comment: >
  
  Have any other people who were found to have these documents in their private possession fought legal attempts to recover them, or is it just the former president? 
  If so, is that resistance more of a national security story than simply compiling a 'naughty list' of people who have not resisted attempts to recover these docs, or even reported their own discovery of classified documents in their posession? 
  What are the differences in kind between the different types of classifications, classified docs, and the among materials recovered? Are we finding nuke secrets or military/defense info in Pence's garage, or are they more like outdated memos? 
  Even if there are too many classified docs running around, one gets the sense that they are not all created equal - so what do we need to know about what 'secrets' means in the current contexts and/or as you use it in your intro?
context: Seems to me like the GOP has been compromised or infiltrated by Russian interests and in general the media is playing it off like this is normal. Where is the fact based reporting tracing campaign funds back to Russian interests and public outrage at the infiltration of our political parties by foreign governments? >
  
  Thanks for the question. I've reported on allegations of foreign influence on elections and administrations, not just here at the WSJ, but in previous jobs as well. 
  If there was credible evidence, I am certain the Journal would report it and, if confirmed, publish stories about it.
  The probe by then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller of Russia's links to the Trump campaign did not find evidence (that it made public anyway) of Russian interests directly funding Mr. Trump's campaign or the Republican Party in general. There were a few exceptions - the Butina case, for example, or support that Russian actors gave to Facebook and other social media campaigns.
  - Warren >
  
  Thanks for the response. I appreciate that the WSJ does not report on allegations or unsubstantiated claims. But there is a clear influence peddling campaign being orchestrated by the far right in concert with Russia and a global fascist movement. It may be hard to prove but the signs are there. Rand Paul and DJT routinely vouch for Russian interests and the citizens united scotus ruling seems to have opened Pandora’s box. How can we separate legitimate political contributions from influence peddling by foreign states and what more can journalists do to expose the truth? It seems like calling these folks out on what they are doing would be considered partisan wedge issue journalism by a large percentage of the country. How to expose the truth that seems plain as day to anyone with eyes without being called a democratic-hacks by the GOP? >
  
  Do you find that, since being taken over by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. in 2007, there is increasing pressure on journalists to cover political topics rather than business topics in the WSJ? >
  
  Pretty sure it is why I canceled after a month. >
  
  Point of curiosity:
  I imagine y'all would prefer to keep any sourcing information private, but can you give a rough percentage/fraction of how many of your anonymous sources contact you first versus how many y'all contact first?
  I'd like to get a sense of how eager people with knowledge of a situation are to get that information out there. Who are my countrymen, kind of thing.
  Are average folks stumbling over each other to provide tips, or is it mostly elbow grease trying to find these folks & reach out hoping for a response? >
  
  We wish folks were eager to tell us what is going on! Much more often we have to keep bothering folks until we can get slivers of information, and then try to piece it together, based on what we are hearing along with our colleagues. - Aruna >
  
  Thank you for joining us!
  ​
  Historically speaking, how common was it for classified docs to be found in the procession of a former POTUS, VP, or other high ranking official?
  Is this a new phenomenon? Or have we seen this in the past? >
  
  Thanks for the question. The whole system changed in 1978 with the passage of the Presidential Records Act, which made a former president's papers public (government) property and entrusted them to the National Archives.
  There was one report, which I don't think we at WSJ have confirmed, of former President Jimmy Carter's administration having the same issues. But that was pre-1978.
  To be honest, I am a bit unclear about whether the problem is getting worse, or it's more a matter of more attention being given to it, beginning with former President Trump's case re Mar-a-Lago.
  Most everyone agrees there needs to be reforms to how classified materials are handled and stored in the hectic final days of a presidential administration.
  - Warren