>

So... he can move fast??
Do a complete investigation, gather the evidence, follow all procedures and the law, seek justice without fear or favor no matter who is involved.  Figure this mess out. >

Fully agree - and I'd actually like the investigation to be concluded swiftly since the ones being investigated will likely be 100% cooperative.  It's not like DoJ will have to be dealing with full on liars and criminals which takes forever to find the answers. >

I 100% agree that there ought to be a reasonable investigation into this but I do have to wonder if any of this matters at all given that Biden is currently the president and therefore has not only the right to have classified information but also the ability to declassify that information.
Not trying to make excuses for the oversight (or lack thereof) of classified documents, but it seems to me as though this requires an investigation into how classified documents are handled during and after individuals have been given such status and after said status has lapsed.
Let's be perfectly honest, if they had taken different actions on the first set of documents, we likely wouldn't even know about this because there was nobody searching for them.
Had Biden and his lawyers actually been seriously corrupt, they could easily have disposed of them in a fireplace or down a toilet and no one would know the better.
The fact that they brought this directly to the attention of the proper authorities is at least proof that they do have respect for the rule of law and are willing to except the consequences, even if it is going to be used to make political hay while the sun shines.
That said, this likely has huge implications for executive privilege, especially to the extent that the former president argued he had. I personally do not have a problem with the minister of th Office of the President being able to be held accountable for their actions but only if it is equally applied across the board and not just something that we will have to deal with when presidents from the Democratic party are being scrutinized. >


has not only the right to have classified information but also the ability to declassify that information.

He does.  But apparently these docs were from his Vice Presidency under Obama.  So, it's a bit uncertain.
And it really undermines at least one of the central charges you could have lodged against Trump, that everyone that is able to access classified documents has a substantive responsibility to make sure they are handled appropriately.  The "oh, well, we had to leave in a hurry and things just got mixed up" arguments Trump could have made before would have had little merit - especially when you consider previous historic cases where even a single doc mishandled ended up with someone in jail.
But now Trump will be able to dilute that charge completely.  He's still fucked on obstruction and everything else (hopefully). >

Classified != Compartmentalized, Top Secret, etc. >

I agree with you, but I was recently informed that sources say some of these classified documents were classified Top Secret.
It does appear as though ABC is confirming that sources are saying that some of these were top secret documents.

Sources also told ABC News that the original batch of about 10 documents found in November contains classified vice-presidential briefing papers about foreign countries, some of which were marked top secret.

And CNN is not even using the journalistic term source, going so far as to assert that some of these documents were top secret.

Some of the classified documents were “top secret,” the highest level. They were found in three or four boxes that also contained unclassified papers that fall under the Presidential Records Act, CNN has reported.

If we are going to maintain Integrity about the treatment of top secret classified documents, it is important to hold both sides accountable for their retention of documents.
Thank goodness that Biden's lawyers were up front with the FBI and NARA rather than lying about the retention of documents and obstructing an investigation.
I really hope that Biden doesn't try to use the executive privilege argument to keep himself from investigation, but this is likely going to be a permanent stain on his reputation and definitely opens up the presidential field in the Democratic Party for 2024. >

Why would this be a permanent stain on Biden’s reputation? >

Because it will 100% be used along with whataboutism to suggest that Biden was going after Trump for the same thing that he was caught doing, regardless of the fact that Biden was not responsible for the investigation into Trump's documents has not been outspoken about the retention of documents, subsequent Lies by his lawyers, and obstruction.
I'm not saying that it is going to be fair, or even rational but it is going to cause a stain and that will be used to pillory him. >

So in essence, this is only going to be a stain in the minds of people who are rather brainless to begin with….gotcha >

Also, completely casual people who don't follow politics at all and just read a headline or a blurb.  They will see trump and Biden having done the same thing and reach the conclusion that one is just as bad as the other.
Most people really don't follow politics to any degree.  The amount of people I know that I had to tell about Roe v Wade being overturned and what that even means is concerning. >

My favorite part of this:
No raging tweets from the president making up executive powers. Accusing people of planting evidence and arguing about a deep state conspiracy against him. >

I’d be hilarious if he copy pasted one of trumps tweets and ended it with JK I’m not a raving lunatic in a middle of a tantrum. >

That would be some great dark Brandon shit. >

I am all for a special counsel being appointed. But a Trump appointee feels like an attempt by Garland to bend over backwards to show just how apolitical he is. If he wanted to reach across the aisle, he couldn’t find a Bush appointee rather than someone appointed by a man who literally tried to upend the Republic and is known for appointing partisan hacks? >

This is how Garland has been acting since appointed. It’s like he’s so terrified of being perceived as biased against repubs that he instead acts biased against dems. He has truly been a failure at AG.. even more of a letdown than Mueller >

Well, Garland is a conservative…..  people think that he must be left wing because Obama nominated him for SCOTUS.  NOPE! - he’s right wing and Obama was throwing the GOP a bone.  The GOP just hated Obama so fucking much they slapped down a nominee that aligned with them. >

True, Biden should have appointed someone else >

When Garland was first announced, I figured it was just another corporate Democrat move. these days I’m not sure I was entirely wrong. >

Only took a year and a half to appoint one for Trump. Also what about that DOJ policy about not investigating and prosecuting a sitting president which protected the former guy for, what, six years now? >

Garland is not our friend. >

Garland is not a friend to justice.
Why has Trump not been indicted yet?  What's the confusion? >


Why has Trump not been indicted yet?

why would you expect him to have been? the investigation isn't over yet >

it explains why they weren't indicted in the article >

Some anonymous lawyer being quoted by CNN is not a definitive explanation at all.  It's hearsay and well-meaning bullshit.  But when the DOJ was asked?  "A spokesperson for the Department of Justice declined to comment."  But if you do believe that anonymous source, do you really think they have executive privilege, as your source says?  How TF do "advisors" get privilege? >

they worked in the White House >

Bad enough that everyone bought that crap, "The president is immune to criminal prosecution and subpoenas."  But now we're going to extend it to anyone who worked in the White House?!  Holy cow you can't possibly believe that's a good idea. >

As. We. Would. Expect. 🤷‍♂️ 
Can't wait until Biden whines, makes excuses, tries to get a special master, claims that they where declassifi...... Oh wait. Dems don't do any of that. >

It doesn’t even matter cause republicans don’t care about mishandling classified document- oh wait…now they do. >

Biden isn't asking for a special grand master or looking for a favorable court... weird. >

Love how it took 2 years to do this for trump, and he ain't even president, 2 days for Biden and he is president. 
To be clear, I'm not saying there shouldn't be an investigation, I'm saying Garland is showing his true colors pretty strongly with the disparity.
Edit: I'm muting this thread, not trying to get banned for cussing some fool out again.   Have a good night y'all. >

It's funny to read these articles. I read the Times article and they are going out of their way to only use Trump-appointed individuals. It's like you can't have any credibility unless Trump appointed you. Do they not see how this is completely legitimizing Trumpism? 
I get that it is an attempt to show impartiality. It's just kind of funny that being a Trump-appointed X automatically gives you an air of legitimacy in this country. >

This is definitely a flaw in the approach of rational actors. So many people who are trying to push back against pseudoscience/fake news/nonsense will go out of their way to avoid cries of bias. And the people who have the same mindset find it reassuring. But for people trying to break the system, you've just tied yourself in a knot to win a battle that they were never interested in. They love it when we take our time and cross our I's and dot our T's, because they can use that time to just come up with more BS that makes the effort seem pointless.
And in this case, I think you are absolutely right. We are so focused on how indicating it is that 45's own people rule against him that we lend them credence for the rare cases that they agree with us. When in reality, we should be standing by the appointees who never dealt with the devil in the first place.
Fox News will use liberal appointee as a dirty word and then we play into that distrust. We won't promote faith in our system while we entertain baseless doubts. >

Weird how Garland can move with lightning speed when it’s a cover-your-ass political move. Lightning speed. >

Yep, so amazingly fast.  Hey Merrit, how are those other 4 year old cases coming along? >

They’ve been investigating trump for a while. They only moved the case to special counsel when he announced candidacy for president for ethics reasoning. Since Biden’s already president, ethically a special counsel is also the best way to investigate this >

Yes, for awhile.  Like long, long, long before he lost in 2020. Long, Long before the 2024 midterms.  Long before Monday when the first Biden doc leak happened.  I’d like to see Garland show up and put some facts out on how well those other cases are going. >

How's that Trump indictment coming? >

2020: almost. 
2080: almost there.
2300: finally reached a verdict. >

Woah there!!!!  Let's not rush this. >

As a Democrat I am pretty pissed off at Biden for this, but I would be willing to bet he didn't know the documents were there.  
That said, I am a strong believer in people being punished for breaking the law, even if they are on my "team."
If he broke the law, punish him.  
Just make sure that that miserable, racist orange thing that yells all the time gets his as well.
This is the only way to have nice things. >

I am more republican than democrat, but I agree with everything you said. 
Americans are sick and tired of people skating by unpunished. Its a clear divide between our overlords and the rest of the population. If you are an elite, you basically get a free pass on most things except heinous crimes.
And if it is heinous, they will cover that up too. Just like Epstein. >

Classic democrat dipshittery. Republicans are literally trying to rid the world of democracy and democrats not only have no message for that, they can’t take two steps without face planting. >

Weird. I thought the DOJ didn’t want to investigate presidents. >

Indict* but yes, this was rapid considering the other guy. >

I swear to God if they indict Biden before they indict Trump, I'm gonna... not be surprised at all. Totally on brand for this timeline. >

Currently, they have nothing to indict Biden on. >

This proves that Garland is exquisitely sensitive to (Republican) public opinion, which proves to me that he will never indict Trump. >

All it proves is that House Democrats are willing to investigate Biden along with republicans. Investigating Trump isnt bipartisan clearly like it should be. >

Yeah this is more "let's get done with this as quickly as possible because it's stupid and there's nothing to it" not "let's drag it out for years because the end result is awful for us" >

I don’t feel like repeating the same thing about how anyone with an ability to have a nuanced thought doesn’t understand what Trump and Biden didn’t weren’t one in the same, but I’m so fucking sick of Democrats bending over backwards to appear impartial. Announcing an investigation this quickly, a Trump appointed judge. Good job, Mer. I’m sure now the right will stop pretending your this evil communist. Oh, no they won’t. They’ll STILL pretend he is, and that the DOJ was out to get Trump and that there’s some awful double standard in favor of Biden. 
God. The same fucking shit. Just over and over letting the right dictate the pace and narrative. They’re NEVER, ever being won over. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ev-fucking-er. They’ll never return the favor. They’ll never be adults. They’ll never operate in good faith. They’ll never work with you. Stop falling over yourselves to please them.