Joe Biden 2023: The Dark Brandon Rises

[Sawbonz 28222]

15 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

We don't know if Biden had a culpable mens rea. 

Are you suggesting it is reasonable that a VP might not know it was illegal to have classified docs in his garage?

or should not be responsible for knowing the contents of boxes he took with him from his time as VP?

[Balcones 290]

10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Much of the outrage was that Trump has a shitload of ties to a lot of shady people overseas, as well as various bank accounts/holdings overseas, he admires Putin, Lil' Kim, and the Saudis, his son-in-law got a nice little $2 billion loan/gift/whatever from said Saudis, etc. and in other words, was extremely compromised.

I think you misspelled Biden.

[wildcat09 29579]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also I am seeing a bunch of bullshit about how this happened in November and wasn't talked about, conveniently avoiding an issue during midterms.

Well, Trump's bullshit went on for a year and a half, including a grand jury subpoena, which meant a criminal investigation was in full swing and we didn't hear about until titty baby started screaming about a raid.

The feds don't talk about criminal investigations.  This is a real thing and a point people keep forgetting.

Well, there’s a conservative element in the FBI that likes to leak a ton of shit about them occasionally when they think it’ll hurt Democrats. See the leaks that led to Comey announcing they were reopening their Hillary investigation, the more recent leaks about some of the Hunter Biden investigation, etc.

[wildcat09 29579]

46 minutes ago, Balcones said:

I think you misspelled Biden.

Trump has done business with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Biden has a son with a drug problem who tried to profit off his name. That’s not the same ballpark, hell it’s not the same planet, of dirty business.

[Ghost of LL 15698]

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you suggesting it is reasonable that a VP might not know it was illegal to have classified docs in his garage?

or should not be responsible for knowing the contents of boxes he took with him from his time as VP?

I'm suggesting that it may not be illegal for someone to possess classified information that he is cleared to possess.

[Sawbonz 28222]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm suggesting that it may not be illegal for someone to possess classified information that he is cleared to possess.

I believe those docs were from when he was VP no?

 

also that is a bit different than arguing mens rea

Edited January 13, 2023 by Sawbonz

[RomaVicta 30589]

2 hours ago, Balcones said:

I think you misspelled Biden.

[Red Five 41738]

2 hours ago, Balcones said:

I think you misspelled Biden.

[Pig Bellmont 8886]

 Trump will still be indicted and prosecuted. Right wing podcasts were always going to cry about it and there likely will be more violence. This thing about Biden won’t matter except to bad faith partisans

[Ghost of LL 15698]

40 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I believe those docs were from when he was VP no?

I don't have the first damned clue.

My point is that from 2009 until today, Joe Biden has likely always had security clearance sufficient to possess any documents of which he is in possession.  That has been the practice with previous presidents and vice presidents.  An exception was made for Trump solely because of the factors I mentioned above.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Best case scenario is Biden decides not to run again but that ain’t happening IMO. 

[wildcat09 29579]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Best case scenario is Biden decides not to run again but that ain’t happening IMO. 

In a world where the Democrats had a potential replacement, maybe. But they don't.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

28 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Best case scenario is Biden decides not to run again but that ain’t happening IMO. 

I think you assume this matters to more people than it does. people care about the price of their gas and groceries, not this. this is nothing.

[Sawbonz 28222]

38 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't have the first damned clue.

My point is that from 2009 until today, Joe Biden has likely always had security clearance sufficient to possess any documents of which he is in possession.  That has been the practice with previous presidents and vice presidents.  An exception was made for Trump solely because of the factors I mentioned above.

Really? Former VPs and POTUS (except Trump) have been authorized to possess top secret documents outside secured govt facilities? You have a link to that?

 

and if they are mens rea does not apply. Which was my original question for you

Edited January 13, 2023 by Sawbonz

[Ghost of LL 15698]

8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Really? Former VPs and POTUS (except Trump) have been authorized to possess top secret documents outside secured govt facilities? You have a link to that?

 

and if they are mens rea does not apply. Which was my original question for you

There was a lot of discussion about it during the transition (including this NBC News piece).  And there are a variety of regulations on it.  See, e.g., 31 C.F.R. 2.2.  I don't think any of them say that a former vice president can retain documents in his garage.  But I'm not at all clear that the law prohibits it.  

