Does AG Garland Need to Appoint A Third Special Counsel To Investigate Potential-Presidential-Candidate Pence?

To maintain the appearance of neutrality, Garland may have to.

Breaking news! Classified documents were found in the home of former Vice President Pence. These documents were discovered by Pence's own teams. But, if the Biden experience has taught us anything, a search by the FBI may turn up more documents.

So what is Merrick Garland to do? Mike Pence very likely may be a presidential candidate for 2024--a candidate who will run against Trump, and potentially Biden. And we know that Garland waited for Trump to announce before appointing a special counsel. Does Garland appoint yet another special counsel to investigate Pence now? Does Garland wait till Pence announces? What a mess.

I highly recommend Jack Goldsmith's guest essay in the Times today. He explains the potential coordination problems between the two current special counsels.

Even if the Trump and Biden investigations turn out to be factually and legally quite different, as it seems they might, the dual special counsel structure will make it hard for the department to portray its decisions as principled. Normally in such prominent side-by-side investigations, an official reporting to the attorney general would ensure that the same legal and discretionary judgments informed decision-making in the two cases. But these decisions are now delegated to the special counsels Jack Smith and Robert Hur, who do not have the incentives or even the mechanism to coordinate their decision making.

Mr. Hur and Mr. Smith will take many public steps along their investigative paths, including a final decision about the presence of any potential criminality and what, if anything, to do about it. These decisions will invariably raise questions about disparate treatment. Yet neither special counsel will be in a position to explain how his decisions are consistent with the other's. Nor can the attorney general obviously do so, since the key decisions are formally out of his control so long as they stay within broad department guidelines. If Mr. Garland does end up defending the coherence of the decisions, some might question the degree to which the special counsels were actually independent.

Now, there might be a third special counsel investigation to coordinate.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

Garland should wait until Pence announces, if not forever.

[David Nieporent]

This. What Blackman pretends not to understand is that Smith wasn't appointed to investigate Trump until after Trump announced. Before that it was just being handled by the ordinary DOJ.

[windycityattorney]

But they waited because as of then (and maybe even now) Biden also implied he was going to go for a 2nd term meaning that both would be possible opposing party nominees. This was also before the Biden classified documents had surfaced (at least publicly).

There is also a difference in so far as part of the potential charges against Trump are obstructing the DOJ investigation into his documents (with the whole subpoena thing and false certification all documents responsive to said subpoena were returned).

What seems most likely now is all 3 walk on any charges related to possessing the documents and some bi partisan congressional committee is formed to get to the bottom of how this keeps happening (over classification, sloppy procedures, lack of internal guidance, whatever). Which means further Trump isn’t charged for obstruction since then it would seem he is getting singled out and will say both Pence and Biden (swamp/establishment members per Trump no doubt) got favorable treatment.

[Nige]

He'll say that no matter what, seems like a foolish thing to give weight to in an investigation. Sadly, they just might.

[Life of Brian]

Blackman:

And we know that Garland waited for Trump to announce before appointing a special counsel. Does Garland appoint yet another special counsel to investigate Pence now? Does Garland wait till Pence announces? What a mess.

You:

What Blackman pretends not to understand is that Smith wasn’t appointed to investigate Trump until after Trump announced.

While understanding the coveted status symbol of being the first to pile on a given Blackman post and the urgency that fosters, before proudly pressing "submit" it can pay to at least cursorily RTFA, as it were.

[windycityattorney]

Because the conflict of interest is not that Trump was a former president... it was that Biden's (candidate for pres in 2024) DOJ was the DOJ investigating Trump's retention of docs. Everybody knew Trump was running he spelled out it a million ways from Sunday but he didn't formally announce until he had that silly "super important announcement" at Mar a Lago.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't say he didn't know the fact; I said he ignored it. Otherwise, why would he ask if a special counsel should be appointed for Pence now, when Pence isn't a candidate?

[Kazinski]

Biden hasn't announced yet either.

It seems like Biden's situation is very similar to Pence's, andvwith more in common than Trump's situation.

Of course the big difference between Pence and the Biden and Trump situation is Pence doesn't have the sleezy reputation and the history of self dealing and mendacity that Trump and Biden do.

[Leo Marvin]

To you maybe. As far as I can tell, Biden's and Pence's respective "sleezy reputation[s] and the histor[ies] of self dealing and mendacity" are both marginal and indistinguishable. Trump's is the outlier.

[damikesc]

Biden's rep of selling access to his name is not new news.

[David Nieporent]

Hunter Biden's rep, sure. What's Joe Biden's rep in that regard?

[MatthewSlyfield]

Biden is the sitting President which is in itself a big conflict of interest for the DOJ.

[David Nieporent]

The special counsel wasn't appointed for Biden because he was a candidate; the special counsel was appointed because it's a conflict of interest for DOJ to investigate the sitting president.

[Life of Brian]

I said he ignored it

The words in your post, which I quoted in mine, were "pretends not to understand." First rule of holes, my friend.

Otherwise, why would he ask if a special counsel should be appointed for Pence now, when Pence isn’t a candidate?

Well, let's do a little bit of that scary but enabling critical thinking stuff: there have been (so far) two special counsel appointments. One was delayed until the target announced for 2024; the other was not. Thus, the intellectually curious among us might pose the question: which bucket will Pence fall in?

Others not so inclined might just cattily throw stones.

[David Nieporent]

Not sure why you're quibbling over the words. Yes, he knew it; he ignored/pretends not to understand it.

Well, let’s do a little bit of that scary but enabling critical thinking stuff: there have been (so far) two special counsel appointments. One was delayed until the target announced for 2024; the other was not. Thus, the intellectually curious among us might pose the question: which bucket will Pence fall in?

Well, one with more than a single digit IQ can figure out that Pence does not fall into the "sitting president" bucket, and therefore falls into the not-unless-he-decides-to-run bucket.

[dwb68]

what if classified info shows up at the home of a special counsel??? we need a special counsel for the special counsels!

Too much information is classified-including materials that are merely "politically sensitive." lets hope this breaks the system

[Life of Brian]

Too much information is classified-including materials that are merely “politically sensitive.” lets hope this breaks the system

Yup, I said something similar under the Milley post. This seems like it's getting dangerously close to a tipping point where Washingtonians are going to feel the need to defensively show they're not part of the increasingly ubiquitous problem -- if they can.

Maybe the solution might be to go back to saving the classification regime for truly make-or-break information, whatever that may actually be. That wouldn't be nearly as good for protecting the political tushes of one's friends and playing gotcha with one's political enemies, though, so change may be tricky.

[David Nieporent]

Thing is, even when the info itself isn't so important, they'll classify it on the grounds that releasing it would reveal sources and methods of acquiring the info.

[jimc5499]

They classify information that is already open source. A 1984 issue of Popular Science had an article about Soviet Submarines. I was in the Navy at the time and shared a room with a guy who was training to be an Anti-Submarine Warfare aircrewman. I asked him a question about the Alfa Class sub and he freaked. The exact same information in the article was in his secure training classroom labeled "Secret".

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My Dad was a defense contractor for a lot of highly classified systems, and he always said that a huge amount of stuff he thought was classified was published in Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine.

[Don Nico]

That is true especially with respect to intelligence information about Russian programs

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I recall discussing with my brother the class work we'd done on spread spectrum in college, doing a paper design for a transmitter and receiver. It's a classic example to use in explaining Fourier analysis.

He's got a security clearance, and was absolutely convinced that stuff was classified. I suppose it probably is, even if half the EEs out there know how it works.

[grb]

There was a signature example of over-classifying zeal in the Clinton email brouhaha. Except for a tiny handful of messages, all the emails in question were sent by someone to Clinton, the sender believing their message was unclassified. Almost all were upgraded to classified after subsequent review.

But there were three exceptions. They had little "c" letters in the margins - improper markings for a classified document, but markings nonetheless. Two of those were declassified after review, including this example: Joyce Banda had become president of Malawi after her predecessor died of a heart attack. Clinton got an email brief on calling the new leader. One sentence read : "Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in"

That specific sentence was classified.

[John F. Carr]

The publication was nicknamed "Aviation Leak".

[Kazinski]

They classify a lot of crap for it's embarrassment factor.

[Jerry B.]

Anyone check VP Harris’ closets yet?

[Frank Drackman]

the "First Gentleman's" using them, (and Pete Booty-Judge)

[JasonT20]

Is that necessary? She's actually the current VP. Similarly, no one is really asking about whether Biden has any classified documents given to him since he was inaugurated, since, well, he's currently the President. That said, there are many legitimate questions to be asking about how our elected executives and White House aides have been handling classified material completely aside from any questions of legal liability. (Both current and previous Presidents and VPs)

I mean, anyone checked Jimmy Carter's closets yet?

[Goju]

Now do Obama. Bush (both) and the Clintons. And what does Garland do if classified docs show up in pretty much every top level government official?

[not guilty]

Goju, suppose you were an FBI agent seeking a search warrant for the residential premises of the officials you list. What facts would you include in an affidavit to establish probable cause? What statute(s) do you claim have been violated, and what facts evince that evidence of such violation(s) will be found at the subject premises?

Please be specific.

[bevis the lumberjack]

How about the fact that top secret documents are everywhere? How can you prosecute anyone when it seems that everyone who has served in the White House has some number of documents?

If these are really sensitive documents we need to improve our handling of them by several orders of magnitude. Treat them like the Stanley Cup - there are handlers and everywhere the documents go the handler goes to make sure they get put back away safely.

[Zarniwoop]

How about the fact that top secret documents are everywhere?

So are drugs, and yet for some strange reason law enforcement still needs some* level of specificity for a search warrant.

*often pretty lame, thin, and even made-up facts. But not no facts.

[Armchair Lawyer]

How about the fact that confidential and classified materials have been previously been found on Clinton's unsecured electronic devices.

[not guilty]

"How about the fact that confidential and classified materials have been previously been found on Clinton’s unsecured electronic devices."

Probable cause to search premises requires a showing that evidence of a crime will be found on such premises at the time the warrant is issued.

[Armchair Lawyer]

A history of having materials illegally can often be used to support future warrants.

[iowatwo]

Us the same legal argument Garland used to search MaL

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Obstruction? That application would require evidence of obstruction. So far, that argument appears to be suitable in solely one circumstance.

[not guilty]

The statutes cited in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant are 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 1519 and 2071. What facts support any contention that anyone else has violated these statutes, let alone that evidence of such violation(s) are presently located at residential premises?

Please show your work.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re either really stupid or you’re intentionally missing the point. I don’t give a shit about Trump. I don’t like that every building associated with former executive officers has these documents laying around. I wonder how documents like this (or copies if that’s what they are) go missing and nobody notices.

That’s a much bigger problem than a loser like Trump.

[not guilty]

Other than as to Donald Trump, where is the evidence of criminal conduct? Statutes matter.

Classified documents have wound up where they do not belong. That bears investigation as to how that happened. But imputing criminality requires conduct prohibited by statute, including the culpable mental state specified by the applicable statute.

[Joe_dallas]

Its pretty common knowledge among those with security clearances, that possessing classified documents outside and/or unsecured is a violation of the statutes governing classified documents.

In order to get security clearance, dont they have to sign a few documents stating that they will comply with all security protocols and statutes.

The mere conduct of violating the statutes is demonstrates the mens rea.

[John F. Carr]

Did Biden and Pence have to sign? If I had to guess, I would say Vice Presidents would be put on their honor rather than forced to sign.

[not guilty]

"The mere conduct of violating the statutes is demonstrates the mens rea."

Uh, no. The culpable mental state is an essential element. The statutes cited in the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago are not strict liability offenses.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Holy hell. I’m not talking about anything criminal. I’m talking about the apparent complete lack of control over confidential information. Can you simply not comprehend the problem in the context other than Trump? Can you comprehend anything in a context other than Trump?

[Nige]

You're talking about the FBI executing search warrants, as per the first comment in this thread. I don't think anyone would argue that the management of classified documents needs to be tightened considerably.

[not guilty]

Bevis, if you are not talking about anything criminal, what grounds are there for issuance of search warrants? Why do you ignore the command that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"? That means probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found on the premises to be searched.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Expressed differently, what the hell is any confidential document doing being somewhere that nobody knows where it is or apparently even knows it’s missing?

[Nige]

It's a sure sign of double standards that it's not being investigated. Oh wait it is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Classified documents have wound up where they do not belong. That bears investigation as to how that happened. But imputing criminality requires conduct prohibited by statute, including the culpable mental state specified by the applicable statute."

Like with drugs, if you're caught in possession, the other conduct can be inferred.

Nobody's gonna take this seriously until a few people go away for a while, so let's just put both Trump and Biden away for a few years as example.

[not guilty]

"Like with drugs, if you’re caught in possession, the other conduct can be inferred."

Uh, no. Possession of government documents is not a strict liability offense; the documents are not contraband. Conduct beyond past possession is required for issuance of a warrant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bigger question -- Bush 41 is dead.

So who would be responsible if classified material were found in his files? Assume for the sake of argument HE put it in there.

Some archaist opens a box at the 41 library and tells her FBI boyfriend what she found that day -- and then reports it at his suggestion. Who's responsible -- 41 is dead...

[David Nieporent]

Who's responsible for the dance studio shooting in California the other day, given that the shooter is dead?

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, this is crazy, but maybe the Killer??? (and I'm not talking bout' Jerry Lee Lewis)

[Noscitur a sociis]

If your point is that George H.W. Bush is unlikely to be prosecuted for mishandling classified information, I would agree.

[M L]

The decedent's estate goes to jail, obviously.

[Voize]

The handcuffing will be interesting,

[John F. Carr]

You need the Ghostbusters with their proton packs and spirit traps.

[Archibald Tuttle]

AG Garland insists even treatment for all. Doesn't that imply FBI searches for the homes of Biden, Harris, Trump, Pence, Obama, Bush 2, Cheny, Clinton, Gore, and Carter?

[Longtobefree]

I suspect he will start with the Reason commentariat.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, isn't the tax return of the President audited annually? Maybe requiring a pro-forma search as well?

[SRG]

A little thing called "probable cause"...

[TwelveInchPianist]

Pretty sure recent events have established that it's probable that all those guys have classified information.

[iowatwo]

Not the Presidents. Power to declassify is real.

We have the letter Obama sent to the National Archives saying how much money he was sending to cover the Wharehouse he rented in Chicago to "store all his presidential papers and classified documents."

[Zarniwoop]

This false trope is tired AF, but apparently evergreen with people who can't be bothered to Google.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration. For more information, please visit https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001

[David Nieporent]

I can't believe you're still using this ridiculous argument, no matter how many times it has been debunked even by the right wing media outlets you get all your news from. The. National. Archives. Always. Had. Possession. And. Control. Over. Those. Documents.

