Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset2

like 0

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?" ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start." ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either" ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review." ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?" ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?", ">\n\nI can’t walk out of a drugstore with a bottle of cologne without setting off an alarm. Have they considered RFID chips?" ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?", ">\n\nI can’t walk out of a drugstore with a bottle of cologne without setting off an alarm. Have they considered RFID chips?", ">\n\nMake it an offense that requires prison time with a lengthy minimum sentence." ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?", ">\n\nI can’t walk out of a drugstore with a bottle of cologne without setting off an alarm. Have they considered RFID chips?", ">\n\nMake it an offense that requires prison time with a lengthy minimum sentence.", ">\n\nYou're gonna have to pay people who handle classified a lot more than they already do if there's going to be a risk of mandatory prison for making a mistake." ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?", ">\n\nI can’t walk out of a drugstore with a bottle of cologne without setting off an alarm. Have they considered RFID chips?", ">\n\nMake it an offense that requires prison time with a lengthy minimum sentence.", ">\n\nYou're gonna have to pay people who handle classified a lot more than they already do if there's going to be a risk of mandatory prison for making a mistake.", ">\n\nchecking the security footage to see if a Watergate style break in to plant these didn't happen?" ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?", ">\n\nI can’t walk out of a drugstore with a bottle of cologne without setting off an alarm. Have they considered RFID chips?", ">\n\nMake it an offense that requires prison time with a lengthy minimum sentence.", ">\n\nYou're gonna have to pay people who handle classified a lot more than they already do if there's going to be a risk of mandatory prison for making a mistake.", ">\n\nchecking the security footage to see if a Watergate style break in to plant these didn't happen?", ">\n\nDouble down on the Trump issue and indict both of them. Take no prisoners. This is not a partisan issue - charge both Trump and Biden to the fullest extent of the law." ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?", ">\n\nI can’t walk out of a drugstore with a bottle of cologne without setting off an alarm. Have they considered RFID chips?", ">\n\nMake it an offense that requires prison time with a lengthy minimum sentence.", ">\n\nYou're gonna have to pay people who handle classified a lot more than they already do if there's going to be a risk of mandatory prison for making a mistake.", ">\n\nchecking the security footage to see if a Watergate style break in to plant these didn't happen?", ">\n\nDouble down on the Trump issue and indict both of them. Take no prisoners. This is not a partisan issue - charge both Trump and Biden to the fullest extent of the law.", ">\n\nThere already is a process. Senior executive branch is not following it.\nThat being said. There is a huge difference in handling and potential criminality in mishandling depending on the classification level.\nMisplacing secret is fairly common depending on the operating environment. \nMisplacing SCI is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable. The protections assume you are an idiot and make it difficult for the material to be misplaced outside a secured facility without intentional malfeasance." ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?", ">\n\nI can’t walk out of a drugstore with a bottle of cologne without setting off an alarm. Have they considered RFID chips?", ">\n\nMake it an offense that requires prison time with a lengthy minimum sentence.", ">\n\nYou're gonna have to pay people who handle classified a lot more than they already do if there's going to be a risk of mandatory prison for making a mistake.", ">\n\nchecking the security footage to see if a Watergate style break in to plant these didn't happen?", ">\n\nDouble down on the Trump issue and indict both of them. Take no prisoners. This is not a partisan issue - charge both Trump and Biden to the fullest extent of the law.", ">\n\nThere already is a process. Senior executive branch is not following it.\nThat being said. There is a huge difference in handling and potential criminality in mishandling depending on the classification level.\nMisplacing secret is fairly common depending on the operating environment. \nMisplacing SCI is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable. The protections assume you are an idiot and make it difficult for the material to be misplaced outside a secured facility without intentional malfeasance.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should have everybody follow the same rules, even the rich folks..." ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?", ">\n\nI can’t walk out of a drugstore with a bottle of cologne without setting off an alarm. Have they considered RFID chips?", ">\n\nMake it an offense that requires prison time with a lengthy minimum sentence.", ">\n\nYou're gonna have to pay people who handle classified a lot more than they already do if there's going to be a risk of mandatory prison for making a mistake.", ">\n\nchecking the security footage to see if a Watergate style break in to plant these didn't happen?", ">\n\nDouble down on the Trump issue and indict both of them. Take no prisoners. This is not a partisan issue - charge both Trump and Biden to the fullest extent of the law.", ">\n\nThere already is a process. Senior executive branch is not following it.\nThat being said. There is a huge difference in handling and potential criminality in mishandling depending on the classification level.\nMisplacing secret is fairly common depending on the operating environment. \nMisplacing SCI is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable. The protections assume you are an idiot and make it difficult for the material to be misplaced outside a secured facility without intentional malfeasance.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should have everybody follow the same rules, even the rich folks...", ">\n\nMy hot take is that at a certain level you shouldn’t be allowed to handle documents without a trusted individual charged with securing the documents. These guys get so many classified briefings and honestly, I hardly trust em not to talk classified information to the public. Nonce you have secret thoughts, it’s hard to keep them secret, ya know?" ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?", ">\n\nI can’t walk out of a drugstore with a bottle of cologne without setting off an alarm. Have they considered RFID chips?", ">\n\nMake it an offense that requires prison time with a lengthy minimum sentence.", ">\n\nYou're gonna have to pay people who handle classified a lot more than they already do if there's going to be a risk of mandatory prison for making a mistake.", ">\n\nchecking the security footage to see if a Watergate style break in to plant these didn't happen?", ">\n\nDouble down on the Trump issue and indict both of them. Take no prisoners. This is not a partisan issue - charge both Trump and Biden to the fullest extent of the law.", ">\n\nThere already is a process. Senior executive branch is not following it.\nThat being said. There is a huge difference in handling and potential criminality in mishandling depending on the classification level.\nMisplacing secret is fairly common depending on the operating environment. \nMisplacing SCI is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable. The protections assume you are an idiot and make it difficult for the material to be misplaced outside a secured facility without intentional malfeasance.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should have everybody follow the same rules, even the rich folks...", ">\n\nMy hot take is that at a certain level you shouldn’t be allowed to handle documents without a trusted individual charged with securing the documents. These guys get so many classified briefings and honestly, I hardly trust em not to talk classified information to the public. Nonce you have secret thoughts, it’s hard to keep them secret, ya know?", ">\n\nThey should make all congress/house and presidential staff do those shitty CBT’s they make the rest of the people who handle classified have to do yearly. “You were trained on how to handle classified. Treason, if you don’t do it right”. publish when they’re due to retake the test. Every scrap of paper/sticky note goes in a shredder before you leave the secure room." ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?", ">\n\nI can’t walk out of a drugstore with a bottle of cologne without setting off an alarm. Have they considered RFID chips?", ">\n\nMake it an offense that requires prison time with a lengthy minimum sentence.", ">\n\nYou're gonna have to pay people who handle classified a lot more than they already do if there's going to be a risk of mandatory prison for making a mistake.", ">\n\nchecking the security footage to see if a Watergate style break in to plant these didn't happen?", ">\n\nDouble down on the Trump issue and indict both of them. Take no prisoners. This is not a partisan issue - charge both Trump and Biden to the fullest extent of the law.", ">\n\nThere already is a process. Senior executive branch is not following it.\nThat being said. There is a huge difference in handling and potential criminality in mishandling depending on the classification level.\nMisplacing secret is fairly common depending on the operating environment. \nMisplacing SCI is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable. The protections assume you are an idiot and make it difficult for the material to be misplaced outside a secured facility without intentional malfeasance.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should have everybody follow the same rules, even the rich folks...", ">\n\nMy hot take is that at a certain level you shouldn’t be allowed to handle documents without a trusted individual charged with securing the documents. These guys get so many classified briefings and honestly, I hardly trust em not to talk classified information to the public. Nonce you have secret thoughts, it’s hard to keep them secret, ya know?", ">\n\nThey should make all congress/house and presidential staff do those shitty CBT’s they make the rest of the people who handle classified have to do yearly. “You were trained on how to handle classified. Treason, if you don’t do it right”. publish when they’re due to retake the test. Every scrap of paper/sticky note goes in a shredder before you leave the secure room.", ">\n\nThere's a good chance now that his 2024 presidency is basically off the table now. Yes, Trump obstructed justice. Yes Biden is cooperating. But if classified documents were in an insecure location such as his private library. Then the entire moral standing against Trump doing the same thing, just about, with handling, went up in flames; and the public perception/optics of this, no matter the turnover, are horribly terribly bad.\nAnd the problem in all of this is that from 2017 to 2020, Biden was a private citizen. He was neither president nor vice president, and he had classified documents in an insecure location. That's what damns this entire \"but this is different\" argument." ]

[ "At the highest levels of classification, there are special rooms you have to use and all sorts of special procedures. \nAt lower levels, these might be briefings written specifically for the person who has them, that just happen to include information from a spy or something. So it's very easy for no one to notice classified docs are missing.\nEspecially for the President or Vice President, so much is classified that I suspect it's pretty easy for things to get lost in the fray. \nI don't blame either person for having classified docs in general, the issue is when they are high-level Top Secret and left unsecured, and especially if you refuse to return them. \nThe solution has to be that someone from the archives comes to review every document removed from the White House during a transition of power and signs off before they can leave. That's a lot of work but only every 4-8 years. You have to stop it from happening, ramping up punishments isn't going to do anything.", ">\n\nIt can be a lot less than that. During the Clinton email saga, one of the documents that was labeled classified was a call sheet for the Secretary of State. The classified material was that she was going to call a newly elected African leader to congratulate them. \nLow level classifications are a joke and are treated as a joke. It’s one of the reasons for Director Comey’s famous “no reasonable prosecutor would ever try to prosecute this”.\n\nBut a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.\nThe “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.\n\"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.\"\n\nSo after that, I’m just not very excited over prosecuting for classified material. It could be someone’s lunch order. They’re not going to tell you.", ">\n\nIt can be even less of a big deal than that. Sometimes publicly known information can be classified. I’m talking about articles in magazines and newspapers.", ">\n\nMy father works for the air force. Someone in his office once got in trouble for forwarding an email using an unsecured emailed address that included a nyt article discussing classified material. Had to retake a classified material training course. Poor bastard.", ">\n\nI think the issue is (and this could be wrong) is when they are president their homes/offices are secure locations, and so they’re allowed to bring documents with them. It’s when they leave office not all papers are returned, I would assume because there’s so many of them. I’m not sure how the federal government could improve this though, other than having a team of lawyers with security clearances going through the entire personal residence of a president before they leave office, although that feels a tad invasive.", ">\n\nA SCIF is only required for Above Top Secret classification, properly called TS/SCI. Though it ideally should be used for TS documents whenever possible, it is not required, particularly in secure facilities, such as one guarded by the Secret Service (VP's residence and office).\nClassifications broadly go Confidential -> Secret -> Top Secret -> TS/SCI. Again only SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), requires a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). \nI would also bet money every VP's residence absolutely has a SCIF inside.\nThat the Archives wasn't tracking any of these documents that were found, ensures they weren't either TS or TS/SCI. So at worst it was something Secret, but most likely it was something Confidential.\nConfidential classification can apply to documents retroactively. Potentially you can be handed a non-classified bar napkin, write out a drawing on it about something that you didn't know was true, just suspected - and the napkin will instantly become Classified if it was true. Its a bit Kafkaesque. \nLike if your kid correctly drew the engine schematic of an alien anti gravity engine, their drawing instantly and retroactively becomes TS/SCI. So in the best case scenario, Biden had some documents that became classified after the fact. Like a health record, or his school grades, or his will, etc. It wasn't classified when written, but the moment he became VP or POTUS, those are now property of the Archives, and minor state secrets.\nThe critical difference with Trump, is that Biden found all these documents himself (his staff), reported them, and handed them over. Whereas Trump was hounded for 2 years by the Archives to give back what wasn't his, and only after his daily refusals to cooperate (unprecedented), was the FBI sent in to raid his residence.", ">\n\nThis is incorrect. That may be the case for your job, however, I've handled plenty of classified and secret information, and have only once been in a SCIF. Quite a bit of information distributed out to the rank an file of the military is classified or secret, and that information is not read in a SCIF by the average soldier.", ">\n\nDoD troop movements/orders are entirely different than IC stuff. Not to mention, it was already stated that at least some of the documents recovered have been TS/SCI", ">\n\nOf course classifications in different branches and areas are treated differently. What the previous poster was saying was that all classified and secret information had to be read only in a SCIF, which is demonstrably and obviously false.", ">\n\nBiden would have physically handled tens of thousands of classified documents during his time as VP. His staff in the VP office would have handled multiple times this amount.\nIf they only discovered a handful of docs stored in the wrong place and there's no evidence they were intentionally selected for misplacement, it's actually a good sign that the system to manage classified info is working. Or worked for that specific transition.", ">\n\nSo because there’s not evidence of Biden ordering that classified docs be hidden from the public, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with government officials taking classified docs from office years after they left? Do you also apply this standard to Trump?", ">\n\nNo, that's not what I'm saying. There needs to be an investigation to determine if this is accidental misplacement or something intentional. Plus general counter Intel stuff to see if anyone had access to the documents while they were in Biden's possession as a private citizen and whether or not info was compromised. \nSure, let's apply the same standard to Trump. But we already know a very different story played out there so far. The most important part being the fact that the government knew the docs were missing, that Trump had them, that Trump refused to return them when asked nicely, that Trump's lawyers lied to the government and claimed they returned everything, then dragged it out to the point where the FBI literally had to raid his home to get the documents they knew he was holding th whole time...\nThis is not the same story.", ">\n\nSo something that’s a “good sign” requires an in depth special counsel investigation? Sounds like it’s not a good sign to me.\nSpeaking of comparisons to Trump, do you also assume that Biden and his team lied when I assume they told NARA they turned over everything they had? Didn’t they also have to intentionally remove the docs? If so, it just sounds like NARA is playing politics and only going after certain politicians. In which case Biden broke the law and effectively had a government org cover for him/overlook his crimes.", ">\n\n\"lying\" in this instance is distinguished from \"making a mistake\". There's no evidence one was aware of discrepancy. The other fought to not cooperate with NARA. Five times or so.", ">\n\nWhere’s the evidence Trump lied? Could you cite which source you’re referencing? It stands to reason that Trump had to sign the same docs as Biden, no?", ">\n\nThere’s nowhere in that article that claims that Trump was a signatory or did I miss something?