Post New

So, all the reporting I've seen is that president Joe Biden “willfully retained” and disclosed classified documents while out of office, but concluded that “no criminal charges are warranted.”

How are those two things not directly contradictory? Isn't willfully retaining and disclosing classified information a crime?

So, all the reporting I've seen is that president Joe Biden “willfully retained” and disclosed classified documents while out of office, but concluded that “no criminal charges are warranted.”

How are those two things not directly contradictory? Isn't willfully retaining and disclosing classified information a crime?

TL;DR - the special prosecutor reported that there was evidence that Biden did these things, but that there wasn't enough to successfully support a prosecution.

Longer version - as we discussed ad nauseum in the Trump classified docs case (and in comparing it to Clinton's email situation), one of the elements of most crimes is a specific mental state on the part of the defendant. This is called mens rea. Many crimes require only "general intent" - they had to intend to do the act, and don't have to have any other particular knowledge or intent. Most crimes involving classified information require "specific intent," which requires some level of knowledge or "willfulness" in order for the crime to have occurred.

In a nutshell, for you to be guilty of willfully retaining classified documents, you have to have intentionally and knowingly retained those documents. Prosecutors have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the documents were there, that he knew what was in those documents, that he knew the contents were classified, and that he knew that he had an obligation to return them to the government.

That's typically hard to do - especially in situations where someone (like Biden or Trump) has reams of documents from their time in office and it's hard to prove that they had specific knowledge of the contents of all their file boxes. Trump's in trouble because there's a lot of evidence to support claims that he actually knew that he was in possession of classified documents (namely, the Archives told him that he was and he had his lawyers on his behalf review the documents in response to those claims). So prosecutors can feel pretty confident that they have a prima facie case that the mens rea element was met and can be proven in court.

For Biden, though, prosecutors would have a really hard time proving up Biden's mental state. The special counsel chose a very cutting way of expressing that. Instead of pointing out that it's very likely that someone wouldn't remember the specific contents in dozens of boxes containing thousands of pages of documents (correctly, since that would be true of anyone), he instead pointed out (also correctly) that Biden could offer some specific evidence that his memory is terrible generally.

Anyway, that's why there's no prosecution - because there's insufficient evidence that a crime took place.

he instead pointed out (also correctly) that Biden could offer some specific evidence that his memory is terrible generally.

Any guesses as to why he did it that way?

Any guesses as to why he did it that way?

Oh, of course. He wanted to communicate that he felt that Biden did something wrong, and that this wasn't an innocent mistake, and that the only reason he wasn't recommending charges was because they couldn't prove that in court.

"You can disagree with one part as long as you agree to fully find it."

Any guesses as to how these documents got out of a SCIF undetected while old Joe was a Senator or Vice President?

albaby1: Oh, of course. He wanted to communicate that he felt that Biden did something wrong, and that this wasn't an innocent mistake, and that the only reason he wasn't recommending charges was because they couldn't prove that in court.

Which is basically what James Comey did that led Rosenstein to recommended firing him.

Any guesses as to how these documents got out of a SCIF undetected while old Joe was a Senator or Vice President?

The most likely explanation is that some staffer took them and included them in boxes of other, unclassified documents. It's exceptionally unlikely that a U.S. Senator or the Vice President would have packed up his own stuff on leaving office - it certainly would have been delegated to a subordinate staffer.

Which is basically what James Comey did that led Rosenstein to recommended firing him.

Not really. Rosenstein said that Comey shouldn't have held a press conference to announce a non-prosecution decision, since the FBI Director isn't the government official that makes that call - that's the prosecutors' job. He also said that it violated department policy to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation.

Neither would apply to Hur. It's part of his job to issue a report on his investigation and outlining his recommendations. Unlike Comey, he never had the option to just say nothing - the special counsel is required in the statute to provide a report outlining his prosecution or declination decisions and the reasons for them, in a way that the FBI Director most certainly is not.

"The most likely explanation is that some staffer took them and included them in boxes of other, unclassified documents. It's exceptionally unlikely that a U.S. Senator or the Vice President would have packed up his own stuff on leaving office - it certainly would have been delegated to a subordinate staffer."

Oh, so if that is true for a mere Senator , or a Vice President, then it could also be true for The President I guess. Do you agree.?

"Hur’s report said criminal charges were not merited for multiple reasons.
Those include the fact that as vice president and during his subsequent Presidency when the Afghanistan records were found, he had the authority to keep classified documents at his home."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-willfu...

The most likely explanation is that some staffer took them and included them in boxes of other, unclassified documents.

Staffers don’t have SCIF access .

