|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 12 2023 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:Second batch of Biden-related classified documents found. www.theguardian.comShow nested quote +Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, has said “a small number of documents with classified markings” were discovered on 2 November 2022 in a locked closet at the [Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement] as Biden’s personal lawyers were clearing out the offices. According to Sauber, the lawyers immediately alerted the White House counsel’s office, which notified the National Archives, which took custody of the documents the next day.
...
Trump weighed in on his social media site, demanding: “When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” This is just getting silly now...
This honestly sounds more like an issue with how the US handles classified documents. NARA didn't even know they were missing and Biden's lawyers contacted them as soon as they were found. There should be an evaluation of how classified material is handled when transitioning from one administration to another because things shouldn't slip through the cracks like this, but this isn't anywhere near the issue people on the right want to make it out to be. And this isn't even close to being equivalent to Trump deliberately stealing hundreds of classified records, some of which were TS/SCI, in his final days in office and then refusing to give them back when asked.
|
Definitely agree that there seems to be an issue of process going on that the documents could be unaccounted for in the first place. Knowing the level of anal-retention that goes into a lot of government stuff, this just feels sloppy.
|
On January 12 2023 20:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2023 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:Second batch of Biden-related classified documents found. www.theguardian.comRichard Sauber, special counsel to the president, has said “a small number of documents with classified markings” were discovered on 2 November 2022 in a locked closet at the [Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement] as Biden’s personal lawyers were clearing out the offices. According to Sauber, the lawyers immediately alerted the White House counsel’s office, which notified the National Archives, which took custody of the documents the next day.
...
Trump weighed in on his social media site, demanding: “When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” This is just getting silly now... This is totally different because Trump had to be raided by the FBI to get the documents back whereas nobody even seems to care that Biden appears to have had classified documents from his VP days all over the place.
Why bring it up again after everyone already explained the multitude of differences?
https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=3852#77022
If they find 15 more documents in another place, it'll still be just as false an equivalence.
|
One of them intentionally took boxes full of documents with unknown intent, hid them, refused to return them, ignored a subpoena and had to be raided by the FBI to get the documents back.
The other still had a handful of documents back from when he was allowed to have them, forgot to return them and when they were discovered years later returned them unprompted.
And yet we still have people who seemingly can't understand why these two are vastly different in just about every way?
BlackJack, if you want to convince people you aren't intentionally misrepresenting things, this really isn't the way to go.
|
On January 12 2023 22:36 NewSunshine wrote:
Definitely agree that there seems to be an issue of process going on that the documents could be unaccounted for in the first place. Knowing the level of anal-retention that goes into a lot of government stuff, this just feels sloppy.
I don't think I've ever heard of classified documents being recovered from a former VP's think tank? Seems like this isn't a process issue as much as Biden (and/or his staff) mishandling classified documents in a way that could cost most people their career and/or clearance.
|
if it were SCI documents people should definitely be losing their clearances. if it was Biden himself, then we’re in a bind. is it impeachment worthy? probably not.
|
On January 13 2023 03:10 brian wrote:
if it were SCI documents people should definitely be losing their clearances. if it was Biden himself, then we’re in a bind. is it impeachment worthy? probably not.
The reality is that we can basically never know if there were SCI documents that disappeared/were passed along/stolen while in their possession.
It's completely rational and sorta requisite to no longer give access to classified documents to someone that has demonstrably mishandled them.
Because both leading candidates (and both recent Democrat nominees) fail to clear that basic bar of competence, people are stuck taking the position it's not disqualifying and whataboutisming their way to the next subject.
|
Border crisis update:
During his first visit to the southern border, which finally took place shortly after swearing in a Republican majority in the House, Biden took the time to pose next to a racist monument to white/orange imperialism for a photo op:
+ Show Spoiler +
In the span of 5 years, border crossings have gone from a 50 year low to an all-time high
2017: 415,517
2018: 521,070
2019: 977,509
2020: 458,088
2021: 1,734,686
2022: 2,378,944
The president, who has been quick to blame the fact that he inherited a broken system, and not his appointment of VP Harris as "Border Czar" or the policies of the administration he was a part of from 2009-16, announced an expansion of Title 42, the Trump-era application of public health law to enforce immigration restrictions, which is a reversal from the administration's previous stance of wanting to end Title 42 including Mayorkas's claim that it wouldn't worsen things. The WH press sec's stance is similarly that Biden inherited a mess with respect to immigration.
SCOTUS had put a stay on Title 42 in December and it's expected to come back in February that they will rule whether GOP states have standing to push to keep it.
Colorado, which has a Democratic governor and was bussing migrants to sanctuary jurisdictions in much the same way as Ron DeSantis, is stopping the practice after the mayors of those cities, Lightfoot and Adams, objected they couldn't handle the strain on their resources. Perhaps they should instead request more resources from the federal government to help accommodate their unilateral choice to subvert federal immigration law.
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/08/colorado-polis-migrant-buses-new-york-chicago
Texas's Rep. Pat Fallon introduced articles of impeachment against Mayorkas which will be referred to the Justice Committee chaired by Jim Jordan:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/8/text?r=1&s=1
Mayorkas, the DHS secretary, has historically waffled ever so slightly, denying knowledge of statistics and the existence of a crisis any time he is questioned by Republicans in Congress, but admitting DHS resources are "strained" to center or left journalists. Despite peaks of 8000 crossings a day when 1000 used to be considered crisis levels.
This is a border where illicit drugs flood, exploitation and human trafficking are rampant, people are chasing a false hope of something at great expense both financially and to life and limb. So, cynical though it may be, I'm not impressed by the ability of an administration to take a problem that's reasonably under control, neglect it and make it actively much worse, to later come in with the other side and last guy's same solutions, apply them, try to take credit for improving the situation to where it's back to only just as bad as it was before, and yet then continue to blame the other side for everything despite 2 years of unified government. My suspicion is the current hullabaloo about banning gas stoves is to conserve the fossil fuel reserves for this administration's extensive gas lighting.
|
On January 13 2023 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2023 03:10 brian wrote:
if it were SCI documents people should definitely be losing their clearances. if it was Biden himself, then we’re in a bind. is it impeachment worthy? probably not. The reality is that we can basically never know if there were SCI documents that disappeared/were passed along/stolen while in their possession. It's completely rational and sorta requisite to no longer give access to classified documents to someone that has demonstrably mishandled them. Because both leading candidates (and both recent Democrat nominees) fail to clear that basic bar of competence, people are stuck taking the position it's not disqualifying and whataboutisming their way to the next subject.
Well, isn’t it a special use case for presidents in particular? competent or not, since it’s an elected position, they require clearance. for any other position at all, it’s no clearance get fired all the way, for sure. at least it should be.
:: not an endorsement of the results of any election.
|
On January 13 2023 03:37 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2023 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2023 03:10 brian wrote:
if it were SCI documents people should definitely be losing their clearances. if it was Biden himself, then we’re in a bind. is it impeachment worthy? probably not. The reality is that we can basically never know if there were SCI documents that disappeared/were passed along/stolen while in their possession. It's completely rational and sorta requisite to no longer give access to classified documents to someone that has demonstrably mishandled them. Because both leading candidates (and both recent Democrat nominees) fail to clear that basic bar of competence, people are stuck taking the position it's not disqualifying and whataboutisming their way to the next subject. Well, isn’t it a special use case for presidents in particular? competent or not, since it’s an elected position, they require clearance. for any other position at all, it’s no clearance get fired all the way, for sure. at least it should be. :: not an endorsement of the results of any election.
That's why the career frequently goes away with the clearance. Mishandle classified documents, you get no clearance; you get no clearance, you can't have the job handling classified documents.
Hence my point about people being stuck taking the nonsensical position that mishandling classified documents isn't disqualifying.
|
On January 13 2023 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2023 22:36 NewSunshine wrote:
Definitely agree that there seems to be an issue of process going on that the documents could be unaccounted for in the first place. Knowing the level of anal-retention that goes into a lot of government stuff, this just feels sloppy. I don't think I've ever heard of classified documents being recovered from a former VP's think tank? Seems like this isn't a process issue as much as Biden (and/or his staff) mishandling classified documents in a way that could cost most people their career and/or clearance. I imagine t has happened before. Just that no one really reports about it because its a nothing burger, they are discovered and promptly returned. Its reported now because Trumps case wasn't a nothing burger, he didn't want to give the documents back.
|
Merrick Garland has announced a special counsel to look into the classified documents found in Joe Biden's possession. Personally, this feels like an attempt to not appear partisan when it comes to this issue and I don't expect anything to actually come of it.
|
|
|
On January 13 2023 04:13 StasisField wrote:
Merrick Garland has announced a special counsel to look into the classified documents found in Joe Biden's possession. Personally, this feels like an attempt to not appear partisan when it comes to this issue and I don't expect anything to actually come of it. yep
|
Framing the crisis at the southern border as "too many of them are coming" instead of an inability of the states to absorb the migrants has always seemed a bit off and betrays a lot of the messaging about it.
There are simple and clearly workable solutions to the problem that would benefit texas and the nation but it doesn't seem like they have any solution that doesn't increase government spending and increase suffering of migrants.
Like er all understand these are human beings here right?
|
|
|
|
|
On January 13 2023 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2023 03:37 brian wrote:On January 13 2023 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2023 03:10 brian wrote:
if it were SCI documents people should definitely be losing their clearances. if it was Biden himself, then we’re in a bind. is it impeachment worthy? probably not. The reality is that we can basically never know if there were SCI documents that disappeared/were passed along/stolen while in their possession. It's completely rational and sorta requisite to no longer give access to classified documents to someone that has demonstrably mishandled them. Because both leading candidates (and both recent Democrat nominees) fail to clear that basic bar of competence, people are stuck taking the position it's not disqualifying and whataboutisming their way to the next subject. Well, isn’t it a special use case for presidents in particular? competent or not, since it’s an elected position, they require clearance. for any other position at all, it’s no clearance get fired all the way, for sure. at least it should be. :: not an endorsement of the results of any election. That's why the career frequently goes away with the clearance. Mishandle classified documents, you get no clearance; you get no clearance, you can't have the job handling classified documents. Hence my point about people being stuck taking the nonsensical position that mishandling classified documents isn't disqualifying.
It's also unclear whether it's accurate to say "Biden didn't know about these documents prior to his lawyers finding them." Biden had the documents (some top secret) for six years. Some in his garage, some in a locked safe here (knowledge of sensitivity?), some in a filing cabinet there. Normally, one doesn't randomly end up with classified documents in one's possession. It's entirely possible that his lawyers only "found" and returned them because Trump's documents case blew up. Of course Trump's case is much worse.
|
On January 13 2023 15:45 King_Charles_III wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2023 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2023 03:37 brian wrote:On January 13 2023 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2023 03:10 brian wrote:
if it were SCI documents people should definitely be losing their clearances. if it was Biden himself, then we’re in a bind. is it impeachment worthy? probably not. The reality is that we can basically never know if there were SCI documents that disappeared/were passed along/stolen while in their possession. It's completely rational and sorta requisite to no longer give access to classified documents to someone that has demonstrably mishandled them. Because both leading candidates (and both recent Democrat nominees) fail to clear that basic bar of competence, people are stuck taking the position it's not disqualifying and whataboutisming their way to the next subject. Well, isn’t it a special use case for presidents in particular? competent or not, since it’s an elected position, they require clearance. for any other position at all, it’s no clearance get fired all the way, for sure. at least it should be. :: not an endorsement of the results of any election. That's why the career frequently goes away with the clearance. Mishandle classified documents, you get no clearance; you get no clearance, you can't have the job handling classified documents. Hence my point about people being stuck taking the nonsensical position that mishandling classified documents isn't disqualifying. It's also unclear whether it's accurate to say "Biden didn't know about these documents prior to his lawyers finding them." Biden had the documents (some top secret) for six years. Some in his garage, some in a locked safe here (knowledge of sensitivity?), some in a filing cabinet there. Normally, one doesn't randomly end up with classified documents in one's possession. It's entirely possible that his lawyers only "found" and returned them because Trump's documents case blew up. Of course Trump's case is much worse. Right? Imagine putting documents in a filing cabinet? Who even does that.
/s
|
On January 13 2023 20:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2023 15:45 King_Charles_III wrote:On January 13 2023 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2023 03:37 brian wrote:On January 13 2023 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2023 03:10 brian wrote:
if it were SCI documents people should definitely be losing their clearances. if it was Biden himself, then we’re in a bind. is it impeachment worthy? probably not. The reality is that we can basically never know if there were SCI documents that disappeared/were passed along/stolen while in their possession. It's completely rational and sorta requisite to no longer give access to classified documents to someone that has demonstrably mishandled them. Because both leading candidates (and both recent Democrat nominees) fail to clear that basic bar of competence, people are stuck taking the position it's not disqualifying and whataboutisming their way to the next subject. Well, isn’t it a special use case for presidents in particular? competent or not, since it’s an elected position, they require clearance. for any other position at all, it’s no clearance get fired all the way, for sure. at least it should be. :: not an endorsement of the results of any election. That's why the career frequently goes away with the clearance. Mishandle classified documents, you get no clearance; you get no clearance, you can't have the job handling classified documents. Hence my point about people being stuck taking the nonsensical position that mishandling classified documents isn't disqualifying. It's also unclear whether it's accurate to say "Biden didn't know about these documents prior to his lawyers finding them." Biden had the documents (some top secret) for six years. Some in his garage, some in a locked safe here (knowledge of sensitivity?), some in a filing cabinet there. Normally, one doesn't randomly end up with classified documents in one's possession. It's entirely possible that his lawyers only "found" and returned them because Trump's documents case blew up. Of course Trump's case is much worse. Right? Imagine putting documents in a filing cabinet? Who even does that. /s
Also in his garage next to his corvette.
Clearly a lot of people seem to be certain of stuff they really have no way of knowing. E.g. confidently stating that Biden had these documents from his VP days and forgot to return them as opposed to taking them in boxes when he was leaving the White House. Or that Biden had these during his VP days and was using them for official business and then just forgot to return them and forgot they existed. Nobody here really is privy to the details. The biggest differences between the two are not the indisputable facts but instead the pretext that people want to assign, Trump stole documents for nefarious reasons and Biden just happened to have some that he forgot about. Basically one deserves the benefit of the doubt and the other doesn't, which I don't even entirely disagree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/230108172259-01-biden-el-paso-010823.jpg)
