How does that remotely follow?
Staffers who pack up the Vice President’s office when he leaves office do have access to papers that are in the Vice President’s office when it is being packed up.
Is Hunter Biden in the room with us now?
Why would the Vice President have papers in his office that are not suppoaed to be removed from the SCIF?
Were you under the impression that all classified material must remain in a SCIF at all times? If so, that is incorrect. Classified material is regularly brought to regular offices for review, meetings, etc., it’s just supposed to be returned to secure storage (such as a SCIF) after being used. And it would almost always be staffers, not high level people, who would move classified docs from one place to another.
For the same reason Presidents do?
It would be very normal (and legal) for some classified material to be used in one of Biden’s old offices, possibly even at home, in some circumstances. It’s just not supposed to be left outside of secure classified storage when not actively in use. So, presumably, at some point Biden or his high staffers were reviewing classified material for legitimate reasons, but then either forgot to instruct a staffer to return it to secure classified storage, or did instruct someone but they forgot or didn’t know how to do that. I think that’s most likely what the investigation will reveal.
No cite, but I’m gathering that “The White House” and probably “The Vice President’s office & domicile” have been traditionally considered “classified zones” where classified documents were perhaps treated more loosely than they’d be if they were in actual SCIFs.
They wouldn’t even need to be. Assuming legitimate purpose (i.e. reviewing for a briefing or whatever, with a need to know and proper clearance), you can take a classified document to a regular office to review - just close the door, log it properly, and return it to secure storage when finished.
Of course he does, and I don’t believe anybody is arguing to the contrary. But do you think that:
a) He’s known, since 2016, that he has classified documents in his possession?
and
b) He did this purposely? If so, to what end?
He refused to return classified documents he shouldn’t have had? Because that was the controversy. That and hiding them, and lying about them.
I’m sure this is a straightforward and honest summary of the case, but let’s just click into the link to see if Sam might have missed something.
Shirley also admitted to removing her child, of whom she was the non-custodial parent, to Mexico with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of the custodial father’s parental rights.
“Shirley betrayed the trust of the American people when she took classified information from her work with the Intelligence Community,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers for the National Security Division. “She then sought to profit from her betrayal by seeking to sell this information to Russia, one of America’s foremost adversaries, in order to further her criminal abduction of her daughter."
Jesus fuck Sam. This is some pretty egregious misdirection. She got 97 months for taking home classified information as part of a plea deal to avoid being charged with espionage or treason.
The other two aren’t as bad, but they are indeed bad.
But you left out…
Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home.
I think that’s a felony per document he avoided being charged with by accepting this plea deal.
And…
But if you look at her plea deal…
The government also agrees not to charge the defendant with any false statements made in January 22, 2021, to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or to any other federal agent involved in this investigation.
… she also obstructed justice by lying to the FBI, a charge she avoided with her plea deal.
Exactly. All of those cases included clear criminal intent. So far, we have no evidence of criminal intent for the Biden docs (unlike the Trump docs, based on public reporting).
Thank you for taking the time to distinguish these cases from President Biden’s. Pretty important distinctions, for sure.
Agreed, the gulf between, “97 months in jail for taking home classified information,” and, “97 months in jail for taking home classified information, with the intent of selling that information to America’s enemies, in order to finance the abduction of a child,” is quite vast.
In much the same way “Drove over the speed limit” and “Drove over the speed limit through a kindergarten classroom” are quite materially different offenses.
Or peeing in the pool vs peeing into the pool.
Modnote: Dial it back, this looks an awful lot like you’re attacking the poster and not the post.
This is some pretty serious cherrypicking from your own quoted source.
Don’t pull this again or you will be banned from the thread.
Noted. Thank you for the guidance.
I really like that one.
But what about classified love letters:
I’ll quote myself: