comment: >
  
  "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.
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.