"ur’s report said criminal charges were not merited for multiple reasons."

Wow my head is just spinning ere. And as a Senator?

Oh, so if that is true for a mere Senator , or a Vice President, then it could also be true for The President I guess. Do you agree.?

Absolutely. That's the reason why Trump was never charged with removing classified documents. He almost certainly didn't do that himself, and very well may have been unaware of what specifically was taken when he left.

He was charged instead with unlawfully and willfully retaining classified documents, as well as other criminal counts related to his efforts to conceal them and prevent them from being returned to the government. Once he was aware that his records contained classified information - a fact which was verified by his own lawyers' review of the documents - he was committing a crime by not giving them back.

Staffers don’t have SCIF access .

Of course they do. Anyone with the appropriate clearance has access. Heck, even the official White House photographer has access to SCIF's - which is why you've seen pictures of people in the Situation Room, like this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_Room_(photograph)

Let's grant the point about staffers, then.
Biden illegally removed documents, stored them for decades, then showed stuff to someone without a security clearance.

In other words, they had him dead to rights because as a Senator and as a VP he was never a declassifying authority and therefore had no right to any of it. They just...declined to prosecute because Hur said that no jury was going to convict Grandpa Simpson.

He was charged instead with unlawfully and willfully retaining classified documents, as well as other criminal counts related to his efforts to conceal them and prevent them from being returned to the government. Once he was aware that his records contained classified information - a fact which was verified by his own lawyers' review of the documents - he was committing a crime by not giving them back.

Yes. Trump will be prosecuted - vigorously - for unlawful retention and for obstruction. As President he had a right to declassify anything he wants to, so his defense will be that.

Biden illegally removed documents, stored them for decades, then showed stuff to someone without a security clearance.

There's no evidence he illegally removed documents. Again, he almost certainly wasn't the person who actually packed or moved the documents - and it's very unlikely that he had any granular review over what specific pieces of paper were packed or left.

Nor is it a crime to store classified documents for decades. As with Trump, the crime occurs when you refuse to return documents that you had lawful access to at the time you got them on request. It's the refusal to return, not the retention, that's the problem.

Nor is there any evidence that Biden "showed stuff" to someone without a security clearance. He read passages from his private notes to his ghostwriter. Those documents would not have had classification markings and wouldn't have been reviewed or assigned a classification category, and so it becomes difficult to prove that Biden knew that the information was classified at the time he provided it. That's especially going to be hard to win in court because of the government's longstanding and frequently utilized process for doing classification reviews for books written by government officials - the government is very well aware that classified information that isn't marked might be inadvertently revealed and want to take steps to review to prevent their publication.

Had Biden refused to give the documents back, and instead tried to hide them, he would have almost certainly faced the same charges as Trump. Because he didn't do that, and instead did the right thing, there's no prosecution.

" He almost certainly didn't do that himself, and very well may have been unaware of what specifically was taken when he left."

So, if he (Trump) didn't do it himself, and he was unaware of what was taken then is he criminally responsible for wanting to hold on to the 35-40 or so documents , which at least one time and maybe later he had the legal right to keep and control. Is this worthy of a criminal complaint against him versus Biden who had ...no ...rights to any documents as a Senator or a Vice President?

So, if he (Trump) didn't do it himself, and he was unaware of what was taken then is he criminally responsible for wanting to hold on to the 35-40 or so documents , which at least one time and maybe later he had the legal right to keep and control. Is this worthy of a criminal complaint against him versus Biden who had ...no ...rights to any documents as a Senator or a Vice President?

Trump will almost certainly file a motion to dismiss on the basis of selective prosecution. What's interesting is this whole thing may have been the the DOJ's plan all along: don't charge Biden even though you know you should because you have him dead to rights - this gets them out of having to take aim at a sitting President - but do it in such a way that a judge almost HAS to throw out the OTHER case you have going against the guy you ALSO have a strong case against but might win anyway.

If true, a tip of the cap to the DOJ.

<<Any guesses as to how these documents got out of a SCIF undetected while old Joe was a Senator or Vice President?<<

The most likely explanation is that some staffer took them and included them in boxes of other, unclassified documents. It's exceptionally unlikely that a U.S. Senator or the Vice President would have packed up his own stuff on leaving office - it certainly would have been delegated to a subordinate staffer. - albaby

--------------

Lets drop VP from the question.

Lets drop what a staffer may have done while packing up leaving office.

As a senator he didn't enjoy the privilege of removing documents from a SCIF. If he did not do it personally, the someone did for him. Either way, there is a serious crime in there somewhere, unrelated to, and unexcused by Joe's current job or his current mental capacity.