[Don Nico]

ng,
Bevis said nothing about criminality. Either we as a nation take such administrative systems seriously or we should do away with them. For the average employees, losing documents at their home ends their employment.

[not guilty]

"Pretty sure recent events have established that it’s probable that all those guys have classified information."

That doesn't feed the bulldog. What events in particular? And what facts evince probable cause as to the specific premises?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, TwelveInchPianist.

[Nige]

Not sure 'there may or may not be an unknown number of documents of unknown classification status at unspecified locations' amounts to probable cause. It's pretty clear that someone needs to take a serious look at how classified documents are handled, but I don't think your thirst for FBI raids will be slaked since I would be surprised if any of the people you listed didn't co-operate fully.

[TW]

Or maybe given that some of the classified documents that were found (so far) at Biden's place came from his time as a Senator, the FBI needs to be searching the homes of every living current and former Senator. 😉

[David Nieporent]

AG Garland insists even treatment for all. Doesn’t that imply FBI searches for the homes of Biden, Harris, Trump, Pence, Obama, Bush 2, Cheny, Clinton, Gore, and Carter?

No. Not unless those people defy requests and subpoenas and then lie about it, and then evidence is developed that they have classified material they're refusing to return.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Because Obama's never defied requests for materials from government authorities before?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did he/they?

[Social Justice is neither]

Don't forget Comey and every other former and current member of government agency leadership.

[not guilty]

The New York Times article linked by Professor Blackman does not suggest grounds for appointing a Special Counsel, which is governed by 28 CFR § 600.1:

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

Based on the limited information now available, I don't see evidence of criminality on the part of Mike Pence. If Donald Trump had acted as circumspectly as Pence, he would likely not be in trouble over the Mar-a-Lago documents.

That having been said, the Attorney General may wish to follow 28 CFR § 600.2(b) and direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the Special Counsel decision, as Garland initally did when President Biden's team found documents in a location where they should not have been.

[Longtobefree]

I suspect he will continue to interpret (b) as being the interest of the democrat party, as they won the election, and that makes them the public interest.

[not guilty]

All criteria of § 600.1 need to be satisfied.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not guilty, in your zeal to see Trump get gotten you’re ignoring a much bigger problem. I mean, who doesn’t have top secret docs laying around the house? Anybody?

[bernard11]

Who doesn't turn them in when asked? Or subpoenaed?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bernard, keep your eyes on the prize. Whatever who is caught with then does, it’s a bigger issue that there appear to be no internal controls over documents whatsoever.

[not guilty]

"I mean, who doesn’t have top secret docs laying around the house? Anybody?"

Who does have? What are your supporting facts?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, bevis.

[not guilty]

[Martinned]

I think we can limit this whole special counsel business to people who have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the 2024 nomination. (William Hill currently has Pence at 20/1 for the nomination.)

[Life of Brian]

After the third movie in the series, NOW can we officially dispense with the urban myth from last year that there's a Super Secret Stuff Lending Library that scrupulously tracks who has what?

[Commenter_XY]

This is pretty lame. I bet it is widespread, too. Look, there is a relatively painless way out of this mess.

Why not have the DOJ declare a limited amnesty: Yo, all of you! Turn in your secret classified shit in the next two weeks. No (well, not very many) questions asked. Turn it in, and sin no more. No prosecution.

Then be ruthless about prosecuting people who still retain classified documents.

Can we just have a little 'do over' kind of thing and end this classified documents bullshit? It is not so hard, is it?

[Brett Bellmore]

That is the obvious answer, with the amnesty not extending to illegal use of them.

But they can't do that, because it would amount to admitting that Trump was just following common practice, and that, (As I said below.) the only thing unusual about the whole affair was going after the documents.

I mean, after Clinton left office he literally had a minion go to the National Archives to DESTROY secret documents that were already securely stored. Did Clinton get in trouble? No, no they pretended said minion had done it on his own initiative, and Berger barely got a slap on the wrist.

[SRG]

Except Trump was not following common practice by his continuing to retain documents he knew he had while denying he had them.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, after Clinton left office he literally had a minion go to the National Archives to DESTROY secret documents that were already securely stored.

I mean, this event happened only in your head, but keep going.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I wonder how they got Sandy Berger and a pair of scissors inside Brett's head?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You really hadn't heard of the Sandy Burger affair?

[David Nieporent]

It's Berger, not Burger.

And the part that's in Brett's head is that "he literally had a minion go to the National Archives to DESTROY secret documents."

[Brett Bellmore]

Ok, gotcha: Bin two, "stupidly pretends Berger would have done it on a lark."

[Nige]

Amazing how you selectively defer to deniability or lack of evidence.

[Ridgeway]

I always figured he did it because whatever was on those docs was embarrassing to him (Berger), not Clinton.

[Brett Bellmore]

Should I put you down as stupid enough to think he did it on his own initiative, or just a dishonest hack sticking to the party line to the bitter end? Neither bin is attractive.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7351422

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Brett, everyone who doesn't see the conspiracies you do is stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, NBC news, famous conspiracy mongers. Shall I put you down in the "stupidly claims he did it on his own initiative" bin, then?

Yeah, he just went into the national archives, and stole and destroyed secret documents on a lark. It totally wasn't a black bag job for his boss. [/sarc]

We'll never know what was on those documents, which I guess was the point of doing it, but it must have been juicy to do something that risky.

[David Nieporent]

Where does NBC News endorse your fact-free conspiracy? Is there a different link you didn't post?

[Brett Bellmore]

Fact: Berger was a Clinton minion.

Fact, he went to the National Archives.

Fact, he stole originals of documents from the Clinton administration.

Fact, he then destroyed them.

Fact, he got a slap on the wrist.

Really stupid talking point? "He did it on a lark."

[Sarcastr0]

To Brett, if someone worked for the Clintons, all they do from then on is at the Clintons' behest.

The documents were not the sole copies either, so your theory here is kinda crap.

[Absaroka]

"The documents were not the sole copies"

Out of curiosity, what was the content of the destroyed documents?

Or is 'classified' all we know?

[bevis the lumberjack]

So why did Berger do it, Sherlock?

Brett can be a homer but he listed several well known facts, none of which you bothered to address. Glib “nothing heres” don’t prove Jack.

[Sarcastr0]

From ze wiki: "The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots."

bevis, I have no idea why he did it.
Brett's recitation does not add up to 'it was a Clinton plot,' as I explained above.

[David Nieporent]

bevis, I have no idea why he did it.

I mean, the most logical, parsimonious reason would be that they made Berger look bad. But Brett, who still thinks that the people who stormed the Capitol at Trump's request were just hallucinating, just knows that Clinton told him to do it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I came back to post the same thing. The documents related to something maybe embarrassing to the NSA and Berger was an NSA chief so arguably he was saving himself embarrassment.

The Clintons spent their entire adult lives manipulating so there’s a running presumption that if something happens involving them it must be their manipulation. Probably overdone. I mean, I really doubt that Hillary had Epstein killed.

[Brett Bellmore]

"“The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration’s handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots.”"

With unique hand annotations, you neglect to mention.

[Sarcastr0]

HOLY PENIS THE ANNOTATIONS.

Brett, that is weak as hell.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, I really doubt that Hillary had Epstein killed.

But she totally had Scalia smothered in his sleep.

[David Nieporent]

Fact: Trump was a sociopath.

