comment: >
  
  You mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?
context: 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. >
  
  We're very specifically told that classified material doesn't suddenly become unclassified just because it was leaked. As someone with a clearance, you're duty-bound not to share it, even if literally everyone in the world already knows about it. >
  
  Oh yeah I'm aware of that. It was more a story to illustrate how easy it is to mishandle classified material. >
  
  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. >
  
  Biden was vice president, not president >
  
  You get my point though, the Vice Presidents residence is still a secure location >
  
  
  Also doesn't have the ability declassify materials
  
  No one is saying he did, though. The only people pointing out that Biden couldn't declassify documents as Vice President are the ones that are convinced Trump was able to declassify documents with his brain waves. You are doing this by arguing a point that no one is making.
  And considering the quote and source you shared, I have a feeling you think Trump's thoughts were all that was needed for him to declassify the documents. >
  
  They could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place. >
  
  Not going to happen. Everything has to have some level of classification so that it's technically illegal to hand it over to the media. >
  
  Imagine a democracy where what the government does is secret >
  
  you mean a republic >
  
  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. >
  
  They already do this with SCI information. This is why the government was pestering Trump for over a year before they had to get the FBI involved to take the documents back. NARA knew Trump had the documents and hadn't returned them.
  The fact that the Biden team found classified documents that NARA didn't know about is very telling. It shows that the documents in question were not at a SCI level of classification. It looks like they were probably briefings that were handled sloppily rather than any deliberate malfeasance. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord.
  
  Why were they in his think tank office in the first place? >
  
  Maybe that site got approved for viewing this level of material? >
  
  The Penn Biden Center opened in 2018. He couldn't have even moved the documents there while VP. >
  
  
  The Penn Biden Center opened in 2018. He couldn't have even moved the documents there while VP.
  
  Nor would he have had access to the documents. >
  
  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.
  Edit: To those people defending Biden by saying he returned the docs while Trump's team missed them, here's the actual statute in question: 
  (a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. >
  
  "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? >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Yeah, damage assessment is totally appropriate. Special counsel isn't because there's no evidence that a crime occurred. This is Garland doing political CYA and is exactly what led to Comey's folly. >
  
  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 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. >
  
  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. If I took classified information willfully and purposefully (like trump did) i would be behind bars. However, if I reported it like Biden did it wouldn’t be as bad. All I’m saying is they should be held accountable after the investigation. 
  Edit for clarification…. >
  
  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. >
  
  The funny thing is a number of presidents have done this, remember Trump? Clinton? Bush? Obama? They all do it. Biden is no different, but just months ago I witnessed thousands of posts demanding Trump be thrown in prison for having classified documents on his property, granted the circumstances leading up are different, but the endgame is the same. Some people are pointing out how Biden's lawyers are cooperative, while Trumps were not, but Biden still has lawyers defending his actions. How is someone like Trump ever going to be punished if Biden does essentially the same thing?  So many people put their all into removing Trump, through, Biden, that at this point you have to admit Biden should be punished if people or presidents are ever going to be held fully accountable for their actions. >
  
  We also have to wonder who visited Biden at his home and office while these documents were sitting unsecured, and if they could have (or did) take/copy them. >
  
  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? >
  
  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. >
  
  And yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing? >
  
  Cooperating after 6 years of the documents missing… >
  
  The processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.
  Crucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.
  While the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law. >
  
  It  seems to me that this might be a good time for Biden to tweet out 'It's a witch hunt and no doubted these were planted by loser right wing nutso's to discredit me' SAD". >
  
  There is no easy answer to this.
  Confusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.
  This topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about "what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever."
  That claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a  origin of classified material. 
  No one "grants or revokes" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.
  This assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.
  But run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:
  
  The Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.
  The joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.
  
  So, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.
  So who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?
  If such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.
  What other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state? >
  
  That's all well and good, but have you considered that the situations with Trump and Biden are not equivalent?
  /s
  Very good summary. >
  
  The National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration. >
  
  National Archives wasn't requesting confidential documents, they were requesting non-confidential things, like Obama's letter to Trump etc... >
  
  I feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs? >
  
  
  That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?
  
  Like 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it. >
  
  What I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional. >
  
  So what’s the crime you are referring to? >
  
  I keep seeing people claim “obstruction” is Trump’s  crime.  Obstruction of what?  Not sure.
  People who make that claim will always say Joe Biden has committed no crimes, as he only committed a “blunder” or “unforced error”
  I keep seeing this rationale all over Reddit:
  
  “People make mistakes.  Because he immediately returned the documents to NARA, it’s not a crime.  Trump didn’t do that though. Trump lied about having the documents and refused to return them when asked.  He stole government property.  That’s Trump’s crime.  Had he done what Biden did and simply cooperated, they would’ve been a mon-story, like it is with Biden now.”
  
  I’ve also noticed since they adopted this official narrative, they dropped the “classified” completely from “classified documents”.  Now they just say “documents”.  I’m guessing, since the “classified” part infers criminality, removing it reinforces their narrative that Biden committed no crimes.  All he had  were “documents”., just innocuous documents
  Pretty clever >
  
  
  I keep seeing people claim “obstruction” is Trump’s crime. Obstruction of what? Not sure.
  
