>

Yep, it’s very different indeed.
It’s still an error for Biden, and an investigation should be conducted to make sure there are no more, and to make sure there was no intent in the mishandling of documents.
And once it’s concluded, the results should stand.
And while I’m not a huge fan of Biden, I am confident that he will continue to cooperate, as will those who worked for him.
It is most likely they were simply overlooked and then forgotten, and if the investigation bears them out that is not a criminal act.
Voted for Biden.
Go ahead and investigate. Use all the same measures that were taken during Trump’s investigation.
If it comes to light that he committed a, or multiple crimes, then I support any subsequent charges.
If it’s found that he didn’t commit any crimes, then I say to republicans; piss the fuck off. >

With consideration given to how many warnings/refusals/delays were made. Take something, have it asked to be returned, and so it immediately? Yeah it's probably fine
Take something, deny it, claim you returned it, and refuse anything further for months? Then have it found in your desks top drawer? Yeah nah, you're pulling a shifty >

Unknowingly having classified documents isn't a crime.  The procedure is specifically designed to NOT punish someone for admitting to a clerical error- the idea is that it's more valuable to get the documents back than to risk someone hiding that they were ever missing.  There is nothing here to investigate.  If anything, it's a prime example of the system working as intended.
This shit was thoroughly hammered out in the Hillary private email server case.  Comey explained it fairly clearly when they declined to pursue charges.  I'd consider an investigation for this to be an attempt at obstructionism.

Edit: 
18 US Code 1924 "Unauthorized retention of classified documents":

(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.

If you have a more appropriate citation, feel free to inform me.  I don't work with these documents, but clearly it's critically important that he have knowledge, intent, and authorization to retain the documents.  If he intended to retain them beyond authorization (end of Obama's term), then that still is only questionably an issue since he has maintained clearances the whole time.  So, yeah, chime in.  I want your adversarial take on this. >

They're hoping for a Clinton moment. Unleash the special counsel, and then maybe we find out Biden cheated on his wife. >

The current Special Counsel rules were drafted specifically to avoid another Ken Starr type investigation.  They used to be independent of the Justice Department.  Now they are still overseen by the AG and broadening an investigation requires the AG approval. >

Boring. :) >

I go back and forth on the ethics. I think having an independent prosecutor is a better look for the Executive. But it's hard to keep away fishing expeditions. It be cool if we quit electing presidents that do shady shit too... >

Why do we keep using "independent" as an implication there won't be bias? There's just no way around the problem. >

Independent in this context only means Independent of the Justice Department/Executive Branch.  Ken Starr was the perfect example of being Independent but driven by ideology. >

Which is exactly what I'm saying and I fail to understand how anything has definitively changed. >

wth is going on with the National Archives? They didn't even notice these classified docs. were missing until Biden's lawyers told them they found them. >

I’m wondering why such information is a printed document?  What’s the point of a secure viewing area when you can just walk out with printed documents? It’s so ironic that I expect Alanis to start singing. >

Some things are classified based on origin, not content.  Example:  One of the 'classified documents' found in Hillary's (infamous) missing emails was a "Happy Birthday" message from a friend of hers.  Who happened to be an ambassador, in a non-friendly nation. *ANYTHING* such an ambassador sends is automatically considered Classified, even if it's "Happy Birthday". >

That's not a case of being classified because of origin. That's just a lack of declassification effort put into removing markings.
It's accidental overclassification. You need someone with authority to declassify things. >

Very good point, thank you.  
Although I imagine in this case the reason for nobody bothering to declassify was that nobody thought anyone would care.  Not that Fox News would be harping on it for years. >

It's just that you need to get someone to do it, and if you have no reason to then no one will bother.
In the example of happy birthday for example, if the recipient read it and that's all it needed then job done. Why bother declassifying? >

Voluntarily returned vs refused to return. 
Do the math. >

Also "Classified" vs. "TS/SCI source documents." >

They were discovered by his own attorney. He was the one that notified The National Archives. They promptly returned them.
It seems like there was nothing particularly sensitive there. 
And I guarantee Biden hasn't seen these documents in ages. They were in a box, in his garage, in his former residence. 
Trump had his sensitive top secret documents in his personal possession. In his safe and scattered around his office.  Was asked for over a year to return them to the federal government. Refused to the point that criminal investigators needed to get involved. 
It's not even close to the same thing.