Due soon. DOJ report on Biden classified documents; no criminal charges

[Social Media]

 

The Justice Department is poised to release a special counsel report soon, which is expected to criticize President Biden and his aides for mishandling classified documents but will not recommend criminal charges. The report, overseen by special counsel Robert K. Hur, is anticipated to stir controversy in the political sphere, particularly as Republicans aim to portray Biden negatively amid the upcoming presidential contest.

 

The report centers on the discovery of classified government materials at Biden's private residence in Wilmington, Del., and his former office. Although prosecutors do not intend to pursue criminal charges, the findings are likely to face scrutiny from Republicans in Congress. The report's release, initially slated for this week, may be delayed as officials finalize plans.

 

Intelligence officials have reviewed the report to determine how much information can be disclosed regarding the classified materials found in Biden's possession. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Hur in January 2023 after the discovery of the sensitive documents, citing the need for special counsels due to Biden and Trump's presidential aspirations.

 

Biden and his aides, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, were interviewed as part of the investigation. Although the White House cooperated with the probe, some aides expressed frustration over its duration.

 

Hur, a former U.S. attorney, was tasked with independently assessing whether criminal charges were warranted and is required to file a confidential report to the attorney general explaining his decisions. The investigation, costing taxpayers nearly $3.5 million, examined allegations of mishandling classified documents during Biden's tenure as vice president.

 

While the Biden investigation shares similarities with the Trump probe, such as the mishandling of classified materials, there are notable differences. The number of documents involved in Biden's case is smaller, and Biden has maintained cooperation with investigators, handing over documents upon their discovery.

 

Trump, on the other hand, faces multiple criminal trials, including charges related to his alleged obstruction of justice and mishandling of classified documents. The Biden investigation, while raising concerns about national security, has not suggested deliberate attempts to mislead investigators, contrasting with the allegations against Trump.

 

Despite the absence of criminal charges, the mishandling of classified documents by Biden and his aides underscores the importance of safeguarding sensitive information, particularly within the highest levels of government.

 

07.02.24

Source

 

[Walker88]

Before any "Whataboutism" gets started, there is a major difference between Biden and Pence and classified documents, vs what trump stole.

 

Both Biden and Pence say their removal of docs was inadvertent, and both cooperated with federal authorities to search and remove everything.

 

trump dragged his feet and though he claimed he returned everything, that was a lie. Initially he denied taking anything, claiming "maybe the FBI planted them". Shortly thereafter he said he "declassified them with his mind" (sic). For those here who still think a President can declassify with his mind....no, there is a procedure and a paper trail, which does not exist. TS, SCI, SAP, Codeword, SITK, HCS and RD are all highly sensitive, and they were sitting around in a country club anybody with $200K to drop on a membership can join. Certainly the MSS and FSB would pony up that for any case officer who wants access to a reckless guy with a big mouth.

 

Given the range of classifications on the stolen trump docs, it certainly suggests he specifically chose them. Presidents do not have access to HCS documents (Human Clandestine Sources), as there is no need for them to know specific identities of foreign assets. In briefings or in the President's Daily Brief, a source is described merely as, e.g., "a long time source whose reporting has consistently proven accurate". He would have had to have an ally with access, which would be his two DNI appointees Grenell and Ratcliffe. In my opinion, DCI Haspel would not have handed over such things.

 

The difference between Biden/Pence and what trump did is not subtle, but might be difficult to under stand for those with a turnip-level IQ.

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

The Justice Department is poised to release a special counsel report soon, which is expected to criticize President Biden and his aides for mishandling classified documents but will not recommend criminal charges.

 

Why would they not recommend criminal charges?

 

Oh wait a minute, it's Biden.

 

The justice legal system is the US is really the equivalent to that of a banana republic's at this point.

[Tug]

39 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Why would they not recommend criminal charges?

 

Oh wait a minute, it's Biden.

 

The justice legal system is the US is really the equivalent to that of a banana republic's at this point.

