Biden Not Expected to Face Charges for Mishandling Classified Documents

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Klassified

Show evidence that he knew he had them. That's all you have to do.

Are you trying to tell me that a man who started taking classified documents home as a senator, and continued taking them as VP, over a span of decades, didn't know he had all those documents strewn around his residence and property unsecured, didn't know he had them? "C'mon man!"

And if he didn't take them, who did? Don't tell me. Let me guess. Trump started planting them at Biden's residence in the 70's so he could one day frame Biden when he became president. 4D chess. Amirite?

a reply to: network dude

No. He lied. Her was subpoenaed to turn over all documents with classified markings. He had his lawyers attest that all documents had been turned over. All documents had not been turned over. And based on the notes from his own lawyer, he intentionally hid documents from investigators.

At the end of the day, Trump may be able to mount some defense that says he was allowed to have the documents, but they have him dead to rights on not complying with a court order and attempting to conceal or destroy evidence in an investigation.

a reply to: Klassified

As I explained previously, he was allowed to keep classified documents in his Congressional and Vice Presidential offices. When it was time to move out of those offices it would be up to aides and GSA to pack everything up.

Those boxes then get shipped to his residence or office and are then unpacked or put into storage by aides and GSA. If he never has a reason to go through those boxes then he would never know what's in them.

a reply to: Threadbarer

This is HRC 2.0. No worries. You do not explain law though and i most certainly do not need a law lesson from you.

Biden had documents. Clasified materials. This is has been reported on. No matter whether they are returned they are in his possession and accessible to a multitude of people. You cannot say 10 years later 'my bad'.

a reply to: matafuchs

Alright, guess we need to get into Law 101.

A crime is composed of three elements, the criminal act (actus reus), criminal intent (mens rea), and the concurrence of those two elements. A prosecutor has to show all three of these elements are present in order to establish a crimes has been committed.

Hur is only able to prove actus reus. He can easily show Biden was in possession of documents he shouldn't have been. However, he can't prove mens rea and, as a result, can't prove concurrence.

That is why he won't bring charges. Because his case would fail because he can't prove a crime occurred.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Klassified

As I explained previously, he was allowed to keep classified documents in his Congressional and Vice Presidential offices. When it was time to move out of those offices it would be up to aides and GSA to pack everything up.

Those boxes then get shipped to his residence or office and are then unpacked or put into storage by aides and GSA. If he never has a reason to go through those boxes then he would never know what's in them.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Top Secret is stored on an entirely different network, where there is no access except thru a SCIF in DoD. And because of paperless office directives in place for decades, most docs are only ever electronic.


What are your credentials to know anything about this?

Mine are having a clearance for decades and working for DoD.

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

And because of paperless office directives in place for decades, most docs are only ever electronic

Gee, then where did Trump get the thousands of pages of classified documents found at MAL?

By the way the directive that establishes SCIF standards state they only apply to TS-SCI documents.

ICS 705-1, Physical and Technical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facilities

a reply to: Threadbarer

Yes. So, he can show possession of documents, which is illegal. End of story. If I owned a home, and a kilo of coc aine was found in it I would be charged. I cannot just say I did not know it was there. It is called playing dumb or pleading ignorance. In the real world of law you cannot skate on that. Here, he is.

You try to 'twist' the law to fit your argument and if falls flat a lot. You report well, and provide updates. Kudos.

To be very honest, to me, it is worse having classified documents in the open that someone does not know about. That means he would have no idea what should be there or missing either....right?

By comparison, Smith cannot prove a crime occurred either so why not say he can only prove actus reus and not mens rea? If you want to use those terms apply them to both.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Maybe the SCIF he had. As POTUS, he has a right to those documents. If they were left behind you should blame NARA like Biden....right?

a reply to: Threadbarer

The oval office and MAL were SCIFs. He or his staff printed them.

If they were printed at MAL then they weren't even removed.

a reply to: matafuchs

It's only illegal if the prosecutor can prove intent.

If a cop finds a kilo of coke in your house but they can't show beyond a reasonable doubt that it belonged to you and knew of its existence then you shouldn't be prosecuted.

Smith can easily prove actus reus, once again there's the physical evidence of the documents. But he also has a mountain of evidence to support mens rea. The lying to investigators multiple times. The discussions with his lawyers about trying to hide documents. The attempt to delete security footage. All of these are evidence of intent.

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

Only part of MAL was a SCIF. Just like the VP's office has a SCIF. Just like the Capitol has a SCIF.

Once again, only TS-SCI documents needed to remain in a SCIF. If none of Biden's documents are TS-SCI, what's to stop him from printing them out in the SCIF and bringing them to his office?

a reply to: Threadbarer

So, according to your legal knowledge possession means nothing. FFS.

If a cop finds a kilo of coke in your house but they can't show beyond a reasonable doubt that it belonged to you and knew of its existence then you shouldn't be prosecuted.

Intent. That would then be intent to sell based on size. When they find a box of baggies it is intent to distribute. If they find a digital scale in your kitchen that is 'used' for baking again...a trafficking charge. That is how it works. Find one thing and move on to others. Just like you have said in the GA RICO case. Right? There is no evidence there or an actual crime. Or in NY.

So, you are saying there is NO physical evidence of Bidens documents? You would not do well under a cross examine....

a reply to: matafuchs

If a kilo of coke is found in your possession an investigation is launched. If further evidence is discovered, you're charged with a crime.

Hur has performed a nearly yearlong investigation into Biden. No further evidence was turned up. As a result, no charges were filed.

If you think Biden is guilty, then that means you know Trump is guilty as well. Which is probably the case. If storing documents without proper authorization is illegal, then they are both guilty.

When I was in my twenties, me and my buddy got busted with a little pot on us. This was Arizona in the late 80's. The cops split us up and asked us questions. I was honest, admitted that it was mine. They cuffed me and put me in a cop car. I was cooperative and calm. My buddy was the opposite. Spun a bunch of different stories, lied his butt off, didn't really admit to anything and they cuffed him and put him in the back of a different car. We both spent the weekend in the tank and were released on Monday. When our court dates came up, my case was scratched, in other words, they didn't think it was important enough to even hear. My buddy got 200 hours of community service and a month in jail. We were both guilty, both charged the same, both popped in the same car at the same time, even the same judge, but my buddy did time and I didn't get a slap on the wrist. Moral of the story? Keep your mouth shut, cooperate , don't lie, Get the judge to maybe like you. Things may not be so bad. Talk smack to the people that determine what your immediate future is going to be like, be combative, piss off the judge and the court, and you are going to feel it. Things won't go your way. Things are gonna suck.

This is literally common knowledge.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Why were Biden's lawyers going through the documents when they found them? That is evidence that he was in possession and lost possession of Classified documents. How is this not an issue?

a reply to: LeXoXeL

Good analogy. Had something similar happen in Daytona one year. I was cool and it was dropped before my court date. The guy I was with would up being charged with felony possession because he would not dump what he had...lol. An idiot.

So, i understand your analogy. The two cases are similar but different at the same time though with Biden and Trump. As a senator, none of those documents should have wound up in his house or an office. With Trump he is being a dick but I truly believe it is because he has done nothing wrong. Documents and gifts accidently ending up with a POTUS has happened in just about every office. If he is found to have documents now though how can he be convicted if there are no charges here. It is almost as if they wanted this released so when MAL amounts to nothing it will fade away.

Either charge both or neither.

a reply to: matafuchs

They were clearing out the office.

Once again, if Hur can't prove Biden knew he was in possession of those documents, he's not going to be able to prove intent.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: JinMI

I mean did anyone seriously expect anything different?

NO. Because Biden was not intentionally trying to hide or manipulate anything.

In which of the few locations wasn't he trying to hide or manipulate them in.......