Here is the unanswered question that remains. The questions required going back in time to the day these documents left the SCIF..,.

Any guesses as to how these documents got out of a SCIF undetected while old Joe was a Senator?

As President he had a right to declassify anything he wants to, so his defense will be that.

No, it won't be.

I was writing off-the-cuff, so I forgot to distinguish between classified information and national defense information. Many documents are both. The particular statute that Trump is charged with violating makes it a crime to refuse to return national defense information. Trump's power to declassify wouldn't affect that.

So, if he (Trump) didn't do it himself, and he was unaware of what was taken then is he criminally responsible for wanting to hold on to the 35-40 or so documents , which at least one time and maybe later he had the legal right to keep and control.

Yes. It is a crime to refuse to return national defense documents back to the federal government upon request, even if it was lawful for you to have possession of them initially. Once the government asked for them back, it was a crime for him to refuse - and additionally criminal for him to take steps to try to conceal his retention of the documents.

Any guesses as to how these documents got out of a SCIF undetected while old Joe was a Senator?

I wasn't able to find anything in the Hur report indicating that the documents from Biden's time as a Senator were SCIF documents. There were documents with classified markings from those days, but the documents that are referred to in the report as having SCIF markings are entirely from his time as VP. Perhaps I'm missing it?

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-specia...

Heck, even the official White House photographer has access to SCIF's - which is why you've seen pictures of people in the Situation Room, like this one: - albaby

------------

The situation room is THE WH command center during emergencies.

How does a picture taken in this room support the assertion that staffers have access to SCIFs which are entirely separate secure rooms not used for emergency meetings?

And let's clarify staffer. I would expect that Pres and VP staffers have that clearance because their bosses do. But I would further expect that not any ol' staffer can walk in a SCIF and check something out. Which gets back to the unanswered question of how does a mere senator come to possess SCIF documents?

How does a picture taken in this room support the assertion that staffers have access to SCIFs which are entirely separate secure rooms not used for emergency meetings?

And let's clarify staffer. I would expect that Pres and VP staffers have that clearance because their bosses do.

The Situation Room is a SCIF. The picture is clear indication that staffers are allowed to go into SCIFs - there are staffers that are shown in the picture, and the photographer himself is a staffer. Only people with adequate security clearances are allowed in (and only for the purpose of performing their duties), but that includes a lot of upper-level staff.

And remember, documents have to move in and out of SCIF's all the time. The White House SCIF doesn't always and forever contain every SCIF-level document the President might need to review. If someone takes notes of a meeting in a SCIF, that doesn't mean those notes have to live forever in that SCIF and can never be removed. Documents have to be able to move from SCIF to SCIF (or the Departmental facilities where they're normally stored). People need to bring the SCIF documents into the SCIF for the President to review, and then return them to wherever they are permanently stored afterwards (which would also be a SCIF). The President isn't carrying his own documents around, and neither is the Vice-President.

" Once the government asked for them back, it was a crime for him to refuse - and additionally criminal for him to take steps to try to conceal his retention of the documents."

Not really, it is a question to be resolved by the courts. He was the President with ...full...legal authority to have these documents. As to whether he had them declassified or whatever is a point to be determined court. He, unlike Old Joe, has never been accused of sharing this information with others for publication at a later date.

"I wasn't able to find anything in the Hur report indicating that the documents from Biden's time as a Senator were SCIF documents. "

Irrelevant,,, why did he have them in his garage in the first place?

The President isn't carrying his own documents around, and neither is the Vice-President.

It doesn't matter. Biden as a Senator or a VP has *zero* authority to retain documents as a private citizen, which he has done for 40 years now. He loses even more points for spreading them around multiple unsecure sites.

What's even more damming was sharing some of that stuff with his ghost writer, who upon learning of the investigation deleted some recordings he had. Recall that the FBI recommended felony charges for David Petraeus for doing what amounted to the exact same thing (retaining classified information and showing it to his biographer). Petraeus would go on to plead guilty of of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

Not really, it is a question to be resolved by the courts. He was the President with ...full...legal authority to have these documents.

Not after January 20th.

Again, it is not in dispute that he had legal authority to have the documents at the time he acquired them. It was not a crime for him to have acquired them, or to have had them in Mar-a-Lago. The crime occurred when after he had left office - when he was no longer President and was only a private citizen like anyone else - for him to have refused to return the national defense documents back to the federal government (which he was no longer part of) when requested to do so. And to take steps to conceal that fact.

Irrelevant,,, why did he have them in his garage in the first place?