Oh well…….a box of hammers comes to mind 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

The difference between Biden/Pence and what trump did is not subtle, but might be difficult to under stand for those with a turnip-level IQ.

 

The real difference is that, as President, Trump had the authority to declassify anything he chose to.  The VP's, didn't.

[bbko]

Why are so many maga-hats out of touch with reality?

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Why would they not recommend criminal charges?

 

Oh wait a minute, it's Biden.

 

The justice legal system is the US is really the equivalent to that of a banana republic's at this point.

 

It goes to intent. Therein lies the difference. And his actions after discovering the documents.

[tilaceer]

15 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

The real difference is that, as President, Trump had the authority to declassify anything he chose to.  The VP's, didn't.

Except Trump didn't have the authority to declassify nuclear arms documents, and one was found illegally in his possession , (document 19).
He has also conceded that he was in possession of documents that had not been declassified.
So, as previously mentioned, the difference is that both Pence and Biden returned the documents once discovered, and Trump attempted to retain possession of the documents he stole, (and most likely still has some).

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, tilaceer said:

Except Trump didn't have the authority to declassify nuclear arms documents, and one was found illegally in his possession , (document 19).
He has also conceded that he was in possession of documents that had not been declassified.
So, as previously mentioned, the difference is that both Pence and Biden returned the documents once discovered, and Trump attempted to retain possession of the documents he stole, (and most likely still has some).

 

And knowing removed them to a location he knew was illegal.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Why would they not recommend criminal charges?

Read the OP, it explains why.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

but will not recommend criminal charges.

Surprise surprise surprise!

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

The Justice Department is poised to release a special counsel report soon, which is expected to criticize President Biden and his aides for mishandling classified documents but will not recommend criminal charges. The report, overseen by special counsel Robert K. Hur, is anticipated to stir controversy in the political sphere, particularly as Republicans aim to portray Biden negatively amid the upcoming presidential contest.

 

The report centers on the discovery of classified government materials at Biden's private residence in Wilmington, Del., and his former office. Although prosecutors do not intend to pursue criminal charges, the findings are likely to face scrutiny from Republicans in Congress. The report's release, initially slated for this week, may be delayed as officials finalize plans.

 

Intelligence officials have reviewed the report to determine how much information can be disclosed regarding the classified materials found in Biden's possession. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Hur in January 2023 after the discovery of the sensitive documents, citing the need for special counsels due to Biden and Trump's presidential aspirations.

 

Biden and his aides, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, were interviewed as part of the investigation. Although the White House cooperated with the probe, some aides expressed frustration over its duration.

 

Hur, a former U.S. attorney, was tasked with independently assessing whether criminal charges were warranted and is required to file a confidential report to the attorney general explaining his decisions. The investigation, costing taxpayers nearly $3.5 million, examined allegations of mishandling classified documents during Biden's tenure as vice president.

 

While the Biden investigation shares similarities with the Trump probe, such as the mishandling of classified materials, there are notable differences. The number of documents involved in Biden's case is smaller, and Biden has maintained cooperation with investigators, handing over documents upon their discovery.

 

Trump, on the other hand, faces multiple criminal trials, including charges related to his alleged obstruction of justice and mishandling of classified documents. The Biden investigation, while raising concerns about national security, has not suggested deliberate attempts to mislead investigators, contrasting with the allegations against Trump.

 

Despite the absence of criminal charges, the mishandling of classified documents by Biden and his aides underscores the importance of safeguarding sensitive information, particularly within the highest levels of government.

 

07.02.24

Source

 

They could have saved the cost of the investigation and just released the bit about no criminal charges, IMO. Some of us expected such a verdict regardless of the reality.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They could have saved the cost of the investigation and just released the bit about no criminal charges, IMO. Some of us expected such a verdict regardless of the reality.

More like some of you expected that result because you have no regard for reality.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Why would they not recommend criminal charges?

 

Oh wait a minute, it's Biden.