So that's the actus reus.  Then there's also the mens rea.

Unlike others who have clearance, former presidents and vice presidents aren't "read out" when they leave office.  For other people, you get read out--a process during which you sign a statement saying that you aren't retaining any classified material and that you understanding that doing so would violate the Espionage Act.  That signature provides evidence of the mens rea if it later comes out that you did, in fact, retain documents.

Without that kind of evidence, it'd be really hard to prove that Biden "willfully" retained national security secrets.

[Sawbonz 28222]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

There was a lot of discussion about it during the transition (including this NBC News piece).  And there are a variety of regulations on it.  See, e.g., 31 C.F.R. 2.2.  I don't think any of them say that a former vice president can retain documents in his garage.  But I'm not at all clear that the law prohibits it.  

So that's the actus reus.  Then there's also the mens rea.

Unlike others who have clearance, former presidents and vice presidents aren't "read out" when they leave office.  For other people, you get read out--a process during which you sign a statement saying that you aren't retaining any classified material and that you understanding that doing so would violate the Espionage Act.  That signature provides evidence of the mens rea if it later comes out that you did, in fact, retain documents.

Without that kind of evidence, it'd be really hard to prove that Biden "willfully" retained national security secrets.

So was Trump “read out?” 

[jimmyjazz 47201]

8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

So was Trump “read out?” 

I think he just said he wasn't?

[Ghost of LL 15698]

13 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

So was Trump “read out?” 

No.  No former presidents are.

[DDD Dad 14650]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't have the first damned clue.

My point is that from 2009 until today, Joe Biden has likely always had security clearance sufficient to possess any documents of which he is in possession.  That has been the practice with previous presidents and vice presidents.  An exception was made for Trump solely because of the factors I mentioned above.

I thought I saw something yesterday indicating that at least some (perhaps a handful) of documents that were found were SCI documents (i.e., documents that should never have left secure location).  If that's the case then it's more than an "oopsie" (as in, how did these documents get out of the secure facility?).  That said, none of this, I mean NONE of this, is anywhere close to the level of malfeasance by Trump.  Attempting to equate the two at this point (i.e., without more evidence), is nothing more than rank partisanship.

ETA: After performing diligent research (i.e., I googled and went to Wikipedia), apparently a SCIF can be set up in the private residence of an official, so it's possible the documents were at least at one point properly at the residence and then were mishandled at some point to end up somewhere other than a designated SCIF.

Edited January 13, 2023 by DDD Dad

[TwiceHorn 32079]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Well, there’s a conservative element in the FBI that likes to leak a ton of shit about them occasionally when they think it’ll hurt Democrats. See the leaks that led to Comey announcing they were reopening their Hillary investigation, the more recent leaks about some of the Hunter Biden investigation, etc.

Well, there seem to be leaks surrounding various aspects of criminal investigations all over the place and of a "bipartisan" or #bothsides nature.

We know quite a bit about grand jury proceedings involving Trumpco and executive privilege that came from somewhere privy to it.  Probably not the FBI, though.

[Sawbonz 28222]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

No.  No former presidents are.

And that’s where the problem is imo. I’ve tried to find anywhere where trumps security clearances were revoked. All I’ve seen is that his access to the daily/weekly intelligence briefings, a courtesy extended to all prior former POTUS, was revoked. But that wouldn’t trigger authority to require him to disclose and / or turn over documents acquired during his administration if the below is accurate 

 

37 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think any of them say that a former vice president can retain documents in his garage.  But I'm not at all clear that the law prohibits it. 

If this gives Biden cover why then would it not Trump? 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

39 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

There was a lot of discussion about it during the transition (including this NBC News piece).  And there are a variety of regulations on it.  See, e.g., 31 C.F.R. 2.2.  I don't think any of them say that a former vice president can retain documents in his garage.  But I'm not at all clear that the law prohibits it.  

So that's the actus reus.  Then there's also the mens rea.

Unlike others who have clearance, former presidents and vice presidents aren't "read out" when they leave office.  For other people, you get read out--a process during which you sign a statement saying that you aren't retaining any classified material and that you understanding that doing so would violate the Espionage Act.  That signature provides evidence of the mens rea if it later comes out that you did, in fact, retain documents.

