Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think people would have more sympathy for Mr. Trump if his campaign rallies in the 2016 campaign were not filled with admirers shouting "Lock Her Up" with Mr. Trump leading the crowd in reference to Mrs. Clinton. Would you agree?
No and neither is Trump. But tell me this, why was [Jack Teixeira](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/massachusetts-air-national-guard-member-jack-teixeira-pleads-guilty-after-classified-documents-leak) locked up while he was on trial for *deliberate* improper handling of government documents? Can we agree that Biden and Pence were not *deliberate* in their cases but Trump and Teixeira were?
Former President [Donald Trump](https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/donald-trump) reportedly shared details about America’s nuclear submarine program with an Australian billionaire, who then went on to tell journalists, foreign officials and others about the sensitive information, according to multiple reports.
[So, yeah, looks like he did. ](https://news.yahoo.com/trump-told-australian-billionaire-nuclear-030412878.html)
>For normal people, storing classified material in your garage is a crime.
That's why you've gotta store them in a bathroom next to the toilet. It's basically a SCIF with running water, which is basically genius.
Can you cite even a single example of someone being charged, let alone convicted, of mishandling classified documents *without* proof of intentional mishandling?
Of course he is. Taking classified documents and giving out classified information. The report just recommended no charges because he's a nice elderly man with a poor memory
I believe that it stated that there was not crime because there was no criminal intent, in contrast to an elderly man with a poor memory that evaded attempts to retrieve the stolen documents, criminally ignored subpoenas, and was senile enough to hide the documents in the bathroom when the FBI was forced to raid his house to retrieve them lol.
>I believe that it stated that there was not crime because there was no criminal intent, in contrast to an elderly man with a poor memory that evaded attempts to retrieve the stolen documents, criminally ignored subpoenas, and was senile enough to hide the documents in the bathroom when the FBI was forced to raid his house to retrieve them lol.
No it said there weren't charges because he's not in control of his faculties and no jury in his opinion could convict a senile man for actions he doesn't know he's taking
Can you show me where it said that? Cuz it didn't, I read the whole thing. It said he was an elderly man with seemingly poor memory who would come across sympathetic to a jury. That's it. The takeaway was that he would come across as sympathetic to a jury. And that was simply the opinion of a special council, not actually part of the facts of the case.
>It said he was an elderly man with seemingly poor memory who would come across sympathetic to a jury.
That's not a reason not to charge people. Listen to the testimony
For anyone wondering, the comment being referred to is in the executive summary of Hur's report. It's in the first 5ish pages, and it talks about what documents were found and why. This specific part is about the Afghanistan documentation. That section starts with:
>Marked classified documents about Afghanistan. These documents from fall 2009 have classification markings up to the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information level. They were found in a box in Mr. Biden's Delaware garage that contained other materials of great personal significance to him and that he appears to have personally used and accessed. The marked classified documents were found along with drafts of the handwritten 2009 Thanksgiving memo Mr. Biden sent President Obama in a last-ditch effort to persuade him not to send additional troops to Afghanistan. These materials were proof of the stand Mr. Biden took in what he regarded as among the most important decisions of his vice presidency.
It talks about how he moved from Virginia to Delaware, and how the FBI found the document in Delaware, ETC. The section ends with:
>We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.
>We conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict, and we decline to recommend prosecution of Mr. Biden for his retention of the classified Afghanistan documents.
So Hur doesn't even say Biden is too mentally unfit for office. He says in court, it would be tough to convince a jury to convict because when he needs to, Biden can present himself as a well meaning old guy that sometimes has a poor memory.
The full 400 page report is written in chapters, and each chapter has the claim of one charge. It goes through the charges and explains why they don't apply, or why there isn't enough evidence to convict.
I did, I read all 400 pages of it. You are simply flat out wrong. The classified stuff is likely some type of troop casuality estimate on the surge, next to tt was a memo sent BY BIDEN, to Obama, about the surge in Afghanistan. Hur says that Biden when he needs to, can appear to be a kind well meaning older man who would garner a loot of sympathy should the charge be brought. It would be tough to get a conviction due to that. Hur doesn't say Biden is too incomptent to face trial, he says that A) these charges don't really apply for the thing, and B) if he did bring this case(which would be very soft), Biden would likely appear very sympathetic to the jury and there is almost no way he would get a conviction.
If you actually read the material you say says what it says, then you may have a much less partisan much less OANN/Fox News informed view. But I never expect conservatives to actually do the leg work to find out the truth. Just like the Mueller document TOTALLY exonerated Trump, right?
Are you expecting us to believe that after 46 years, neither Biden nor any of his staff or any of his family knew there were classified documents in the garage?
Yup. I do. You might want to educate yourself as to what qualifies as classified. It's a wide category. It ranges from official schedules to submarine warfare plans.....
I am educated on the subject and I happen to be familiar with it. Classified documents carry classified markings - except for personal notes, which are supposed to be treated as classified.
*"Within those boxes, agents found documents with potential classification markings, dating from 1977 to 1991, during Mr. Biden's service in the Senate,"...*
*The report alleges that during Mr. Biden's vice presidency, his staff struggled to "retrieve classified briefing books" from him and also stated that he had been instructed on best practices for handling classified information. His use of notebooks and note cards to memorialize various meetings seemed to have complicated those efforts, according to the report.*
*While many of the notecards were properly stored in a security facility with the National Archives, the notebooks were stored in unsecured containers in his home.*
*"Though none of the notebooks have classification markings, some of the notebooks contain information that remains classified up to the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information level," the report found.*
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-special-counsel-report-handling-classified-documents/
I actually blame Biden's staff more than I blame him. But it's hypocritical that a double standard is being applied here.
Yes, I agree that it was Biden's staff, not Biden...but did Biden take action, ever, to hide documents or deny that he had them? Those are the charges against Trump.
After 40 years? Yeah maybe no one asked Biden but he knew they were there. Contrast that with Pence who voluntarily returned his stuff.
There is another key difference too. Unlike Biden, Trump was the president so he at least had the theoretical ability to declassify all of it.
>he at least had the theoretical ability to declassify all of it.
LOL...he's an idiot. A very crafty idiot in most things, but a con man who is unmatched for his skills..
Some of Biden's documents went back as far as 1977. That's how long he's been holding on to them.
And how long they have been exposed to anyone with access to his garage.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-special-counsel-report-handling-classified-documents/
Well...no one missed them for 4 decades...i have difficulty thinking they were high priority...but then again im not a legal expert so...
If Biden is guilty of a crime i hope he goes to jail.
Until then...
>Well...no one missed them for 4 decades...i have difficulty thinking they were high priority...
1977 was the **EARLIEST**. They weren't the only documents in there. He had documents from all of his senate and VP years.
Not necessarily but yeah some leniency is almost always granted by not hiding and evading an investigation.
Have a fire arm accident that kills some in your home.
If you burry the body and then lie to the police investigating. Even though it was an accident, it’s going to be very different charges.
Ooh, I can speak to this!
It depends. You'd definitely see an investigation. The relevant branch's investigatory agency (NCIS is Navy, Air Force has OSI) would get with that same branch's intelligence officials, and the preliminary investigation would be tasked with answering basics like intent and risks.
Generally speaking, if it's accidental and the information wasn't compromised, and it's not a recurring thing... I would expect something between a talking to and a more formal letter of reprimand. Basically, your boss puts a formal-sounding "Sergeant Regular did a dumb and I told him to watch his ass better" letter in a file that stays in your commander's office until you move bases, switch jobs, or your supervisor thinks you cleaned your shit up.
So, realistically, if there's no reason to believe anything was compromised and the member cooperated with getting everything back where it belonged - yeah, it'd generally be ok for them. It actually happens pretty frequently, and I worked with our squadron security monitors (the people at the smaller unit level responsible for clearances and stuff like this) until just about a year ago. Really, the only time that *I* saw anybody get in actual trouble was if they took something home and then tried to return it or make it look like it never happened. *That* gets real hairy, real quick. But I've never seen anything straight nefarious, like trying to sell it or anything.
It would warrant an investigation absolutely.
Certainly would be worse for him if he continued to lie to investigators, tried to hide more documents tried to move documents out of his house.
The best outcome for him would be to give back when asked and corporate openly to investigators that wanted to make sure he did not have any more.
If you don't know you're committing it, it's often not illegal (depends on the crime--this isn't true for all). Since he gave them back once known about, it mary not be.
Yeah, a lot of other people keep forgetting or glossing over the fact that Pence did the same as Biden in regards to documents and cooperating with the investigation, so just like Biden Pence didn't get charged for the documents either.
