• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DOJ seizes more classified docs from Biden's Wilmington home after 12-hour search

ElChupacabra said:
Maybe not eradicate, but certainly manage documents better through audits conducted by NARA once a politician leaves office and more legal consequences for those who do not comply.
Click to expand...

For sure.

I could be wrong (and will admit so if I am) but I don't think Biden did anything with criminal intent. That doesn't completely absolve him, though. It's troubling that he apparently handled sensitive documents in such a sloppy manner. Criminal negligence could still be in play, though I think DOJ is going to be hesitant to prosecute him given the volume of sensitive information he came into contact with.

What MAGAs don't seem willing to acknowledge is that the DOJ clearly isn't eager to prosecute Trump either, despite the clear evidence that his response is markedly different than Biden's. I think that's probably similar reasons: DOJ would understand and give Trump the benefit of the doubt that he may not have known he was in possession of classified documents or that he couldn't keep whatever he had. But Trump's defiance, particularly in light of the documents he possessed, necessitated intervention.
 
braindrain said:
Yes he did.

That still doesn’t change the fact that some here can’t stop defending Biden no matter what.

Tell me do you think the fact that some people are murderers that makes it ok for you to rob banks.
Click to expand...
Some of the responses are more towards those who are equivocating the Trump and Biden scenarios, which have the stark difference in terms of how each one has handled cooperation. The similarity is they both have documents that should have been turned over and managed better, but there's been no failed compliance on the part of Biden. The mistake I think he's making is saying "there's no there there" which is something that's still open to review. What we know he hasn't done is ignore subpoenas of claiming he had declassified those documents.
 
multivita-man said:
For sure.

I could be wrong (and will admit so if I am) but I don't think Biden did anything with criminal intent. That doesn't completely absolve him, though. It's troubling that he apparently handled sensitive documents in such a sloppy manner. Criminal negligence could still be in play, though I think DOJ is going to be hesitant to prosecute him given the volume of sensitive information he came into contact with.

What MAGAs don't seem willing to acknowledge is that the DOJ clearly isn't eager to prosecute Trump either, despite the clear evidence that his response is markedly different than Biden's. I think that's probably similar reasons: DOJ would understand and give Trump the benefit of the doubt that he may not have known he was in possession of classified documents or that he couldn't keep whatever he had. But Trump's defiance, particularly in light of the documents he possessed, necessitated intervention.
Click to expand...
Well said. In absence of any clear evidence otherwise, Trump will get the benefit of the doubt regarding his motivations.
 
multivita-man said:
For sure.

I could be wrong (and will admit so if I am) but I don't think Biden did anything with criminal intent. That doesn't completely absolve him, though. It's troubling that he apparently handled sensitive documents in such a sloppy manner. Criminal negligence could still be in play, though I think DOJ is going to be hesitant to prosecute him given the volume of sensitive information he came into contact with.
Click to expand...
That's my assumption as well, and I extended that to the former president until the whole sideshow began. Some of the comments Trump made it more questionable as to whether there were documents he felt entitled to that he should not have had.

multivita-man said:
What MAGAs don't seem willing to acknowledge is that the DOJ clearly isn't eager to prosecute Trump either, despite the clear evidence that his response is markedly different than Biden's. I think that's probably similar reasons: DOJ would understand and give Trump the benefit of the doubt that he may not have known he was in possession of classified documents or that he couldn't keep whatever he had. But Trump's defiance, particularly in light of the documents he possessed, necessitated intervention.
Click to expand...
Biden will likely benefit from the fact the DOJ is not going to indict a sitting president; something Trump was the beneficiary of as well. What I don't think helps the DOJ any is NRA doesn't have much teeth in it, so they're left with trying to sort out if any of those documents presented any real security threat as a justification to press any charges.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
That is a straight up lie.
Click to expand...
He didn't. He followed FBI orders to lock them up. He wanted more time to go through them as they were mixed in with personal papers. It took me 2 MONTHS to move and I didn't have to go through tens of thousands of personal papers and decide which were business and which were personal. As it was the FBI went through Melania's closet with 50 KGB thugs.
 
ElChupacabra said:
That's my assumption as well, and I extended that to the former president until the whole sideshow began. Some of the comments Trump made it more questionable as to whether there were documents he felt entitled to that he should not have had.
Click to expand...
Same with me I didn't think he had any criminal intent when he took the documents. I think in his narcissistic mind he thought he was entitled to them and took them as trophies. However, deliberately not honoring the subpoena took it to a different level. The dumbest of the dumb know defying a subpoena and lying to the FBI will not turn out well.
 
Callen said:
Challenging untruths is not defending. I have repeatedly said Biden was at the least negligent and needs to be held accountable to the degree deemed appropriate by the SC but I will not let baseless assumptions and suppositions about him stand as fact.
Click to expand...

would that be 'gross negligence" or just the garden variety kind?
 
Paradoxical said:
Yep. Russian collusion, check
obstructed justice to a crime he was found not guilty of, check
cheated on taxes, check
Bribed Ukraine, check
Lied 35,490 times, check
said to drink bleach, check
lied about the election being stolen, check
Fill in the blanks for any media claim, check
Click to expand...

Every bit of it true, as you well know.
 
Athanasius68 said:
would that be 'gross negligence" or just the garden variety kind?
Click to expand...
Perhaps gross. Up to the SC to decide but I doubt very much adding an adjective changes things much.
 
Callen said:
Perhaps gross. Up to the SC to decide but I doubt very much adding an adjective changes things much.
Click to expand...

considering the relevant statute on handling classified info, the word "gross" means a lot.

and the SC won't decide. he will only reccoment.
garland will decide
 
Callen said:
They didn't announce it publicly but how did they cover it up? Not announcing it is not covering it up.
Click to expand...

cov·er-up
/ˈkəvərəp/

noun
  1. 1.
    an attempt to prevent people's discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime.
    "he is alleging a cover-up and calling for an investigation"
 
Athanasius68 said:
considering the relevant statute on handling classified info, the word "gross" means a lot.

and the SC won't decide. he will only reccoment.
garland will decide
Click to expand...
Except that word does not exist in the statue covering Unathorized Removal and Retrntion of Classified Documetns which at this point is the appropriate statute. The only qualifiers are knowledge and intent.

"(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.
(b)For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c)In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined under law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
 
Here's more on the cover-up from the NY Times. Biden even hid the discovery from his own administration and staffers. Apparently, only a very small handful of advisors were privy to the information:

The decision by President Biden and his top advisers to keep the discovery of classified documents secret from the public and even most of the White House staff for 68 days was driven by what turned out to be a futile hope that the incident could be quietly disposed of without broader implications for Mr. Biden or his presidency.

The handful of advisers who were aware of the initial discovery on Nov. 2 — six days before the midterm elections — gambled that without going public, they could convince the Justice Department that the matter was little more than a minor, good-faith mistake,
Click to expand...
Oops!
 
After hearing the latest this morning on Biden's document-gate, it is getting downright scary learning how reckless Biden was with these documents. The documents in his possession when he left office as VP were stored at the Eisenhour building across from the WH. Then they were moved to a building in Chinatown in DC. From there they were stored in a closet at the Biden-Penn "think tank" and his home. But there is another location where Biden stored his documents. The University of Delaware.
"Biden dropped off 1,875 boxes of “photographs, documents, videotapes, and files” and 415 gigabytes of electronic records to the University of Delaware in 2012."
https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/joe-bidens-staff-accessed-records-at-university-of-delawares-library/

When I learned the latest search for documents uncovered Top Secret documents from when Biden was in the Senate how long will they get around to searching the library at the University of Delaware?
 
trouble13 said:
After it was subpoenaed isn't specific enough for you?
Click to expand...
Subpoenaed by the House doesn't cut it for me and as we saw this last session it doesn't cut it for most government officials. She did give them her State Department emails just not her personal ones. it is the FBI investigation that matters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom