understand whether you agree with this logic or not, re Pence and Trump, and why.

Youth, another nudge.

Just seeing this.....you did not quote me, so it did not give me a notification; I have not been spending much time over here of late.

Yes I agree with you. We will likely never know 'this intent'. And like most of Trumps term, it was a fly by the seat of your pants term. We could speculate 'the why' til the cows come home, but not knowing what specific docs he had, it makes it that much harder.

My guess, he viewed it as yet another hit job in his direction, assumed he had the privilege of 'de-classifying' as POTUS, and there was precedent that others prior to him have done the same with docs, all in the name of a library or memoir post presidency: an attempt to think as he was. I read The Fifth Risk, it's not like that administration had a full grasp on how everything works or the carryover staffing to advise with prudence.

[MDlaxfan76]

Youth, seems to me that you are saying that the act of taking and fact of possession is equivalent regardless of knowledge or intent?

So, equivalent between say Pence and Trump.

While I’m glad that arduous process of filing for a security clearance and the ongoing training has put the fear of god into you re taking and possession, I think the lawyers would all tell you that knowledge and intent to possess illegally matter a ton as elements of the crime, certainly of attaining a guilty jury verdict. And thus would factor into a prosecution decision.

And it seems quite evident that Pence’s and Trump’s actions were worlds different in that regard, and thus no prosecution of Pence. There’s little evidence of intentional taking much less hesitation in return as requested from Pence. Nor lying publicly about it, knowing it’s a lie. Then backtracking and claiming all were declassified, in his mind. So, knowing taking. And then hiding them, having others lie, even under subpoena lying and hiding. And ohh yeah then conspired to destroy evidence.

A mountain of difference, would you not agree?

Of course, those various additional elements and felonies, the criminal intent, need to be proven in court, but you agree that those elements don’t exist with Pence.?

Or should Pence be prosecuted?

Youth, are you ignoring this set of questions?

If so, why? If not, a gentle nudge to please address them.

I'd like to understand whether you agree with this logic or not, re Pence and Trump, and why.

Youth, another nudge.

Just seeing this.....you did not quote me, so it did not give me a notification; I have not been spending much time over here of late.

Yes I agree with you. We will likely never know 'this intent'. And like most of Trumps term, it was a fly by the seat of your pants term. We could speculate 'the why' til the cows come home, but not knowing what specific docs he had, it makes it that much harder.

My guess, he viewed it as yet another hit job in his direction, assumed he had the privilege of 'de-classifying' as POTUS, and there was precedent that others prior to him have done the same with docs, all in the name of a library or memoir post presidency: an attempt to think as he was. I read The Fifth Risk, it's not like that administration had a full grasp on how everything works or the carryover staffing to advise with prudence.

Respectfully, I think you are confusing intentional taking and retention with what particular reason he wished to use them for.

And the clarity of proof of such.

In Pence case, apparently there is little evidence of intentional taking and no evidence of intentional retention.

Radically different situation with Trump. If it had merely been a matter of sloppy rushed packing or even some misunderstanding of what was proper, and Trump had returned the documents on request, no prosecution.

But as the Watergate adage goes, the cover up is worse than the crime. Now there’s tremendous clarity of intent to improperly retain, to deceive, to obstruct.

Legally, it never mattered whether documents were classified, as Trump’s counsel undoubtedly told him. They simply weren’t his, they are the property of the US government, we the people. Legally, it did matter that the information included national security information, but classification level did not matter, again, as Trump’s counsel undoubtedly also explained to him. Politically, and for history, it does matter that so many TS/SCI documents were included, but not to the legal case.

The ‘why’, the motive, for his refusal to comply with the law, the deceit, and obstruction is not a necessary element of the crime. Speculations run the spectrum, but they don’t matter. The deceit and obstruction overwhelms.

[youthathletics]

Youth, seems to me that you are saying that the act of taking and fact of possession is equivalent regardless of knowledge or intent?

So, equivalent between say Pence and Trump.

While I’m glad that arduous process of filing for a security clearance and the ongoing training has put the fear of god into you re taking and possession, I think the lawyers would all tell you that knowledge and intent to possess illegally matter a ton as elements of the crime, certainly of attaining a guilty jury verdict. And thus would factor into a prosecution decision.