Fact: Trump told people for months that the election was stolen.

Fact: Trump told people to show up for a "wild" protest on 1/6.

Fact: Trump knew that people at the protest were armed.

Fact: Trump said he didn't care because they weren't there to hurt him.

Fact: Trump told people at the protest that they had to fight like hell to keep the election from being stolen.

Fact: When Trump was told that they were attacking the Capitol, he refused to order the NG to protect Congress or Pence because he said they deserved it.

Fact: When Trump was told that they were attacking the Capitol, he swung into action to get the certification stopped.

Really stupid talking point: "They only imagined that he was telling them to attack the Capitol, and that isn't what he wanted, because he winked while saying 'peacefully' once."

[David Nieporent]

Brett can be a homer but he listed several well known facts, none of which you bothered to address. Glib “nothing heres” don’t prove Jack.

"Berger was a Clinton minion" is not a "fact." Berger formerly worked for Clinton, several years earlier.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Depends on what you call a minion.

He worked in the Clinton campaign. He worked on the Clinton transition team. He served through the entirety of both Clinton terms. Seems pretty minionish.

[Nige]

So 'formerly worked for the Clintons.' You only call someone a minion when you want to heavily imply he was slavishly following orders but you have no proof such orders were ever issued. Or they're short yellow things with their own dialect who work for supervillains.

[David Nieporent]

Brett, you’re so stupid that when Trump openly tells people to attack the Capitol and they attack the Capitol, you think that it was all just a big coincidence.

Whereas you “know” Berger was acting on orders by Clinton despite having a grand total of zero pieces of evidence that Berger was acting on orders by Clinton.

[Armchair Lawyer]

When did Trump tell people to "attack the Capitol"?

Directly. Not via some weird code word or some other allusion.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was the part where he said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." I mean, wasn't that clear enough for you?

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, what you find is that those with TDS feel the need to mis-state what actually happened, in order to convict Trump in their minds.

Continually correcting them on what really happened is needed, for sanity.

For example "Trump signed a document saying he turned over all the documents". Inaccurate.

The truth: A lawyer for Trump signed a document saying, "According to what she was told, a search was done and the following documents have been found".

Notice the difference.

[Nige]

I have never, ever not once seen anyone here state that Trump signed the document, everyone clearly states a lawyer signed, and that it was a monumentally foolish move for the lawyer and a typically dick move for Trump.

[not guilty]

Armchair Lawyer, who on these threads has claimed "“Trump signed a document saying he turned over all the documents”? Please be specific.

Trump's "custodian" of records -- Trump's agent -- signed a bogus certification on June 3, 2022 in response to the issuance of a federal grand jury subpoena. Do you claim that she was not doing so at Trump's behest?

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures commission of an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal. Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1) Jason Cavinaugh below says "Trump lied and swore that he was returning all responsive documents."

2) That in an inaccurate representation. The accurate representation is that Trump's custodian of records signed a document that said she had been told a search had been done and responsive documents were found and turned over, and that this was accurate to the best of her knowledge. A different one of Trump's attorneys wrote and asked her to sign the document. Trump did not ask her to sign it.

The document merely attested to what she was told. In order to be "bogus" you would need to prove she wasn't told that.

3) Again, Trump never told her to sign anything, as far as we know. A different one of Trump's attorneys did.

[David Nieporent]

Which words of Clinton's are you citing that told Berger to destroy documents, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, "Stupidly insisting he did it on a lark." bin for you. It's looking like you'll have a lot of company at this rate.

[David Nieporent]

Which words of Clinton’s are you citing that told Berger to destroy documents, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's be clear about this: For Berger going into the National Archives to destroy documents from the Clinton administration, you're going to require a signed confession by Clinton, with a spotless chain of custody.

For Trump having ordered the break in to the Capitol on 1/6, inferences are sufficient.

[Nige]

There aren't even second-hand reports of Clinton ordering this, though presumably if there was they would carry more weight than the myriad first and second hand accounts about Trump's behaviour but which do not amount to signed confessions.

[David Nieporent]

For Trump having ordered the break in to the Capitol on 1/6, inferences are sufficient.

I mean, we have signed confessions for Trump: defendants saying that they attacked the Capitol because Trump told them to. And yet you still won't accept that, insisting that this is like a schizophrenic guy hearing voices.

But with no evidence of any sort of any connection between Clinton and Berger's document thefts — not even a single hint from anyone associated with Clinton, Berger, or the prosecution — you just know that the only possible explanation for Berger stealing documents is that Clinton told him to.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't quite understand how confessions work, do you? As in, you can't confess for other people?

Berkowitz signing a confession that he killed people on Sam's orders doesn't make the dog guilty. It just makes Berkowitz a nut case.

[myself]

It's almost like basically the entire country, including the Proud Boys, understood how to read between the lines!

The fact that Trump spent the majority of the capitol riot enjoying the spectacle on TV and refusing to intervene suggests that those who believed that Trump supported the violent disruption of the count were in fact correct.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It’s almost like basically the entire country, including the Proud Boys, understood how to read between the lines!"

As demonstrated by a tiny, tiny fraction of those present for the speech ending up in the Capitol building, and many of those who did having planned to before the speech? The secret meaning was so clear they read between the lines before he spoke them!

[Sarcastr0]

Lets get rid of the metal detectors, tell these people who showed up (promised a wild tie) that they're robbing them over there, right now.

Seems pretty innocent!

Lets also have my lawyer have a plan to steal the election that requires chaos during the day of the vote count, which is the day of the above speech.

You're so selectively blind it's amazing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He is not blind.

He is delusional.

He is disaffected.

He is autistic.

He is antisocial.

He is a bigot.

He is ready for replacement.

[David Nieporent]

As demonstrated by a tiny, tiny fraction of those present for the speech ending up in the Capitol building, and many of those who did having planned to before the speech?

I mean, I agree with Brett to a limited extent here: it wasn't all spontaneous on 1/6. Trump had been planning it earlier. Trump incited a mob to do it, while the people he organized it with used the mob as muscle/cover.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Trump had been planning it earlier. Trump incited a mob to do it, while the people he organized it with used the mob as muscle/cover."

Except for the fact where you're imagining that part, and don't have even a scrap of evidence, sure.

[Nige]

See?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, there was a powerpoint about this. And a call to Pence.

As was discussed with you on this blog.

Your partisan selective memory is a sight to behold.

[myself]

By "tiny, tiny faction" you mean the Proud Boys, the specific group he told to "stand back and stand by".

He issued them an instruction the entire country understood, and they obeyed.

I wouldn't say Trump had a well formed plan. The fact he cheered it on while watching TV (instead of intervening one way or another) speaks to this.

I suspect his plan was for the mob to go to the capitol and cause chaos, causing enough unrest that Mike Pence decides to count the fake electors and declare him winner.

The actual invasion of the Capitol was likely a surprise, but a surprise he approved of.

[not guilty]

Brett, is defying a grand jury subpoena and fraudulently certifying that all responsive documents had in fact been produced "just following common practice"? (Trump didn't sign the false "certification" himself, but whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal, per 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).)

[Brett Bellmore]

Point is they don't go after the documents in the first place, normally.

[bernard11]

So what?

[ducksalad]

It’s not coincidence that Pence happened to just find the documents this week. Nor Biden. And it wasn’t some spontaneous devotion to national security. All over the country current and former officials are taking a look at those boxes of papers in the closet, because now – and only now – they realize they might get called on it. Or even asked to certify.