Without that kind of evidence, it'd be really hard to prove that Biden "willfully" retained national security secrets.

There's also the question of whether Biden knew this stuff was among the reams of paper taken away from the White House.

Even if he knew damn well he wasn't supposed to have it or retain it, there remains an issue as to whether he knowingly possessed it or removed it from the proper premises.

And, as to "SCI" material, I think the cold reality is that that material when used for cabinet-level briefings, doesn't follow usual SCI protocols, although it really shouldn't be mixed in or up with general executive papers.

[Sawbonz 28222]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think he just said he wasn't?

Trump was treated (rightfully) differently from other prior POTUS wrt access to classified intel. I was wondering if LL knew if this extended to a formal revocation of his clearances 

[Ghost of LL 15698]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

And that’s where the problem is imo. I’ve tried to find anywhere where trumps security clearances were revoked. All I’ve seen is that his access to the daily/weekly intelligence briefings, a courtesy extended to all prior former POTUS, was revoked. But that wouldn’t trigger authority to require him to disclose and / or turn over documents acquired during his administration if the below is accurate 

 

If this gives Biden cover why then would it not Trump? 

Either Trump's security clearances were revoked or they weren't.  I'll leave that to the special counsel.  But there was a lot of discussion of the fact that he wasn't going to have clearance after he left office.

As to his mens rea, that is pretty clearly demonstrated by his subsequent conduct.  He wasn't "read out" when he left office.  But he later made a representation that he had searched and that he was not retaining any documents.  And that turned out to be false.  That provides the mens-rea evidence that the "read out" documents would otherwise provide.

[Sawbonz 28222]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

But he later made a representation that he had searched and that he was not retaining any documents.  And that turned out to be false.  That provides the mens-rea evidence that the "read out" documents would otherwise provide.

But only if the law prohibits him from retaining those documents according to your above post no? Mens rea is not applicable if his actions were not prohibited by law

[Ghost of LL 15698]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

But only if the law prohibits him from retaining those documents according to your above post no? Mens rea is not applicable if his actions were not prohibited by law

Right.  

But I think the "I declassified it" defense is telling.  Not even Trump is contending that he still has clearance.  I don't think that's even on the table.

[Sawbonz 28222]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

Right.  

But I think the "I declassified it" defense is telling.  Not even Trump is contending that he still has clearance.  I don't think that's even on the table.

One thing I’ve learned doing expert witness testimony over the years is trial lawyers give exactly zero shits as to whether there is any internal logical consistency in the various arguments they use to make their case

[Ghost of LL 15698]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

One thing I’ve learned doing expert witness testimony over the years is trial lawyers give exactly zero shits as to whether there is any internal logical consistency in the various arguments they use to make their case

Spoken like a true expert witness.

[wildcat09 29579]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I think you assume this matters to more people than it does. people care about the price of their gas and groceries, not this. this is nothing.

All sorts of people care about all sorts of dumb shit.  Millions of people cared about Benghazi and Hillary's emails. But unless Biden was hiding nuclear secrets, I doubt the GOP will be able to make this stick to Biden like they got those to stick to Hillary.

[Sawbonz 28222]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Spoken like a true expert witness.

I pointed that out to one of the plaintiffs attorneys I work with a lot and he quoted racehorse Haynes talking about a dog bite: my dog doesn’t bite and if he does he was chained up and if he wasn’t you never were bitten and if you were I don’t own a dog

[Chuckie Finster 23079]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I think you assume this matters to more people than it does. people care about the price of their gas and groceries, not this. this is nothing.

Also, it's a fucking eternity until the election.  January 2019 was the goddamn government shutdown - a MUCH bigger deal - and there isn't a person on this planet who had that factor into their vote the next year.  

[RomaVicta 30589]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

And that’s where the problem is imo. I’ve tried to find anywhere where trumps security clearances were revoked. All I’ve seen is that his access to the daily/weekly intelligence briefings, a courtesy extended to all prior former POTUS, was revoked. But that wouldn’t trigger authority to require him to disclose and / or turn over documents acquired during his administration if the below is accurate 

 

If this gives Biden cover why then would it not Trump? 

NARA treated the Trump document removal as mere business to be cleared up until Trump lied about returning documents and continued to try hide them from NARA. I think at least six months went by where Trump was treated as an actor of good faith.