  Obstruction of justice. He directed his lawyers to lie to the government to conceal evidence of a crime. That ought to be good enough for laymen but you don't need a crime to be proven to prove obstruction of justice. You can be charged with OOJ without committing any crimes, for example lying to investigators about a non-criminal but embarrassing matter like an affair. 
  OOJ would just be complicated sentencing enhancement if you also had to prove an underlying crime. >
  
  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 >
  
  Seriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it. >
  
  I know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians  have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.
  Now that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws >
  
  The Trump case went a bit far beyond "mishandling" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused. >
  
  Lol when Biden does this shit all the dems come out with a million and 1 excuses for their Pharaoh >
  
  Most of the Dems right here are saying "yeah let's see the investigation" because we actually hold our people to high standards. >
  
  I'm not there because there's no evidence of a crime. It's inappropriate for DOJ to do this. National archives or inspector general doing a damage assessment is appropriate, but Special Counsel appointment is political CYA for Garland, not an appropriate use of DOJ resources. >
  
  They're not investigating the documents being there. They're investigating the crime of the cover up. Same thing that brought Nixon and Clinton to impeachment. >
  
  
  They're investigating the crime of the cover up.
  
  Are we still talking about Biden? There's no evidence of a cover up. There's no reason to open a criminal investigation at all because there's no evidence of criminal behavior, circumstantial or otherwise. If the inspector general or the national archives develop that evidence then it would be appropriate to hire a special counsel, but not someone so openly partisan that it's transparently a political attempt to protect DOJ from Fox News saying mean things. >
  
  Whelp one thing is for sure.  I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents  in a unsecured location.
  It is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though. >
  
  I think there’s a real qualitative difference between  “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”. >
  
  If you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. 
  Anything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy. >
  
  I don't want Trump prosecuted for having classified docs (unless we discover intent to use such info to blackmail or something). I want him prosecuted for lying about them and then ignoring the subpoena.
  But to be honest theres a dozen other things he should be prosecuted more for first. >
  
  I held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others.  If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison.  That's how you fix it.  Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite.  Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want. >
  
  Those isn't actually true
  The laws are clear about intent.  They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.
  Intent is a major requirement in these laws.
  You would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever >
  
  
  The laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.
  
  Intent is not required.
  Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
  Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. >
  
  What do you think "having knowledge means?
  Part 1 talks about documents being lost, stolen or destroyed...they weren't
  Part two requires intent... >
  
  
  Part 1 talks about documents being lost, stolen or destroyed...they weren't
  
  No, part 1 talks about gross negligence. And if that negligence results in:
  1) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody
  2) delivered to anyone in violation of his trust
  3) lost
  4) stolen
  5) abstracted
  6) destroyed
  You're in violation of the law. In this case a federal felony.
  
  Part two requires intent...
  
  Part 2 does not. It requires knowledge of removal. You don't have to be the one that removed/delivered/lost/let it get stolen/abstracted/destroyed, just that you knew about it and didn't report it promptly.
  Neither part requires intent to remove/deliver/lose/steal/abstract/destroy. >
  
  
  No, part 1 talks about gross negligence. And if that negligence results in:
  
  Ask a lawyer what criminal negligence means and what mens rea requirements are for that legal definition. It's a precise term that requires knowledge and intent. Gross negligence requires all the elements of criminal negligence with the added escalation of willful disregard for the safety of others. 
  You are inferring "negligence" to be strict liability. That isn't the legal definition of negligence. If it was strict liability it wouldn't use negligence as a qualifier. 
  
  Neither part requires intent to remove/deliver/lose/steal/abstract/destroy.
  
  Yes they do, both do. Legal definitions are precise for a reason. >
  
  
  Legal definitions are precise for a reason.
  
  You're absolutely right with this sentence, which is why the other parts of the law and other laws involving national defense information spell it out explicitly like "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States". Which is also why you're absolutely wrong with alllllll the rest of your sentences. And just throwing legal sounding words that make no sense in context just makes you look...bad. >
  
  
  Which is also why you're absolutely wrong with alllllll the rest of your sentences. And just throwing legal sounding words that make no sense in context just makes you look...bad.
  
  Incoherent projection. What exactly do you think are "legal sounding words that make no sense in context?"
  Criminal negligence has a precise definition that requires mens rea. You don't believe me? Look up "Criminal negligence" and "mens rea." And then look up "strict liability."
  You are confidently arguing shit you are ignorant of, which I guess isn't bad faith at least, but it doesn't speak well of your ability to reason objectively. And you're arguing with your ego, which means that if you do bother to look up definitions of these terms it will be an exercise to counter me as if I'm some sort of opponent instead of just trying to inform you of what the truth is. 
  Maybe after you take a few days and the person on the internet isn't making you feel insecure you can do some introspection and reevaluate your position. I'm not especially optimistic because introspection is hard for most people and I don't expect you'll bother. >
  
  
  What exactly do you think are "legal sounding words that make no sense in context?"
  
  Have you read your own posts? It's just word vomit at this point while being confidently incorrect about the laws surrounding national defense information. >
  
  
  Have you read your own posts? It's just word vomit at this point while being confidently incorrect 
  
  More vague projection without any examples. Tell me exactly what I'm wrong about; I'm not sure you can, but your ego is on the hook now so you'll try. >
  
  Nothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. 
  I don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office
  EDIT. This aged poorly. >
  
  That’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level. >
  
  There are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of "sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)" and a very long list of "codewords" that restrict things to a need to know audience.  
  it's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. 
  The fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags. >
  
  
  it's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely
  
  Even things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be  potentially targeted based on that information. 
  Among the Clinton "classified docs" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. 
  That's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize >
  
  Meh 
  Politically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. 
  No one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.