Bellmore’s point, I believe, is that only Trump was asked to certify. Biden wasn’t even asked and therefore could not have falsely certified. And (this is just accusation, but plausible) he was not asked to certify specifically to avoid putting him in legal liability.

Here is the shifting standard we’ve seen since the Mar-O-Lago business:

Version 1: Just having them is the violation. Version 2: Saying you returned them when you hadn’t is the violation. Version 3: Keeping them until the DoJ has to come get them is the violation. Version 4 (today): It’s only a violation if you LEGALLY CERTIFIED you didn’t have them.

Even as Trump hater it’s obvious to me that Versions 1, 2, and 3 got abandoned only when, and because, it became apparent that Biden would fall on the wrong side of the standard. If Biden legally certifies and then more docs are found, I'm sure we'll go to Version 5, that there has to be a grand jury subpoena and that is exactly where the boundary of acceptable behavior lies.

[David Nieporent]

Bellmore’s point, I believe, is that only Trump was asked to certify.

Only Trump was asked to certify because only Trump outright refused for a year to return documents after having been asked.

And, no, there's no shifting standard. All of your "standards" actually overlap each other. But knowingly keeping them is the violation; lying about it is a more serious violation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Trump returned many, many documents when asked. To say he "refused" is inaccurate.

[David Nieporent]

"Hey! There's $100,000 missing from the company bank account! Give it back!"

"No."

"Seriously, give it back."

"No."

"Give it back right now."

"Fine, here's $15,000."

AL: "I don't know what you're talking about. He didn't refuse to give the money back."

[ducksalad]

Let’s accept that analogy for Trump and extend it onto Biden:

Company lets Biden keep $25,000 from the company bank account for 10 years, without asking for it back.

After company (let’s say rightfully) goes after Trump for the $100,000 he’s been keeping for 1 year, and it’s all over the news, Biden decides to make a show of returning $10,000.

When people snicker, Biden’s defenders say that he’s in a completely different category because he returned the money totally voluntarily, after 10 years.

Then the company – reluctantly, and due only to negative publicity – goes through his records and finds another $15,000.

When people snicker and point out he didn’t “voluntarily” return the $15,000, his defenders say it’s OK you can’t prove mens rea, since he was never specifically asked to return $25,000.

When Bellmore asks why one was asked to return the money and the other wasn’t, you insist that it’s not relevant. Trump defied a request and Biden didn’t.

Which is true. But it’s also clear the “company” is playing favorites on who gets to borrow money from the corporate account. And therefore, members of the public with no particular respect for either the corrupt company or its embezzling employees aren’t inclined to take any of the company’s complaints too seriously.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Rather...

"There are documents missing"
Here's 15 boxes we found.

"We think there are more document missing"
We searched again. We found some more. Here they are"

"We want to see where you're keeping these documents. Put a better lock on that closet"
OK. See? Here's a better lock.

"We also want all the security tapes of everyone who entered that closet"
OK, here you go.

Can you point to a single time that Trump "refused" to hand over documents during this affair?

[Brett Bellmore]

"“Hey! There’s $100,000 missing from the company bank account! Give it back!”

“No, it's not missing, it's my accumulated vacation pay."

"Give it back right now!"

"After we've established that it's yours, not mine."

"Embezzler!"

[David Nieporent]

When Bellmore asks why one was asked to return the money and the other wasn’t, you insist that it’s not relevant. Trump defied a request and Biden didn’t.

One was asked to return the money and the other wasn't because they knew one had the money and they didn't know the other one did.

[Noscitur a sociis]

““Hey! There’s $100,000 missing from the company bank account! Give it back!”

“No, it’s not missing, it’s my accumulated vacation pay.”

“Give it back right now!”

“After we’ve established that it’s yours, not mine.”

Could you point me to where Trump has asserted that he was allowed to possess the items at issue?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Could you point me to where Trump has asserted that he was allowed to possess the items at issue?"

No, I'm not going to play your game of "I'm going to pretend I was stuck in a cave for the last year, bring me up to date on all those news reports I actually did see, so that I can switch to pretending you're hallucinating."

It's a stupid game, and I've lost interest in humoring your desire to play it.

[Nige]

I’ve mentioned how utterly bizarre it is that people sacrifice themselves and ruin their lives for Trump, a crooked real estate guy turned reality television star who will ruthlessly drive and then accept those sacrifices and give nothing in return. But even someone like Brett who likes to maintain a distance between himself and the ongoing weird extremism of the right is willing to sacrifice morality and personal intellectual integrity on Trump’s behalf. Trump is Jim Bakker with pizzagate instead of a bible, resonating with some blind, primal fundamentalist yearning in the conservative mind. His very obvious fakery is somehow part of the attraction.

[grb]

Two Points:

1. Brett didn't see anything amiss in Trump's attempted shakedown of Zelensky, even with the tape, transcript and two years of preceding efforts to trade government favor for personal gain. He also didn't see anything wrong in Trump's attempted shakedown of Raffensperger for 11,780 votes. When it comes to Trump, Brett gives Sergeant Schultz a serious run for his money.

2. As for why anyone weasels so desperately to defend Trump, God alone knows. I recently saw this perfect definition of the man:

"No books, No reading, No friends, No music, No curiosity, No patience, No integrity, No compassion, No empathy, No loyalty, No conscience, No courage, No manners, No respect, No character, No morality, No honor, Not even a dog"

[David Nieporent]

Can you point to a single time that Trump “refused” to hand over documents during this affair?

No, but I can point to multiple times that he did so.

Between May 2021 — when he was asked — and January 2022, he refused to turn over any documents. (Does that count as a single time, or does the fact that his refusal extended for 8 months count as multiple times? Based on my understanding of events, there were multiple requests, not just a single request in May, so I'm pretty sure it should count as multiple refusals.) He then turned over 15 boxes. From January 2022 through May 2022, when the grand jury issued its subpoena, he refused to turn over any additional documents. (Again, does that four month period count only as one time? Or as multiple times?) On June 3, in response to the subpoena, he handed over a handful of classified documents, accompanied by a sworn declaration from his agent, Christina Bobb, that a diligent search of some of the government documents he possessed¹ had been undertaken and that all responsive documents had been turned over. And after developing evidence that it had been a lie, on August 8, they did a search of Mar-a-Lago and found even more documents that he had refused to turn over — both documents responsive to the subpoena, as well as documents responsive to the initial NARA request.

¹The subpoena asked for all documents with classified markings in his possession; the declaration said only that they had searched "the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida."

[Armchair Lawyer]

No David,

Typically what you need in this situation is an affirmative refusal. I.E., actual evidence that Trump or the Trump organization told the U.S. Government "We're not handing over the documents". Or something to that effect.

If instead, the Trump Organization said "we're working on getting your request together", that typically wouldn't be viewed as a "refusal" anymore than you not answering this post within the next 5 minutes would be "refusing" to answer the post.

You're supposedly a lawyer, you should know this. If you get a document request, and it takes you time and clarifications to handle the document request, you have not "refused" the document request. You're simply working on it.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can't argue about what you need to hand over until you've been asked to hand it over, which never happened to Biden in the over a decade he was keeping classified documents at home.

[Nige]

Presumably if they knew about them they would have asked for them back, you know, they way they discreetly and with no publicity asked Trump to give back the documents he had? Obviously them not knowing about them isn't great, but I expect there's a difference between two documents mixed in with a bunch of other stuff in an office and a private garage and boxes left lying all over the place in public areas.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

All over the country current and former officials are taking a look at those boxes of papers in the closet, because now – and only now – they realize they might get called on it. Or even asked to certify.