 

The justice legal system is the US is really the equivalent to that of a banana republic's at this point.

They will not recommend charges because they read and understand the law.  Understanding of law seems to be beyond many Trump fans.

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

The real difference is that, as President, Trump had the authority to declassify anything he chose to.  The VP's, didn't.

Aside from the fact that Trump didn't declassify anything, there is the fact that Trump knowingly broke the law and Biden complied with it.  But of course that is beyond the comprehension of Trump supporters.

[Wrwest]

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Why would they not recommend criminal charges?

 

Oh wait a minute, it's Biden.

 

The justice legal system is the US is really the equivalent to that of a banana republic's at this point.

For the same reason they will not recommend criminal charges against Pence?!

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Surprise surprise surprise!

And 

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They could have saved the cost of the investigation and just released the bit about no criminal charges, IMO. Some of us expected such a verdict regardless of the reality.

You do realize you’ve posted two mutually exclusive statements?

 

 

[Danderman123]

18 hours ago, impulse said:

 

The real difference is that, as President, Trump had the authority to declassify anything he chose to.  The VP's, didn't.

Trump had the authority to send material through the declaffication pipeline. He had done so for some materials, but neglected to declassify the documents he stole. 

Edited February 7 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They could have saved the cost of the investigation and just released the bit about no criminal charges, IMO. Some of us expected such a verdict regardless of the reality.

What criminal charges are you suggesting should be used against Biden?

[Danderman123]

19 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Why would they not recommend criminal charges?

 

Oh wait a minute, it's Biden.

 

The justice legal system is the US is really the equivalent to that of a banana republic's at this point.

Are you trying to convince people that you can't read?

 

Biden returned the documents immediately.

 

Trump hid the documents.

 

Please tell me you don't agree, or that you are just trolling. Because that's just what this place needs - trolls.

[placeholder]

23 hours ago, impulse said:

 

The real difference is that, as President, Trump had the authority to declassify anything he chose to.  The VP's, didn't.

You sure about that?

"Under a 2009 Obama-era executive order titled "Classified National Security Information" the vice president does have the power to declassify documents while they're in office. The order states: "The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: (1) the President and the Vice President [...]," as well as "agency heads and officials designated by the President." 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-documents/

[impulse]

On 2/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, tilaceer said:

Except Trump didn't have the authority to declassify nuclear arms documents, and one was found illegally in his possession , (document 19).
He has also conceded that he was in possession of documents that had not been declassified.
So, as previously mentioned, the difference is that both Pence and Biden returned the documents once discovered, and Trump attempted to retain possession of the documents he stole, (and most likely still has some).

 

Don't take it from me....  How about a legal expert:

 

“Indeed, that was the opinion of the Department of Justice for two long decades. They argued in the famous Bill Clinton case that a former president can keep whatever he wants including classified documents – a federal judge agreed. Suddenly, Trump comes along and the DOJ throws that policy out the window. They indict Trump on top of it they charge him with obstruction for doing exactly what Bill Clinton did. Clinton resisted,” Jarrett stated.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/07/gregg-jarrett-explain-biden-mishandling-document-case-doesnt-have-defense-sean-hannity/

 

Rules for thee, but not for me.

 

 

 

Edited February 8 by impulse

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Don't take it from me....  How about a legal expert:

 

“Indeed, that was the opinion of the Department of Justice for two long decades. They argued in the famous Bill Clinton case that a former president can keep whatever he wants including classified documents – a federal judge agreed. Suddenly, Trump comes along and the DOJ throws that policy out the window. They indict Trump on top of it they charge him with obstruction for doing exactly what Bill Clinton did. Clinton resisted,” Jarrett stated.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/07/gregg-jarrett-explain-biden-mishandling-document-case-doesnt-have-defense-sean-hannity/

 

Rules for thee, but not for me.

 

 

 

Gregg Jarrett, a fully fledged Trump fluffer.

[nauseus]

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

What criminal charges are you suggesting should be used against Biden?