\nIn addition, are you saying Biden didn’t have to sign similar docs? So there was never any accountability for him in the first place?\nI’m just confused where there seems to be 2 standards in this thread- one is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form, and the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form? So im looking for answers as to why that is the sentiment held by so many.", ">\n\n\none is that Trump maliciously kept secret docs and lied about it on some official form\n\nyeah that's why he fought NARA. Actually, he's still fighting NARA. \n\nand the other being that Biden didn’t lie and for some reason didn’t sign the same exact form?\n\nyeah Biden raided himself", ">\n\nSo NARA never knew that Biden had the classified docs? People aren’t required to say they returned classified docs when they leave office?\nThat’s very troubling, no? \nHow did NARA even know about Trumps docs then? What’s the point in NARA if they don’t even know which president has taken which docs?", ">\n\nBy multiple you mean two and we don’t know the classification level. This is post is a cleverly worded post to drag on Biden. \nignore", ">\n\nHave someone who's job is it to sign them in and sign them out. I guess a President is allowed to keep them as long as they want but they should be asked to be returned before they leave. Or put them on paper that can not be copied and where the ink will be gone in a year.\nI'm sure a lot of these things were sensitive at the time but are now declassified like say they pertained to when he got out troops out of Afghanistan.", ">\n\nIdk what the procedure is when a president & veep leaves the WH. There should be an archivist near the oval with the dedicated job of maintaining documentation. I don't see any impact on whatever Trump has going on, we're not balancing blame here and writing it off. That's not what the DoJ does.", ">\n\nPhrasing this as \"been discovered\" really kinda tilts the narrative. Biden's team found these and turned them over of their own accord. This is in comparison to Trump, who refused to turn them over when asked, forcing the FBI to get a warrant.\nThere are certainly political implications here since Trump team will absolutely try to paint this as being the same thing. But it's nowhere near the same thing. If you really wanted to force the issue, you could make the argument that Biden should be investigated. And I about halfway agree. But don't pretend they're identical.", ">\n\nThis just seems to be human error on the side of all people involved (with exception of trump who was quite honest that all these documents were his preciouses). Admin staff forget to return something, VEEP sticks something in a drawer, officer forgets a document when briefing. Just seems like we need tighter controls and whomever is finding all these documents should be hired to do a sweep of all POTUS and VEEP properties at the end of the administration. Hire that person.", ">\n\nAhh yes\nHillary and Biden, inocent victims of human error. Trump however, clearly the orange devil.\nThe partisan nature of all of this is so God damn fascinating", ">\n\nTrump and his legal team attempted to obstruct the recovery of the documents and even lied about their existence. Thats why the fbi got involved in that diapute in the first place. That's a huge difference in terms of intent and context. All parties we are discussing can be wrong but one actually engaged in something potentially criminal", ">\n\nYou can prove they were wrong, you cannot prove they lied.\nYou have no proof that they knew they missed some documents", ">\n\nTrump had a pile of some of the most classified documents in existence sitting in his office closet and desk, where he famously would show them off to anyone willing to give him attention. \nBiden mishandled a bunch of what I'm assuming are very low-level classified docs, and clearly didn't even know he still had them.\nThese are not the same thing. One is rooted in incompetence, the other is blatantly malicious.\nBy the way, why is Trump fighting so hard to get back classified documents he has zero rights to have access to in the first place?", ">\n\nOk, this deserves an investigation also. At least in this instance the perpetrator is complying with investigators.", ">\n\nThey self reported after finding them.", ">\n\nThat's fair, but the investigation is still required to determine the threat posed by who had access, and the content of the documents in question.", ">\n\nIt seems like tracking these docs should not be that difficult. Just have a bar code on the envelope that leads to an encrypted tracking database so every time a document goes somewhere you know where it is. Then when a president leaves office you know exactly which documents they had. \nIt feels like we're living in the 70's or something. Like they didn't even have a sign out sheet or anything.", ">\n\nAt least in the military the chain of custody is extremely secure. The problem with the highest level is that it’s the highest level so rules are in place but while in office the secure space is often everywhere they go.", ">\n\nAs far as the \"taking of the documents\" in the first place, Trump has been somewhat vindicated. His claim that others have done the same thing is turning out to be correct. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF THE DOCUMENTS.\nI think Biden probably deserves a public drubbing on this as does Trump, but it seems it's more common than first thought.\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue. As far as we know Biden has not been doing this, to the contrary his staff has been very forthcoming.", ">\n\n\nHiding and lying about them and refusing to return the documents when found and requested is another issue.\n\nIt is the issue in the Trump case. If he had quickly and fully complied and said \"oops, my bad\" when the National Archives asked him for the classified documents they knew he had, the story would have been a minor blip at most, and quickly forgotten.", ">\n\nIt’s not a major issue, only because it parallels the Trump situation. The key difference is that Trump likely took what he knew to be classified information, and his obstruction with regards to giving it back. The latter portion especially is an obvious and clear difference.", ">\n\nWhat’s to say biden knew also? He’s probably just playing dumb considering they were found at 3+ locations. They don’t go to that many locations without it being willful. Also there’s no current mention about how many were found. Is it 5? 50? 500? Who knows….", ">\n\nBased on the report from his lawyers, who allege they were mandated by Biden search all his residences and claimed they reported everything they found asap to the DOJ, there’s minimal basis to allege that, but that is the point of the special counsel.\nContrasted with the obvious and lengthy obstruction by Trump, who clearly did not want to return these documents, which is the key difference as I mentioned.", ">\n\nI’m not arguing that difference. However I don’t know how much you know about classified information but if I took even ONE document I would be behind bars regardless if it was an accident or not. That shit just doesn’t happen.", ">\n\nThat's actually factually incorrect. There is leeway in the law to allow for honest mistakes, since people are human and especially at high levels of government they handle a lot of classified information. If there was no room for error, that would create a perverse insentive where if you did make a mistake, then it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if you're going to jail no matter what then you might as well lie about it and hope for the best. Whereas if you get off with a reprimand if you accidentally put a classified file in your briefcase but immediately informed the relevant authorities as soon as you noticed you did then that encourages a level of transparency about it that ultimately helps promote information security.", ">\n\nI understand that. I’m saying whatever standard “the rest of us” are held to should be applied in this case. Simple. If I personally mishandled Confidential, TS or CUI information i would at least get a reprimand and possibly lose my job. Same should apply here.", ">\n\nSure, but based on the information currently available, this seems to be an unintentional filing error that was pointed out to the relevant authorities once it was discovered. This is very much in the realm of 'pay more attention and don't do it again' rather than 'you're off to Leavenworth'.", ">\n\nAgain this is why we have special counsels and investigation. If you can’t see I’m arguing for equal treatment of all involved I’m not sure what to say.", ">\n\nYou or I would likely not get a special council, and also likely would not lose our jobs so long as it's an honest mistake. But seeing as Garland has already appointed a special council, that's a moot point.", ">\n\nYea it would we an investigation on our level. But depending on the investigation and information taken things would get interesting.", ">\n\nDepends on what's in the documents.\nHow many documents?\nWas Biden asked to return them?\nDid Biden purposefully avoid returning them?\nDid Biden lie about returning them?\n\nComparisons aside, why can such documents be removed from federal facilities at all?\nMy university library had textbooks on reserve where you could look at them in the library but not take them out. I envision a kind of viewing room that's monitored with wifi blocked, and you sign your ass away if any sharing of the information therein with anyone lacking clearance can be traced back to you. If librarians can handle this, then the federal government can too.", ">\n\nBecause the Modbots won't let me use a Url shortener: \nWASHINGTON — The disclosure that classified documents were found in a private office that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used before beginning his 2020 campaign and at his residence in Wilmington, Del., has prompted comparisons to former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government records, which is the subject of a criminal investigation.\nBased on what is publicly known so far, here is a closer look:\nHow are the situations similar?\nAt a basic level, both involve official files bearing classification markings that improperly accompanied Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden after they left office. Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives and Records Administration once an administration departs. Private citizens generally lack authorization to hold classified documents, and regulations require such files to be stored securely.\nThe Justice Department is scrutinizing both situations. In Mr. Trump’s case, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the investigation. In Mr. Biden’s case, Mr. Garland has assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John R. Lausch Jr., to conduct an initial investigation to help him determine whether to appoint a special counsel.\nHow are the situations different?\nThere are key gaps in the public record about both, but the available information suggests there were significant differences in how the documents came to light, their volume and — most important — how Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden responded.\nMr. Trump and his aides resisted the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve them all. Mr. Biden’s lawyers reported the problem, and the White House says it has fully cooperated, including by searching Mr. Biden’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Del., houses, “the other locations where files from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition.”\nThese apparent differences have significant legal implications.\nWhere were the files?\nIn Mr. Trump’s case, several hundred government files marked as classified — along with thousands of unclassified documents and photos — ended up at his Florida club and residence, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Some were in cartons in a locked storage closet, and the F.B.I. discovered others in Mr. Trump’s office, including in his desk, according to court filings.\nIn Mr. Biden’s case, the administration said in a statement on Monday that “a small number of documents with classified markings” had been discovered in a locked closet in an office at a Washington think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. It said that Mr. Biden had periodically used the space after leaving the vice presidency in 2017 and before he began his presidential campaign.\nThe administration also acknowledged on Thursday that subsequent searches had found “a small number of additional Obama-Biden administration records with classified markings” among personal and political papers at his Wilmington residence. Most were found in a storage space in his garage, it said; one page was among stored materials in an adjacent room.\nHow did the files get there?\nAs president, Mr. Trump is said to have periodically taken records from the Oval Office to the residential areas of the White House. During the chaos of his last days in office after he sought to cling to power, those files were apparently packed up with personal items like clothing and mementos and shipped to Mar-a-Lago.\nIt is not yet known how records from the Obama administration wound up at the Penn Biden Center and Mr. Biden’s house, apparently during the 2017 transition. On Tuesday, Mr. Biden said that he took classified information seriously and that he was “surprised to learn that there were any government records there that were taken to that office.”\nHow did the problems come to light?\nVery differently.\nIn the case of Mr. Trump, the National Archives realized in the spring of 2021 that historically prominent files were missing and asked Mr. Trump to return them. The agency eventually retrieved 15 boxes and found that they included documents with classification markings. The Justice Department retrieved additional records after issuing a subpoena, but it developed evidence that Mr. Trump still had more.\nIn the case of Mr. Biden, the White House has said that his lawyers discovered the files on Nov. 2 when they were packing up to vacate the office at the Penn Biden Center. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the archives,” it said.\nThe administration said that after the first classified documents were discovered, Mr. Biden’s team searched two other places where materials from his vice-presidential office might have been shipped after the Obama administration departed: his home in Wilmington and another in Rehoboth Beach, Del. None were found in Rehoboth Beach. It did not say when the searches began, but said that review was completed on Wednesday.\nHow did they respond?\nVery differently.\nMr. Biden’s team reported the problem to the National Archives on the same day it was discovered, and the agency retrieved the materials the next morning, the administration said. It emphasized that Mr. Biden’s team had since cooperated with the archives and the Justice Department, including by searching his two houses, “to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the archives.”\nMr. Biden said on Tuesday that his lawyers had acted appropriately: They immediately called the archives to turn over the materials. “We’re cooperating fully — cooperating fully — with the review, which I hope will be completed soon,” he said.\nBy contrast, Mr. Trump and his aides delayed responding to the National Archives’ repeated requests for months, then failed to fully comply with the subpoena while falsely saying they had. A court filing also suggested that security camera footage showed that “government records were likely concealed and removed” from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago after the subpoena.\nMr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the National Archives for telling the Justice Department about the matter and portrayed the investigation as illegitimate. A federal judge is considering holding his team in contempt for defying the subpoena.\nIn each case, were the documents still classified?\nProbably.\nMr. Trump publicly claimed that before leaving office, he declassified everything that turned up at Mar-a-Lago. No credible evidence has emerged to support that claim, and his lawyers have resisted repeating it in court, where there are professional consequences for lying. (Moreover, the potential crimes cited in the affidavit used to search Mr. Trump’s Florida residence do not depend on whether mishandled documents were classified.)\nWhile the executive order governing the classified information system gives vice presidents the same power to declassify secrets as presidents wield, Mr. Biden has not claimed he declassified the materials found in the Penn Biden Center closet. He said on Tuesday that he did not know what they were.\nHow many classified documents were there?\nMany more classified documents appear to have been improperly stored at Mr. Trump’s estate than at Mr. Biden’s office.\nCourt filings say that 184 documents marked as classified were in the 15 boxes the National Archives initially retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team turned over 38 more such records after the subpoena, and the F.B.I. found another 103 in its search.\nThe Biden administration’s initial statement said a “small number” of documents marked as classified had been discovered in the closet at the Penn Biden Center. CBS News has reported there were about 10. The administration’s statement on Thursday about the second batch found at his house in Wilmington similarly described it as “a small number.”\nWere documents also mutilated or destroyed?\nMr. Trump appears to have destroyed official documents. Former aides have said he ripped up files while in office, and a letter from the National Archives indicated that some of the files it retrieved had been mutilated.\nThere has been no allegation that Mr. Biden destroyed public records.\nWhat are the legal consequences of these differences?\nThe implications of these differences are significant, though more information could still come to light.\nOne question is whether any mishandling of secrets was intentional. A provision of the Espionage Act, for example, makes it a crime if someone, without authorization, willfully retains a national security secret “and fails to deliver it on demand” to an official entitled to take custody of it.\nAnother provision of the act says that a person can be guilty if, through “gross negligence,” he or she permits national security papers to be removed from their proper place of custody. That provision has historically been interpreted in case law and Justice Department practice as requiring a state of mind that is so reckless that it falls just short of being willful.\nThe application to search Mar-a-Lago cited the Espionage Act, as well as laws against destroying official documents and obstructing an official effort. That the F.B.I. discovered additional documents with classification markings in its search of Mar-a-Lago has also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s team defied the subpoena and made false statements.", ">\n\nNo you wouldn't. You would be fired and all security clearance revoked but you would only face charges if they could prove you took documents you didn't have clearance for, or you had intent to harm with the docs you did have clearance to hold", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who has worked in a secure environment knows people who have unintentionally mishandled classified. Happens a lot and nobody goes to jail for it.", ">\n\nI know. The laws are clear. People have just gotten confused lately as the media and some politicians have misrepresented the law a bit trying to hit Trump.\nNow that Biden has mishandled classified docs the media will provide people context of the laws", ">\n\nThe Trump case went a bit far beyond \"mishandling\" though, didn't it? There was clear knowledge and obstruction in that situation, which is the opposite of the Biden situation. In which case it doesn't seem like people or the media are confused.", ">\n\nI feel like the issue of having secret docs is a separate issue from returning said docs to the archives. That’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?", ">\n\n\nThat’s the actual crime committed by Trump, right? Refusing to return docs?\n\nLike 90% of it yeah, had he returned anything he had that was requested we likely would never have even heard about it.", ">\n\nCould you cite the crime you’re referring to specifically?", ">\n\nWhat I'm referring to is his staff reporting they had returned the requested documents for several months, causing a referral to law enforcement that several months later resulted in the searching of mara Lago by law enforcement. Most of the problem wasn't that he had something, it was the lying delaying and hiding that made it intentional.", ">\n\nSo what’s the crime you are referring to?", ">\n\nWhelp one thing is for sure. I won't have to spend time explaining to people that it isn't against the law to take classified documents when you leave office. Nor will I have to explain that it's not against the law to store classified documents in a unsecured location.\nIt is fun watching the narrative turn quickly though.", ">\n\nIf you believe Trump should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. If you believe Biden should be prosecuted for his classified documents, you so too believe Biden should be prosecuted. \nAnything otherwise is blatant bias and hypocrisy.", ">\n\nNo it’s not, because the situations are completely different, claiming they are the same and should be treated the same is a ridiculous false equivalency.\nThis should be investigated to determine if there are any more documents misplaced, what they were, how they were kept, and why/how, but the important distinction between the cases is that that Trump defied National Archives requests for the documents and subpoenas for the documents, lied about his possession of them to investigators, and tried to conceal them. Meanwhile, Biden’s team discovered the documents while clearing an office, immediately reported themselves and returned them, and conducted searches for them elsewhere.", ">\n\nStop lying, the situations aren't any different. In both cases neither Trump nor Biden reviewed this documents or searched for classified documents to be returned. This work is handed out to their staff. Trump's staff might be worse than Biden's, or perhaps after seeing Trump get raided, Biden's staff had the benefit of hindsight and took the matter more seriously.\nWhat you are saying is just a partisan smear.", ">\n\nI think there’s a real qualitative difference between “I still have some documents, I’d need to return them” and “I know I told you 3 times that I didn’t have any documents, but I decided those don’t count”.", ">\n\nThe National Archives were aware of missing documents from the Trump Administration and repeatedly requested them. I don't know if their procedures were similar at the end of the Obama/Biden Administration.", ">\n\nHey USA !!!! How about NOT ELECTING 236 years old man for President to begin for!", ">\n\nAge descrimination is wrong", ">\n\nI held a low-level security clearance while in the military as did many, many others. If any of us handled secured documents like this we'd be in prison. That's how you fix it. Apply the law to everyone, even if they are the elite. Give Trump and Biden adjoining rooms if you want.", ">\n\nThose isn't actually true\nThe laws are clear about intent. They would have to prove you purposefully took docs you weren't allowed to take.\nIntent is a major requirement in these laws.\nYou would be discharges/fired and all clearances revoked, forever", ">\n\nSure if you ignore words like knowingly and intent in the law", ">\n\nNothing can be that important if these documents were able to be missing for 6 years without anyone noticing. \nI don’t think it’s about security of the documents but about how officials end up with them post office", ">\n\nThat’s not entirely true. However, I’m not sure how the chains of custody work at that high of a level.", ">\n\nThere are multiple layers of classified info. The three broad categories are confidential, secret, and top secret. There are technically no levels above top secret but access can get filtered down real fast via the usage of \"sensitive compartmentalized info (sci)\" and a very long list of \"codewords\" that restrict things to a need to know audience. \nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely, even at the TS/SCI level. But certain codeword info is going to have very tight control and tracking and the government is going to come after it if they can't account for it. \nThe fact that the government knew exactly what Trump was holding on to should raise serious red flags.", ">\n\n\nit's not possible to track every piece of classified. Especially when we print stuff and distribute things widely\n\nEven things like a general's lunch order could be classified secret if said general could be potentially targeted based on that information. \nAmong the Clinton \"classified docs\" was a call sheet, with her itinerary to call an African president on her recent taking the office after her predecessor died. The fact she took office and the predecessor died was not secret, but the fact she was making the call at that specific moment was, right up until the call was done. \nThat's an important thing to keep in mind when considering classifications that many don't realize", ">\n\nMeh \nPolitically, the damage is done. DOJ can't possibly go after Trump for his handling unless they have some serious evidence he was holding stuff for the purpose of intentionally sharing it with an adversary. \nNo one on the street is going to care about the nitty-gritty of the proper handling of classified.", ">\n\nYou mean like how he and Jared sold it to the Saudis for 2 billion?", ">\n\nBidens documents were not secure.", ">\n\nYou're just going to get down voted. Lol. I gave you a bump up. You forgot to also mention the National Archives didn't EVER contact Biden\n1st batch found, \"I didn't know i had them\"\n2nd batch found, \" They were in a secure garage next to my Corvette\". \nNow i'm going down with you!", ">\n\nAnd yet he is cooperating, no one is screaming it was unfair or planted…do Republicans now think this is an illegal thing?", ">\n\nCooperating after 6 years of the documents missing…", ">\n\nThe processes the US government has for classified material control are already adequate, and work well in nearly every situation.\nCrucially, intent matters in these cases, as does the willingness of those who break procedure (intentionally or not) to work with the US government after the fact.\nWhile the Biden classified documents might appear similar to Trump's situation in the court of public opinion, they are very different in a court of law.", ">\n\nHaving the documents doesn’t really bother me, I don’t believe it was anything nefarious, as much as it not being reported before the election like trumps was along with a show raid. Another reason the media and our institutions are losing credibility.", ">\n\nI think both instances are blown out of proportion. At a Presidential level, probably just about everything they touch is a classified document. Both work out of their home, so it makes sense they probably have documents still. \nI do think it was ridiculous that with Trump, the media narrative jumped to he's selling nuclear documents to the Russians.", ">\n\nI suspect this will quickly go away. There will be some desperate hold outs but with it being a bipartisan issue now, the rhetoric will die and once again on to the next outrage with no charges filed on Trump", ">\n\nThere is no easy answer to this.\nConfusing to some people is the fact that the sitting President is without question the sole originating authority, literally the root of authority of all national security policy, full stop.\nThis topic emerges every time someone makes a claim about \"what would happen to their security clearance if they were caught doing a fraction of whatever.\"\nThat claim is never made by anyone who held the office of POTUS at the time, or even a subordinate of the President who has delegated authority as a origin of classified material. \nNo one \"grants or revokes\" clearance for the President. Sitting POTUS is the origin and ultimate authority on all such matters, and all military and all civilian security policy is delegated from that authority and nowhere else.\nThis assertion seems to be controversial, and raises arguments from all directions.\nBut run any number of thought experiments to imagine any other party to which the President is subordinate for matters of national security. I'll offer the full list:\n\nThe Electoral Voters. POTUS is in power because he has been elected by whatever Constitutional process has been applied to put him or her in that office. There are certainly valid concerns about the current shape of that process but that's a discussion for another thread.\nThe joint Congress. Impeachment and removal from office turns out to have high barriers but those barriers are mostly artificial. In theory, a Constitutionally valid impeachment and removal could happen in a matter of hours, given a unanimous House and Senate. There is no particular procedural hurdle except for those obstacles that Congress places on itself. The process could not be made any simpler, nor could it offer Congress any more direct and immediate power than it does currently. It's not the Constitution's fault that impeachment is hard.\n\nSo, imagining that the President were to be made subordinate to some other origin of security authority, what would that be? The military? Unthinkable! The military is subordinate to the Command in Chief. Congress? The President is subordinate to Congress now, and the mechanism for asserting that supremacy would be the impeachment process. The Judiciary? The Constitution doesn't confer that authority to them and if it did, it should not be too difficult to understand why that system would be unworkable. Thurgood Marshall explored the concept of political systems that place judges at the top of legal hierarchies and flatly rejected the idea, as did the framers of our Republic.\nSo who or what would you place in the critical path between the Sitting President and his or her authority regarding national security and classified information?\nIf such a person or party were to exist, then how is their authority granted or revoked? In that system, why would the Presidency be the highest political goal, when there would exist a position that could be weaponized to selectively grant or revoke security clearance for the Sitting POTUS? That position, not the Presidency, would be the ultimate goal of national politics.\nWhat other nations have a system that could deny security clearance to their sitting heads of state?", ">\n\nThere is no issue here other than politicians playing politics. \nPresidents have always kept some classified documents. This is widely accepted as known fact. It wasn’t until Trump and the left’s insatiable hunger to see him finally get what he “deserves” that this became an issue. \nAnd now the democrats have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Just like they did with Russiagate and Jan 6th.", ">\n\nThe reason why Trump is in hot water about the classified documents is because he and his staff repeatedly lied about having the documents and about having turned over all the documents. If Trump had just accidentally stuffed some classified documents in with his personal files and then turned them over as soon as it was pointed out then it would be a non-issue. Instead he lead the national archives and the FBI around by the nose for months despite having classified material in his own desk at Mar-a-Lago, never mind his staff being caught on camera moving boxes of documents out of the 'secure' room when the feds first came to collect the documents he did admit to having.", ">\n\n1) (not very interesting - top-level people are typically 70-80 year old people who are not great at handling paperwork, have a lot of paperwork to handle, and just make mistakes OR intentionally make mistakes)\n2) The Biden presidency is over. This certainly means that Trump won't be indicted for the MAL document theft and obstruction, but there is still a chance some of his minions might go down for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice (Christina Bobb needs to be indicted for obstruction; why that hasn't happened already is just one of those questions....).\nI think Biden will announce that he will not be running for re-election. This might have been intended to give him some cover for such an announcement, or it could have been people around him forcing him out (e.g., Garland). The appointment of a SC means that many independents will view Biden as just as guilty as Trump, no matter what is found, but it also gives a federal prosecutor a massive opportunity to find something and I think something will be found. Maybe a mistress, sex with an intern, a blue stained dress hanging in a closet somewhere - but something will be turned up. Bringing down Biden will make that prosecutor's career in Republican circles just like it did for Ken Starr.\nDOJ missed it's window to prosecute Trump. They waited too many years to bring an indictment and now it is too late. Whataboutism is going to be in play now that there is a SC investigating Biden, and nothing will stick. Obviously Garland wanted to find a way to let Trump off the hook and this is giving him that opportunity in spades. SC Smith might consider indicting Trump for the Insurrection, a completely separate and much more egregious crime than the MAL stolen documents scandal, but if DOJ wanted to prosecute that crime the time was a year ago, not 2 full years after the fact. \nAs much as Republicans crow about the \"deep state\", DOJ and FBI are Republican institutions no matter who is president. They vigorously investigate Democrats and slow-walk investigations of Republicans. That's why it took Garland around 700 days to appoint a SC to investigate Trump for the Insurrection and only 24 hours to appoint a SC to investigate Biden at the first opportunity he could find. DOJ is licking it's chops at having a Democrat in the cross-hairs because it gives individual prosecutors a chance to show loyalty to the Republican Party and reap benefits afterwards, usually in the form of a university presidency or something similar.\nBest outcome for Democrats now is for Biden to resign (maybe cite some health reasons), do a mea culpa tour, and hope we can win with Kamala or someone else that doesn't have a cloud of false equivalency hanging over their head. This is what Democrats end up doing every time they hold the presidency (see Clinton, Bill). The only aberration was Obama because Holder was a true loyalist and Obama was so squeaky clean DOJ couldn't find anything to investigate - they had to go after Hillary and spend the same resources there (successfully).", ">\n\nApparently a library card…because my high school knew how much I needed to pay for books I Never returned from 9th grade before I could get my diploma", ">\n\nI’d think that classified documents are kept in a secure location, released for access with a trace on possession, then returned to that location. \nThat they seem not to be is surprising to me.", ">\n\nit's not the process that's broken, it's the exceptions that are allowed that's the problem.\nif these documents are that important they need to ONLY be viewable while the set of eyeballs viewing them are inside the vault where they are kept.\nno exceptions.\nescapes like this should be taken very seriously... *if these documents are all that important*\n*(i say this because much of what is classified doesn't need to be classified, so there's that)", ">\n\nThey could try not classifying everything under the sun, for starters. Most of it never needed it in the first place.", ">\n\nHonest question: While certain documents have been found, who's to say other documents weren't lost or destroyed after an individual left office? \nI like the idea of a trackable bar code which was proposed by /u/RegisterOk9743\nNo one seems to take an inventory of them.", ">\n\nSome sort of computer database sign out procedure! That way they can be tracked.", ">\n\nHonestly, I imagine that many of our prior presidents and vice presidents have intentionally and unintentionally mishandled sensitive documents. \nI’m not condoning it nor am I dismissing it, I’m simply unsurprised by it - and frankly, I’m concerned by it. National security has always been important, even if national security concerns have sometimes been drastically exaggerated due to the ulterior motives of politicians and their cohorts. However, as our relationship with China becomes increasingly competitive and our relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate, putting forth a solution that maintains the security of sensitive national information should absolutely be a top priority. \nI’m not sure what the solution is and it’s far too behind my pay grade to seriously think of an answer, but it’s gotta be someone’s job. I just hope they get better at it.", ">\n\nBan Biden and Trump from holding public office if either was criminal intent when investigations are closed.", ">\n\nAn easy one is that nothing may be taken from the whitehouse except by a transition team that packs up and reviews every item and document before releasing to the former presidents staff. \nThey need to raid every senator too as they often have classified docs.", ">\n\nMy local library takes better care and control of its Mad Magazine collection.", ">\n\nIsn't part of the point that classified documents don't belong to the office holder but to the nation?", ">\n\nThe timing of all of this will only create sympathy for Biden, and his polling shows that.", ">\n\nI don’t know much about it but I’m pretty frustrated with him over this. I’m sure, as you said, there are differences. But he may have just provided the republicans with the ammunition they are seeking for impeachment. \nI think they either need to soften the blow to Trump as you suggested or make every effort to investigate this instance in the same and equal way as Trump, with the highest level of transparency possible without disclosing potentially dangerous info. Those are the only two options I can think of that will not harm Biden’s future election chances significantly. Or Biden will need to bow out in 24 and someone not associated with his administration would need to run, but that sounds really hard to find!", ">\n\nThis is by far the stupidest own goal I've seen in my lifetime of political awareness (save some of Trump's insanity).\nSpecial prosecutor, figure out how serious it is, I doubt they have a chance at any real penalties short of impeachment as he's the actual president, and impeachment would be awkward because it was kind of before he was president, and once he was president it becomes an awkward gray area.\nSo Biden will be impeached and acquitted? I don't really see another outcome with this congress, they don't have a choice, they need to impeach to show they're strong and the senate will just shrug.\nThe level of political theater this could spawn is unbelievable.", ">\n\nI’m sure everyone here believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?", ">\n\nIf we expected as much from our elected leaders as we do 19 year old Privates in the Army, that would be a start.", ">\n\nIf a 29 yr old private accidentally takes classified documents home, he won't be charged with a crime. The laws are clear that intent needs to be proven.\nWhich is why Hillary, Biden, Trump won't face charges either", ">\n\nOur system is not set up for the 24 hour work from everywhere schedule. Keeping documents digital and on an encrypt secure server would be a good start. There’s obviously a massive difference between Trump intentionally stealing documents and storing them haphazardly than Biden or Clinton having errant documents they had worked with from home. I am not sure the latter presents a massive problem from society; but both could be dealt with by better document tracking and independent audits when individuals leave office. Additionally, we should probably refine the classification process with a bit more precision and a more centralized system of review.", ">\n\nThe government forced hospitals to move away from physical documentation and record keeping under threat of fines and penalties. Electronic charts are supposed to keep patient records more secure and save a ton of money in printing and archive fees\nI'd like to think national security is more important than HIPAA, so why can't the government follow its own advice and go all digital?", ">\n\nI can’t walk out of a drugstore with a bottle of cologne without setting off an alarm. Have they considered RFID chips?", ">\n\nMake it an offense that requires prison time with a lengthy minimum sentence.", ">\n\nYou're gonna have to pay people who handle classified a lot more than they already do if there's going to be a risk of mandatory prison for making a mistake.", ">\n\nchecking the security footage to see if a Watergate style break in to plant these didn't happen?", ">\n\nDouble down on the Trump issue and indict both of them. Take no prisoners. This is not a partisan issue - charge both Trump and Biden to the fullest extent of the law.", ">\n\nThere already is a process. Senior executive branch is not following it.\nThat being said. There is a huge difference in handling and potential criminality in mishandling depending on the classification level.\nMisplacing secret is fairly common depending on the operating environment. \nMisplacing SCI is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable. The protections assume you are an idiot and make it difficult for the material to be misplaced outside a secured facility without intentional malfeasance.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should have everybody follow the same rules, even the rich folks...", ">\n\nMy hot take is that at a certain level you shouldn’t be allowed to handle documents without a trusted individual charged with securing the documents. These guys get so many classified briefings and honestly, I hardly trust em not to talk classified information to the public. Nonce you have secret thoughts, it’s hard to keep them secret, ya know?", ">\n\nThey should make all congress/house and presidential staff do those shitty CBT’s they make the rest of the people who handle classified have to do yearly. “You were trained on how to handle classified. Treason, if you don’t do it right”. publish when they’re due to retake the test. Every scrap of paper/sticky note goes in a shredder before you leave the secure room.", ">\n\nThere's a good chance now that his 2024 presidency is basically off the table now. Yes, Trump obstructed justice. Yes Biden is cooperating. But if classified documents were in an insecure location such as his private library. Then the entire moral standing against Trump doing the same thing, just about, with handling, went up in flames; and the public perception/optics of this, no matter the turnover, are horribly terribly bad.\nAnd the problem in all of this is that from 2017 to 2020, Biden was a private citizen. He was neither president nor vice president, and he had classified documents in an insecure location. That's what damns this entire \"but this is different\" argument.", ">\n\nThis is crazy. The government need 5o freate better way of teaching documents. Maybe keep things on super secure cloud site?" ]

[]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there..." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them..." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?", ">\n\nCommon sense. Lungs are a delicate organ. It's not smart to fuck with them." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?", ">\n\nCommon sense. Lungs are a delicate organ. It's not smart to fuck with them.", ">\n\nIn doors? Ew" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?", ">\n\nCommon sense. Lungs are a delicate organ. It's not smart to fuck with them.", ">\n\nIn doors? Ew", ">\n\nYeah right?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?", ">\n\nCommon sense. Lungs are a delicate organ. It's not smart to fuck with them.", ">\n\nIn doors? Ew", ">\n\nYeah right?", ">\n\nWho smokes anymore?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?", ">\n\nCommon sense. Lungs are a delicate organ. It's not smart to fuck with them.", ">\n\nIn doors? Ew", ">\n\nYeah right?", ">\n\nWho smokes anymore?", ">\n\nPeople still smoke?" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?", ">\n\nCommon sense. Lungs are a delicate organ. It's not smart to fuck with them.", ">\n\nIn doors? Ew", ">\n\nYeah right?", ">\n\nWho smokes anymore?", ">\n\nPeople still smoke?", ">\n\nCan liberals and democrats loudly say that shitting your pants is a bad thing? Given the republicans’ knee jerk reaction to do exactly the opposite of whatever someone on the left is in favor of I can see MTG and Gaetz filling their pants in no time just to own the libs." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?", ">\n\nCommon sense. Lungs are a delicate organ. It's not smart to fuck with them.", ">\n\nIn doors? Ew", ">\n\nYeah right?", ">\n\nWho smokes anymore?", ">\n\nPeople still smoke?", ">\n\nCan liberals and democrats loudly say that shitting your pants is a bad thing? Given the republicans’ knee jerk reaction to do exactly the opposite of whatever someone on the left is in favor of I can see MTG and Gaetz filling their pants in no time just to own the libs.", ">\n\nFucking gross" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?", ">\n\nCommon sense. Lungs are a delicate organ. It's not smart to fuck with them.", ">\n\nIn doors? Ew", ">\n\nYeah right?", ">\n\nWho smokes anymore?", ">\n\nPeople still smoke?", ">\n\nCan liberals and democrats loudly say that shitting your pants is a bad thing? Given the republicans’ knee jerk reaction to do exactly the opposite of whatever someone on the left is in favor of I can see MTG and Gaetz filling their pants in no time just to own the libs.", ">\n\nFucking gross", ">\n\nSo still working for the American people I see…" ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?", ">\n\nCommon sense. Lungs are a delicate organ. It's not smart to fuck with them.", ">\n\nIn doors? Ew", ">\n\nYeah right?", ">\n\nWho smokes anymore?", ">\n\nPeople still smoke?", ">\n\nCan liberals and democrats loudly say that shitting your pants is a bad thing? Given the republicans’ knee jerk reaction to do exactly the opposite of whatever someone on the left is in favor of I can see MTG and Gaetz filling their pants in no time just to own the libs.", ">\n\nFucking gross", ">\n\nSo still working for the American people I see…", ">\n\nGovernment big dumb circus." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?", ">\n\nCommon sense. Lungs are a delicate organ. It's not smart to fuck with them.", ">\n\nIn doors? Ew", ">\n\nYeah right?", ">\n\nWho smokes anymore?", ">\n\nPeople still smoke?", ">\n\nCan liberals and democrats loudly say that shitting your pants is a bad thing? Given the republicans’ knee jerk reaction to do exactly the opposite of whatever someone on the left is in favor of I can see MTG and Gaetz filling their pants in no time just to own the libs.", ">\n\nFucking gross", ">\n\nSo still working for the American people I see…", ">\n\nGovernment big dumb circus.", ">\n\nMoonshine and cat houses are next." ]

[ "Next up on the docket: putting the asbestos back in the walls.", ">\n\ncrystal pepsi !", ">\n\nCocaine back in Coca Cola", ">\n\nThe Coca Cola energy drinks just didn't have enough kick to them.", ">\n\nMissing the secret ingredient.", ">\n\nHow pointless.", ">\n\nIt's not. Remember the guy that smoked in Nancy Pelosi's office?", ">\n\nIf this is allowed for visitors as well as legislators, I think this would be a great opportunity for Hakeem Jeffries to invite Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Tommy Chong over for a token meeting to work on some outdated and discriminatory \"scheduling\" conflicts and the way that they infringe upon citizens' God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.", ">\n\nWillie Nelson smoked weed with Jimmy Carter’s son at the white house lol", ">\n\nOn top of!", ">\n\nOld Smokey.", ">\n\nAny of you Republicans and Conservatives out there keeping track of what the Republican Party is doing with their power in the house?\nThey're passing Rules Packages and making it so they can smoke in their offices.\nHow does that help anyone but them?\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?", ">\n\n\nWhat kind of fool votes for these people?\n\nPeople who view smoking as an AMERICAN FREEDOM and will go bankrupt when they develop a terminal illness at age 55 because their factory job's healthcare has been slashed to nothing in an effort to boost profits.", ">\n\nBankrupt because as soon as their precious private insurance discovers that they’ve actually been a lifelong smoker, coverage denied and the leopards have a long-awaited snack.", ">\n\nThanks to democrats the insurance companies can’t deny coverage for that. But it will change if Republicans get their way.", ">\n\nNo but they can charge you more if you do.", ">\n\nIt seems to fully fit with the philosophy they embraced for COVID", ">\n\nYeah, COVID really scrambled their brains. They now fight for anything perceived as “bad” by a normal person.", ">\n\nWhat an absolutely pointless move, regressive just for the sake of being regressive.", ">\n\nFreeDumb", ">\n\nNext they're going to make groping acceptable again", ">\n\nCigarette girls (and boys) will patrol the aisles…", ">\n\nSponsored by Matt Gaetz", ">\n\ngotta light up that cigar after fucking America", ">\n\nRepublicans: I can drink smoke and do whatever and the dumb government can’t say nothing \ngets cancer\nRepublicans: why is this so expensive for me??Damn liberals ruined health care.", ">\n\n“I can do whatever I want in public, but you can’t be gay in public.” -GOP", ">\n\n...they said, sucking on their chubby little cuban pricks", ">\n\nKilling yourself to own the libs, classic.", ">\n\nWho's house is that? Isn't there a law against smoking in federal buildings?", ">\n\nEPA does not have a mandate to regulate smoking or control tobacco. As it stands now, tobacco use and smoking restrictions are strictly state and local issues. However, based on an Executive Order, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings and facilities.", ">\n\nSmoke those cigarettes. Eschew those vaccines. Bypass metal detectors. Take horse dewormer. Ingest the dioxin. Eat antibiotic livestock. Inhale the car exhaust. Drive over crumbling bridges. Do it all. Do it for America!", ">\n\nWeed is legal in DC.\nEvery Dem should light a joint in Repub offices.\nThey dont even need to smoke it. Just keep the cherry and the smoke going.\nJust make the place REEK. \nFuck loud, that building should scream.", ">\n\nThe Capitol is federal property. Cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions result in increased penalties, and a third conviction could be a felony.\nBy the way, this includes national parks and forests, BLM land, and numerous other places you probably don't realize are federal property.", ">\n\nSpeech or Debate Clause applies in the chambers. I suppose you could refer them to ethics committee that's under discussion to do away with.", ">\n\nCan't be shocked if they think their rights are worth more than their first graders, what are a few aides?", ">\n\nRegressives", ">\n\nI don't think even Trump will approve of this one.", ">\n\nHe doesn't. That, drugs and alcohol are about the only thing Trump has clear words and position.", ">\n\nThose are lies that do nothing but support the \"legend\" of the fat clown. \nWhen your only evidence are his words, and you repeat them as fact... you reveal yourself.", ">\n\nIf Agolf Twitler (not my nickname) told me the sky was blue I would verify it myself.", ">\n\nFrom a smoker, it is disgusting to smoke inside.", ">\n\nCheck your wallet folks. This art of distraction is in full swing.\nIf I was in the House I would start smoking again and ask the Dems to put me on the edge of the row next to the republicans. I used to crack a pack a day. I am sure I can still do that at least and with the healthcare they get I 'm good for life - as long as that lasts. At least I would feel I did something with my life.", ">\n\nIf they want to ruin their own health, I don't care. I'm just mad tax dollars might have to pay for cleaning the smoky offices", ">\n\nWho puts smoking back?", ">\n\nIts fucking funny thinking about if this was one of the things those 4 days of voting were about haha “I will shut this House DOWN unless you let me light a victory cigar after we pass a bill”", ">\n\ndisgusting fucks", ">\n\nTypically Republican selfishness: granting a personal freedom while taking away someone else’s.", ">\n\nThe GOP is the pro-cancer party.", ">\n\nThe cure for cancer is more cancer.", ">\n\nWhats to stop other public employees from rebelling and smoking on their jobs, too?", ">\n\nThe desire to keep a job?", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous and pointless.", ">\n\nCrack? Because thats the only way they could come up with something as dumb as getting rid of medicare and social security.", ">\n\nNot good enough. If they want to go full evil-dumb, they should start requiring people to smoke in the Capitol\nLike that time Hank caught Bobby smoking", ">\n\nJust another toothpick in the side of progressives for the sake of being assholes. It’s not like they’re smoking stogies to celebrate their huge majority.", ">\n\nThey are also putting asbestos back in. After all developing mesothelioma is a god given American right, and no woke Democrat House rule is gonna stop them!!", ">\n\nGotta throw some stimmy toward Sokolove and friends because trickle down and such, ammirite?", ">\n\nSince they obtain a fair amount of lobbying funds from big tobacco, it makes sense that they want to allow indoor smoking. Republicans don’t care about other people, just their bank accounts.", ">\n\nWell that’s a ridiculous use of time and energy. I bet this was a part of the negotiating deals to get McCarthy voted as speaker. “Will you allow smoking…?” - “You got my vote. 🤛” UGH", ">\n\nMakes sense, the same people that claim man-made climate change isn't real, were the same ones claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer... And most of them are still working in there...", ">\n\nWhat a shit show", ">\n\nNotice how there's no forward thinking about republicans. Everything is just a reaction", ">\n\nI'm embarrassed for them...", ">\n\nDo they also have calendars with naked men on them?", ">\n\n\"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?\"", ">\n\n\"You ever been in a cockpit before?\"", ">\n\nthey're allowed to smoke cigarettes in their office but god forbid the people be allowed to smoke weed, something far safer for you than tobacco.", ">\n\nWho the fuck still smokes in 2023? \ngross.", ">\n\nUnfortunately thanks to vaping all of the work to stamp it out in the '80s and '90s has been flushed down the toilet.", ">\n\nI barely smoke now thanks to vaping. I know several people my age who have quite by vaping to resolve cravings. I worked on every other option with my doctor before I started vaping to quite.\nNicotine addiction sucks!", ">\n\nI understand the usefulness for existing smokers, but the problem is kids and young adults are getting hooked on it and are captured in the same way cigarettes used to capture the youth to create lifelong customers. Cigarettes are unhealthy, but so is vaping which is smoking without the stigma of cigarettes.", ">\n\nCan you cite a peer reviewed study that proves vaping is anywhere as unhealthy as cigarettes?", ">\n\nCommon sense. Lungs are a delicate organ. It's not smart to fuck with them.", ">\n\nIn doors? Ew", ">\n\nYeah right?", ">\n\nWho smokes anymore?", ">\n\nPeople still smoke?", ">\n\nCan liberals and democrats loudly say that shitting your pants is a bad thing? Given the republicans’ knee jerk reaction to do exactly the opposite of whatever someone on the left is in favor of I can see MTG and Gaetz filling their pants in no time just to own the libs.", ">\n\nFucking gross", ">\n\nSo still working for the American people I see…", ">\n\nGovernment big dumb circus.", ">\n\nMoonshine and cat houses are next.", ">\n\nnext up for a vote: rolling coal ban lifted in congressional parking lot" ]