Or perhaps, acting on information, they are trying to do the right thing.

Not everyone is a selfish, disingenuous, un-American asshole.

But the majority of the Volokh Conspiracy's fans are, so that's how these losers see everyone and everything.

[not guilty]

What do you surmise is the significance of that, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

The significance is that Trump became their great white whale. They have been breaking norms like they're going out of style going after him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How are you and Trump coming along with that search for former Pres. Obama's birth certificate, Brett "Birther" Bellmore?

[Sarcastr0]

Once you equate things that aren't equal, you can prove anything.

[David Nieporent]

Point is they don’t go after the documents in the first place, normally.

The point is false. Who told you that?

[Nige]

Normally they don't have to, or if they do they don't have to ask more than once.

[bernard11]

ng,

You have to understand that Brett and others absolutely refuse, under any circumstances to recognize or understand the distinction you are making, despite the fact that it is blindingly obvious to normal people.

They really are cultists.

[Life of Brian]

Why not have the DOJ declare a limited amnesty: Yo, all of you! Turn in your secret classified shit in the next two weeks. No (well, not very many) questions asked. Turn it in, and sin no more. No prosecution.

I like this idea. I do fear, though, that enough of those who actually took care to keep their hands clean (whoever that may be) won't want to give up the potential of such a juicy advantage over those who did not take such care (whoever else that may be).

Then be ruthless about prosecuting people who still retain classified documents.

Though it does seem like ratcheting up the risk like this could be a big help in making folks think twice before they reflexively classify stuff, a strict liability regime could then create (enhance?) a different class of gotcha games where you plant a naughty doc somewhere under your opponent's control where you know it'll come to light.

[TW]

That's an interesting idea but I don't know if the DOJ has the authority to do it, but you know who probably does?

President Biden.

If President Biden announced tonight that he was issuing such an amnesty to everyone but himself so long as they returned everything within two weeks and it would not apply to any illegal use of the material (e.g. transfering them to a foreign power) or anything kept after that two week period and agreed to full cooperation with the DOJ on his own mishandling of classified documents, it would probably be more beneficial to him politically then in trying to go after Trump while it looks like a lot of people (including himself) broke the law on this.

[not guilty]

What statute(s) do you posit that Joe Biden, Mike Pence or any person other than Donald Trump has violated? Based on what supporting facts (especially as to mens rea)?

Please show your work.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What statue do you believe Donald Trump violated?

Show your work...

[Sarcastr0]

LOL have you ever read a post by not guilty before?

Asking him to cite statute is not the sick own you think it is...

[Armchair Lawyer]

This is about logic. Not a "sick own".

[Nige]

It's not really logical to demand answers someone has already supplied multiple times.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What statue do you believe Donald Trump violated?

The Statue Of Liberty, for starters.

Or maybe that was a drunk Donald Jr., who mistook Lady Liberty for Kimberly Guilfoyle.

[not guilty]

What statue do I believe Donald Trump violated?

In regard to the Mar-a-Lago documents? Let's start with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 (concealing records or documents object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the D.C. grand jury investigation), 2071 (willful and unlawful concealment of public documents), 793(e) (willful retention and failure to deliver unlawfully possessed government documents to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive them), 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States), 1001(a)(2) (commanding, inducing or procuring Christina Bobb's false certification of compliance with grand jury subpoena -- punishable as a principal per 18 U.S.C. § 2).

Is that sufficient?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sure. As expected, most of those laws require some degree of willfullness, knowledge or intent.

These are the same laws you say Biden couldn't possibly have violated, because he didn't intend to. But Trump did, because of course he did intend to.

It doesn't track. It's just a double standard your posing/

[not guilty]

Determining issues such as Donald Trump's mental state is why we empanel petit juries. Let's put twelve D.C. residents, good and true, in a jury box and let them sort out the evidence. Stiffing the DOJ on a federal grand jury subpoena and (through an authorized agent) falsely certifying that all responsive documents had been provided is a smoking gun.

As for Joe Biden, further investigation is warranted, but based on what has become public to this point probable cause is lacking.

[Commenter_XY]

I know, it is probably just wishful thinking. But I also think this idea would work, in practice. It is implementable.

Another discussion to have right afterward: Is too much shit classified?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The solution is to create another US Attorney, possibly a respected retired judge, whose sole job is to investigate and prosecute former VIPs with classified information. So he's in Florida this week, Delaware the next, and Indiana the week after that -- we have these things called "airplanes" and this thing called "the internet."

[Martinned]

Under the Dutch constitution there is an advocate-general at the Supreme Court (let's go with that translation) who has lifetime tenure and who has the sole right to prosecute sitting and former MPs and government ministers for misconduct in public office. (The rest of the time this person, like the other AGs, advises the Supreme Court on how to decide cases )

http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/legislation/constitution066.htm#119

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody cares about Dutch practices.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Way more people care about Dutch practices than care about anything you have to say.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There are plenty of downscale losers in rural Ohio (the depleted human residue that remains after generations on the losing end of bright flight), and plenty of those worthless clingers just love what Bob from Ohio has to say.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's becoming painfully obvious that basically EVERY 'important person' in DC brings home classified documents, regardless of what the law may say, and holds onto them. And that the only thing unusual about Trump was that they went after them.

[SRG]

As I noted above, Trump continued to have them while denying it.

Did anyone else try to negotiate over the return?

[Frank Drackman]

and Senescent J didn't even know he had them (does he even know he's Senescent J anymore??) which is worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

They'd have to go after them before there'd be any negotiations, wouldn't they? So the lack of negotiation instead of instantly rolling over hardly means anything in all these cases where they ignored it to begin with.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck are you talking about? Trump lied, delayed, moved the documents.

That's how you get an FBI warrant.

This is simple stuff. Your willful blindness is really kicking today.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Where did Trump lie or delay? When asked, he turned over many, many documents.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're not even pretending to believe the bullshit you write anymore.

You're no longer an effective troll, and should probably find a new line of work.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Failure to answer the question

[Sarcastr0]

I note that you left off the moving documents. After the subpoena. Which is by itself a no-no.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/us/politics/trump-documents-lawyers.html
A 2021 letter put Trump on notice they knew he had missing records.
He and his lawyers did not hand them over, or allow a search.
They delayed for months with no reason given.
They said the boxes contained only newspaper clippings (false, and still records).

That was just 2021. And before anyone knew some of the docs were classified.

So yeah, lies and delays, AL.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1. The NY Times is not a reliable source.

2. 15 boxes of documents were turned over. Then more on top of that. Reportedly, Trump's lawyers offered to the government to have them help search the facilities. The government said "No, we're good".

3. Newspaper clippings are not classified records.

[Sarcastr0]

1. You're a tool.
2. Who cares?
3. They are however Presidential records, which is the issue that lead to the search.

You're getting dumber, I think.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Newspaper clippings" are not presidential records.

You're an idiot for thinking so.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, whatever its deficiencies may be as a news source, the NYT is the best available for most stuff which does not require enterprising investigative reporting—which the NYT largely leaves to others. Among the others, the sources you would cite are not among, or even close to, the best available.