And it seems quite evident that Pence’s and Trump’s actions were worlds different in that regard, and thus no prosecution of Pence. There’s little evidence of intentional taking much less hesitation in return as requested from Pence. Nor lying publicly about it, knowing it’s a lie. Then backtracking and claiming all were declassified, in his mind. So, knowing taking. And then hiding them, having others lie, even under subpoena lying and hiding. And ohh yeah then conspired to destroy evidence.

A mountain of difference, would you not agree?

Of course, those various additional elements and felonies, the criminal intent, need to be proven in court, but you agree that those elements don’t exist with Pence.?

Or should Pence be prosecuted?

Youth, are you ignoring this set of questions?

If so, why? If not, a gentle nudge to please address them.

I'd like to understand whether you agree with this logic or not, re Pence and Trump, and why.

Youth, another nudge.

Just seeing this.....you did not quote me, so it did not give me a notification; I have not been spending much time over here of late.

Yes I agree with you. We will likely never know 'this intent'. And like most of Trumps term, it was a fly by the seat of your pants term. We could speculate 'the why' til the cows come home, but not knowing what specific docs he had, it makes it that much harder.

My guess, he viewed it as yet another hit job in his direction, assumed he had the privilege of 'de-classifying' as POTUS, and there was precedent that others prior to him have done the same with docs, all in the name of a library or memoir post presidency: an attempt to think as he was. I read The Fifth Risk, it's not like that administration had a full grasp on how everything works or the carryover staffing to advise with prudence.

Respectfully, I think you are confusing intentional taking and retention with what particular reason he wished to use them for.

And the clarity of proof of such.

In Pence case, apparently there is little evidence of intentional taking and no evidence of intentional retention.

Radically different situation with Trump. If it had merely been a matter of sloppy rushed packing or even some misunderstanding of what was proper, and Trump had returned the documents on request, no prosecution.

But as the Watergate adage goes, the cover up is worse than the crime. Now there’s tremendous clarity of intent to improperly retain, to deceive, to obstruct.

Legally, it never mattered whether documents were classified, as Trump’s counsel undoubtedly told him. They simply weren’t his, they are the property of the US government, we the people. Legally, it did matter that the information included national security information, but classification level did not matter, again, as Trump’s counsel undoubtedly also explained to him. Politically, and for history, it does matter that so many TS/SCI documents were included, but not to the legal case.

The ‘why’, the motive, for his refusal to comply with the law, the deceit, and obstruction is not a necessary element of the crime. Speculations run the spectrum, but they don’t matter. The deceit and obstruction overwhelms.

Maybe so, but I am guessing the mind of Trump it goes like this : I am POTUS, I have the constitutional authority to declassify information and if so choose, can delegate others to do so on their behalf. Pence and Biden did not have that authority as while they were VP.

No, not picking a fight....just trying to argue 'the why' he was ignoring the feds. This is where it gets far too legal and messy for me. The constitution seems to give the POTUS that authority, so his argument is....eff you, make me!

[NattyBohChamps04]

Maybe so, but I am guessing the mind of Trump it goes like this : I am POTUS, I have the constitutional authority to declassify information and if so choose, can delegate others to do so on their behalf. Pence and Biden did not have that authority as while they were VP.

No, not picking a fight....just trying to argue 'the why' he was ignoring the feds. This is where it gets far too legal and messy for me. The constitution seems to give the POTUS that authority, so his argument is....eff you, make me!

He wasn't just "ignoring" the feds. He was moving documents after they requested them. He destroyed evidence and lied to the feds. He even said he had already returned all the documents when he hadn't.

If he thought he had the "constitutional authority" to declassify and own those docs, why not just claim that and sue to keep them all?

And if he thought he had the "constitutional authority" to declassify those docs, why is he on tape saying he was unable to declassify them? That was when he was showing classified military plans to random people.

[MDlaxfan76]

Youth, seems to me that you are saying that the act of taking and fact of possession is equivalent regardless of knowledge or intent?

So, equivalent between say Pence and Trump.