Biden won't be at that point until he does the same. It's wrong that he is in possession of the documents, but is not suspicious because he, as far as I know, has acted in good faith.

It doesn't seem that hard if I'm properly addressing your point. It's possible I'm missing something.

[jimmyjazz 47201]

12 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

NARA treated the Trump document removal as mere business to be cleared up until Trump lied about returning documents and continued to try hide them from NARA. I think at least six months went by where Trump was treated as an actor of good faith.

Biden won't be at that point until he does the same. It's wrong that he is in possession of the documents, but is not suspicious because he, as far as I know, has acted in good faith.

It doesn't seem that hard if I'm properly addressing your point. It's possible I'm missing something.

No, you're not missing anything.

[Sawbonz 28222]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

It's wrong that he is in possession of the documents,

Lawyers will tell you right or wrong doesn't matter, legal vs illegal does. From what LL has said it is somewhat gray area in that the law doesn’t give permission for but also doesn’t prohibit the taking / retention of classified docs by POTUS / VP on the way out. 
 

That is in Biden’s favor here certainly, as is the fact that he cooperated w the govt in retrieving the docs and trying to find any more. But unless Trump’s security clearance was formally revoked (may be classified info?) that same ambiguity could help him even though he lied and stonewalled the government’s attempts to retrieve what he had.
 

Amazing to me how seemingly cavalier the highest levels of govt are with the care and storage of classified documents. 

[4th&Five 42005]

 

[DDD Dad 14650]

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Amazing to me how seemingly cavalier the highest levels of govt are with the care and storage of classified documents. 

Consider that Biden has been in and around classified materials probably for over 30 years (at one level or another).  That there might be a handful of documents here or there that got overlooked in being returned is certainly troublesome, but to take this incident to make the broad point that the highest levels of government are "cavalier" with the care and storage of classified documents seems to me to be an unwarranted conclusion.

[Sawbonz 28222]

14 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Consider that Biden has been in and around classified materials probably for over 30 years (at one level or another).  That there might be a handful of documents here or there that got overlooked in being returned is certainly troublesome, but to take this incident to make the broad point that the highest levels of government are "cavalier" with the care and storage of classified documents seems to me to be an unwarranted conclusion.

I haven’t read anything suggesting the docs were from his time as Senator, but even if they were there were files marked “top secret” in his office at UPenn. In medicine we have “never” events. That should be a never event. Not sure what was in his garage. There is also Hillary’s misuse of electronic docs to make things more convenient for her. 

 

 

[956 Worldwide 35594]

5 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm suggesting that it may not be illegal for someone to possess classified information that he is cleared to possess.

It is absolutely illegal to keep classified material (and “national defense material” that doesn’t have to be classified) in an unauthorized location.

Quote

(a)

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

“Officer” is a term that has some wiggle room. National defense is just “whoever.” 

Quote

(f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

[956 Worldwide 35594]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Right.  

But I think the "I declassified it" defense is telling.  Not even Trump is contending that he still has clearance.  I don't think that's even on the table.

Trump never had a clearance. The President IS the classification authority himself. 
 

Former presidents don’t have a clearance revoked or maintained. As the original classification authority, the current president doesn’t give clearance to old presidents— he simply has the authority to show whatever he wants to whomever he wants WHILE IN OFFICE as the original classification authority. 
 

POTUS does not undergo an SSBI and get a clearance, by virtue of the office he simply gets to have access. I have to plead ignorance on what they do with VPOTUS but again— the current president can share anything he wants with his VPOTUS. But that authority ends as soon as his term does. 

[DDD Dad 14650]

13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It is absolutely illegal to keep classified material (and “national defense material” that doesn’t have to be classified) in an unauthorized location.

“Officer” is a term that has some wiggle room. National defense is just “whoever.” 

 

 

13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

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

Those are some important details.

 

13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

So let's break this down. 

1.  Did Biden KNOWINGLY remove items WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND WITH THE INTENT TO RETAIN documents at an unauthorized location?

We.  Don't.  Know.  It seems unlikely, but that's what the special counsel has been appointed to investigate.  Let's see what he finds.

2.  Did Biden, through gross negligence, permit materials to be removed from their proper place of custody or after having knowledge that materials were illegally removed from their proper place of custody fail to make prompt report?

Right now it's unclear whether there was negligence involved or if so whether it rose to the level of gross negligence necessary to violate the second quoted provision.  I don't think there is much of an argument that could be made that Biden failed to make a prompt report of the removal of the materials after having knowledge; his lawyers reported the documents and Biden (if you believe him) claimed to be unaware that the documents were there until they were discovered by his lawyers.

 

Let's compare that with TFG.  No, on further thought, let's not.  It's not comparable in the least.

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by DDD Dad

[DDD Dad 14650]

36 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I haven’t read anything suggesting the docs were from his time as Senator, but even if they were there were files marked “top secret” in his office at UPenn. In medicine we have “never” events. That should be a never event. Not sure what was in his garage. There is also Hillary’s misuse of electronic docs to make things more convenient for her. 

That really doesn't address the point I was making.  It doesn't matter when he came into possession of the materials (although it's certainly possible they could have come his time as a Senator but less likely to be sure).  What I was saying was that for a guy who's had various levels of access to classified materials over the course of 30 years it's not inconceivable that a handful of documents could get misplaced or overlooked during the course of packing stuff up and moving offices, etc.  It doesn't excuse the mistake, but it also doesn't mean that if it happens that officials at the highest level of government are "cavalier" about treatment of classified materials.  

Hillary using an insecure server for classified communications, on the other hand, does seem to be negligent, if not grossly negligent.

Edited January 13, 2023 by DDD Dad

[956 Worldwide 35594]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

Those are some important details.

 

So let's break this down. 

1.  Did Biden KNOWINGLY remove items WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND WITH THE INTENT TO RETAIN documents at an unauthorized location?

We.  Don't.  Know.

2.  Did Biden, through gross negligence, permit materials to be removed from their proper place of custody or after having knowledge that materials were illegally removed from their proper place of custody fail to make prompt report?

Right now it's unclear whether there was negligence involved or if so whether it rose to the level of gross negligence necessary to violate the second quoted provision.  I don't think there is much of an argument that could be made that Biden failed to make a prompt report of the removal of the materials after having knowledge; his lawyers reported the documents and Biden (if you believe him) claimed to be unaware that the documents were there until they were discovered by his lawyers.

 

Let's compare that with TFG.  No, on further thought, let's not.  It's not comparable in the least.

 

All of these are questions of fact for a judge or jury to decide and it’s a far cry from LL’s speculation they “maybe it’s not illegal for someone who has authorization to have it at his place.” 
 

There’s also the fact that having a clearance doesn’t give anyone, really, the authority to possess classified information. It gives you access to see it. Some people, by virtue of position are responsible for storing it or have permission to store it in the secure office they occupy. Some people might have it in their possession as a courier from one place to another on official business. . But no one gets to “possess” it as theirs.  And no one— save possibly the sitting president— gets to possess it in the sense of taking it home to peruse. Some people do it because they aren’t told “no.” 
 

A lot of the Trump case boils down to the unique nature of the presidency and it’s not at all clear how much of that applies down the chain. 

[956 Worldwide 35594]

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

That really doesn't address the point I was making.  It doesn't matter when he came into possession of the materials (although it's certainly possible they could have come his time as a Senator but less likely to be sure).  What I was saying was that for a guy who's had various levels of access to classified materials over the course of 30 years it's not inconceivable that a handful of documents could get misplaced or overlooked during the course of packing stuff up and moving offices, etc.  It doesn't excuse the mistake, but it also doesn't mean that if it happens that officials at the highest level of government are "cavalier" about treatment of classified materials.  

Hillary using an insecure server for classified communications, on the other hand, does seem to be negligent, if not grossly negligent.

It absolutely means they are cavalier and are not following the procedures that are zealously enforced down the chain. A few tidbits on how handling works in an office where everyone is cleared and classified material is processed. 
 

1. If you get up and walk away from a classified terminal without logging off or locking the screen that’s a security violation. 
 

2. If you leave a classified document on a desk or in a desk overnight, even inside an office where information is processed, and that office was locked and alarmed— that is still a violation. 
 

3. If you leave a document inside an approved safe, but fail to spin the dial— that is a violation. 
 

4. Anything marked above secret can never be separated from a bright orange cover sheet that says “Top Secret.” If you do it, that is a violation. 

5. If you want to take a document out of an approved office and courier it to another office, it must have a cover sheet, then it will get wrapped and placed in a sealed envelope with markings, then that envelope will be placed in another sealed envelope. If you fail to do that or leave the sealed package unattended— that is a violation. 

6. If you make a copy of a document on a non-classified copier, even one that is located inside of an office where documents are processed- that is a violation. You must make records of any copies you make and where/how they are stored.

There is a lot more. All this is to demonstrate— it is exceedingly difficult for anyone with a clearance to unknowingly pack something up. If it happens, it means that several safeguards were broken along the way. 

[Js1 87183]

McCarthy invites Biden to do his State of the Union on February 7.

[wildcat09 29579]

27 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

That really doesn't address the point I was making.  It doesn't matter when he came into possession of the materials (although it's certainly possible they could have come his time as a Senator but less likely to be sure).  What I was saying was that for a guy who's had various levels of access to classified materials over the course of 30 years it's not inconceivable that a handful of documents could get misplaced or overlooked during the course of packing stuff up and moving offices, etc.  It doesn't excuse the mistake, but it also doesn't mean that if it happens that officials at the highest level of government are "cavalier" about treatment of classified materials.  

Hillary using an insecure server for classified communications, on the other hand, does seem to be negligent, if not grossly negligent.

What's funny is that her private email server turned out to be more secure than the State Department.  

[DDD Dad 14650]

15 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It absolutely means they are cavalier and are not following the procedures that are zealously enforced down the chain. A few tidbits on how handling works in an office where everyone is cleared and classified material is processed. 
 

1. If you get up and walk away from a classified terminal without logging off or locking the screen that’s a security violation. 
 

2. If you leave a classified document on a desk or in a desk overnight, even inside an office where information is processed, and that office was locked and alarmed— that is still a violation. 
 

3. If you leave a document inside an approved safe, but fail to spin the dial— that is a violation. 
 

4. Anything marked above secret can never be separated from a bright orange cover sheet that says “Top Secret.” If you do it, that is a violation. 

5. If you want to take a document out of an approved office and courier it to another office, it must have a cover sheet, then it will get wrapped and placed in a sealed envelope with markings, then that envelope will be placed in another sealed envelope. If you fail to do that or leave the sealed package unattended— that is a violation. 

6. If you make a copy of a document on a non-classified copier, even one that is located inside of an office where documents are processed- that is a violation. You must make records of any copies you make and where/how they are stored.

There is a lot more. All this is to demonstrate— it is exceedingly difficult for anyone with a clearance to unknowingly pack something up. If it happens, it means that several safeguards were broken along the way. 

What I'm saying is that over the course of 30+ years I'm fairly confident that violations likely occurred.  The discovery of documents where they shouldn't be is evidence of that.  However, that's a very long time for what might be very isolated violations to have occurred such that it doesn't necessarily support the conclusion that the highest level officials generally are "cavalier" about handling classified materials. 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Your points are all reasonable and valid.

[Dutchrudder 11243]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

McCarthy invites Biden to do his State of the Union on February 7.

Will the government even be functional then?  I thought default was a week or two away?

[gmr548 16701]

Will the government even be functional then?  I thought default was a week or two away?

Makes for a short speech.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

Well, on NPR of all places -- FAKE NEWS! -- they were pretty harshly critical of Bidenco for not revealing the trove of documents found at his home when this story first broke.  Dumbshits.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There is a lot more. All this is to demonstrate— it is exceedingly difficult for anyone with a clearance to unknowingly pack something up. If it happens, it means that several safeguards were broken along the way. 

It seems fairly clear to me that most if not all of those safeguards go straight out the window when that material goes to the White House.

Most POTUS never have a conventional security clearance where they have to deal with ordinary security protocols like viewing materials in an SCI facility or on a secure terminal.  They get an "executive" clearance necessary for the job -- and with little or no regard for whether they would qualify for such a clearance otherwise.  I'm not going to be too hard on a POTUS for not knowing all the things on your list.

But it does seem that agency heads and their minions that are responsible for briefings relying on or containing classified materials, who really should know better, are pretty lax with the materials.