Time and again right wingers present themselves as woefully ignorant, largely because of chronic deficiencies (and excessive mendacity) in the news sources they rely on, prefer, and demand that others follow. You could become a less-ignorant-seeming person simply by switching to, for instance, the NYT.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're a troll feigning ignorance. Your questions don't deserve answers, because you will just ignore the facts and ask again next time.

[David Nieporent]

Where did Trump lie or delay? When asked, he turned over many, many documents.

False. When asked, he turned over no documents. Six months later, he returned some. But only some. Forcing them to issue a subpoena. At which point he returned some more. But only some. But he lied and said he had turned over them all. And then they developed evidence that he still had more, and that he was actively concealing those. So they obtained a warrant and found more.

At which point he argued, variously, that they were his, that they were planted, and that he had declassified them.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"But he lied and said he had turned over them all. "

Evidence not present.

Again, you need to lie to make your case. If you can demonstrate that point, it would be better for your case. But that was never said by Trump.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

He authorized his lawyer to say on his behalf, that a diligent and thorough search was done (it was not) and that all responsive documents were being turned over (they were not) in relation to the subpoena that he, Trump, was served with.

His subpoena. His authorized agent saying on his behalf.

You are a liar and a troll.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And not a lawyer, apparently.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Incorrect.

His lawyer said she had been told that a search had been done and documents found, and she signed an affidavit that to the best of her knowledge, it was true she was told a search was done.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's a shame that you don't appear to understand what words mean. You'd make a better liar and a troll if you did.

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/bobbcertification.png

He lied, just like you do.

[not guilty]

The lie on June 3, 2022 was that of an authorized agent, made on Trump's behalf to deceive the agents receiving the relative handful of documents that were contemporaneously produced.

[Nige]

You're inventing stuff now. Literally making stuff up on order to get outraged on Trump's behalf.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"And that the only thing unusual about Trump was that they went after them."

Your willingness to blatantly lie is annoying, and should have been beaten out of you as a child.

Trump refused to turn over documents to NARA.
Trump then returned *some* documents to NARA, some of which were classified.
NARA contacted DOJ, and requested that Trump hand over everything else. He refused.
The DOJ got a subpoena for all documents with classified markings.
Trump lied and swore that he was returning all responsive documents.
As it turns out, not only did he refuse to hand over a few hundred more, but he also attempted to move and hide some of them from the search warrant he knew was coming because he had lied in response to the subpoena in the first place.

The Biden situation is not the same. The Pence situation is not the same.

You're a fucking liar.

[Frank Drackman]

They put that True-Coat on at the Factory, Ya

[Bob from Ohio]

Bernard is just a sad Biden cultist.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Shouldn't you be proofreading a $21,000 residential deed, Bob from Ohio?

[Life of Brian]

and should have been beaten out of you as a child.

Never stop being classy, Jason. It's why you're so well-regarded around here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Never stop sticking up for bigoted liars, Life of Brian. It's why your betters have not tired of stomping wingnuts like you into irrelevance in the culture war.

[Life of Brian]

Why would I be surprised, Artie, that you'd be the first to step to the defense of someone advocating for childhood beatings of those holding the wrong views?

Far more like "bitters" than "betters" IMHO.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And that the only thing unusual about Trump was that they went after them.

That is a profoundly stupid assertion, particularly when repeated after correction. But roughly what would be expected from a rabidly partisan, disaffected, autistic, delusional bigot.

[Tallman]

>Mike Pence very likely may be a presidential candidate for 2024–a candidate who will run against Trump, and potentially Biden.

Worse, the precedent from the Trump impeachment saga* is that even 'likely candidates' need to be treated as 'official candidates.'

Specifically, the D's (mostly false) allegation he tried to get Ukraine to investigate 'likely candidate' Biden.

[Frank Drackman]

Pence a POTUS candidate? He's "JEB!" without the "!" Stiffer than AlGore, from an even less Electorally important state than Lindsay Buckingham-Graham, and so dull he makes Walter Mon-dull look like John Belushi on Coke,

[Social Justice is neither]

He's more liked than Liz Cheney so I don't see the problem there. I've been assured by the media she's popular, well liked and looking at a bid as well so Pence seems like a given for the GOPe.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Specifically, the D’s (mostly false) allegation he tried to get Ukraine to investigate ‘likely candidate’ Biden."

Trump's request is unambiguous, and you are full of shit. Go peddle your asshattery somewhere else.

[David Nieporent]

Well… technically Tallman is correct. Trump didn't try to get Ukraine to investigate Biden, because that wouldn't have helped Trump. He tried to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of Biden.

(That doesn't make Trump look better, obviously; rather, it refutes the farcical argument that Trump was actually endeavoring to uncover corruption.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Trump didn’t try to get Ukraine to investigate Biden, because that wouldn’t have helped Trump. "

This isn't definitively true.

[Sarcastr0]

Playing from the Brett Bellmore 'well, there is no metaphysical certitude so I can't say it's true' playbook.

[Armchair Lawyer]

When you need to lie to make your case, it's a poor case.

[Sarcastr0]

I can't make my case to your standards, since you have placed the goalposts in the Andromeda galaxy.

[Nige]

It isn't exactly a stretch, though.

[Frank Drackman]

If any of Merrick the Elephant Garland's flunkies wanted to help him they'd leave a loaded Luger on his desk. (it's an Anal-ology, I know Suicide is illegal (and not really painless, despite MASH) unless performed by a Board Certified Thanatologist (HT J. Kevorkian)
Seriously, that was Barry Hussein's best pick for the Court? And Senescent J's was even worse if that's possible.

Frank

[windycityattorney]

Bi partisan nat’l security congressional committee into classified document labeling, tracking, handling, use and misuse in 4, 3, 2, 1… mostly done in closed session (due to classified nature of some of the info obviously).

Nobody is charged. Or rather, *everybody* granted immunity to be fair and frank with the congressional oversight to get to the ‘bottom’ of this whole sordid affair.

*Trump refuses to cooperate because F you that's why.

[Moderation4ever]

I would add VP Pence to Hur's assignment and note in both cases the people with the document are cooperating in the return of the documents. It now seems likely that additional documents will be found in the possession of other individuals. Hur assignment would them be to determine if the documents were taken with intent and were the documents compromised while they were in the possession of the individuals. The case of former President Trump is different because he attempted to prevent the return of the documents.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its different!

The Biden cultists here are funny. It was all Nuclear Secrets! with Trump and now none of you even cares that, for instance, documents are kept in boxes in a garage.

[myself]

The issue was always that Trump seemed to have taken the documents intentionally, refused to give them back, and in fact hid the documents and lied to the DOJ about it.

If Trump had simply returned all the docs when the National Archives asked for them it would have been a non-story. Biden and Pence on the other hand didn't even need to be asked, they pro-actively searched and returned what they found.

[Moderation4ever]

Your assessment is correct. The discovery of the Biden held document provided the former President with cover for his actions and removed the focus. With the Pence discovery the Biden case become a clearer case of mismanagement of documents, while the Trump case remains a deliberate attempt to take documents.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, you think Biden has accidentally ended up with classified documents dating as far back as his time as a Senator, in multiple locations, without any intent. Purely by accident, over and over.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Brett. We do.

You're mixing up supposition with truth again.

[Brett Bellmore]

You start from an absolute presumption of guilt with Trump, and an absolute presumption of innocence with Biden, and interpret everything accordingly.

[Nige]

What's the presumption? Biden found and returned the documents. He is being investigated. No-one had public meltdowns or threatened civil war. Trump took documents and refused to return them. Had public meltdowns and threatened civil war over the subsequent raid/investigation/legal proceedings. Absent other evidence, that's how things stand, no other presumptions necessary.