Again, probably because some staff included them in his papers when he was packing up after leaving office as a Senator. It is exceptionally unlikely that Biden personally packed those boxes or chose what papers were included.

"The crime occurred when after he had left office - when he was no longer President and was only a private citizen like anyone else - "
I would respectfully disagree with you, he ..felt...that he had a right and was/is willing to assert this right in a court of law.

" It is exceptionally unlikely that Biden personally packed those boxes or chose what papers were included."
As is also true of Trump ....so what?

Biden as a Senator or a VP has *zero* authority to retain documents as a private citizen, which he has done for 40 years now.

As did Donald Trump. Technically, all government documents are the property of the government. When you leave a job, your work stuff should stay at work - only your personal effects should stay with you.

But that's a very different question than what constitutes a crime to retain. The statute is pretty clear - it is criminal to retain national defense documents when then the government asks for them back. It's not a crime to continue to possess such documents before they ask for them back. The crime lies in the refusal to return them, not in the possession or retention.

Recall that the FBI recommended felony charges for David Petraeus for doing what amounted to the exact same thing (retaining classified information and showing it to his biographer). Petraeus would go on to plead guilty of of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

Yep - because there was plenty of evidence that Petraeus knew that the information he was providing was classified information at the time he gave it, especially since the documents he shared with Broadwell had classified markings.

There's no indication that Biden let his ghostwriter see any classified documents - instead, the accusation is that he read aloud from his personal notebooks (which would not have been reviewed or marked classified). Which makes it very hard to prove mens rea, since those notebooks would have never have been formally classified. Classified information is classified whether it's marked or not, but without the markings you don't have evidence that any particular person actually knew that a piece of information was classified or not.

I would respectfully disagree with you, he ..felt...that he had a right and was/is willing to assert this right in a court of law.

What right? He was a private citizen. These documents were government property, and contained national defense information. His "feelings" about his right to retain national defense information in the face of an official demand that it be returned to the federal government isn't relevant. At no time did he actually go to court to try to seek an injunction against the government requesting the information.

Trump wasn't President after January 20th, and he had no more legal right than you or I or any other private citizen to refuse to turn over national defense information documents. His status as former President meant that it was almost certainly not a crime for him to have come into possession of them in the first place, but once the government asked for them back it was a crime for him to refuse.

As is also true of Trump ....so what?

Which means it doesn't matter how the documents got into his garage in the first place - any more than it matters how the Trump documents were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago. Because that didn't involve any criminal activity (at least, not by Biden or Trump).

The Situation Room is a SCIF. The picture is clear indication that staffers are allowed to go into SCIFs - there are staffers that are shown in the picture, - albaby

-------------

OK, poorly formed question.... lets try it this way



Concerning the physical removal of documents from a SCIF, I am sure the President and the VP can. And I assume. by extension, their staffers acting on their behalf can....

The question is, "Does a Senator have the authority to remove a document from a SCIF?

And if the Senator personally can remove, then is it true that a staffer of a Senator automatically has that same authority?

" At no time did "
At no time was he required to provide them. As Hillary about her 33000 emails, they were not relevant until they were asked for.

The question is, "Does a Senator have the authority to remove a document from a SCIF?

And if the Senator personally can remove, then is it true that a staffer of a Senator automatically has that same authority?

Again, there's nothing in the Hur report that indicates that any of the SCIF documents were from Biden's time as a Senator - just from his time as Vice-President.

At no time was he required to provide them.

Once the federal government asked for them back, he was required to provide them. Which is why he never contested the fact that the federal government could lawfully request that he return classified documents and national defense information back, and why he did (in fact) return some of those documents. Because he knew that he was required to return these types of documents. But he refused to return some of them, and then took steps to conceal the fact that he had refused to return some of them. Which is why he's being charged with a crime. Because he tried to retain possession of these documents after the federal government tried to get them back. Which is a crime.

". Which is why he's being charged with a crime. Because he tried to retain possession of these documents after the federal government tried to get them back. Which is a crime."

Ok, which as an American citizen and a lawyer I would expect that you would respect that he has...chosen...to exercise his rights as an American citizen to test this in court. Do you agree?

albaby1: It's part of his job to issue a report on his investigation and outlining his recommendations.

Okay, then what about Section 9-27.790 of DOJ’s Principles of Federal Prosecution which requires prosecutors to “remain sensitive to the privacy and reputational interest of uncharged parties”?

Ok, which as an American citizen and a lawyer I would expect that you would respect that he has...chosen...to exercise his rights as an American citizen to test this in court. Do you agree?

If he had done so, then I would. Except he didn't.