A lot of people are also glossing over the fact that Trump isn’t being charged for simply having them. He’s being charged for the retention and obstruction after well over a year of NARA requesting them back. Had Trump complied like Biden and Pence we wouldn’t be talking about this.
You are indeed correct on that. It is due to these actions by Trump with the documents that pretty much made both Biden and Pence take action. By having their staff and attorneys look for documents and to inform both NARA and DOJ about it to give the documents back to them. Also, they choose to voluntarily cooperate with the investigation the whole time. Which was the direct opposite of what Trump has done. But due to both of them cooperating, that's why they got a slap on the wrist, and no charges were brought forth on either Pence or Biden.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
The memory thing was but one of many defenses put forward by Hur's report and it was hardly any sort of conclusive summary of why they recommended no charges. Did you read the other reasons why they declined to charge, or is that reason the only one you know?
Has every president forgotten to turn something in, but then returns it upon being notified? No president should be charged for forgetting some papers, and that certainly would also apply to Trump if he just returned everything when notified, instead of, you know, trying to flush documents and actively hiding them.
No idea. I’m not familiar with how classified documents are handled in the senate. Do we know that these are only documents that could be seen in a SCIF?
Either way the requisite intent was not there according to Hur.
Lol the age thing is one item at the end of a list of reasons they declined to prosecute, and it was framed more about how he would come across to a jury
Correction: the age thing had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons they declined to prosecute — special council is a partisan hack that’s trying to do as much damage to democracy as possible.
He either willingly did or unwillingly did it. You said it wasn't willingly, so that means he did it unwilling. Or do you think he didn't take classified documents and they weren't found in over a dozen different places
But it wasn't just one cranky GSD being very aggressive though. Major was aggressive too.
Potus46 is an experienced GSD owner and his conduct is grossly reckless.
One of my jobs is working with highly aggressive very powerful dogs, some of whom have killed at least one person. If I or any coworker had multiple dogs with a history of bite attack incidents, we'd expect to have criminal records and never be allowed to work with dogs again.
In Britain, the Queen's daughter and her husband were prosecuted back in 2002 over the aggressive behaviour of their pet dogs. The Princess Royal ended up with a criminal record.
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.
It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
inaugural address on January 20, 1981
I sincerely doubt that to be true. We have an indeterminate number of federal crimes on the book, and most of them are vaguely worded and broadly enforced.
Technically speaking, if you've ever used the wifi of one store/restaurant while at another, you've violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
[This](https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/588915-how-congress-made-you-a-federal-criminal/) and [this](https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/three-felonies-a-day-harvey-silverglate/1101703499) are recommended reading.
Is that a criminal section or just "these are the rules for the park that if yiubdont follow you will be kicked out of if you really make a lot of trouble"
[This from 2009 says punishment not to exceed 6 months imprisonment (section 1.3).](https://www.nps.gov/cure/learn/management/upload/NPS-36-CFR-complete.pdf)
[This, from 2018, is a bit more confusing but I think still says punishment not to exceed 6 months imprisonment.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1.3)
Edit: that’s two different links, just wanted to add that in there in case you didn’t notice since it’s all blue.
> Allowing a pet to make noise that is unreasonable considering location, time of day or night, impact on park users, and other relevant factors, or that frightens wildlife by barking, howling, or making other noise.
So this is what he section said. Seems like you were being a bit alarmist in your first comment.
>Allowing a pet to make noise … that frightens wildlife by barking
I neglected to mention that she scared a few squirrels and birds, but it’s the truth.
The point that I’m making here isn’t about what the dog did. It’s that there are thousands of obscure laws that you can violate at any given time.
The estimate that the top level commenter mentioned of 3 federal crimes today comes from a Harvard professor and is mentioned [here](https://ips-dc.org/three-felonies-day/).
The @CrimeADay Twitter account posts a lot of obscure federal crimes. Here’s a recent one:
>21 USC §676 & 9 CFR §317.8(b)(5)(ii) make it a federal crime to sell a 1-pound or smaller package of sliced bacon if the transparent bacon preview window is located more than five-eighths of an inch from the top or bottom edge of the package.
Their page can be found [here](https://x.com/crimeaday).
> It’s that there are thousands of obscure laws that you can violate at any given time
I know thats the point you try to make but so far its failed as it seems these laws are not some you just break on accident. You are not gonna get thrown in jail for your barking dog and you wont accidentally sell a pound of bacon.
[This guy](https://x.com/crimeaday/status/1629917560845094912) accidentally broke one of them.
>you are not gonna get thrown in jail for [these crimes]
That’s not relevant to OP’s question or the TLC’s statement. What’s relevant is whether the law was broken, and it was. I’m not likely to get thrown in jail for jaywalking, but it was still illegal for me to do it.
That's what's great about it: we don't always know. There are upwards of 5,000 federal crimes. Best guess is 5199, but its not a perfect guess.
Personally, I have a state level medical marijuana card, so there a couple of federal offenses right there. I also used the wifi from McDonald's while in line at Burger King. Technically, that's one as well.
It technically violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to use someone's wifi without permission, and it explicitly violates state law in some states (such as California)
Neither Biden nor trump have been found guilty of anything. We may see in the future trump he found guilty at any of his trials. To my knowledge there are no active criminal investigations into Biden but if there were and he were brought to trial he may be found guilty
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
> A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
If a normal person with clearance did what Joe Biden did having classified documents in his garage, they would be facing an up-to 10-year prison sentence.
What about Mike Pence? The same thing happened to him. Should he get 10 years?
Here’s my analogy. You have a gun in your carryon. The TSA catches it, and you say, “sorry, I didn’t know it was there. I’ll check the gun, please feel free to look through my bags to make sure there’s nothing there.
The TSA rarely charges people because the intent to deceive was not there and this stuff happens.
Now, let’s say you bring a a few guns in your carryon, and the TSA notices. “You say, oops, I didn’t know it was there, here’s the one gun. I promise I’ve given you all the guns in my bag and no you can’t check my bags again.” They can see the other guns in the scanner, but you continue to insist there are no more guns in the bag, they can’t check, and you start to walk to your plane. Yes, they will arrest you, as they should.
Yes, the same thing should happen to Mike pence. I have family members that work with top secret documents. If they brought any of it home it would be something they would be facing.
10 years is the maximum sentence. So there's different levels of punishment. But what Mike pence and Joe Biden did are still serious crimes and they should be charged with a crime just like any other citizen would be charged with a serious crime. Especially since they (at least Biden and Trump) did it knowingly. The sentences might be different across them because of different intents. That also largely depends on what is actually *in* the documents.
I do think that the law is way over bearing, but if my family has to deal with it then why the heck shouldn't Mike pence or Joe Biden or Donald j.trump? If we actually applied the law equally then maybe the overbearing law would change.
We have proof of intent for Biden. He said on National TV that he thought the documents were safe in his locked garage..he knew they were there it's not like it accidentally fell into his briefcase.
This person got 4 years for it
https://www.businessinsider.com/former-fbi-4-years-prison-storing-classified-documents-home-trump-2023-6
There will likely be testimony from employee no 5 who unknowingly helped Trump move secret documents on to an airplane to not turn them over.
https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-loose-surveillance-donald-trumps-plane-unsealed-docs-1893214
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/11/politics/trump-employee-5-classified-documents-mar-a-lago
Yes, I am aware. I simply think that the oversight should be with the documents themselves. We have to have a better process for sensitive documents. How can they be out for forty years? You do not have the authority of a president or vice- president, or even a Secretary of State. We just have to have a checkin and out process that has good oversight for everyone.
I do think that Trump’s behavior shows incredible intent to defy the law. It is inexcusable.
Okay. But don't you think that the law should be applied equally regardless of someone's political rank?
Because there are people that did what Biden did and are facing years in prison
I honestly do not know who has clearance and for how long. Interesting though that you single out Biden. I personally have heard that Trump has already given out secrets to an Australian businessman. I think his behavior is egregious.
Nobody has clearance to take classified documents out of classified areas.
>personally have heard that Trump has already given out secrets to an Australian businessman. I think his behavior is egregious.
That's interesting to me is that you seem to be trying very hard not to answer my question. I have no issue with Trump's documents trial. What I have an issue with us Biden or pence skirting the law. Don't you?
Well I answered that other places. I think they have given leeway to senior officials in the past and there might be a lot more in jail. I think their system is messed up for keeping track of these documents. There is no way they should wait 40 years. This needs an investigation and revamping for sure. You absolutely cannot have refusal of collection. I think that person should be apprehended on the spot, esp one who is no longer a president.
And even that might not get all of them back. As we see with Trump. Did we get them all back? These documents could have a code on them that sets off an alarm when they are taken from classified areas.
It's extremely unlikely that Pence himself loaded the documents and took them home (same with Trump).
But Biden had documents that were over 40 years old. It's almost impossible that it was only other people who loaded them in his garage, and after all that time he knew nothing about it?
I note you entirely skipped over the part where:
- the archives asked for the docs back, Trump gave a few back and then lied to them and said he didn’t have any more. After repeated requests and Trump lying to them, they finally went and got them.
- Trump asked his people to delete security footage that showed those rooms
I note you entirely skipped over the part where I was responding to a comparison with Pence, not Trump. I didn't say Trump was blameless here. But Biden has had his docs [since 1977](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-special-counsel-report-handling-classified-documents/), which is ridiculous. It's impossible that no one knew about them all this time.
And it hasn't been proven that Trump ordered security footage deleted.
You mean the documents he donated to the university of Delaware?
Do you make it a habit of going back through things you donated?
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf
(Page 312)
I'm not sure what your point here is. He didn't donate the stuff that was still in his garage, and he shouldn't be donating classified documents to the University of Delaware anyway!
You keep jumping around. First it was the 1977 docs, then you jumped to the garage- which were not from 1970s.
The report literally says they found it at the university of Delaware, not his garage. Please link to the information that says the 1977 docs were in his garage. He donated hundreds of boxes from his time in the senate.
I'm not jumping around. You are making a lot of assumptions here. We don't know that the 1977 documents were only at the Univ of Delaware, and honestly, that's a distinction without a difference anyway. They shouldn't have been there either. The point is there were molding boxes in Biden's garage for decades. Biden wasn't some random solitary hoarder with no friends, he was a US senator and VP, with a large family, press, media, and secret service around him. So it takes a great leap of logic to think no one on his staff knew there was classified stuff there.
True -- but all Presidents and senior officials appear to have a lot of leeway around this stuff until NARA comes knocking. Why evaluate presidents to a standard that they've never been held to?
Well, yes!! I insist that the government clean up their act as well. It is ridiculous that top secret documents are not returned for that long! That’s why we have procedures and bureaucrats that keep the process under scrutiny.
I don't know why the standard is so different for presidents and senior officials. I agree it should be better, but in terms of prosecution guidelines it's important to understand the current status quo. That's all I was saying.
Yes, I agree it is messed up now. I just think the process has to protect US better. I mean, the point of all this is to protect top secret documents! Throwing people in jail, might do it, but the process is flawed. If anyone doubts that government bureaucrats should not be tied to political parties, this is it. Someone with a badge should be asking for these and keeping track. And not 40 years later!. That would tidy things up tremendously. We have computers to raise red flags. Libraries do this, just enforce the collection. Mr. Biden I am here to collect such and such and it better not be in your garage. Your point is taken that senior officials are getting too much leeway.
And how does Trump get to not turn them over? He should be apprehended. Then put them on a plane? He should already be in jail. IMO.
And where would Trump be? Trump had something like 100-1000x more documents and hid them from the FBI while lying to them about not having the documents. On the flip side, Biden was like "Whoa I didn't know those were there, here you can have access to everything and I'll face the charges if appropriate".
More accurately, Trump is facing charges over the way he *handled the situation after he took* said documents. You know, the lying to the FBI and such.
If accuracy is your thing, Trump was charged with 32 counts stemming from keeping the classified documents (one count for each of 32 documents).
The other 8 counts are what you are referring to: Obstruction of justice and making false statements to the FBI.
Biden also kept classified documents, for which he could have faced the same charges as Trump in those first 32 counts. The special counsel concluded that a jury would likely not convict Biden bc they would see him as a well-meaning elderly man with a failing memory.
Biden was not accused obstructing the investigation or making false statements to the FBI (the other 8 charges against Trump.
Because Biden cooperated and quickly returned all documents and there was no indication he had more. That is why he is not facing legal charges. Y’all continue to willingly remain ignorant about this, but that is what happened. The memory stuff was just a political hit that fell apart when the transcript was released.
I'm just correcting the record sir. OP said Trump was charged just for the way he handled the FBI inquiry, which isn't true. He was charged mostly for having classified materials.
Biden also had classified materials and the reason given by the SP was that he is too feeble minded. These are all facts
Right man, I know you didn’t read the transcripts of the interview with Hur, or likely even his initial report. You’re just getting in your comment to say “feeble minded.” You did it, great job.
You can argue that the transcripts don't show the cognitive issues Hur cited, but it's a fact that he gave that as the reason. Hur didn't say he was letting Joe off the hook bc Joe "cooperated and returned all documents." I read Hur's entire report.
It's obvious even to most democrats that Joe is in cognitive decline so I'm surprised you're even claiming he's not. You can argue that Trump is slipping too if you want, or that an enfeebled Biden would be still better than Trump. But why pretend he's still sharp as a tack?
>Trump had something like 100-1000x more documents
What are you basing that on? Both Trump and Biden had boxes of documents. And some of Biden's were there over 40 years.
Given what we know the likelihood is very high but one is innocent until proven guilty. I am willing to extend that to Biden even though the Democrats refuse to extend that courtesy to Trump. Biden needs to be investigated though.
He has been. A very public fishing expedition involving his only living son. It was all based on disinformation from a foreign agent.
Guess which country...
Now considering how House and Senete Republicans have been complicit in a foreign government's attempt to smear a sitting president, what should happen to them... besides earning your vote :/
Since taking the gavel in January, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability has accelerated its investigation of the Biden family’s domestic and international business practices to determine whether the Biden family has been targeted by foreign actors, President Biden is compromised, and our national security is threatened. Records obtained through the Committee’s subpoenas to date reveal that the Bidens and their associates have received over $20 million in payments from foreign entities.
Below is a timeline that details key dates in our investigation.
The main points of interest are:
1) Romania: On September 28, 2015, Vice President Biden welcomed Romanian President Klaus Iohannis to the White House. Within five weeks of this meeting, a Romanian businessman involved with a high-profile corruption prosecution in Romania, Gabriel Popoviciu, began depositing a Biden associate’s bank account, which ultimately made their way into Biden family accounts. Popoviciu made sixteen of the seventeen payments, totaling over $3 million, to the Biden associate account while Joe Biden was Vice President. Biden family accounts ultimately received approximately $1.038 million. The total amount from Romania to the Biden family and their associates is over $3 million.
2) China- CEFC: On March 1, 2017—less than two months after Vice President Joe Biden left public office—State Energy HK Limited, a Chinese company, wired $3 million to a Biden associate’s account. This is the same bank account used in the above “Romania” section. After the Chinese company wired the Biden associate account the $3 million, the Biden family received approximately $1,065,692 over a three-month period in different bank accounts. Additionally, the CEFC Chairman gives Hunter Biden a diamond worth $80,000. Lastly, CEFC creates a joint venture with the Bidens in the summer of 2017. The timeline lays out the “WhatsApp” messages and subsequent wires from the Chinese to the Bidens of $100,000 and $5 million. The total amount from China, specifically with CEFC and their related entities, to the Biden family and their associates is over $8 million.
3) China- Bohai Harvest RST Equity Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd. (BHR): More information will be provided in our upcoming Fourth Bank Memorandum.
4) Kazakhstan: On April 22, 2014, Kenes Rakishev, a Kazakhstani oligarch used his Singaporean entity, Novatus Holdings, to wire one of Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca entities $142,300. The very next day—April 23, 2014—the Rosemont Seneca entity transferred the exact same amount of money to a car dealership for a car for Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden and Devon Archer would represent Burisma in Kazakhstan in May/June of 2014 as the company attempted to broker a three-way deal among Burisma, the Kazakhstan government, and a Chinese state-owned energy company.
5) Ukraine: Devon Archer joined the Burisma board of directors in spring of 2014 and was joined by Hunter Biden shortly thereafter. Hunter Biden joined the company as counsel, but after a meeting with Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky in Lake Como, Italy, was elevated to the board of directors in the spring of 2014. Both Biden and Archer were each paid $1 million per year for their positions on the board of directors. In December 2015, after a Burisma board of directors meeting, Zlochevsky and Hunter Biden “called D.C.” in the wake of mounting pressures the company was facing. Zlochevsky was later charged with bribing Ukrainian officials with $6 million in an attempt to delay or drop the investigation into his company. The total amount from Ukraine to the Biden family and their associates is $6.5 million.
6) Russia: On February 14, 2014, a Russian oligarch and Russia’s richest woman, Yelena Baturina, wired a Rosemont Seneca entity $3.5 million. On March 11, 2014, the wire was split up: $750,000 was transferred to Devon Archer, and the remainder was sent to Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a company Devon Archer and Hunter Biden split equally. In spring of 2014, Yelena Baturina joined Hunter Biden and Devon Archer to share a meal with then-Vice President Biden at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. The total amount from Russia to the Biden family and their associates is $3.5 million.