[Social Justice is neither]

Don't forget the documents held at a Biden think tank funded by the CCP. No body seems to know if the recovered documents are everything that went there or not because there is no way to know what all walked off with Biden.

[David Nieporent]

There is, of course, no "think tank funded by the CCP." That's a complete fabrication.

It is true that we don't know what documents were there, and that's troubling from a national security perspective, but it's true of all of these people (Trump, Biden, Pence) and likely lots of other people with access to classified information: apparently the government is not doing a very good job keeping track of this stuff.

[ducksalad]

"Biden and Pence on the other hand didn’t even need to be asked, they pro-actively searched and returned what they found."

Pro-active? You are expecting us to believe finding them now was totally a coincidence, and they'd been diligently searching for 10 years (Biden) and 2 years (Pence)?

It's more like you run a bordello for 10 years, and then when another bordello down the street gets busted, still keep it open with the winking acceptance of the authorities, and then finally when the local newspaper looks like they're about to write a story about the disparate treatment, finally shutting it down, with a sanctimonious claim that you were "pro-active".

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Pro-active" would have been to burn the documents they found...

[Brett Bellmore]

We don't actually know there wasn't any burning going on.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess the fact that I'm not a doctrinaire left-winger who automatically assumes all Democrats are innocent? The way you do?

Do YOU know that no burning took place? If so, how exactly? You were camped out in Biden's garage since last October, maybe?

[David Nieporent]

No; you're a doctrinaire right winger who can't figure out that when Trump tells people they have to fight to stop the steal he wants them to fight to stop the steal.

As for Biden, "How do you know it didn't happen?" is not evidence. But I would find it very strange if he destroyed some of the classified documents there but not others.

[Nige]

None of us cares enough to threaten civil war if Biden is investigated beacuse of those documents? What a cult!

[MatthewSlyfield]

At this point should they be considering searching the homes, libraries, and archives of all living ex-Presidents?

As for preventing it going forward, given the requirements of the Presidential Records Act, why aren't National Archive personnel inventorying everything before an outgoing President's and/or Vice President's staff is allowed to pack it up for removal from the White House?

[not guilty]

As I inquired upthread, suppose you are an FBI agent seeking a search warrant for residential premises for Joe Biden or Mike Pence. What statute(s) would you cite? What facts would evince probable cause to believe that evidence of any offense(s) are presently on the subject premises? (Especially in the wake of President Biden having voluntarily consented to a comprehensive search of his Wilmington home.)

Please be specific.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Something about voluntarily transferring classified documents to Hunter Biden, who then transferred the intelligence in them to his international "business partners"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would say there is no chance that you are a lawyer, but discovering South Texas College of Law Houston has generated caution along that line.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So...Joe Biden has all these classified papers during the Obama Presidency. Especially about the Ukraine political situation. And he takes them home, and places them in a nice unsecure box next to his car.

Meanwhile, at the same time, his son is being paid lots and lots of money by Ukranian business interests. For a job which he's basically unqualified for. And his son ALSO has access to these classified papers.

Ohh boy...

[not guilty]

"Something about voluntarily transferring classified documents to Hunter Biden, who then transferred the intelligence in them to his international 'business partners'"

Did you get that from that reputable source, Otto Yourazz?

[ducksalad]

Voluntarily consented….when ordinary people get busted after a “consensual search” of their home, we normally assume one of two things:

(a) the officers made it clear they’d come back with a warrant if there was no consent, and the homeowner figured there was no point resisting, or

(b) the homeowner’s brain was so messed up he either forgot about his stash or didn’t understand the stash was illegal.

I’ll concede (b) is a possibility with Biden but believe it’s more like (b) for Biden and (a) for his handlers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, remember that, unlike Trump, Bidenthey didn't sic the FBI on Biden. So while searching for documents they had the opportunity to quietly destroy any really incriminating ones.

The problem seems to be that they didn't do a complete enough job of looking for them.

[Nige]

We're moving towards Hunter Biden burning incriminating documents in four secret service vehicles.

[OtisAH]

Nobody “sicced” the fbi on Turnip and you fucking know it, you dickhead.

[Moderation4ever]

A good place to start is not to classify so many documents. Classify what really need to be classified and then only for as long as it need to be classified. Have a regular part of the process to review classified documents and declassify those that can be. Having fewer classified documents will make it easier to track the really important stuff.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sad when clusterfuck best describes our government.

[M L]

The whole special counsel artifice should be scrapped.

[Bubba Jones]

I'm beginning (lol) to suspect that elected officials don't take these things very seriously during the course of the work.

[Bob from Ohio]

Better search Grant's Tomb. Who knows how far back this has been happening.

[Commenter_XY]

I'll bet if the homes of Congress were searched, they'd find plenty more. It is actually getting funny, now. But why stop at Grant's Tomb? Surely, we must search John Adams' grave.

[Social Justice is neither]

Was Washington really as honest as commonly told or did he have and sell off a secret stash of nuclear secrets to fund his post government life?

[Ben_]

I’m sure they’re relics from Pence’s various adventures:

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mike-pence-is-race-bannon/photos

[Ben_]

Here’s the best one:

https://twitter.com/jackheald5/status/1314226483716481025

Look for the documents here.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Fess up, Prof. Blackman. How many classified documents do you have in your home?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The closest Blackman got to anything in the government was clerking for some off-the-grid judge in chambers roughly three miles due east of the exact middle of fucking nowhere.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Amen, brother. Apparently he worked for Mel Gibson, and for the "bull queer" named Boggs whom Andy Dufresne out-maneuvered in The Shawshank Redemption.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I forgot the Boggs gig in Kentucky (which is slightly farther from the precise middle of fucking nowhere).

Wouldn’t matter. It's Pennsyltucky.

[John F. Carr]

If he has authorized access, he has likely been trained not to boast of having classified information. If he does not have authorized access, I think despite all the criticism thrown at him on this site he has sense enough not to confess.

[Longtobefree]

Garland need to appoint a special counsel to investigate the DOJ, and another to investigate the FBI.
And then resign in disgrace.

[OtisAH]

You missed some lint between a couple of your toes.

[not guilty]

"Garland need [sic] to appoint a special counsel to investigate the DOJ, and another to investigate the FBI."

Uh, Donald Trump tried that with John Durham. We all know how that played out.

[OtisAH]

Turnip formally announced his campaign for potus far earlier than most any candidate ever has. But Garland “waited” for him to announce before appointing Smith? So had Big Baby waited until this spring or early summer, there would be no Smith now? That’s Blackman’s theory here?

Anyway, I see this will be another long comments section of people correctly pointing out that the classification status of the papers Turnip absconded with and refused to return is not at issue. Rather it’s the refusal to return the docs and his lying that he had. And of people ignoring that and continuing to lie about these matters. Just in time for tomorrow’s version of the same thing.

[Zarniwoop]

There's a Washington cliché that covers this: "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up".

I'd personally put Biden and Pence in the same boat: potentially mishandled classified docs, but appear to be cooperative and not affirmatively (and poorly) attempting a cover-up.

The application of "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" to Trump is left as an exercise for the reader (and the reader's partisan biases, in most cases).

[jdgalt1]

All of these so-called investigations, just like the "Russian collusion" investigation, are frauds with pre-ordained outcomes. We have become a banana republic. Either embrace it or grab your guns.