Biden didn't "self-report" classified-material mishandling -- he got caught

Nerdberg said:
Many times TV has shown excerpts news media saying the same words in the same theme all day long. It is what they do. The news media uses inculcation to control followers.
Click to expand...

Yes,.....the mockingbird effect. By George I think you finally have it.
 
floridafan said:
The documents belong to the National Archives, not Donald Trump. Once again you have zero proof that they were declassified, as if that actually mattered.
Click to expand...

Do you have proof that they were not de-classified?

There was a custody dispute, nothing more.
 
floridafan said:
Classified or not classified, the documents did not belong to trump.
Click to expand...

As I said, a minor custody dispute over de-classified documents.

Biden had classified documents stored in multiple non-secure locations, a federal crime.

Do you now see the difference?
 
Earl said:
As I said, a minor custody dispute over de-classified documents.

Biden had classified documents stored in multiple non-secure locations, a federal crime.

Do you now see the difference?
Click to expand...

The FBI is not called in for minor disputes, honey pot. Then again your opinion dont mean shit
 
Biden has admitted, three (3) times, that he owns the classified documents that were illegally stored in multiple non-secure locations, a violation of federal law.

Some date back to when he was a senator and could not de-classify documents.
 
Jarod said:
You honestly don’t believe that Biden had meetings in his home in Delaware that people who attended brought secret documents to? You don’t think it’s possible that Biden was never made aware that such documents were classified? The fact that documents were found in an office vacated two years ago, or even in his garage, is not evidence that he knew about them That is simply not enough to survive a summary judgment in a criminal prosecution.

What we do know is that soon after Trump left the presidency, he was told about classified documents in his possession that are owned by Archives, for two years after that, he refused compulsory legal requirements to return them, and then complained when a warrant was issued.
Click to expand...

Not as a Senator. Their access to such material is limited to the SCIF at the Capitol to which I already provided the rules. If people were bringing him stuff at his house as a Senator to look at, then he was breaking the law at that time.

What we do know. Senator Biden was in possession of documents illegally kept at his house. There is no other time I can be sure that a crime was being committed because of the plenary powers given to the POTUS and VP to classify and/or declassify materials and the fact that according to that same 2009 executive order they also maintain their clearances for life. Now as I said that doesn't mean that no crime was being committed, it is possible that there was, but we need more information to show that.
 
Damocles said:
Not as a Senator. Their access to such material is limited to the SCIF at the Capitol to which I already provided the rules. If people were bringing him stuff at his house as a Senator to look at, then he was breaking the law at that time.

What we do know. Senator Biden was in possession of documents illegally kept at his house. There is no other time I can be sure that a crime was being committed because of the plenary powers given to the POTUS and VP to classify and/or declassify materials and the fact that according to that same 2009 executive order they also maintain their clearances for life. Now as I said that doesn't mean that no crime was being committed, it is possible that there was, but we need more information to show that.
Click to expand...

But you are assuming those documents 1) have been there since he was a senator. 2) were put there by him. and 3) he knew about them being there.... this is the same guy you claim is so senile he cant tie his shoes...


Additionally, you remained silent while Trump 1) knowingly had documents that belonged to National Archives, 2) refused a request to return them, 3) Obstructed Justice because he refused a lawful subpoena to return them and the only the government could get them back was coming to get them with a warrant.

Right?
 
Is it not very possible that at some time when Biden was VP, he said hey, I remember some documentation on this issue from back when I was a senator, go get me those documents... and I declassify them if they are classified.

Then those documents got left behind by the aid who went to get them and have been shuffled place to place since then without Biden's knowledge? All a Defense attorney has to do is show that is possible and it becomes what us lawyers call REASONABLE DOUBT!
 
Jarod said:
But you are assuming those documents 1) have been there since he was a senator. 2) were put there by him. and 3) he knew about them being there.... this is the same guy you claim is so senile he cant tie his shoes...
Click to expand...

I am not assuming anything. I am using the information provided in the articles. And I am not assuming I am coming to a logical conclusion from the information provided.

What we know.
1. Documents were illegally kept at Biden's house since the time he was in the Senate.
2. Senators do not have access to the material but in one place (a SCIF in the basement of the Capitol).
3. The rules of that SCIF are documented.
4. If others brought the documents with them to his house it was illegal (2003 Classified materials and handling EO signed by Bush and the law it refers to both list this as illegal).
5. If he did not report them for bringing the documents to his house it was illegal (Same law as before).
6. If he allowed them to leave the documents at his house it was illegal. (Same law as before).
7. It is unlikely that others brought the documents to his house. (simple conclusion from the information provided, not an "assumption").
8. The only person with access to the SCIF in that house was the (then) Senator Biden himself.

Basically, we know a crime was committed. Those documents could not be there from that time without a crime being committed. And we can conclude who put the documents there from the information. Reasonable jury will find this to be enough to convict, well me, if I had done this. It is my conclusion that a reasonable person can conclude the same for Brandon.
 
Damocles said:
I am not assuming anything. I am using the information provided in the articles. And I am not assuming I am coming to a logical conclusion from the information provided.

What we know.
1. Documents were illegally kept at Biden's house since the time he was in the Senate.
2. Senators do not have access to the material but in one place (a SCIF in the basement of the Capitol).
3. The rules of that SCIF are documented.
4. If others brought the documents with them to his house it was illegal (2003 Classified materials and handling EO signed by Bush and the law it refers to both list this as illegal).
5. If he did not report them for bringing the documents to his house it was illegal (Same law as before).
6. If he allowed them to leave the documents at his house it was illegal. (Same law as before).
7. It is unlikely that others brought the documents to his house. (simple conclusion from the information provided, not an "assumption").
8. The only person with access to the SCIF in that house was the (then) Senator Biden himself.

Basically, we know a crime was committed. Those documents could not be there from that time without a crime being committed. And we can conclude who put the documents there from the information. Reasonable jury will find this to be enough to convict, well me, if I had done this. It is my conclusion that a reasonable person can conclude the same for Brandon.
Click to expand...

1) How do you know documents were kept at Biden's house since his time as a senator, and were not put there some significant time later?
 
Damocles said:
I am not assuming anything. I am using the information provided in the articles. And I am not assuming I am coming to a logical conclusion from the information provided.

What we know.
1. Documents were illegally kept at Biden's house since the time he was in the Senate.
2. Senators do not have access to the material but in one place (a SCIF in the basement of the Capitol).
3. The rules of that SCIF are documented.
4. If others brought the documents with them to his house it was illegal (2003 Classified materials and handling EO signed by Bush and the law it refers to both list this as illegal).
5. If he did not report them for bringing the documents to his house it was illegal (Same law as before).
6. If he allowed them to leave the documents at his house it was illegal. (Same law as before).
7. It is unlikely that others brought the documents to his house. (simple conclusion from the information provided, not an "assumption").
8. The only person with access to the SCIF in that house was the (then) Senator Biden himself.

Basically, we know a crime was committed. Those documents could not be there from that time without a crime being committed. And we can conclude who put the documents there from the information. Reasonable jury will find this to be enough to convict, well me, if I had done this. It is my conclusion that a reasonable person can conclude the same for Brandon.
Click to expand...

Not all classified documents are required to be viewed in a SCIF, how do you know these particular documents had such a requirement?
 
Damocles said:
I am not assuming anything. I am using the information provided in the articles. And I am not assuming I am coming to a logical conclusion from the information provided.

What we know.
1. Documents were illegally kept at Biden's house since the time he was in the Senate.
2. Senators do not have access to the material but in one place (a SCIF in the basement of the Capitol).
3. The rules of that SCIF are documented.
4. If others brought the documents with them to his house it was illegal (2003 Classified materials and handling EO signed by Bush and the law it refers to both list this as illegal).
5. If he did not report them for bringing the documents to his house it was illegal (Same law as before).
6. If he allowed them to leave the documents at his house it was illegal. (Same law as before).
7. It is unlikely that others brought the documents to his house. (simple conclusion from the information provided, not an "assumption").
8. The only person with access to the SCIF in that house was the (then) Senator Biden himself.

Basically, we know a crime was committed. Those documents could not be there from that time without a crime being committed. And we can conclude who put the documents there from the information. Reasonable jury will find this to be enough to convict, well me, if I had done this. It is my conclusion that a reasonable person can conclude the same for Brandon.
Click to expand...

If others brought the documents to his house, it is only illegal if he knew about it. You assume he knew about it.
 
Damocles said:
I am not assuming anything. I am using the information provided in the articles. And I am not assuming I am coming to a logical conclusion from the information provided.

What we know.
1. Documents were illegally kept at Biden's house since the time he was in the Senate.
2. Senators do not have access to the material but in one place (a SCIF in the basement of the Capitol).
3. The rules of that SCIF are documented.
4. If others brought the documents with them to his house it was illegal (2003 Classified materials and handling EO signed by Bush and the law it refers to both list this as illegal).
5. If he did not report them for bringing the documents to his house it was illegal (Same law as before).
6. If he allowed them to leave the documents at his house it was illegal. (Same law as before).
7. It is unlikely that others brought the documents to his house. (simple conclusion from the information provided, not an "assumption").
8. The only person with access to the SCIF in that house was the (then) Senator Biden himself.

Basically, we know a crime was committed. Those documents could not be there from that time without a crime being committed. And we can conclude who put the documents there from the information. Reasonable jury will find this to be enough to convict, well me, if I had done this. It is my conclusion that a reasonable person can conclude the same for Brandon.
Click to expand...

If not required for a SCIF, he is not required to report anyone leaving them at his house.
If he did not know they left the documents at his house how could he report it?
"Unlikely" is not enough to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" I prosecutor cannot convict based on it being unlikely. Any judge gives a directed verdict on "unlikely".
 
Biden and Pence had documents sitting around without present knowledge. They were sitting for a long time, which proves there was no potential criminal use. It was mishandling, which is not criminal. Intent matters a lot. They were not planning of using them for personal purposes. Trump was.
 
Jarod said:
If not required for a SCIF, he is not required to report anyone leaving them at his house.
If he did not know they left the documents at his house how could he report it?
"Unlikely" is not enough to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" I prosecutor cannot convict based on it being unlikely. Any judge gives a directed verdict on "unlikely".
Click to expand...

LOL. Give me a reasonable version of the documents getting there, documents that only he had access to in that house, documents that could not be taken from a place other than that SCIF, illegally. I'm waiting. They just dropped by to leave documents around secretly, hidden carefully that they took illegally from a SCIF? Tell me more how all sorts of people who work in SCIFs take documents illegally from the SCIF to drop them off at Biden's house. No reasonable person believes what you are shoveling here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top