>

No you wouldn't.  You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold
At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. 
At lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.
Especially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. 
I don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. 
The solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything. >

It can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. 
Low level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.

But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.
The “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.
"(C)  Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in."

So after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you. >

It can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers. >

My father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard. >

I think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive. >

A SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS  documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).
Classifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). 
I would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.
That the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.
Confidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. 
Like if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.
The critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence. >

This is incorrect.  That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF.  Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier. >

DoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI >

Of course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently.  What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false. >

Biden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.
If they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition. >

So because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump? >

No, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. 
Sure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...
This is not the same story. >

So something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.
Speaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes. >

"lying" in this instance is distinguished from "making a mistake". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so. >

Where’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no? >

There’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?
In addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?
I’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many. >


one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form

yeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA.  

and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?

yeah Biden raided himself >

So NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?
That’s very troubling, no? 
How did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs? >

By multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. 
ignore >

Have someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out.  I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave.  Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.
I'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan. >

Idk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does. >

Phrasing this as "been discovered" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.
There are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical. >

This just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses).  Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing.  Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration.  Hire that person. >

Ahh yes
Hillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error.  Trump however, clearly the orange devil.
The partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating >

Trump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal >

You can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.
You have no proof that they knew they missed some documents >

Trump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. 
Biden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.
These are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.
By the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place? >

Ok, this deserves an investigation also.  At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators. >

They self reported after finding them. >

That's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question. >

It seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. 
It feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything. >

At least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go. >

As far as the "taking of the documents" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.
I think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.
Hiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming. >


Hiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.

It is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said "oops, my bad" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten. >

It’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference. >

What’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows…. >

Based on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden  search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.
Contrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned. >

I’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen. >

That's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security. >

I understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here. >

Sure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'. >

Again this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say. >

You or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point. >

Yea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting. >

Depends on what's in the documents.
How many documents?
Was Biden asked to return them?
Did Biden purposefully avoid returning them?
Did Biden lie about returning them?

Comparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?
My university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too. >

Because the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: 
WASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.
Based on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:
How are the situations similar?
At a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.
The Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.
How are the situations different?
There are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.
Mr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”
These apparent differences have significant legal implications.
Where were the files?
In Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.
In Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.
The administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.
How did the files get there?
As president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.
It is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”
How did the problems come to light?
Very differently.
In the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.
In the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.
The administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.
How did they respond?
Very differently.
Mr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”
Mr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.
By contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.
In each case, were the documents still classified?
Probably.
Mr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)
While the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.
How many classified documents were there?
Many more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.
Court filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.
The Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”
Were documents also mutilated or destroyed?
Mr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.
There has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.
What are the legal consequences of these differences?
The implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.
One question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.
Another provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.
The application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.