>

He has stated many times that no person is above the law. This proves that he's practices what he preaches.
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 >

Its a stain because it's political ammunition for the other side, not because you or I see it for the opportunitistically timed political assault that it seems to be. In modern politics, being on the defensive is the same as losing. Hillary Clinton's email fiasco likely contributed to the 2016 election results even though she wasn't indicted for a crime.
The people on the other side of the political spectrum who would consider this whole fiasco a stain on Biden AREN'T  brainless, they're heavily propogandized, and they DO vote. This whole thing will be used to justify any or all of Trump's conduct that should be immediately disqualifying. Expect this to be split-screened with all of Trump's legal woes.
Hopefully Trump won't make it to the 2024 Election season as a viable candidate. If Trump does make it, Trump will use this against Biden. If Trump loses out to someone like DeSantis, there will be a concerted effort to crucify Biden with it. >

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 >

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. >

Who’s friend, exactly? What does friendship have to do with accountability to rules and laws?
Are you suggesting the DOJ should be aligned and friendly with one particular party or another and so they don’t have to follow rules and laws we expect others to comply with? >

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. >

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. >

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. >

The difference will always be that most democrats are just fine with an investigation. Because they care about good governance instead of personality cults. >

Yeah, it's like Goofus and Gallant. Except Goofus wins every other election and beats your head in with a bat. >

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

Fucking ridiculous the kid-gloves treatment that Trump gets. >

I feel like Trump is about to get his shit kicked in here by Jack Smith in about a month or so when the indictments start coming >

I feel like someone has said this every month for the last 6 years. The point is, Trump is untouchable. His angry mob would never succeed in overthrowing the government, but they would likely affect quarterly profits. >

This right here. Gotta keep the wolves fed or they might bite you. 
Domestic Terrorism discourages commerce. They’re fucking cowards. >

How's that Trump indictment coming? >

This is all I'm concerned about.  Biden's situation I'm sure will work itself out, but Trump has most certainly committed crimes well beyond and before simply having classified documents.  I'm not even saying Biden hasn't broken the law, and he should be dealt with accordingly, but Trump has been a national security hazard and criminal since long before classified documents were found and obstruction was clearly committed to shield them, and this Biden situation should, in no way, get in the way of that case, which seems long overdue. >

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

Weird, I recall the DOJ investigating Trump while he was president. And Clinton. >

I'm not confused about it. There's no policy against investigating presidents, which is why the numerous investigations into recent sitting presidents happened and were not against any policy. There is a policy against indicting them, though that's not legally binding in any way, just a stated approach that the Justice dept. has outlined in the past. >

The difference between Republicans and Dems is on display again. 
No cults, no obstructing. Let the legal system do its thing. >

So... he can move fast?? >

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