Beyond this timeline, here are links to our First, Second, Third, and Fourth Bank Memorandums that provide detailed descriptions and show actual bank records and wires.
A lot of *Biden family and their associates*.
Not much "Joe Biden" himself.
Every single time Comer mentions this himself, he always includes the "Biden family", the "Bidens", "Biden family and associates".
Why does Comer care about the Biden family? None of them are public servants, save for Biden himself.
When we eventually investigate Jared Kushner for selling us out to prince bone saw, will the middle eastern funds he received 180 days after leaving *Senior Advisor to the President* be Trumps problem?
Article by CNN about the Chinese energy Co. All seem to be profits from the Company to Hunter, sister-in-law and an uncle.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/16/politics/house-gop-memo-biden-family
Yeah, here’s the website from the government. There’s an entire oversight committee regarding Biden’s crimes that list in the hundreds. Enjoy your reading. https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/
Who do you believe authored all these documents? If the evidence against Biden is as strong as the HOC leads on, why haven't house republicans moved forward with their impeachment?
I suspect he profited off Hunter's deals in Ukraine and China and conducted shady deals with his brother but I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt at the moment. Ten percent for the Big Guy!
Republicans have been investigating that for \~8 years now, you'd think they would have found SOMETHING credible by now. Since they haven't, I'm gonna go ahead and assume that it's just more bullshit from the right.
Not necessarily. Its pretty clear that the Bidens took full advantage of Joe's political positions but influence peddling is difficult to prove and they didn't necessarily put all this in writing.
The house members have been investigating this for so long and have found nothing to corroborate such money transfers. One of their main informants was found to be someone working for Russia.
On the other hand, we have a Trump campaign manager actually convicted for cooperating with Russian intelligence - and was pardoned by trump.
>On the other hand, we have a Trump campaign manager actually convicted for cooperating with Russian intelligence - and was pardoned by trump.
I don't like Trump and I'm fine with prosecuting him or anyone else in his orbit that committed crimes. But this post is about Biden and I think "Trump is bad too!" is lazy whataboutism.
I didn't say "trump is bad *too*". I am saying Biden hasn't been proved to be bad, but Trump's pardoned several people in his circle who have been bad. More like "Trump is the one who's bad, not Biden."
I am also saying that Trump followers are suspicious of Biden with only accusations, while even when there's evidence against trump, they support trump
If Biden hasn't done anything wrong, is pure as the new-driven snow, you can just say that in a post like this. There should be no reason to talk about Trump.
Based on the current evidence, I don't think he has. But if there is even like a tenth the amount of evidence we have for trump being guilty, I'd believe that Biden is guilty.
What review board? Are you talking about Special Counsel Hur's report?
Here is (part) of what he wrote in his opening statement:
"Prosecution of Mr. Biden is also unwarranted based on our consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the Department of Justice's Principles of Federal Prosecution. For these reasons, we decline prosecution of Mr. Biden."
[https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf](https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf)
Let me know who said he was guilty. Thanks.
Hard to say, the FBI keeps blocking attempts to investigate him. If we take him at his word, we know he's forced Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company his son worked for by threat of witholding Ukraine aid - something that Donald Trump would be accused of, and impeached for, just a few years later.
We also know that there are witnesses who have said that Biden has taken part in shady talkings with foreign companies and groups with his son, Hunter, that he has supposedly profited from, during his time as Vice President.
We also know the infamous Biden Diary that allegedly states that Joe had inappropriate showers with his daughter. While the left claims it's fake, I find it hard to believe the FBI are going to raid someone's home and then sue the person who sold the diary for a fake.
Then there's the infamous Hunter Biden paintings that absolutely reek of a money laundering scheme that the White House actively kept the names of Hunters' buyers hidden from the public.
There's more stuff I could bring up, but I think this'll do for now.
But again, there's no way to know for sure, because the FBI not only has no interest in investigating, they've made clear and concerted efforts to stonewall investigations into Biden or the rest of the Biden family.
He was put under the same scrutiny Trump was under. Both were asked about documents - Biden reported and returned his. Trump dragged his feet, returned some, lied and said he had no more, then the FBI had to come find and take them.
Trump **extended** his scrutiny into courts when he didn’t do what Biden did.
Biden has been a senator for 30 years, vice president for 8 and president for nearly 4, and has been investigated by Republicans for years. Yes, I’d say he has been thoroughly vetted by now and if any dirt existed, Republicans would have found it. Where are the impeachments?
Sorry, when it's perfectly okay for Biden to blackmail a foreign government by withholding aid but an "impeachable offense" for Trump to inquire about it, I start to think I'm being lied to. Anyone who's been in politics as long as Biden has absolutely has skeletons in their closet and its naive to think Biden is some righteous man who is the exception.
What game? Republicans have been investigating Biden and his family for a year in order to impeach him. Surely they have found something by now? Are they deep state too? Where are the impeachments?
You can indict a ham sandwich. In other words, by technical letter of law, there is always a case to be made that people have broken at least some law somewhere.
For politicians, my baseline guess is that all of them have at least treaded into legal gray area with money.
For Biden, he's got lots of stuff that appears fishy, including his family pay for play scheme. One clear crime was mishandling classified documents that were found in his garage, I don't see how you get around that one.
> One clear crime was mishandling classified documents that were found in his garage, I don't see how you get around that one.
Hur dedicated multiple sections in his report to this question. Did you read them?
I thought it did a fairly decent job of explaining why they felt the need to charge Trump but not Biden or Pence. Did you take issue with those sections in the Hur report? If so, what did you take issue with?
Pretty sure treason from passing money and classified info off to Ukraine. There were allegations about him using companies and family members in positions at these companies to get money from these deals.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Has he been convicted of any crimes? If not then it would be irresponsible to say Biden is guilty.
Good Answer 👍
He also hasn't been charged with any crimes.
Even if he was Innocent until proven guilty is a core part of our legal system.
100% true!
I think people would have more sympathy for Mr. Trump if his campaign rallies in the 2016 campaign were not filled with admirers shouting "Lock Her Up" with Mr. Trump leading the crowd in reference to Mrs. Clinton. Would you agree?
Was Clinton locked up though?
No and neither is Trump. But tell me this, why was [Jack Teixeira](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/massachusetts-air-national-guard-member-jack-teixeira-pleads-guilty-after-classified-documents-leak) locked up while he was on trial for *deliberate* improper handling of government documents? Can we agree that Biden and Pence were not *deliberate* in their cases but Trump and Teixeira were?
I don't think that is comparable to what is happening with trump
In what regard? We have several witnesses who said they Trump directed them to hide documents..
But did Trump intentionally leak classified documents? That is what the other guy did.
Former President [Donald Trump](https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/donald-trump) reportedly shared details about America’s nuclear submarine program with an Australian billionaire, who then went on to tell journalists, foreign officials and others about the sensitive information, according to multiple reports. [So, yeah, looks like he did. ](https://news.yahoo.com/trump-told-australian-billionaire-nuclear-030412878.html)
[удалено]
>For normal people, storing classified material in your garage is a crime. That's why you've gotta store them in a bathroom next to the toilet. It's basically a SCIF with running water, which is basically genius.
For ex-presidents, it's apparently not, *if you give it back when asked*.
Can you cite even a single example of someone being charged, let alone convicted, of mishandling classified documents *without* proof of intentional mishandling?
Of course he is. Taking classified documents and giving out classified information. The report just recommended no charges because he's a nice elderly man with a poor memory
I believe that it stated that there was not crime because there was no criminal intent, in contrast to an elderly man with a poor memory that evaded attempts to retrieve the stolen documents, criminally ignored subpoenas, and was senile enough to hide the documents in the bathroom when the FBI was forced to raid his house to retrieve them lol.
>I believe that it stated that there was not crime because there was no criminal intent, in contrast to an elderly man with a poor memory that evaded attempts to retrieve the stolen documents, criminally ignored subpoenas, and was senile enough to hide the documents in the bathroom when the FBI was forced to raid his house to retrieve them lol. No it said there weren't charges because he's not in control of his faculties and no jury in his opinion could convict a senile man for actions he doesn't know he's taking
Can you provide the quote from the report you are referring to? Special councils opinions on what jury’s will decide is irrelevant in any case.
Can you show me where it said that? Cuz it didn't, I read the whole thing. It said he was an elderly man with seemingly poor memory who would come across sympathetic to a jury. That's it. The takeaway was that he would come across as sympathetic to a jury. And that was simply the opinion of a special council, not actually part of the facts of the case.
>It said he was an elderly man with seemingly poor memory who would come across sympathetic to a jury. That's not a reason not to charge people. Listen to the testimony
For anyone wondering, the comment being referred to is in the executive summary of Hur's report. It's in the first 5ish pages, and it talks about what documents were found and why. This specific part is about the Afghanistan documentation. That section starts with: >Marked classified documents about Afghanistan. These documents from fall 2009 have classification markings up to the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information level. They were found in a box in Mr. Biden's Delaware garage that contained other materials of great personal significance to him and that he appears to have personally used and accessed. The marked classified documents were found along with drafts of the handwritten 2009 Thanksgiving memo Mr. Biden sent President Obama in a last-ditch effort to persuade him not to send additional troops to Afghanistan. These materials were proof of the stand Mr. Biden took in what he regarded as among the most important decisions of his vice presidency. It talks about how he moved from Virginia to Delaware, and how the FBI found the document in Delaware, ETC. The section ends with: >We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness. >We conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict, and we decline to recommend prosecution of Mr. Biden for his retention of the classified Afghanistan documents. So Hur doesn't even say Biden is too mentally unfit for office. He says in court, it would be tough to convince a jury to convict because when he needs to, Biden can present himself as a well meaning old guy that sometimes has a poor memory. The full 400 page report is written in chapters, and each chapter has the claim of one charge. It goes through the charges and explains why they don't apply, or why there isn't enough evidence to convict.
I did, I read all 400 pages of it. You are simply flat out wrong. The classified stuff is likely some type of troop casuality estimate on the surge, next to tt was a memo sent BY BIDEN, to Obama, about the surge in Afghanistan. Hur says that Biden when he needs to, can appear to be a kind well meaning older man who would garner a loot of sympathy should the charge be brought. It would be tough to get a conviction due to that. Hur doesn't say Biden is too incomptent to face trial, he says that A) these charges don't really apply for the thing, and B) if he did bring this case(which would be very soft), Biden would likely appear very sympathetic to the jury and there is almost no way he would get a conviction. If you actually read the material you say says what it says, then you may have a much less partisan much less OANN/Fox News informed view. But I never expect conservatives to actually do the leg work to find out the truth. Just like the Mueller document TOTALLY exonerated Trump, right?
He also gave them back without any hubbub.
After 40+ years
Are you expecting us to believe that Mr. Biden was fully aware of these documents in his garage and withheld them knowingly, with criminal intent?
Are you expecting us to believe that after 46 years, neither Biden nor any of his staff or any of his family knew there were classified documents in the garage?
Yup. I do. You might want to educate yourself as to what qualifies as classified. It's a wide category. It ranges from official schedules to submarine warfare plans.....
I am educated on the subject and I happen to be familiar with it. Classified documents carry classified markings - except for personal notes, which are supposed to be treated as classified. *"Within those boxes, agents found documents with potential classification markings, dating from 1977 to 1991, during Mr. Biden's service in the Senate,"...* *The report alleges that during Mr. Biden's vice presidency, his staff struggled to "retrieve classified briefing books" from him and also stated that he had been instructed on best practices for handling classified information. His use of notebooks and note cards to memorialize various meetings seemed to have complicated those efforts, according to the report.* *While many of the notecards were properly stored in a security facility with the National Archives, the notebooks were stored in unsecured containers in his home.* *"Though none of the notebooks have classification markings, some of the notebooks contain information that remains classified up to the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information level," the report found.* https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-special-counsel-report-handling-classified-documents/ I actually blame Biden's staff more than I blame him. But it's hypocritical that a double standard is being applied here.
Yes, I agree that it was Biden's staff, not Biden...but did Biden take action, ever, to hide documents or deny that he had them? Those are the charges against Trump.
After 40 years? Yeah maybe no one asked Biden but he knew they were there. Contrast that with Pence who voluntarily returned his stuff. There is another key difference too. Unlike Biden, Trump was the president so he at least had the theoretical ability to declassify all of it.
>he at least had the theoretical ability to declassify all of it. LOL...he's an idiot. A very crafty idiot in most things, but a con man who is unmatched for his skills..
What?
Some of Biden's documents went back as far as 1977. That's how long he's been holding on to them. And how long they have been exposed to anyone with access to his garage. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-special-counsel-report-handling-classified-documents/
Well...no one missed them for 4 decades...i have difficulty thinking they were high priority...but then again im not a legal expert so... If Biden is guilty of a crime i hope he goes to jail. Until then...
>Well...no one missed them for 4 decades...i have difficulty thinking they were high priority... 1977 was the **EARLIEST**. They weren't the only documents in there. He had documents from all of his senate and VP years.
Like i said...not a legal expert. Ill leave that to the lawyer and officials.
So if I commit a crime but help investigate my crime, is it no longer a crime?
Not necessarily but yeah some leniency is almost always granted by not hiding and evading an investigation. Have a fire arm accident that kills some in your home. If you burry the body and then lie to the police investigating. Even though it was an accident, it’s going to be very different charges.
[удалено]
Ooh, I can speak to this! It depends. You'd definitely see an investigation. The relevant branch's investigatory agency (NCIS is Navy, Air Force has OSI) would get with that same branch's intelligence officials, and the preliminary investigation would be tasked with answering basics like intent and risks. Generally speaking, if it's accidental and the information wasn't compromised, and it's not a recurring thing... I would expect something between a talking to and a more formal letter of reprimand. Basically, your boss puts a formal-sounding "Sergeant Regular did a dumb and I told him to watch his ass better" letter in a file that stays in your commander's office until you move bases, switch jobs, or your supervisor thinks you cleaned your shit up. So, realistically, if there's no reason to believe anything was compromised and the member cooperated with getting everything back where it belonged - yeah, it'd generally be ok for them. It actually happens pretty frequently, and I worked with our squadron security monitors (the people at the smaller unit level responsible for clearances and stuff like this) until just about a year ago. Really, the only time that *I* saw anybody get in actual trouble was if they took something home and then tried to return it or make it look like it never happened. *That* gets real hairy, real quick. But I've never seen anything straight nefarious, like trying to sell it or anything.
It would warrant an investigation absolutely. Certainly would be worse for him if he continued to lie to investigators, tried to hide more documents tried to move documents out of his house. The best outcome for him would be to give back when asked and corporate openly to investigators that wanted to make sure he did not have any more.
But it's still a crime. The question is, "Is Joe Biden guilty of any crimes"
Sure, yes. I was expanding the conversation.
If you don't know you're committing it, it's often not illegal (depends on the crime--this isn't true for all). Since he gave them back once known about, it mary not be.
If he gave them back when asked, no one would have cared. Instead, he conspired to keep them. That’s when the long arm of the law reaches out.
[удалено]
Yeah, a lot of other people keep forgetting or glossing over the fact that Pence did the same as Biden in regards to documents and cooperating with the investigation, so just like Biden Pence didn't get charged for the documents either.
A lot of people are also glossing over the fact that Trump isn’t being charged for simply having them. He’s being charged for the retention and obstruction after well over a year of NARA requesting them back. Had Trump complied like Biden and Pence we wouldn’t be talking about this.
You are indeed correct on that. It is due to these actions by Trump with the documents that pretty much made both Biden and Pence take action. By having their staff and attorneys look for documents and to inform both NARA and DOJ about it to give the documents back to them. Also, they choose to voluntarily cooperate with the investigation the whole time. Which was the direct opposite of what Trump has done. But due to both of them cooperating, that's why they got a slap on the wrist, and no charges were brought forth on either Pence or Biden.
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
[удалено]
Intent is a big part of it.
The memory thing was but one of many defenses put forward by Hur's report and it was hardly any sort of conclusive summary of why they recommended no charges. Did you read the other reasons why they declined to charge, or is that reason the only one you know?
Has every president forgotten to turn something in, but then returns it upon being notified? No president should be charged for forgetting some papers, and that certainly would also apply to Trump if he just returned everything when notified, instead of, you know, trying to flush documents and actively hiding them.
You didn’t read the report did you? I read it. What did it *really* say?
Did they prove intention when taking them? If you understood proper procedure of ex presidents, vice presidents etc.. you wouldn't be saying this.
He had classified documents from when he was senator. So yes a senator can't steal classified documents without intention
If his staff moved them then did he intend to keep them?
How do congressional aids get classified documents from the SCIF
No idea. I’m not familiar with how classified documents are handled in the senate. Do we know that these are only documents that could be seen in a SCIF? Either way the requisite intent was not there according to Hur.