 

No ice cream for a month.

[tilaceer]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Don't take it from me....  How about a legal expert:

 

“Indeed, that was the opinion of the Department of Justice for two long decades. They argued in the famous Bill Clinton case that a former president can keep whatever he wants including classified documents – a federal judge agreed. Suddenly, Trump comes along and the DOJ throws that policy out the window. They indict Trump on top of it they charge him with obstruction for doing exactly what Bill Clinton did. Clinton resisted,” Jarrett stated.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/07/gregg-jarrett-explain-biden-mishandling-document-case-doesnt-have-defense-sean-hannity/

 

Rules for thee, but not for me.

 

 

 

How about some other experts ?
 

CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump’s actions were legally sound.

THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn’t the parallel Trump makes it out to be.

 

The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were “presidential records” that the agency should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn’t have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.

David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has “absolutely nothing to do with” the charges Trump currently faces.

For one thing, the court didn’t dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.

 

Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim “mixes apples and oranges.”

“The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business,” he wrote. “In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government.”

https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-presidential-records-act-1df64502d1640076690fac52638daebf

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Don't take it from me....  How about a legal expert:

 

“Indeed, that was the opinion of the Department of Justice for two long decades. They argued in the famous Bill Clinton case that a former president can keep whatever he wants including classified documents – a federal judge agreed. Suddenly, Trump comes along and the DOJ throws that policy out the window. They indict Trump on top of it they charge him with obstruction for doing exactly what Bill Clinton did. Clinton resisted,” Jarrett stated.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/07/gregg-jarrett-explain-biden-mishandling-document-case-doesnt-have-defense-sean-hannity/

 

Rules for thee, but not for me.

I was going to comment on the fact that your link does not give enough information about the court ruling referred to for us to look it up and see what it actually said.  However tilaceer explained things nicely.

 

Citing a Sean Hannity interview as a source.  That's pretty lame.

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Don't take it from me....  How about a legal expert:

 

“Indeed, that was the opinion of the Department of Justice for two long decades. They argued in the famous Bill Clinton case that a former president can keep whatever he wants including classified documents – a federal judge agreed. Suddenly, Trump comes along and the DOJ throws that policy out the window. They indict Trump on top of it they charge him with obstruction for doing exactly what Bill Clinton did. Clinton resisted,” Jarrett stated.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/07/gregg-jarrett-explain-biden-mishandling-document-case-doesnt-have-defense-sean-hannity/

 

Rules for thee, but not for me.

 

This Jarrett guy completely lied about the laws concerning retention of presidential documents.

 

But let me ask you: what part of his lies do you think were the most compelling defense of Trump?

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

I was going to comment on the fact that your link does not give enough information about the court ruling referred to for us to look it up and see what it actually said.  However tilaceer explained things nicely.

 

Citing a Sean Hannity interview as a source.  That's pretty lame.

The source is not the issue.

 

The issue is that Jarrett is wrong. So wrong that no part of his lies will be used by the Trump legal team. Jarrett's lies are aimed at the rubes, not a jury.

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Don't take it from me....  How about a legal expert:

 

“Indeed, that was the opinion of the Department of Justice for two long decades. They argued in the famous Bill Clinton case that a former president can keep whatever he wants including classified documents – a federal judge agreed. Suddenly, Trump comes along and the DOJ throws that policy out the window. They indict Trump on top of it they charge him with obstruction for doing exactly what Bill Clinton did. Clinton resisted,” Jarrett stated.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/07/gregg-jarrett-explain-biden-mishandling-document-case-doesnt-have-defense-sean-hannity/

 

Rules for thee, but not for me.

 

 

Your post seems to be part of a classic troll: you throw out a link to a misleading story, simply to muddy the waters. Of course you know the linked story is bogus, but your intent is to confuse some people about the Trump theft of classified documents.

 

If I am wrong, explain why your linked opinion is correct.

[metisdead]

A post with unattributed content contravening our Community Standards has been removed.