Trump has absolutely no plausible basis for claiming he's entitled to hold onto government records in the face of a request that they be returned. But if he had, he could have responded to the government demand by doing what you claim he did - exercise his rights by testing this in a court.

IOW, a legitimate response to the government demanding the return of all the national defense information be to actually assert a claim that he was entitled to keep them in a court of competent jurisdiction.

But he didn't do that. Instead, he lied. He told them that he had returned all of the relevant documents, and then took steps to hide the ones he kept. Which is a pretty solid indication that: i) neither he nor his lawyers actually felt that there was any basis for a claim that he could keep government records in the face of a demand they be returned; and ii) he intended to wrongfully retain the ones he wanted to keep, rather than "exercise a right to test this in court."

This happens all the time in the discovery context. Party A subpoenas a bunch of documents from Party B. If Party B believes that they shouldn't be turned over, they can ask the court to exclude them from being turned over. They can't hide the documents. The first is "exercising their rights" to test a claim of privilege (or whatever) in court; the second is willful violation of a court order. And if you get caught concealing the documents, rather than having turned them over, it doesn't matter if you have some after-the-fact claim that they should have been exempt from discovery. You violated the rules by refusing to turn them over by hiding them, rather than presenting the argument that they were protected.

Assuming the facts presented in the indictment (that Trump was aware that there were classified and NDI documents in these boxes), then he committed a crime by refusing to turn them over and concealing that fact, rather than either: i) turning them over; or ii) asking a court for a ruling that he was allowed to keep them. Option #3 - lying to the government and saying that you had returned all the classified or NDI documents - was the crime.

Albaby

Okay, then what about Section 9-27.790 of DOJ’s Principles of Federal Prosecution which requires prosecutors to “remain sensitive to the privacy and reputational interest of uncharged parties”?

Again, this is his report to his superiors. He's allowed to spell out everything in the actual report. He's not calling a press conference, making statements to the media - this is the formal document spelling out the basis for his prosecutorial or declination decisions. I'm pretty sure that it's not a violation of those principles to be candid in the internal paperwork, even if it is possible - or even foreseeable - that such internal report may be disclosed.

Again, there's nothing in the Hur report that indicates that any of the SCIF documents were from Biden's time as a Senator - just from his time as Vice-President.

--------------

Understood. I drilled into this question to get to the root of Biden's alleged criminality. So despite all the bluster on conservative media, it really gets down to this question, "Were any of Biden's garage, etc documents from a SCIF?"

I haven't heard an answer to that question and all we have is the prosecutors silence. I wish some journalist would ask this specific question...

"But he didn't do that. Instead, he lied. He told them that he had returned all of the relevant documents, and then took steps to hide the ones he kept. Which is a pretty solid indication that: i) neither he nor his lawyers actually felt that there was any basis for a claim that he could keep government records in the face of a demand they be returned; and ii) he intended to wrongfully retain the ones he wanted to keep, rather than "exercise a right to test this in court."


If he was unaware of what was there because ...he... did not pack it up then your point is not well taken. He has chosen to go to court, this for you as a lawyer shold be a good decision

" "Were any of Biden's garage, etc documents from a SCIF?""

Please outline what difference this makes.

Anyway, that's why there's no prosecution - because there's insufficient evidence that a crime took place.

So, Biden "willfully retained documents", but they can't prove that he did? That seems like positing the thing you are trying to establish. On what basis then can they say he willfully retained documents?

As did Donald Trump. Technically, all government documents are the property of the government. When you leave a job, your work stuff should stay at work - only your personal effects should stay with you.

Presidents are classifying/declassifying authorities. For those documents, the sole determinant value is whether or not their contents are classified or otherwise secret information.

Put it this way. You go to a company dinner and you take the menu home with you. Technically that menu is company property but since it contains precisely zero useful information absolutely no one is going to take exception to it.

Therefore, at heart here is did Trump declassify the documents on his way out the door? If he did, then their value drops to zero and all you have is a beef between himself and the National Archives. This is Boater's point, with the following question to be settled in the courts:

What action does a President need to take to declassify a document?

Note that there is *no* action that Senator Joe Biden or Vice President Joe Biden could take or could have taken: at no point in the entire 40 year affair was he in the right.

There's no indication that Biden let his ghostwriter see any classified documents Yes he did. They could have prosecuted him for this alone.

From the SC's report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-specia...

Also, during his eight years as vice president, Mr. Eiden regularly wrote notes
by hand in notebooks. Some of these notes related to classified subjects, including the
President's Daily Brief and National Security Council meetings, and some of the
notes are themselves classified. After the vice presidency, Mr. Eiden kept these
2
classified notebooks in unsecured and unauthorized spaces at his Virginia and
Delaware homes and used some of the notebooks as reference material for his second
memoir, Promise Me, Dad, which was published in 2017. To our knowledge, no one
has identified any classified information published in Promise Me, Dad, but Mr.
Biden shared information, including some classified information, from those
notebooks with his ghostwriter.

" "Were any of Biden's garage, etc documents from a SCIF?""

Please outline what difference this makes. - Boater

-----------------------

I realize now, my question needs finer granularity, Try this,

Were any of Biden's garage, etc Senate-era documents from a SCIF?

Now to answer your question, if the answer to my question is Yes, then a crime was committed since as a senator he did not have that removal authority.

That matters because his culpability is based on his mental state at the time the crime (removal) was committed and his present day mental state is not relevant.

Documents he came to possess as VP are documents he was at least authorized to possess, so then the question of staffers packing, supervision, etc become a plausible excuse. And as long as he cooperated in their return, then no crime.

Boater: If he was unaware of what was there because ...he... did not pack it up then your point is not well taken.

The Justice Department provided a grand jury subpoena seeking "any and all" documents bearing classification markings that were in Trump's possession at Mar-a-Lago. This was months after they were packed and sent to Mar-a-Lago and Trump was alerted to the fact that he had documents with classification markings. He knew it and he tried to hide them. Then he tried to have them moved to hide them somewhere else. Then he instructed his staffers to destroy security video of the documents being moved.

What's he gotta' do before you admit his behavior was criminal, auction them on eBay?

"What's he gotta' do before you admit his behavior was criminal, auction them on eBay?"

Go away little boy

D: Al: There's no indication that Biden let his ghostwriter see any classified documents
D Response: Yes he did. They could have prosecuted him for this alone.

Me: Dope, he's talking documents, not notes. If you go to P249 on the SC's report, you'll see that Biden is reading notes, and he may have shown his ghostwriter the notes one time. Notes are different than documents. Nothing marked classified.

Trump's docs are clearly marked classified and lots of unattached classified covers were found. But the best thing we learned about was NDI, National Defense Information. Enlightening. Which is why I come here. Enjoy! 😊

Me: Dope, he's talking documents, not notes

Tell me you don’t know anything about classified material without telling me you don’t know anything about classified material.

Tell me you don’t know anything about classified material without telling me you don’t know anything about classified material.

Al:There's no indication that Biden let his ghostwriter see any classified documents - instead, the accusation is that he read aloud from his personal notebooks (which would not have been reviewed or marked classified).

Me: I'm telling you to stop and analyze what Albaby is saying. That's a very clear statement.

Slow down, stop and analyze. If you're emotional don't respond, come back later. What Albaby said was very clear and you seemed to not understand it in a very basic way. Slow down first, don't hit the trigger. This is not a case where you can say. "Hmm, we'll have to agree to disagree." That's exactly how it happened.

"ur’s report said criminal charges were not merited for multiple reasons."

Wow my head is just spinning ere. And as a Senator?


The reason your head is spinning is because it's not functionally attached to your body.

Boater: Wow my head is just spinning ere. And as a Senator?

Dope1: In other words, they had him dead to rights because as a Senator and as a VP he was never a declassifying authority and therefore had no right to any of it.

bighairyguy: As a senator he didn't enjoy the privilege of removing documents from a SCIF.

Which gets back to the unanswered question of how does a mere senator come to possess SCIF documents?

Had any of the three of you actually bothered to read the Hur report, you would have seen in Appendix A that there were no SCIF documents discovered from Biden's time as a senator. All of the documents dated from his senate days had their classification upgraded now, in 2023-2024, "with current classification guidelines". They were not considered classified in the 1970s or in 1980; so they did not need to be handled or viewed in a SCIF.

And BTW, president Obama issued an EO to give the vice president classification and declassification authority (specific details here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-off...)

Me: I'm telling you to st

And I’m telling you that you have no clue what you’re talking.
For once, go read the report.

Actually I did read the report.
None of you libs have, and it shows.

So for you also:

Tell me you don’t know anything about classified material without telling me know you don’t know anything about classified material.

Your spinning has always been pathetic, but for this it’s reaching a level of religious zeal that should concern your relatives.

One more time from the report, since so many of you claim to have read it.

Also, during his eight years as vice president, Mr. Biden regularly wrote notes
by hand in notebooks. Some of these notes related to classified subjects, including the
President's Daily Brief and National Security Council meetings, and some of the
notes are themselves classified. After the vice presidency, Mr. Biden kept these

classified notebooks in unsecured and unauthorized spaces at his Virginia and
Delaware homes and used some of the notebooks as reference material for his second
memoir, Promise Me, Dad, which was published in 2017. To our knowledge, no one
has identified any classified information published in Promise Me, Dad, but Mr.
Biden shared information, including some classified information, from those
notebooks with his ghostwriter.

For those of you who don't have knowledge of this:

*If you're reading a classified document, and you have a pad and paper next to and start taking notes on what the classified document says...

...then the notes you're taking are also classified regardless if they're marked that way or not.

No amount of your spinning or outright gaslighting is going to help you. The DOJ had Biden with the exact same charge they nailed David Petraeus on (who would eventually plead out).

They *chose* to let him off.

Take the L.

This does lead to the question "why".

Why keep documents in your home? I get that people emailed HRC, and so that's why she had email with contents that shouldn't have been on a server in her home. But boxes of documents? Trump or Biden...why?

I wouldn't have a single scrap of work paper in my home. Once or twice I would bring notes home so I could write a report for the next day. Usually I just stayed late and finished it. I would have no reason to bring company-proprietary stuff home. Why would a senator, or VP, or POTUS? (Well, POTUS lives in the White House, so that's OK...but after he was fired, he should have once single box of documents.)

And I'm sure that everyone does it. Schumer, Johnson, everyone on the Intelligence Committee, or any committee. Seems reckless.

CO: And BTW, president Obama issued an EO to give the vice president classification and declassification authority (specific details here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-off...)

Wow, too long for me. I'll take your word for it.

And I’m telling you that you have no clue what you’re talking.
For once, go read the report.

No. You need to read the thread. Albaby is distinguishing Biden vs Trump during a discussion of "WILLFULNESS", which is a required element of the crime. And the prosecutor stated in the report that the required element of willfulness cannot be established, Albaby is explaining why, and distinguishing from Trump. And you are stuck back on thinking Albaby doesn't understand classified materials? No, he's just beyond that and addressing willfulness.

No

Then don’t go read the report; remain ignorant. And I wasn’t referring to Al, I was referring to you and ChatNPC. Run along, now.

DopeL but Mr.Biden shared information, including some classified information, from those
notebooks with his ghostwriter.

All of us know the notes become classified, ya dope. We were beyond that and discussing willfulness. If Biden had read aloud from a classified document - which all are stamped classified, some with colorful covers - there would be less of a problem establishing willfulness wouldn't there? How could Biden wonder aloud if this was classified if it was stamped and labeled classified right under his nose? You see how that works? That's the point Albaby was making, although much better. He's not saying the notes aren't classified material - he's addressing whether it can be established beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden willfully (intentionally) shared classified information.

Keep up with the thread and stop wasting our time.

Why keep documents in your home? I get that people emailed HRC, and so that's why she had email with contents that shouldn't have been on a server in her home. But boxes of documents? Trump or Biden...why?

-----------------

Part of the reason this is happening is because of the lack of functionality in the systems used to classify and physically secure top-secret content. After the security breach related to Jack Teixeira came to light in April of 2023, I wrote about the numerous flaws in current information security systems here:

https://watchingtheherd.blogspot.com/2023/04/natio...

Due to the ease of transmitting crucial information electronically and challenges with tracing WHERE electronic information flows after its release, we currently exist in a world where a printed PHYSICAL copy of a document is in many ways deemed more secure than an electronic copy. As a result, when ten officials are invited to a meeting in the Situtation Room to discuss new spy satellite photos about an adversary seemingly prepping for war, it's more likely that ten copies of a 20-page PowerPoint containing the photos, alternative strategies and military response recommendations are PRINTED and left on the table in front of each chair than that same PowerPoint is EMAILED to each participant as an encrypted, password-protected file that can only be opened ONCE within a limited window of time plus or minus 60 minutes before or after that meeting. Nor are security tools used along with standard desktop applications that block such files from being forwarded or exported from the original PROTECTED document into a NEW document that lacks any of the access / forwarding restrictions.

The other problem is that role-based access rights are not administered within government networks in ways which remotely reflect the underlying complexity of schemes used to categorize national security secrets. One can easily argue that is a reflection of TWO different problems. One is that current operating systems and applications used to create / view documents lack the features required to attach security attributes that can reflect not just the LEVEL of the person with rights to see information but explicitly WHERE in the entire universe of top-secret information that person is allowed to view information. As I wrote in 2023,

----------------
Using the earth as a metaphor for all possible areas of sensitive information, this classification scheme implies that current practices are more focused on the "altitude" of a person (how high up the scheme they are) rather than the "latitude and longitude" of their need to know. Information within the Compartmentalized tier is obviously more segmented but at lower levels, access seems to be quite wide. Conceptually, if you are trusted to view information at two thousand feet, you are trusted to look at any point on the planet at that two thousand foot level.
----------------

To better identify the "pinpoint" of specific secret information involved in a document (either by its content or originator role), I suggested devising new applications and operating system functions that could use the security equivalent of a ZIP code -- a short, 7-character alphanumeric string that could logically encode the NATURE of the security information within a document and be interpreted electronically at any point of access or transmission to drive access restrictions and trace the document's electronic spread.

----------------
In essence, government systems need to implement a new process based on something I'll call a "ZIPIT" code. Like a ZIP code, a ZIPIT code would be a relatively short character string that would be automatically created any time a confidential document is created electronically or printed that would encode information about the originating agency, department and possibly author. How much information could be embedded in a ZIPIT code? If the code was kept to seven alphanumerics (digits and upper case), that would be 37^7 or 94,931,877,133 combinations.

Theoretically, this concept would allow over 94 billion unique areas of information to be identified for subsequent use in identifying the source of a document and information about the organization and author that created it, allowing searches to rapidly trace the document's trail if leaked. If a ZIPIT code was also embedded with a document and used to trigger an event when read electronically, such read confirmations could be collected and searched to instantly diagram a document's sharing history and identify parties that viewed the document. The tasks of synthesizing such codes at document creation and generating "read tags" as documents are passed and opened is child's play for modern big data systems. Amazon processes more details on your search behavior on their portal than would be generated by this type of system.
----------------

Of course, the OTHER conclusion from all of these events is that humans will ALWAYS be the weakest link in any attempt to maintain a national security state and that attempting to operate a democracy amidst a system like the current state that creates so many distinct, microscopic categorizations of "national security information" is NOT actually protecting the country (because the processes required are too onerous) and in fact is only creating bureaucracy and inefficiency that is likely HARMING the goals of protecting the country -- by luring us into believing the current protection schemes are bullet-proof. They're not.


WTH

OK. So our system has issues. And humans are always the weakest link.

But why take stuff home in the first place? Why not leave it in the office? I took a work bag to work, but in my "work bag" was my lunch, munchies and drinks, stuff from home I had to deal with (i.e. insurance call centers are open when I'm at work, not when I'm at home), etc. I almost never brought anything work-related home. When I'm home, I'm home.

So when I retired, I just packed up a few personal items, and left everything else in place. All my files, all my hardware (tools, programmers, and such)...everything. Just left it. Walked away. Someone could have sat in my office and (if they knew what they were doing) pick right up. Everything was still connected.

Biden took some personal notes home. These were used to write a memoir. Biden fully cooperated, and returned all documents when asked. Similar to Mike Pence and many others.

The special counsel seems inept. How many criminals has he let go because he thought they had a memory excuse? Mixing names up and getting dates wrong is common, its just the way the human brain works. Shouldn't a special counsel know this?

Mixing up names like Biden and Trump have done is pretty common, February 10, 2024
"Some studies have suggested that everyday “misnaming” may occur when the brain has names stored by category — like your family members or perhaps in Biden’s case, world leaders he’s long known — and grabs the wrong one. Or the miss may be phonetic, as the names of France’s current president, Emmanuel Macron, and former President Francois Mitterrand both begin with “M.” Mitterrand died in 1996. As for dates, emotion may tag certain memories but not run-of-the-mill ones, such as the special counsel’s questions about when Biden handled a box of documents. “Attaching a calendar date to an event is not really something that the human brain does at any age,” Lenze said. It’s “not like a spreadsheet.”"
https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-age-concern...

James Comey all over again!

"Tell me you don’t know anything about classified material without telling me you don’t know anything about classified material." - Dope1

LOL

Indeed. Dope accusing others about not knowing anything about classified information despite the fact that he has displayed multiple times in this thread a clear misunderstanding about what was said, what was classified, and what was done. Classic Dope.

Biden took some personal notes home. These were used to write a memoir. Biden fully cooperated, and returned all documents when asked. Similar to Mike Pence and many others.

Oh, I'm not disputing that. HRC, Biden, Pence...they all cooperated and returned any requested documents. I was just questioning why anyone would remove them in the first place (though, HRC didn't remove them...she received them in emails). Personal notes are one thing, but official documents are quite another. Though, yes, notes about classified things are generally classified also.

Seems kinda loose to allow that for a "memoir".

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.