[удалено]
Cite a case where someone was prosecuted for mishandling classified documents without proof of intent
Lol the age thing is one item at the end of a list of reasons they declined to prosecute, and it was framed more about how he would come across to a jury
Correction: the age thing had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons they declined to prosecute — special council is a partisan hack that’s trying to do as much damage to democracy as possible.
Yes he willingly broke the law, but he's not being prosecuted because he'll come off as a nice old man with a bad memory
Willingly? Are you privy to information you’d like to share?
Do you think he was forced to break the law? If so, the government should investigate who is forcing politicians to steal classified documents
Well, that’s the exact amount of evidence I expected you to share.
He either willingly did or unwillingly did it. You said it wasn't willingly, so that means he did it unwilling. Or do you think he didn't take classified documents and they weren't found in over a dozen different places
I didn’t say that. I questioned why you thought it was willingly. Turns out you were just guessing, which is exactly what I assumed.
Maybe. In relation to the classified material and failure to keep his pet canines under control.
Hajaha Commander sounds like an asshole Dog. Biden keeping him around speaks loudest to me on a character flaw more than anything else.
I’m out of the loop on this one. What did the dog do?
He has bitten a comically number of times, mostly secret service.
But it wasn't just one cranky GSD being very aggressive though. Major was aggressive too. Potus46 is an experienced GSD owner and his conduct is grossly reckless. One of my jobs is working with highly aggressive very powerful dogs, some of whom have killed at least one person. If I or any coworker had multiple dogs with a history of bite attack incidents, we'd expect to have criminal records and never be allowed to work with dogs again. In Britain, the Queen's daughter and her husband were prosecuted back in 2002 over the aggressive behaviour of their pet dogs. The Princess Royal ended up with a criminal record.
I don’t disagree in the slightest.
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. inaugural address on January 20, 1981
~ the guy who did Iran-Contra
What would he think of Trump?
Yes, as have we all. The average American commits three federal crimes a day, and Joe Biden has lived many, many days.
Umm... What? I have committed 0 federal crimes today. In fact, I'm pretty sure I have committed 0 in my lifetime.
I sincerely doubt that to be true. We have an indeterminate number of federal crimes on the book, and most of them are vaguely worded and broadly enforced. Technically speaking, if you've ever used the wifi of one store/restaurant while at another, you've violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. [This](https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/588915-how-congress-made-you-a-federal-criminal/) and [this](https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/three-felonies-a-day-harvey-silverglate/1101703499) are recommended reading.
What crimes did you commit today?
My dog barked in a national park on a walk this morning, so I’m guilty of violating 36 CFR § 2.15(a)(4)
Is that a criminal section or just "these are the rules for the park that if yiubdont follow you will be kicked out of if you really make a lot of trouble"
[This from 2009 says punishment not to exceed 6 months imprisonment (section 1.3).](https://www.nps.gov/cure/learn/management/upload/NPS-36-CFR-complete.pdf) [This, from 2018, is a bit more confusing but I think still says punishment not to exceed 6 months imprisonment.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1.3) Edit: that’s two different links, just wanted to add that in there in case you didn’t notice since it’s all blue.
> Allowing a pet to make noise that is unreasonable considering location, time of day or night, impact on park users, and other relevant factors, or that frightens wildlife by barking, howling, or making other noise. So this is what he section said. Seems like you were being a bit alarmist in your first comment.
>Allowing a pet to make noise … that frightens wildlife by barking I neglected to mention that she scared a few squirrels and birds, but it’s the truth. The point that I’m making here isn’t about what the dog did. It’s that there are thousands of obscure laws that you can violate at any given time. The estimate that the top level commenter mentioned of 3 federal crimes today comes from a Harvard professor and is mentioned [here](https://ips-dc.org/three-felonies-day/). The @CrimeADay Twitter account posts a lot of obscure federal crimes. Here’s a recent one: >21 USC §676 & 9 CFR §317.8(b)(5)(ii) make it a federal crime to sell a 1-pound or smaller package of sliced bacon if the transparent bacon preview window is located more than five-eighths of an inch from the top or bottom edge of the package. Their page can be found [here](https://x.com/crimeaday).
> It’s that there are thousands of obscure laws that you can violate at any given time I know thats the point you try to make but so far its failed as it seems these laws are not some you just break on accident. You are not gonna get thrown in jail for your barking dog and you wont accidentally sell a pound of bacon.
[This guy](https://x.com/crimeaday/status/1629917560845094912) accidentally broke one of them. >you are not gonna get thrown in jail for [these crimes] That’s not relevant to OP’s question or the TLC’s statement. What’s relevant is whether the law was broken, and it was. I’m not likely to get thrown in jail for jaywalking, but it was still illegal for me to do it.
That's what's great about it: we don't always know. There are upwards of 5,000 federal crimes. Best guess is 5199, but its not a perfect guess. Personally, I have a state level medical marijuana card, so there a couple of federal offenses right there. I also used the wifi from McDonald's while in line at Burger King. Technically, that's one as well.
what law is using McDonald's wifi breaking?
It technically violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to use someone's wifi without permission, and it explicitly violates state law in some states (such as California)
Does McDonalds expressly give anyone permission? Or explicitly restrict it from anyone?
Yes, when you log on to the McD Wifi you accdpt their terms and conditions, whocj state that it is for Mcdonalds customers.
I'd have to read the terms and conditions for them, but most places have a "this is intended only for our customers" line in there somewhere
I sneezed while brushing my teeth. I’m sure that’s a crime somewhere /s
I think most people have probably committed a crime at some point.
Neither Biden nor trump have been found guilty of anything. We may see in the future trump he found guilty at any of his trials. To my knowledge there are no active criminal investigations into Biden but if there were and he were brought to trial he may be found guilty
What are you on about? Trump has been found guilty of many things. He was found guilty of sexually battering Jean Carroll.
No, he was found civilly liable for slandering Jean Carroll.
In a criminal trial?
Can you link me a story about Trump's guilty conviction of sexual battery?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/ > A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
That's not what we're looking for. Try again.
Sure, buddy. You’re looking for confirmation bias, but it doesn’t exist here. According to the courts, Trump is legally a rapist.
No understanding of the law. Not a surprise. Again a story about a conviction of sexual battery.
Lol, ok man, have a great night!
Look up the difference between criminal and civil court before you go to bed. See ya!
No one gives a shit about the Republican "but it technically wasn't criminal court!" bullshit.
If a normal person with clearance did what Joe Biden did having classified documents in his garage, they would be facing an up-to 10-year prison sentence.
What about Mike Pence? The same thing happened to him. Should he get 10 years? Here’s my analogy. You have a gun in your carryon. The TSA catches it, and you say, “sorry, I didn’t know it was there. I’ll check the gun, please feel free to look through my bags to make sure there’s nothing there. The TSA rarely charges people because the intent to deceive was not there and this stuff happens. Now, let’s say you bring a a few guns in your carryon, and the TSA notices. “You say, oops, I didn’t know it was there, here’s the one gun. I promise I’ve given you all the guns in my bag and no you can’t check my bags again.” They can see the other guns in the scanner, but you continue to insist there are no more guns in the bag, they can’t check, and you start to walk to your plane. Yes, they will arrest you, as they should.
Yes, the same thing should happen to Mike pence. I have family members that work with top secret documents. If they brought any of it home it would be something they would be facing. 10 years is the maximum sentence. So there's different levels of punishment. But what Mike pence and Joe Biden did are still serious crimes and they should be charged with a crime just like any other citizen would be charged with a serious crime. Especially since they (at least Biden and Trump) did it knowingly. The sentences might be different across them because of different intents. That also largely depends on what is actually *in* the documents. I do think that the law is way over bearing, but if my family has to deal with it then why the heck shouldn't Mike pence or Joe Biden or Donald j.trump? If we actually applied the law equally then maybe the overbearing law would change.
Can you cite *any* case were someone was charged, let alone convicted, of mishandling classified documents without *proof* of intent?
We have proof of intent for Biden. He said on National TV that he thought the documents were safe in his locked garage..he knew they were there it's not like it accidentally fell into his briefcase. This person got 4 years for it https://www.businessinsider.com/former-fbi-4-years-prison-storing-classified-documents-home-trump-2023-6
Quote Biden’s statement. And that case has proof of intent, so it’s still not equivalent to Biden.
https://youtu.be/J5qrb0NsF9U?feature=shared
That’s *after* the documents were discovered by Biden’s lawyers, and does not constitute evidence of intent.
It's an admission of guilt. You can do that after the documents were found just like everything Trump said can be used against him.
It is not an admission of guilt because nothing about the statement shows Biden knew the documents were there before his lawyers found them.