While I’m glad that arduous process of filing for a security clearance and the ongoing training has put the fear of god into you re taking and possession, I think the lawyers would all tell you that knowledge and intent to possess illegally matter a ton as elements of the crime, certainly of attaining a guilty jury verdict. And thus would factor into a prosecution decision.

And it seems quite evident that Pence’s and Trump’s actions were worlds different in that regard, and thus no prosecution of Pence. There’s little evidence of intentional taking much less hesitation in return as requested from Pence. Nor lying publicly about it, knowing it’s a lie. Then backtracking and claiming all were declassified, in his mind. So, knowing taking. And then hiding them, having others lie, even under subpoena lying and hiding. And ohh yeah then conspired to destroy evidence.

A mountain of difference, would you not agree?

Of course, those various additional elements and felonies, the criminal intent, need to be proven in court, but you agree that those elements don’t exist with Pence.?

Or should Pence be prosecuted?

Youth, are you ignoring this set of questions?

If so, why? If not, a gentle nudge to please address them.

I'd like to understand whether you agree with this logic or not, re Pence and Trump, and why.

Youth, another nudge.

Just seeing this.....you did not quote me, so it did not give me a notification; I have not been spending much time over here of late.

Yes I agree with you. We will likely never know 'this intent'. And like most of Trumps term, it was a fly by the seat of your pants term. We could speculate 'the why' til the cows come home, but not knowing what specific docs he had, it makes it that much harder.

My guess, he viewed it as yet another hit job in his direction, assumed he had the privilege of 'de-classifying' as POTUS, and there was precedent that others prior to him have done the same with docs, all in the name of a library or memoir post presidency: an attempt to think as he was. I read The Fifth Risk, it's not like that administration had a full grasp on how everything works or the carryover staffing to advise with prudence.

Respectfully, I think you are confusing intentional taking and retention with what particular reason he wished to use them for.

And the clarity of proof of such.

In Pence case, apparently there is little evidence of intentional taking and no evidence of intentional retention.

Radically different situation with Trump. If it had merely been a matter of sloppy rushed packing or even some misunderstanding of what was proper, and Trump had returned the documents on request, no prosecution.

But as the Watergate adage goes, the cover up is worse than the crime. Now there’s tremendous clarity of intent to improperly retain, to deceive, to obstruct.

Legally, it never mattered whether documents were classified, as Trump’s counsel undoubtedly told him. They simply weren’t his, they are the property of the US government, we the people. Legally, it did matter that the information included national security information, but classification level did not matter, again, as Trump’s counsel undoubtedly also explained to him. Politically, and for history, it does matter that so many TS/SCI documents were included, but not to the legal case.

The ‘why’, the motive, for his refusal to comply with the law, the deceit, and obstruction is not a necessary element of the crime. Speculations run the spectrum, but they don’t matter. The deceit and obstruction overwhelms.

Maybe so, but I am guessing the mind of Trump it goes like this : I am POTUS, I have the constitutional authority to declassify information and if so choose, can delegate others to do so on their behalf. Pence and Biden did not have that authority as while they were VP.

No, not picking a fight....just trying to argue 'the why' he was ignoring the feds. This is where it gets far too legal and messy for me. The constitution seems to give the POTUS that authority, so his argument is....eff you, make me!

Let's assume that Trump said, eff you to his lawyers, 'I know better than you peons what the law is.'

First, he's completely wrong, thus criminally liable for the refusal to return.

Second, we get to the cover-up being even worse than the first crime.

Multiple times lying to federal authorities, lying to his own lawyers and causing them to tell falsehoods on his behalf, attempting to destroy evidence of his ongoing retention and attempts to avoid being discovered. Deceit and obstruction.

This second part is what forces the prosecution.

Mere possession improperly can be 'cured', but the deceit and obstruction can't.

[MDlaxfan76]

Maybe so, but I am guessing the mind of Trump it goes like this : I am POTUS, I have the constitutional authority to declassify information and if so choose, can delegate others to do so on their behalf. Pence and Biden did not have that authority as while they were VP.

No, not picking a fight....just trying to argue 'the why' he was ignoring the feds. This is where it gets far too legal and messy for me. The constitution seems to give the POTUS that authority, so his argument is....eff you, make me!

He wasn't just "ignoring" the feds. He was moving documents after they requested them. He destroyed evidence and lied to the feds. He even said he had already returned all the documents when he hadn't.

If he thought he had the "constitutional authority" to declassify and own those docs, why not just claim that and sue to keep them all?

And if he thought he had the "constitutional authority" to declassify those docs, why is he on tape saying he was unable to declassify them? That was when he was showing classified military plans to random people.

The classification level, and whether any or all were de-classified, don't matter, legally under the Presidential Records Act. Other than personal items (arguably including diaries e.g. Reagan precedent) the documents are not his to possess. Moreover, the content of many included national security information, whether still classified or not and whether recent or not (and they were both classified and recent). That invokes another statute and in no instance is retention proper. Intentional retention of national security information gets serious trouble.

But the problem forcing prosecution is the refusal to return and then, most importantly, the cover-up. That's what totally separates Trump from ALL other precedents of those in high office with improper retention matters.

[NattyBohChamps04]

The classification level, and whether any or all were de-classified, don't matter, legally under the Presidential Records Act. Other than personal items (arguably including diaries e.g. Reagan precedent) the documents are not his to possess. Moreover, the content of many included national security information, whether still classified or not and whether recent or not (and they were both classified and recent). That invokes another statute and in no instance is retention proper. Intentional retention of national security information gets serious trouble.

But the problem forcing prosecution is the refusal to return and then, most importantly, the cover-up. That's what totally separates Trump from ALL other precedents of those in high office with improper retention matters.

Yes, Trump broke the law many times, full stop.

My point about YA's bad faith argument was Trump did not even behave like a person who thought they were doing things legally. And blew apart one of his defenses on tape.

[MDlaxfan76]

The classification level, and whether any or all were de-classified, don't matter, legally under the Presidential Records Act. Other than personal items (arguably including diaries e.g. Reagan precedent) the documents are not his to possess. Moreover, the content of many included national security information, whether still classified or not and whether recent or not (and they were both classified and recent). That invokes another statute and in no instance is retention proper. Intentional retention of national security information gets serious trouble.

But the problem forcing prosecution is the refusal to return and then, most importantly, the cover-up. That's what totally separates Trump from ALL other precedents of those in high office with improper retention matters.

Yes, Trump broke the law many times, full stop.

My point about YA's bad faith argument was Trump did not even behave like a person who thought they were doing things legally. And blew apart one of his defenses on tape.

Yes, indeed. We agree.

I'm assuming a good faith argument by youth, just trying to be crystal clear about the actual differences from the point of view of prosecutors, judges and juries.

The Pence and Trump cases have a mountain of differences that matter. Most importantly, the refusal to return and cover-up are slam dunk.

It gets a little more murky with Biden as there's at least some evidence that he, at least at one time, knew that he may have some documents that should not have been retained by him, including material that was still classified. It's not, however, entirely clear that he wasn't referencing diaries, that under precedent would not have been a problem, though disclosure of classified info would be...looks like he at least made some errors (youth would say they were egregious, and I'd agree, not ok, if that's what actually happened...disclosure). But the intentionality would be difficult to prove because it's not clear that he knew for sure the material disclosed (if in a diary) was still classified; It's at least reasonably arguable that he didn't know about a lot of the documents that were retained, just a few esp. diaries and the memo he wrote, so a reasonable juror could go either way, so not a slam dunk. And, most importantly there was no deceit or obstruction when the federal government came calling, indeed the Biden team invited it, disclosed that there were issues. That "cures" the outstanding issue of retention and weighs against any criminal intent.

The exact opposite of the Trump response.

[youthathletics]

Flirting with the Logan Act? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 14470.html

[NattyBohChamps04]

Nope

[cradleandshoot]

The classification level, and whether any or all were de-classified, don't matter, legally under the Presidential Records Act. Other than personal items (arguably including diaries e.g. Reagan precedent) the documents are not his to possess. Moreover, the content of many included national security information, whether still classified or not and whether recent or not (and they were both classified and recent). That invokes another statute and in no instance is retention proper. Intentional retention of national security information gets serious trouble.

But the problem forcing prosecution is the refusal to return and then, most importantly, the cover-up. That's what totally separates Trump from ALL other precedents of those in high office with improper retention matters.

Yes, Trump broke the law many times, full stop.

My point about YA's bad faith argument was Trump did not even behave like a person who thought they were doing things legally. And blew apart one of his defenses on tape.

Yes, indeed. We agree.

I'm assuming a good faith argument by youth, just trying to be crystal clear about the actual differences from the point of view of prosecutors, judges and juries.

The Pence and Trump cases have a mountain of differences that matter. Most importantly, the refusal to return and cover-up are slam dunk.

It gets a little more murky with Biden as there's at least some evidence that he, at least at one time, knew that he may have some documents that should not have been retained by him, including material that was still classified. It's not, however, entirely clear that he wasn't referencing diaries, that under precedent would not have been a problem, though disclosure of classified info would be...looks like he at least made some errors (youth would say they were egregious, and I'd agree, not ok, if that's what actually happened...disclosure). But the intentionality would be difficult to prove because it's not clear that he knew for sure the material disclosed (if in a diary) was still classified; It's at least reasonably arguable that he didn't know about a lot of the documents that were retained, just a few esp. diaries and the memo he wrote, so a reasonable juror could go either way, so not a slam dunk. And, most importantly there was no deceit or obstruction when the federal government came calling, indeed the Biden team invited it, disclosed that there were issues. That "cures" the outstanding issue of retention and weighs against any criminal intent.

The exact opposite of the Trump response.

What is overlooked in all 3 cases is why classified documents were removed from where they belong in the first place. It is kinda like borrowing a book from the library. You read it and use it then return it where it belongs. When these documents are discovered years later the excuse is " damn it, I forgot those documents were in the garage" There is a term for that called being irresponsible. Trump is an even worse violator. He knew what he had and didn't care. I hope he is held accountable but I'm not sure that will happen. Maybe perhaps there are people in DC who can regulate how this top secret material is handled.

[MDlaxfan76]

The classification level, and whether any or all were de-classified, don't matter, legally under the Presidential Records Act. Other than personal items (arguably including diaries e.g. Reagan precedent) the documents are not his to possess. Moreover, the content of many included national security information, whether still classified or not and whether recent or not (and they were both classified and recent). That invokes another statute and in no instance is retention proper. Intentional retention of national security information gets serious trouble.

But the problem forcing prosecution is the refusal to return and then, most importantly, the cover-up. That's what totally separates Trump from ALL other precedents of those in high office with improper retention matters.

Yes, Trump broke the law many times, full stop.

My point about YA's bad faith argument was Trump did not even behave like a person who thought they were doing things legally. And blew apart one of his defenses on tape.

Yes, indeed. We agree.

I'm assuming a good faith argument by youth, just trying to be crystal clear about the actual differences from the point of view of prosecutors, judges and juries.

The Pence and Trump cases have a mountain of differences that matter. Most importantly, the refusal to return and cover-up are slam dunk.

It gets a little more murky with Biden as there's at least some evidence that he, at least at one time, knew that he may have some documents that should not have been retained by him, including material that was still classified. It's not, however, entirely clear that he wasn't referencing diaries, that under precedent would not have been a problem, though disclosure of classified info would be...looks like he at least made some errors (youth would say they were egregious, and I'd agree, not ok, if that's what actually happened...disclosure). But the intentionality would be difficult to prove because it's not clear that he knew for sure the material disclosed (if in a diary) was still classified; It's at least reasonably arguable that he didn't know about a lot of the documents that were retained, just a few esp. diaries and the memo he wrote, so a reasonable juror could go either way, so not a slam dunk. And, most importantly there was no deceit or obstruction when the federal government came calling, indeed the Biden team invited it, disclosed that there were issues. That "cures" the outstanding issue of retention and weighs against any criminal intent.

The exact opposite of the Trump response.

What is overlooked in all 3 cases is why classified documents were removed from where they belong in the first place. It is kinda like borrowing a book from the library. You read it and use it then return it where it belongs. When these documents are discovered years later the excuse is " damn it, I forgot those documents were in the garage" There is a term for that called being irresponsible. Trump is an even worse violator. He knew what he had and didn't care. I hope he is held accountable but I'm not sure that will happen. Maybe perhaps there are people in DC who can regulate how this top secret material is handled.

Yes, at a minimum it's "irresponsible".
And you've landed on one of the discussions some of us had about needing to reform the systems of control and return of documents, especially the most sensitive, regardless of how high the office is. Honor system and a weak threat of legal accountability for sloppiness simply isn't enough...so many examples.

So, regardless of the legal accountability for the refusal to return, deceit and obstruction, which rise way, way beyond sloppiness and "irresponsible", as citizens we should demand that rules and practices change to track and account for all such highly sensitive material regardless of how high the office. And very different practices for packing up offices and departing the White House.

[cradleandshoot]

The classification level, and whether any or all were de-classified, don't matter, legally under the Presidential Records Act. Other than personal items (arguably including diaries e.g. Reagan precedent) the documents are not his to possess. Moreover, the content of many included national security information, whether still classified or not and whether recent or not (and they were both classified and recent). That invokes another statute and in no instance is retention proper. Intentional retention of national security information gets serious trouble.

But the problem forcing prosecution is the refusal to return and then, most importantly, the cover-up. That's what totally separates Trump from ALL other precedents of those in high office with improper retention matters.

Yes, Trump broke the law many times, full stop.

My point about YA's bad faith argument was Trump did not even behave like a person who thought they were doing things legally. And blew apart one of his defenses on tape.

Yes, indeed. We agree.

I'm assuming a good faith argument by youth, just trying to be crystal clear about the actual differences from the point of view of prosecutors, judges and juries.

The Pence and Trump cases have a mountain of differences that matter. Most importantly, the refusal to return and cover-up are slam dunk.

It gets a little more murky with Biden as there's at least some evidence that he, at least at one time, knew that he may have some documents that should not have been retained by him, including material that was still classified. It's not, however, entirely clear that he wasn't referencing diaries, that under precedent would not have been a problem, though disclosure of classified info would be...looks like he at least made some errors (youth would say they were egregious, and I'd agree, not ok, if that's what actually happened...disclosure). But the intentionality would be difficult to prove because it's not clear that he knew for sure the material disclosed (if in a diary) was still classified; It's at least reasonably arguable that he didn't know about a lot of the documents that were retained, just a few esp. diaries and the memo he wrote, so a reasonable juror could go either way, so not a slam dunk. And, most importantly there was no deceit or obstruction when the federal government came calling, indeed the Biden team invited it, disclosed that there were issues. That "cures" the outstanding issue of retention and weighs against any criminal intent.

The exact opposite of the Trump response.

What is overlooked in all 3 cases is why classified documents were removed from where they belong in the first place. It is kinda like borrowing a book from the library. You read it and use it then return it where it belongs. When these documents are discovered years later the excuse is " damn it, I forgot those documents were in the garage" There is a term for that called being irresponsible. Trump is an even worse violator. He knew what he had and didn't care. I hope he is held accountable but I'm not sure that will happen. Maybe perhaps there are people in DC who can regulate how this top secret material is handled.

Yes, at a minimum it's "irresponsible".
And you've landed on one of the discussions some of us had about needing to reform the systems of control and return of documents, especially the most sensitive, regardless of how high the office is. Honor system and a weak threat of legal accountability for sloppiness simply isn't enough...so many examples.

So, regardless of the legal accountability for the refusal to return, deceit and obstruction, which rise way, way beyond sloppiness and "irresponsible", as citizens we should demand that rules and practices change to track and account for all such highly sensitive material regardless of how high the office. And very different practices for packing up offices and departing the White House.

My oldest son is a federal agent with a top secret security clearance. If he violates protocol he gets fired and may very well wind up in prison. This is the double standard that frustrates the average American. When the leaders of this country are given a pass for violating the same laws they would throw the book at the average federal agent that tells you everything you need to know. Justice is not handed out equally. You should be held accountable in a court of law if your 82 or 22. If I have discrepancies in my income tax returns the IRS will most certainly not judge me as being confused and forgetful old man. They want their money plus interest. They aren't concerned with excuses or your state of mind.