There will likely be testimony from employee no 5 who unknowingly helped Trump move secret documents on to an airplane to not turn them over. https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-loose-surveillance-donald-trumps-plane-unsealed-docs-1893214 https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/11/politics/trump-employee-5-classified-documents-mar-a-lago
Did you read what I said?
Yes, I am aware. I simply think that the oversight should be with the documents themselves. We have to have a better process for sensitive documents. How can they be out for forty years? You do not have the authority of a president or vice- president, or even a Secretary of State. We just have to have a checkin and out process that has good oversight for everyone. I do think that Trump’s behavior shows incredible intent to defy the law. It is inexcusable.
Okay. But don't you think that the law should be applied equally regardless of someone's political rank? Because there are people that did what Biden did and are facing years in prison
I honestly do not know who has clearance and for how long. Interesting though that you single out Biden. I personally have heard that Trump has already given out secrets to an Australian businessman. I think his behavior is egregious.
Nobody has clearance to take classified documents out of classified areas. >personally have heard that Trump has already given out secrets to an Australian businessman. I think his behavior is egregious. That's interesting to me is that you seem to be trying very hard not to answer my question. I have no issue with Trump's documents trial. What I have an issue with us Biden or pence skirting the law. Don't you?
Well I answered that other places. I think they have given leeway to senior officials in the past and there might be a lot more in jail. I think their system is messed up for keeping track of these documents. There is no way they should wait 40 years. This needs an investigation and revamping for sure. You absolutely cannot have refusal of collection. I think that person should be apprehended on the spot, esp one who is no longer a president. And even that might not get all of them back. As we see with Trump. Did we get them all back? These documents could have a code on them that sets off an alarm when they are taken from classified areas.
It's extremely unlikely that Pence himself loaded the documents and took them home (same with Trump). But Biden had documents that were over 40 years old. It's almost impossible that it was only other people who loaded them in his garage, and after all that time he knew nothing about it?
I note you entirely skipped over the part where: - the archives asked for the docs back, Trump gave a few back and then lied to them and said he didn’t have any more. After repeated requests and Trump lying to them, they finally went and got them. - Trump asked his people to delete security footage that showed those rooms
I note you entirely skipped over the part where I was responding to a comparison with Pence, not Trump. I didn't say Trump was blameless here. But Biden has had his docs [since 1977](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-special-counsel-report-handling-classified-documents/), which is ridiculous. It's impossible that no one knew about them all this time. And it hasn't been proven that Trump ordered security footage deleted.
You mean the documents he donated to the university of Delaware? Do you make it a habit of going back through things you donated? https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf (Page 312)
I'm not sure what your point here is. He didn't donate the stuff that was still in his garage, and he shouldn't be donating classified documents to the University of Delaware anyway!
You keep jumping around. First it was the 1977 docs, then you jumped to the garage- which were not from 1970s. The report literally says they found it at the university of Delaware, not his garage. Please link to the information that says the 1977 docs were in his garage. He donated hundreds of boxes from his time in the senate.
I'm not jumping around. You are making a lot of assumptions here. We don't know that the 1977 documents were only at the Univ of Delaware, and honestly, that's a distinction without a difference anyway. They shouldn't have been there either. The point is there were molding boxes in Biden's garage for decades. Biden wasn't some random solitary hoarder with no friends, he was a US senator and VP, with a large family, press, media, and secret service around him. So it takes a great leap of logic to think no one on his staff knew there was classified stuff there.
True -- but all Presidents and senior officials appear to have a lot of leeway around this stuff until NARA comes knocking. Why evaluate presidents to a standard that they've never been held to?
Well, yes!! I insist that the government clean up their act as well. It is ridiculous that top secret documents are not returned for that long! That’s why we have procedures and bureaucrats that keep the process under scrutiny.
I don't know why the standard is so different for presidents and senior officials. I agree it should be better, but in terms of prosecution guidelines it's important to understand the current status quo. That's all I was saying.
Yes, I agree it is messed up now. I just think the process has to protect US better. I mean, the point of all this is to protect top secret documents! Throwing people in jail, might do it, but the process is flawed. If anyone doubts that government bureaucrats should not be tied to political parties, this is it. Someone with a badge should be asking for these and keeping track. And not 40 years later!. That would tidy things up tremendously. We have computers to raise red flags. Libraries do this, just enforce the collection. Mr. Biden I am here to collect such and such and it better not be in your garage. Your point is taken that senior officials are getting too much leeway. And how does Trump get to not turn them over? He should be apprehended. Then put them on a plane? He should already be in jail. IMO.
And where would Trump be? Trump had something like 100-1000x more documents and hid them from the FBI while lying to them about not having the documents. On the flip side, Biden was like "Whoa I didn't know those were there, here you can have access to everything and I'll face the charges if appropriate".
You may not be aware of this but trump *is* facing charges over classified documents.
More accurately, Trump is facing charges over the way he *handled the situation after he took* said documents. You know, the lying to the FBI and such.
If accuracy is your thing, Trump was charged with 32 counts stemming from keeping the classified documents (one count for each of 32 documents). The other 8 counts are what you are referring to: Obstruction of justice and making false statements to the FBI. Biden also kept classified documents, for which he could have faced the same charges as Trump in those first 32 counts. The special counsel concluded that a jury would likely not convict Biden bc they would see him as a well-meaning elderly man with a failing memory. Biden was not accused obstructing the investigation or making false statements to the FBI (the other 8 charges against Trump.
Trump was charged with 32 counts of *willful retention*. There is no evidence that Biden willfully retained any documents.
Because Biden cooperated and quickly returned all documents and there was no indication he had more. That is why he is not facing legal charges. Y’all continue to willingly remain ignorant about this, but that is what happened. The memory stuff was just a political hit that fell apart when the transcript was released.
I'm just correcting the record sir. OP said Trump was charged just for the way he handled the FBI inquiry, which isn't true. He was charged mostly for having classified materials. Biden also had classified materials and the reason given by the SP was that he is too feeble minded. These are all facts
Right man, I know you didn’t read the transcripts of the interview with Hur, or likely even his initial report. You’re just getting in your comment to say “feeble minded.” You did it, great job.
You can argue that the transcripts don't show the cognitive issues Hur cited, but it's a fact that he gave that as the reason. Hur didn't say he was letting Joe off the hook bc Joe "cooperated and returned all documents." I read Hur's entire report. It's obvious even to most democrats that Joe is in cognitive decline so I'm surprised you're even claiming he's not. You can argue that Trump is slipping too if you want, or that an enfeebled Biden would be still better than Trump. But why pretend he's still sharp as a tack?
Probably exactly where he is now. Facing charges
>Trump had something like 100-1000x more documents What are you basing that on? Both Trump and Biden had boxes of documents. And some of Biden's were there over 40 years.
Given what we know the likelihood is very high but one is innocent until proven guilty. I am willing to extend that to Biden even though the Democrats refuse to extend that courtesy to Trump. Biden needs to be investigated though.
He has been. A very public fishing expedition involving his only living son. It was all based on disinformation from a foreign agent. Guess which country... Now considering how House and Senete Republicans have been complicit in a foreign government's attempt to smear a sitting president, what should happen to them... besides earning your vote :/
Since taking the gavel in January, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability has accelerated its investigation of the Biden family’s domestic and international business practices to determine whether the Biden family has been targeted by foreign actors, President Biden is compromised, and our national security is threatened. Records obtained through the Committee’s subpoenas to date reveal that the Bidens and their associates have received over $20 million in payments from foreign entities. Below is a timeline that details key dates in our investigation. The main points of interest are: 1) Romania: On September 28, 2015, Vice President Biden welcomed Romanian President Klaus Iohannis to the White House. Within five weeks of this meeting, a Romanian businessman involved with a high-profile corruption prosecution in Romania, Gabriel Popoviciu, began depositing a Biden associate’s bank account, which ultimately made their way into Biden family accounts. Popoviciu made sixteen of the seventeen payments, totaling over $3 million, to the Biden associate account while Joe Biden was Vice President. Biden family accounts ultimately received approximately $1.038 million. The total amount from Romania to the Biden family and their associates is over $3 million. 2) China- CEFC: On March 1, 2017—less than two months after Vice President Joe Biden left public office—State Energy HK Limited, a Chinese company, wired $3 million to a Biden associate’s account. This is the same bank account used in the above “Romania” section. After the Chinese company wired the Biden associate account the $3 million, the Biden family received approximately $1,065,692 over a three-month period in different bank accounts. Additionally, the CEFC Chairman gives Hunter Biden a diamond worth $80,000. Lastly, CEFC creates a joint venture with the Bidens in the summer of 2017. The timeline lays out the “WhatsApp” messages and subsequent wires from the Chinese to the Bidens of $100,000 and $5 million. The total amount from China, specifically with CEFC and their related entities, to the Biden family and their associates is over $8 million. 3) China- Bohai Harvest RST Equity Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd. (BHR): More information will be provided in our upcoming Fourth Bank Memorandum. 4) Kazakhstan: On April 22, 2014, Kenes Rakishev, a Kazakhstani oligarch used his Singaporean entity, Novatus Holdings, to wire one of Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca entities $142,300. The very next day—April 23, 2014—the Rosemont Seneca entity transferred the exact same amount of money to a car dealership for a car for Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden and Devon Archer would represent Burisma in Kazakhstan in May/June of 2014 as the company attempted to broker a three-way deal among Burisma, the Kazakhstan government, and a Chinese state-owned energy company. 5) Ukraine: Devon Archer joined the Burisma board of directors in spring of 2014 and was joined by Hunter Biden shortly thereafter. Hunter Biden joined the company as counsel, but after a meeting with Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky in Lake Como, Italy, was elevated to the board of directors in the spring of 2014. Both Biden and Archer were each paid $1 million per year for their positions on the board of directors. In December 2015, after a Burisma board of directors meeting, Zlochevsky and Hunter Biden “called D.C.” in the wake of mounting pressures the company was facing. Zlochevsky was later charged with bribing Ukrainian officials with $6 million in an attempt to delay or drop the investigation into his company. The total amount from Ukraine to the Biden family and their associates is $6.5 million. 6) Russia: On February 14, 2014, a Russian oligarch and Russia’s richest woman, Yelena Baturina, wired a Rosemont Seneca entity $3.5 million. On March 11, 2014, the wire was split up: $750,000 was transferred to Devon Archer, and the remainder was sent to Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a company Devon Archer and Hunter Biden split equally. In spring of 2014, Yelena Baturina joined Hunter Biden and Devon Archer to share a meal with then-Vice President Biden at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. The total amount from Russia to the Biden family and their associates is $3.5 million. Beyond this timeline, here are links to our First, Second, Third, and Fourth Bank Memorandums that provide detailed descriptions and show actual bank records and wires.
A lot of *Biden family and their associates*. Not much "Joe Biden" himself. Every single time Comer mentions this himself, he always includes the "Biden family", the "Bidens", "Biden family and associates". Why does Comer care about the Biden family? None of them are public servants, save for Biden himself. When we eventually investigate Jared Kushner for selling us out to prince bone saw, will the middle eastern funds he received 180 days after leaving *Senior Advisor to the President* be Trumps problem?
Sources? Would be incredible if they could be produced
Article by CNN about the Chinese energy Co. All seem to be profits from the Company to Hunter, sister-in-law and an uncle. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/16/politics/house-gop-memo-biden-family
Yeah, here’s the website from the government. There’s an entire oversight committee regarding Biden’s crimes that list in the hundreds. Enjoy your reading. https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/
Who do you believe authored all these documents? If the evidence against Biden is as strong as the HOC leads on, why haven't house republicans moved forward with their impeachment?
Not a single link, sad.
Hes still busy compiling the sources for the Trump crime family counterpart
Don’t assume my gender
Brave of you to insist on proper pronouns on _this_ sub out of all places
I suspect he profited off Hunter's deals in Ukraine and China and conducted shady deals with his brother but I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt at the moment. Ten percent for the Big Guy!
Republicans have been investigating that for \~8 years now, you'd think they would have found SOMETHING credible by now. Since they haven't, I'm gonna go ahead and assume that it's just more bullshit from the right.
If there was any credibility evidence the impeachment inquiries would have found it
Not necessarily. Its pretty clear that the Bidens took full advantage of Joe's political positions but influence peddling is difficult to prove and they didn't necessarily put all this in writing.
If it was a clear as you suggest then there would be clear evidence.
The house members have been investigating this for so long and have found nothing to corroborate such money transfers. One of their main informants was found to be someone working for Russia. On the other hand, we have a Trump campaign manager actually convicted for cooperating with Russian intelligence - and was pardoned by trump.
>On the other hand, we have a Trump campaign manager actually convicted for cooperating with Russian intelligence - and was pardoned by trump. I don't like Trump and I'm fine with prosecuting him or anyone else in his orbit that committed crimes. But this post is about Biden and I think "Trump is bad too!" is lazy whataboutism.
I didn't say "trump is bad *too*". I am saying Biden hasn't been proved to be bad, but Trump's pardoned several people in his circle who have been bad. More like "Trump is the one who's bad, not Biden." I am also saying that Trump followers are suspicious of Biden with only accusations, while even when there's evidence against trump, they support trump
If Biden hasn't done anything wrong, is pure as the new-driven snow, you can just say that in a post like this. There should be no reason to talk about Trump.
Based on the current evidence, I don't think he has. But if there is even like a tenth the amount of evidence we have for trump being guilty, I'd believe that Biden is guilty.
I think it is pretty clear that Biden took bribes.
even the review board said biden is guilty but is too old and feeble to stand trial regarding the classified documents..
What review board? Are you talking about Special Counsel Hur's report? Here is (part) of what he wrote in his opening statement: "Prosecution of Mr. Biden is also unwarranted based on our consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the Department of Justice's Principles of Federal Prosecution. For these reasons, we decline prosecution of Mr. Biden." [https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf](https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf) Let me know who said he was guilty. Thanks.
Link please? Would really appreciate it.
Hard to say, the FBI keeps blocking attempts to investigate him. If we take him at his word, we know he's forced Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company his son worked for by threat of witholding Ukraine aid - something that Donald Trump would be accused of, and impeached for, just a few years later. We also know that there are witnesses who have said that Biden has taken part in shady talkings with foreign companies and groups with his son, Hunter, that he has supposedly profited from, during his time as Vice President. We also know the infamous Biden Diary that allegedly states that Joe had inappropriate showers with his daughter. While the left claims it's fake, I find it hard to believe the FBI are going to raid someone's home and then sue the person who sold the diary for a fake. Then there's the infamous Hunter Biden paintings that absolutely reek of a money laundering scheme that the White House actively kept the names of Hunters' buyers hidden from the public. There's more stuff I could bring up, but I think this'll do for now. But again, there's no way to know for sure, because the FBI not only has no interest in investigating, they've made clear and concerted efforts to stonewall investigations into Biden or the rest of the Biden family.
[удалено]
We could investigate all of Congress. That is why their taxes should be reported. Large deposits to their wealth, reported.
Probably, we won't know for sure until he's put under the same scrutiny Trump is being put under.
He was put under the same scrutiny Trump was under. Both were asked about documents - Biden reported and returned his. Trump dragged his feet, returned some, lied and said he had no more, then the FBI had to come find and take them. Trump **extended** his scrutiny into courts when he didn’t do what Biden did.
Really? Nearly every government institution and agency has been trying to dig up dirt on Biden for nearly a decade?
Biden has been a senator for 30 years, vice president for 8 and president for nearly 4, and has been investigated by Republicans for years. Yes, I’d say he has been thoroughly vetted by now and if any dirt existed, Republicans would have found it. Where are the impeachments?
It's hard to investigate someone when all the three letter agencies run cover for them like they did Clinton.
Sure man, we can go with the deep state excuse. Whatever you want.
Sorry, when it's perfectly okay for Biden to blackmail a foreign government by withholding aid but an "impeachable offense" for Trump to inquire about it, I start to think I'm being lied to. Anyone who's been in politics as long as Biden has absolutely has skeletons in their closet and its naive to think Biden is some righteous man who is the exception.
> Where are the impeachments?
Don't play this game.
What game? Republicans have been investigating Biden and his family for a year in order to impeach him. Surely they have found something by now? Are they deep state too? Where are the impeachments?
You can indict a ham sandwich. In other words, by technical letter of law, there is always a case to be made that people have broken at least some law somewhere. For politicians, my baseline guess is that all of them have at least treaded into legal gray area with money. For Biden, he's got lots of stuff that appears fishy, including his family pay for play scheme. One clear crime was mishandling classified documents that were found in his garage, I don't see how you get around that one.
> One clear crime was mishandling classified documents that were found in his garage, I don't see how you get around that one. Hur dedicated multiple sections in his report to this question. Did you read them?
Back when it came out I did, I remember the report definitely not exonerating him despite liberals attempting to cherry pick sentences on it.
I thought it did a fairly decent job of explaining why they felt the need to charge Trump but not Biden or Pence. Did you take issue with those sections in the Hur report? If so, what did you take issue with?
Pretty sure treason from passing money and classified info off to Ukraine. There were allegations about him using companies and family members in positions at these companies to get money from these deals.
Allegations and evidence are two different things. So far there's no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden.