“I Have No Regrets”: President Biden Breaks Long Silence With Shattering Admission

President Joe Biden has something that he wants the public to know. After the discovery of highly classified material in Biden’s former office, his garage and library, the President wanted to make one thing (and only one thing) perfectly clear: “I have no regrets.”

It was a moment that rivaled his disastrous observation that, while classified material was found in his garage, it is a locked garage that also housed his beloved 1967 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray.

While Biden’s “corvette standard” for storing classified documents was baffling, his declaration of “no regrets” is downright infuriating.  It is also remarkably moronic with a special counsel in the field. Either the President believes that Special Counsel Robert K. Hur will paper over the entire affair or he is doing his best to force his hand with a criminal charge.

Biden was miffed to be even asked about the matter after stonewalling the press for days. He ventured out of his White House bunker to tour storm damage in California and used the victims as a virtual human shield: “You know what, quite frankly, bugs me is that we have a serious problem here we’re talking about. We’re talking about what’s going on. And the American people don’t quite understand why you don’t ask me questions about that.”

The problem is that recent polls show that, while the President has no regrets, the public overwhelmingly does. Most citizens view his conduct as negligent. Roughly two-thirds believe that Congress should investigate the President, including a majority of Democrats. Sixty percent believe that he acted inappropriately with classified material.

Nevertheless, after days of hunkering down with this aides and polls, Biden decided to stick with total and absolute denial of regret or responsibility. It was not a surprise for many of us who have following Biden and his family through the years.

I wrote at the start of this scandal that Biden’s “silence is hardly surprising. Biden has always been better at expressing revulsion than responsibility. Time and again, he has literally rushed before cameras to denounce others, often without basis, for alleged crimes. He has not waited for investigations, let alone trials.” When it has come to his own alleged misconduct, Biden will deflect, deny, but rarely declare responsibility.

The comments on Thursday were classic Biden. He first deflected by using the California victims. He then denied any real responsibility. Despite the appointment of a special counsel to investigate his conduct, he shrugged off the entire matter as something akin to finding a neighbor’s borrowed hammer from 2017 in his garage: “We found a handful of documents were filed in the wrong place. We immediately turned them over to the Archives and the Justice Department …I think you’re going to find there’s nothing there. I have no regrets. I’m following what the lawyers have told me they want me to do. It’s exactly what we’re doing. There’s no there there.”

Of course, there is also a special counsel “there.”

Indeed, it is never a good idea to go public with expressions of no regret when you are being investigated on whether you took classification laws seriously. The statement was right out of the Alex Baldwin School of Criminal Defense in claiming that the gun did it. Fortunately, the President is not (yet) saying that the Corvette did it.

Since the standard is gross mishandling of classified evidence, the last thing you want to do is convey a grossly negligent attitude toward the discovery of highly classified material in your various private spaces. The President even added that he is “looking forward to getting this resolved quickly.” That quick resolution is less likely when you are telling the special counsel that this is no big deal. That is precisely the type of attitude that leads to classified material being stored with your corvette.

It is hard to imagine how Biden’s legal and political team would come up with this as the best approach when the President finally broke his silence. There is a difference between denying and dismissing an alleged crime. As a criminal defense attorney, I would be mortified by a client publicly dismissing the seriousness of a potential crime while he is under investigation. For most defendants, it would constitute “bearding the lion” and prosecutors would not take kindly to the approach.

Of course, the President could be counting on his prior declaration that “no one f**ks with a Biden.” However, he may be saying the quiet part out loud and putting Hur in an early and uncomfortable position. There is a “there there.” It is classified evidence in places like a garage. By stating that this is likely to wrap up quickly, Biden is not only showing little appreciation for the seriousness of the alleged crime but the seriousness of the investigation. He is not only making Hur look like a stooge or cipher. He is making Baldwin look like a comparative genius.

A version of this column also appeared on Fox.com

283 thoughts on ““I Have No Regrets”: President Biden Breaks Long Silence With Shattering Admission”

  1. OT:

    Recalling the Leftist Billionaire George Soros financed State Attorney Andrew Warren in Hillsborough County / Tampa whom Florida Gov Ron DeSantis fired for selectively enforcing Florida Statutes, now comes a ruling by a Federal Judge in N. Florida, siding with the Soros Marxist lawyer. NB: Federal Judge was nominated by Bill Clinton. But of course.

    Not sure if it makes any sense for Gov DeSantis office to appeal but next steps should be interesting, considering the Federal Judge dismissed the case but made it a point to make a political statement. No doubt George Soros paid for the legal fees.

    So thankful that democrats have taught Americans that rulings by Federal Judges are to be viewed with the lens of which President and political party nominated them. Karma ran over their dogma

    👍🏽

    DeSantis Violated Florida Constitution But Fired Prosecutor Won’t Get Job Back: Judge

    A Florida prosecutor who Gov. Ron DeSantis had suspended will remain out of office since a federal judge on Friday ruled that he does not have the power to reinstate the prosecutor — despite ruling that the removal violated the First Amendment and Florida Constitution.

    https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/desantis-violated-florida-constitution-but-fired-prosecutor-wont-get-job-back-judge/2955022/

    1. This is ludicrously stupid – Federal courts CAN NOT rule on State constitutional issues.

      This is LITTERALLY one of the complexities that SCOTUS is currently addressing in the constitutional election case regarding the power of state courts over federal elections.

      Atleast there the Federal courts have a hook because it is FEDERAL elections.

      1. Please explain.
        A State Prosecutor sues the Governor of the State, for suspending him…on 1st amendment violations.
        In a FEDERAL court.
        A FEDERAL judge accepts the suit, then declares it a STATE jurisdiction. Declares DeSantis is wrong, but the prosecutor is still fired.

        IANAL, but it appears the Judge took the case just to get a dig in at DeSantis.

        .

      2. More accurate headline

        Judge Dismisses George Soros Prosecutor Lawsuit Against DeSantis

        Had this been a lawyer aligned with the Federalist Society, we know what the headlines would have been

      3. John Say – I suspect a federal court could make a decision based on a state constitution, where the decision operated to decide a case before the court. But the decision would not be binding on courts or executives in that state.

        1. As I think about it there are very narrow circumstances under which Federal courts apply state laws and constitutions.
          But it is NOT common, and I am virtually Certain THIS is not one of those cases.

          As I recall it has something to do with Federal courts actually trying state cases where there are jurisdictional diversity issues.

          It is NOT when a government employee is making a 1st amendment employment claim.

          While it is probably not ABSOLUTE that federal courts never apply state law or constitution – it is NEAR absolute.

          Again SCOTUS is taking up exactly that issue in the ISL case before it right now.
          But even there – elections are FEDERAL Elections. And what SCOTUS is really trying to decide is the extent to which State Courts and State Laws apply to Federal Elections and whether State Courts have the power of judicial review over Federal elections.

          What appears to be CURRENTLY the case is that Federal courts can in RARE cases overrule State Courts decisions on State Laws and constitutions in Federal elections. But by Overrule, what I mean is that they can reject the states ability to apply SOME State Constitutional provisions to federal elections.

          The Current actual ISL framework that plantiffs are trying to sell to the court is NOT removing state courts or state executives or state constitutions from Federal elections. It is just limiting them to Procedural rather than substantive determinations.

          I beleive the broader ISL claim – NOT currently before SCOTUS, that Federal elections are the domain of the federal government AND State legislatures. is the constitutionally correct approach.

          That said, I do not think that is a Fix for any problem. We are as likely to have conservative courts contraint left wing executives or legislatures as to have left wing courts expand conservative legislatures.
          Put differently there is NOT a right answer.

          As a libertarain I want Activist courts – I want courts to strike down laws that infringe on liberty. What I do not want is courts that legislate.
          There is a huge difference between telling a legislature – This law is unconstitutional – fix it it you wish to keep it.
          And This law is unconstitutional – here we will fix it for you.

          But what is going on here is absurd. It is pretty much the opposite of the way STOTUS is heading.
          Federal courts can not make substantive decisions regarding state constitutions.

  2. Looking into Trump’s possession of documents and looking into Biden’s possession of documents needs to be done. But to be honest I’m curious how many top secret documents are improperly stored at the homes and hard drives of all the generals/admirals, cabinet secretaries, appointees (past & present). The Trump/Biden issues are important and arguably newsworthy, but just how bad is the DC sieve of the nation’s secrets?

    We seem to do a terrible job with this, and my guess is problem is more sloppiness than nefarious.

    1. Biden said: EGRESS. “I have no egress. No means of egress from my predicament! Where da fire extinguishers and fire alarm pull stations at? I have no egress!”

  3. Turley sure loves to play words out o context for effect. Since he didn’t include the entire paragraph where that phrase appeared–for obvious reasons—he proceeds to create an entirely different narrative that is nowhere near the truth. Just close enough to be credible. A lot of the things Turley questions about Biden he never bothered to put against Trump —again for obvious reasons— because he doesn’t want to be as harsh as he is with Biden. He doesn’t want to alienate his readers and his ever popular “record views” on his blog. He knows what feeds the rage with his readership and he knows what sells interviews on Fox. Turley is a criminal defense attorney and it’s a sure bet that if Trump asked him to defend him he would say no. Because Turley already knows that Trump is known for ruining careers of those who chose to work for him.

    Biden’s handling of classified documents should be investigated, but most people don’t realize that Bide OR Trump don’t do the menial work of retrieving or returning documents and making sure they are logged or recovered. That’s the job of staffers and people purposely hired to handle such documents. Any president or Vice President or even a congressman with clearance can ask for documents or sees them as part of their daily routine are always handled by someone else who knows the rules. The documents found in Biden’s garage may have been information that is no longer valuable as ‘classified’ material. The same can be said about the documents found in the think tank. They may still be classified, but the value of the information may no longer be relevant.

    Government does have a bad habit of over classifying information that may only be relevant for a few weeks or even days. That would explain the ‘haphazard’ attitude about certain classified documents. Now there is a more serious issue when it comes to TS/SCI documents which ARE always relevant because such a designation means they are always meant to be seen only by those specifically authorized AND handled in a very specific way. TS/SCI pages were found in Biden’s garage and that certianly merits an investigation. That doesn’t mean it lets Trump off the hook. He is still liable for prosecution because he took them believing they were his to keep. Someone around Trump was either not authorized or was not trained on the handling of such documents that they blindly obeyed trump when he ordered them to pack them and send them to MAL. Somebody didn’t do their job and as it’s well known of the Trump administration. It was chock full of sycophants and incompetents always going around those who were trying to keep Trump in check by reminding him that certain things couldn’t be done. There was always that one staffer who wanted to please Trump. The useful brown noser.

    Biden won’t be punished. Trump is more likely going to be. He’s not president and he does not have the immunity that Biden has. Trump faces a much bigger legal problem than Biden and Trump supporters don’t want to really acknowledge it, instead they want to deflect and critics Biden because Trump is still president in their little deluded minds.

    1. Svelaz @ 2:22 pm – you say: “He is still liable for prosecution because he took them believing they were his to keep.” I don’t believe that is the legal standard. He could be liable under the Espionage Act, if documents contained “National Defense Information” and he refused a request from the proper authority to surrender them. He could also be liable if he mishandled, with gross negligence, classified documents while they were in his care. But the latter legal theory has more application to Biden than Trump. And of course some are trying to argue that Trump’s contesting of the subpoena issued by the DOJ was “obstruction of justice.”

  4. “There’s no there there.” Joe’s more literate than anyone gives him credit for, because he’s quoting Gertrude Stein’s description of Oakland, CA, from where Alice B. Toklas came. Who’d have thunk it?

  5. I’m sorry, but if you are still voting for American Democrats, if you still believe American Democrats are still an American Party that has any regard whatsoever for the rule of law or the Constitution, you are every bit the useful idiots they think you are. They no longer even say it in silence. *Wake up*.

  6. Dear Prof Turley,

    In your long experience handling TS/SCI materials (‘since Reagan’), have any of them, to your knowledge, ever contained illegal or unconstitutional information/acts by the ‘classification authority’ or other public officials? As I understand it, classifying illegal/unconstitutional acts/information is a crime? Asking for a friend(s).

    I’m only asking because much of the TS/SCI materials I’ve been [accidently] exposed to [in the media] over the past 20 years has been blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. *see e.g. @ Assange and Snowden

    Whether it’s here, there or everywhere, everybody knows Biden has never had any regrets and takes classified documents very seriously. For the record, ‘it’s not a lie if you believe it’.

    For the record, everybody knows Biden builds back better.

    * I have heard That guilty creatures sitting at a play Have, by the very cunning of the scene, Been struck so to the soul that presently They have proclaimed their malefactions .. . but I doubt any of them will be subject to the new House oversight committee investigations.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjpxB9P5WbE

  7. Joe has had his sense of entitlement reinforced for half a century.
    He has zero realization of the incredible hypocrisy and broken laws he’s guilty of.

      1. @ dgsnowden

        There are indeed degrees of moronic, and the idjit dem voters that seem to think this is a problem with ‘just’ Biden do not grasp that it is the problem with entire modern dem ‘party’, likely for eternity. I do not know how hard you have to slap people upside the head for them to get it. Your average dem voter over forty still thinks that voting non-dem means you want to skin black people alive and burn gay people at the stake. They do not, will not, see what they are actually supporting. It is *maddening*, and between them and their idiot children, we could lose the country. The founders likely never imagined we would be done in by lazy ignorance, but that is where we are. People in the more insular pockets of the country still think nothing has changed since 1962, and they honestly believe it.

  8. Everyone avoids the most crucial point:
    BIDEN TOOK THESE DOCUMENTS WITHOUT AUTHORITY. NO Presidential Records Act to protect him.
    No SCIF.
    That’s the most salient violation. That’s NOT negligence.

      1. mistressadams – if he has no idea how these documents ended up in his garage, next to his beloved Corvette, what else does he not know? “Damn, where did those nuclear codes go? There were here a couple years ago. I thiink I gave them to Hunter.”

    1. It is possible to argue that Biden did not Take these documents illegally – atleast not to his DE home.
      The reporting I am getting claims there was a SCIF and Ex-VP office at the home – and to my knowledge no one has searched it.
      Nor should they. So long as Hunter did not have access.

      Biden’s problem is that the documents we know about were all found outside the SCIF and ex-VP office.

      This is negligence, and it is a violation of 18 US 793(f).

      Biden before today has admitted as much – he really had no choice. His best defense is accidental – and it is a piss poor one.

      “how anyone can be that irresponsible, I thought, what data was in there that may compromise sources and methods? And by that, I mean, names of people who help etc., and it’s just totally irresponsible.”
      Pres. Biden

      1. John Say – if Hunter rented or even owned the house, as he claims, why would he not access to the SCIF? Even if the door was locked, it should have easy to pick the lock, drill out the lock, or open the window. Even if he couldn’t, some of his foreign friends could have,

        1. I agree.

          Though the Biden center is even less secure. It is a private building not a residence, and though it is possible that “security” is higher.
          There is infinitely more “access”. Meaning it is far easier to break into a secured building – when you have infinite time to plan research and address all the security, than it is a private home where your access is dependent on another person.

          Though one of Joe’s huge problems is that mentioning the name Hunter Biden in the context of classified documents or security is just hilarious

          I actually doubt Hunter sold documents to the Chinese. I doubt he thought about it, and I doubt he noticed them.

          But I do not doubt that he would do so for money.

  9. So Joe said that he couldn’t believe how irresponsible Trump was concerning classified documents but he has no regrets that he was irresponsible concerning classified documents. It sounds like the ramblings of a dog faced pony soldier. My dog is sad that I’m mad at him for pooping on the carpet but like Joe he has no regrets because like Joe he doesn’t understand what regret is. Like Joe my dog just doesn’t want to be in trouble.

  10. The Pres: “Where should I Go? What shall I do”?

    “Frankly, I don’t give a damn”. But please exit stage left and be gone with Mariah. “Her hair smells sooo divine”!

  11. Professor Turley writes: “Since the standard is gross mishandling of classified evidence, the last thing you want to do is convey a grossly negligent attitude toward the discovery of highly classified material in your various private spaces.” Should the special counsel order an EEG to be sure that Biden isn’t storing TS/SI material in his apparently vacant cranial cavity?

    1. Gross mishandling is not the only standard. There’s also negligent. But I doubt any of those standards will apply. Turley mentions gorse mishandling only because it’s the worst you can use even though Turley doesn’t mention what actions define ‘gross mishandling’.

      Turmp’s own mishandling of documents can also be characterized as ‘gross mishandling’.

      1. No Neglect is NOT a standard – negligence is. Though from the same root, Neglect is passive. There are no passive crimes.
        Negligence is the same as Gross misshandling – enless that mishandling reaches the next higher crime – Recklessness.

        It would be extremely hard to make a case that Trump neglected allegedly classified documents by leaving them in a SCIF.
        It is impossible to reach negligence, much less recklessness.

        Having Classified documents outside of a SCIF or secure offices and not in your personal posession – is regligence – unless it is recklessness.
        Only Biden shows evidence of negligence or recklessness.

        Those BTW are the actual standards in the law.

        1. “ Negligence is the same as Gross misshandling – ”

          Nope.

          They are two different things.

          There’s Civil negligence, Crinimal negligence they each have their own specific legal definitions.

          Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise a degree of care that, in normal circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons and/or their interests. Which is what Tump can be charged with.

          “ It would be extremely hard to make a case that Trump neglected allegedly classified documents by leaving them in a SCIF.
          It is impossible to reach negligence, much less recklessness.”

          It would be easy actually. MAL’s SCIF was no longer active when Trump left office. Remember, Biden barred Trump from getting national security briefings which is customary for ex presidents. Trump’s security clearance was revoked. So negligence, even criminal negligence would apply. Because he no longer had a security clearance harboring classified documents, especially TS/SCI would be considered a crime under the the espionage act. Under 793(f) of the act,

          “ Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
          Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

          The key requirement to be able to prosecute under this section would be proving intent. Trump already showed he intended to keep these documents regardless of what the government said. That’s literally theft. Trump had no right to have these classified documents and despite his claim he declassified them he has never proved he did. TS/SCI documents cannot be declassified by mere thought or waving of the hand or simply moving them home as president. Trump or his staff ever showed records or evidence that they were declassified. So they are legally deemed classified until proven otherwise.

          1. I am not following you down another rat-hole of legal incompetence.

            Negligence – particularly criminal negligence REQUIRES an ACT.

            It is near certain the move of Document to MAL was done legally. If you beleive otherwise – demonstrate that Trump ordered or personally moved the documents After he was president.
            In theory it is possible that GSA moved them “inadvertantly” – that would be a crime on the part of someone in the GSA not Trump.

            Specifically Because Trump retained his security clearance, he also retained a duty to protect the documents – if they are still classified.
            The SCIF and his office at MAL meet that duty – as Would Biden’s if that was where the documents were found – but it was not.

            If as you claim Biden revoked Trump’s security clearance – while the documents were at MAL – then he also revoked the requirement to protect them.

            There are only very very narrow circumstances in which the espionage act applies to private actors without security clearance.
            I am not aware as an example of A Journalist being prosecuted under the Espionage act. But the people with clearances who leak to journallists are all the time.

            Arguably if Biden actually revoked Trump’s clearance while he knew Trump was in posession of classified documents then Biden declassified them.

            What you do not get – and neither did the 11th Appelate is that presidents and Ex-presidents and to a lessor extent ex-vice presidents ARE different BY LAW, and By constitution.

            The president CAN NOT violate the espionage act.

      2. No Trump’s handling can not be described as Gross Mishandling. But Biden’s can.

        There is no evidence todate that Trump documents left the SCIF or ex-Presidential offices.

        We now know for certaint that Biden had a SCIF and Ex-VP office in his DE home.
        There is no discussion of finding classified documents in those locations.

        Because having classiffied documents in those locations would not be illegal.
        Just as it is not for Trump.

        The question regarding Biden is why weren’t these documents in the ex-VP office or SCIF ?

        That is gross mishandling.

        1. “ There is no evidence todate that Trump documents left the SCIF or ex-Presidential offices.”

          They were found in Trump’s office. His office was NOT an SCIF. Not after Biden barred Trump from receiving national security briefings. The MAL SCIF was deactivated when he ceased being president due to Biden’s order. They were found in his office in an unlocked drawer on his desk. Cleaning ladies were allowed in the room, staff without proper security clearance were allowed in. That was not SCIF standard. Furthermore there were no people with top secret security clearances on the property to be able to handle TS/SCI documents legally.

          “ The question regarding Biden is why weren’t these documents in the ex-VP office or SCIF ?

          The argument often made by Trump supporters is that MAL was a secure facility because it had Secret service monitoring. Biden’s home would be monitored by the secret service as well. Wouldn’t the same argument be fair to make? Therefore making Biden just as innocent as Trump?

          1. “They were found in Trump’s office.”
            Correct.
            But it is secure – just as it was when he was president – just as Biden’s ex-VP office is secure, and it too contains a SCIF.

            ” His office was NOT an SCIF. Not after Biden barred Trump from receiving national security briefings.
            The MAL SCIF was deactivated when he ceased being president due to Biden’s order.”
            You seem to think words change facts. It is not like an alter in a church, where when you remove the relics it is no longer sacred.

            The SCIF and Presidential office remain exactly as they were when Trump was president – just as Biden’s DE office and SCIF remain as they were when he was VP.

            Had Biden’s docs been found in the SCIF or his VP’s offices AND those were still secured by the SS – we would not be here.

            “They were found in his office in an unlocked drawer on his desk. Cleaning ladies were allowed in the room, staff without proper security clearance were allowed in.”
            Sources ? Do you really think that the people who come into Trump’s residence have not been throughly vetted by the SS and FBI ?

            “That was not SCIF standard.”
            What no one cleaned his office at MAL when Trump was president ?
            Does no one clean the White House ? The Oval Office ?

            “Furthermore there were no people with top secret security clearances on the property to be able to handle TS/SCI documents legally.”
            Of course there were – Both Trump and all appointed officieholders of an administration retain their security clearances AFTER leaving office.
            Trump continues to retain an all access to anything clearance.

            While You are correct that Biden has very unusually deprived Trump of the PDB Briefs that all ex-presidents get.
            He has not rescinded Obama’s EO or otherwise modified it.

            As such Biden can disapprove of a request by Trump for classified information – but without an Executive order which has not occred he can not rescind his security clearance.

            Biden has the power to do so. But like Trump he can not do so by telepathy.
            EO’s are overridden by new EOs.

            “The argument often made by Trump supporters is that MAL was a secure facility because it had Secret service monitoring. Biden’s home would be monitored by the secret service as well. Wouldn’t the same argument be fair to make? Therefore making Biden just as innocent as Trump?”

            As I understand it ex-VP’s are protected by the SS for 6 months. If I am in correct – correct me.
            Regardless, even under the broadest of your arguments – the SS does not protect the Biden Center.
            Further Even as VP, Biden had to have classified docs in his personal possession OR in the SCIF or a vice presidential office – preferably locked.

            I do not trust you or the media sufficient to to accept that Trump documents were found in an unlocked drawer in his desk in the ex-presidential office.

            If they were – that is a minor Faux Paux. It does not approach – being unlocked in the garage, and it is light years from at the chinese funded Biden Center.

            1. “ The SCIF and Presidential office remain exactly as they were when Trump was president – just as Biden’s DE”

              Trump’s office was not secure. It did not meet SCIF standards. Biden barred Trump from receiving national security briefings. Trump’s SCIF is no longer active. Nobody on his staff at MAL has a security clearance high enough to handle TC/SCI documents. Trump no longer has a security clearance.

              The MAL SCIF designation is no longer active.

              “ You seem to think words change facts. It is not like an alter in a church, where when you remove the relics it is no longer sacred.”

              John. In order to have an active SCIF there has to be staff who have the security clearance to handle the documents. None of Trump’s staff have such a clearance. NONE have claimed they have in court or in legal motions.

              “ As such Biden can disapprove of a request by Trump for classified information – but without an Executive order which has not occred he can not rescind his security clearance.”

              Biden doesn’t need an executive order to rescind Trump’s security clearance. He can bar him from getting any classified material just as he barred him from getting any national security briefings. Biden can simply tell a staffer to revoke his security clearance and the appropriate process is followed. He doesn’t have to announce it publicly either.

              “ Of course there were – Both Trump and all appointed officieholders of an administration retain their security clearances AFTER leaving office.
              Trump continues to retain an all access to anything clearance.”

              Not for TS/SCI. Very few people have that level of clearance and they can only access it on a need to know basis. Trump or any of his staff have no need to know anything. When Biden barred Trump from getting national security briefings he effectively revoked his clearance. After the raid at MAL and subsequent finding of classified material in unsecured locations it’s plausible to assume his security clearance was revoked. No president has a right to a security clearance. That’s granted to them as ex-president as a courtesy, not a law requiring it. Biden can revoke Trump’s security clearance if he chooses to. Trump is merely a private citizen with the title of “ex-president”.

              “ As I understand it ex-VP’s are protected by the SS for 6 months. If I am in correct – correct me.”

              The vice president gets full-time protection while in office and for six months after leaving office. That service then stops unless he or she wishes to pay for it or the government itself, by special provision, extends the protection. So it could be he either paid for it or there was a special provision we don’t know about.

              I do not trust you or the media sufficient to to accept that Trump documents were found in an unlocked drawer in his desk in the ex-presidential office”.

              That’s straight from the FBI, not me or the media. The list of what was found where is filed by he FBI as part of the conclusion of the search warrant after they are done.

              There’s a distinction between MAL and Biden’s home. MALis a sprawling golf club where a lot of people visit including foreign nationals. Biden’s home is his private home. The risk is much lower there than at MAL. Especially with the reputation trump has about yapping and showing off his ‘cool swag’ from the WH. Trump was sloppy with classified information. Chinese agents have been caught at MAL with thumb drives before. Which do you think is more at risk?

              1. You left out that Trump has guaranteed, unlimited, UNRESTRICTED access to classified materials under the Presidential Records Act, and neither the President or the FBI can restrict it, pursuant to statute:

                44 U.S. Code § 2205 – EXCEPTIONS to RESTRICTED access:
                (3) the Presidential records of a former President SHALL BE AVAILABLE to such former President or the former President’s designated representative.

                And Biden does NOT have the benefit of this statute.

                1. Bill, that section pertains to access to presidential records. Not classified documents. That’s a whole different category.

                  Access does not mean possession. Presidential records that are not classified are accessible upon request of NARA.

                  NARA retains possession and control of presidential records. Meaning Trump can’t keep those records on his property to access at will, especially original documents.

                  1. Svelaz – “Presidential records” and “classified documents” can be one and the same. The term “presidential record” is vague and subject to dispute. Contrarily, a classified record bears clear markings. It appears to be the actual operating position of the DOJ that some classified records may be retained by ex-government personell in some cases. James Comey is reportedly holding classified documents without any complaint by the DOJ. Nor should there be if they contain no “national defense information” and he is holding them in a secure location. The government does not need possession of every classified document ever produced. As to Trump’s classified documents, if they are copies of other documents already in the possession of the government, it is hard for me to see why they need to be surrendered at all, as long as they are kept in a secure locatoin.

                  2. Since when were classified documents separated from Presidential documents??
                    The statute says RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY.

                    So since restrictions do not apply,,, where in the statute does it say that the former President cannot have possession – since he has access?

                    And where does it say he has to forfeit that access perfected by possession upon demand of the archivist???

                    You lose.

                    You lose.

              2. “Trump’s office was not secure.”
                It is no less secure than it was in 2020.
                “It did not meet SCIF standards.”
                It is no less secure than in 2020.
                “Biden barred Trump from receiving national security briefings.”
                No Biden allegedly denied Trump PDB Breifings. That is all that has been reported.

                “Trump’s SCIF is no longer active.”
                Then neither is the Biden VP one or the several other Exp-residents SCIF’s
                Do you really beleive there are no documents in those ?

                “Nobody on his staff at MAL has a security clearance high enough to handle TC/SCI documents.”
                Trump does, It is near certain the SS does, it is likely many people at or visiting MAL do.

                “Trump no longer has a security clearance.”
                False.

                “The MAL SCIF designation is no longer active.”
                It had allegedly TS/SCI documents in it – seems active to me.

                “John. In order to have an active SCIF there has to be staff who have the security clearance to handle the documents.”
                Not True. The SCIF at the defense contractor I worked for years ago. had ONE FSO who worked 5×8 – yet the SCIF was there 24×7.

                “None of Trump’s staff have such a clearance. NONE have claimed they have in court or in legal motions.”
                You keep this stupid nonsense constantly that any made up requirement of yours is not only true, but is not met, because you are unaware of anyone contradicting it.

                Trump’s civil suite was not a trial for violating the espionage act. Trump’s filings include only the claims he feels are relevant to the civil suit.
                Possibly not all of those. A plantiff is NOT required to state EVERY possible supportive fact in their briefs, only enough to get to court.
                A plantif is not even required to make every argument or assert every fact in a hearing.

                “Biden doesn’t need an executive order to rescind Trump’s security clearance.”
                Yes, he does. While the order need not be a formal written order – just as declassifying documents need not be a formal written order,
                To override the Obama EO Biden must do so specifically.

                “He can bar him from getting any classified material just as he barred him from getting any national security briefings.”
                Again Biden allegedly removed Trump from the PDB briefing list – that is all.

                “Biden can simply tell a staffer to revoke his security clearance”
                That is partly correct. Biden can limit or revoke Trump’s access verbally.
                There is no formal process that needs to be followed. It does not have to be done publicly.
                HOWEVER Both Trump and anyone who might provide him classified information MUST be notified.
                Unlike declassification that does not require the broad dissemination of knowledge of the action.
                Revoking a clearance DOES.

                Without officially notifying Trump, he retains the legal power to access what is in his possession,
                as well as whatever he requests and is provided by those in government.

                I would further note that if you ACTUALLY revoke Trump’s security clearance, you also revoke the Duty to protect classified material.
                There are extremely few if any prosecutions under the espionage act of people who do not have a duty to protect NDI.
                WaPo and NYT have not been prosecuted for violating the espionage act. In fact SCOTUS allowed them to publish Top Secret information in their posession that government had demanded back that was not yet published

                Put simply the duty to protect government secrets comes with the security clearance.

                As an another example – Though she was prosecuted for other crimes, Petreaus’s paramour was not prosecuted for violating the espionage act even though she accessed highly classified documents.

                If Biden entirely revoked Trump’s clearance, he concurrently revokes his duty to protect.

                “and the appropriate process is followed.”
                There is no required process beyond informing those who need to know.
                But informing them – including the person with the clearance is required.

                Conversley Biden can say “Do not give Trump any more PDB Breifings”. So long as those who do PDB’s are informed, that takes effect immediately. But it has no effect on Trump’s ability to ask the CIA for classified material. It also has no effect on Trump’s clearance which aside from being revokable but the current president, is the same as he had as president.

                “He doesn’t have to announce it publicly either.”
                Never said he did.

                “Not for TS/SCI. ”
                I had a TS/SCI clearance, Probably 2/3 of the people working at Anzus when I was there had TS/SCI clearances.

                https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/16722628/rockwell-collins-acquires-anzus-inc-and-enhances-tactical-data-link-networkcentric-operations-capabilities

                “Very few people have that level of clearance and they can only access it on a need to know basis. Trump or any of his staff have no need to know anything.”
                By EO ex-ppresidents and VP’s do not have to meet need to know requirements.

                “When Biden barred Trump from getting national security briefings he effectively revoked his clearance.”
                Nope.

                ” After the raid at MAL and subsequent finding of classified material in unsecured locations it’s plausible to assume his security clearance was revoked.”
                You can beleive whatever you want.

                Has Biden’s clearance been revoked ? Of course not, it can’t be.

                “No president has a right to a security clearance.”
                False. I beleive you mean Ex-President.

                “That’s granted to them as ex-president as a courtesy, not a law requiring it.”
                It is granted to them by Executive order. That is fundimentally the same as law in the domain of executive powers outside of congresses power to limit.

                ” Biden can revoke Trump’s security clearance if he chooses to.”
                Or anyone else’s. But like Trump he can not do so merely by thinking it.

                “Trump is merely a private citizen with the title of “ex-president”.”
                By law and EO he is a bit more than that.

                “That’s straight from the FBI, not me or the media. The list of what was found where is filed by he FBI as part of the conclusion of the search warrant after they are done.”
                Then you can cite it – which I doubt – as Part of Cannon’s order was to provide exactly that, and that was not completed before the 11th appellate incorrectly revoked her jurisdiction.

                “There’s a distinction between MAL and Biden’s home. MALis a sprawling golf club where a lot of people visit including foreign nationals. Biden’s home is his private home.”

                Correct. But references to MAL in the context here are specific to Trump’s residence at MAL – whcih BEFORE he was president were an order of magnitude more secure than Biden’s DE home.

                Biden’s home is on a public street, with Public access. There does not even appear to be security camera’s.

                “The risk is much lower there than at MAL.”
                ROFL. I will give you $100 if you can put your hand on Trump’s actual residence – Not the wall around it.

                Anyone can get to Biden’s garage door.

                “Especially with the reputation trump has about yapping and showing off his ‘cool swag’ from the WH.”
                Again – if you are invited into Trump’s residence, you are logged. We can check who he brought to see his Cool Swag.
                And we can ask SS agents who was allowed into the presidential offices, and who accessed the SCIF.
                As well as reviewing the video – which FBI has.

                We have NONE of this at Biden’s DE home.
                That absence is by definition LESS SECURE.

                “Trump was sloppy with classified information.”
                Because you say so.

                “Chinese agents have been caught at MAL with thumb drives before.”
                Not agents. Chinese immigrants. One was a Chinese Business woman who aparently had also targeted Buffet, and Clinton.
                But was caught by SS at the Resort, not Trump’s residence by the SS – i.e. Security worked.

                The same woman may well have been to Biden’s DE home and we would not know.

                Oddly you seem to think that proof that security works is proof there is no security.

  12. Biden has no regrets, regrettably, but Americans are expressing increasing regret about how Biden manhandled Americans re: COVID-19, among other issues. Their dissatisfaction will only increase, along with a precipitous decrease in trust in their Federal Government, as they learn of the latest figures reflecting the infectious fatality rates (IFR) of COVID-19. I argued on here in 2020-21 that the IFR ~ 0.03% for those under age 70. Now there is enough global data to calculate these results based on age groups, and no one is better capable than Stanford’s epidemiological genius, Dr John P A Ioannidis, MD, PhD.

    The Left Wing news media is not discussing Dr Ioannidis’s most recent published paper because censorship and pushing their preferred narrative are their M.O. Note the IFR for children. Here are the highlights from the paper published in Jan 2023:

    Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population

    Across 31 systematically identified national seroprevalence studies in the pre-vaccination era, the median infection fatality rate of COVID-19 was estimated to be 0.034% for people aged 0–59 years people and 0.095% for those aged 0–69 years. The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0–19 years, 0.002% at 20–29 years, 0.011% at 30–39 years, 0.035% at 40–49 years, 0.123% at 50–59 years, and 0.506% at 60–69 years. At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0–59 and 0–69 year old people, respectively. These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested.

    Pezzullo AM, Axfors C, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Apostolatos A, Ioannidis JPA. Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population. Environ Res. 2023 Jan 1;216(Pt 3):114655. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114655.

    1. I have always been shocked at this notion that the democrats are the party of science.
      Th left takes science about as seriously as Biden takes classified documents.

      All hat no Cattle.

      Recently environmental revelations found:

      Covid resulted in dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions and other air pollutants.
      But dramatic increases in methane – which is 28-90 times as potent a GHG as CO2.

      Why ? Because more sunlight hit wetlands resulting in more methane.
      But the left FIGHTS human efforts to reduce wetlands.
      And there are far less wetlands today than 200 years ago.

  13. Maybe Turley would like the SCOTUS to investigate, or better yet, how about John Durham, word is he’s doing nothing.

  14. But you voted for him, right? I wonder if Jonathan will ever actually get ahead of a story? The details of all this aren’t nearly as important as knowing what classified info Joe took? And be clear, the SCI stuff could only have been removed by Joe. Why? I’ve heard they addresses China and Ukraine – two nations paying his son millions? Uh, is it me or would this not be what’s referred to as a “lead” in law enforcement? I do realize I’m one of the great unwashed and I’m not EVEN a lawyer, but to me that’s the huge risk/issue here that needs to be addressed. Joe invites this suspicion by supporting his sons shakedowns (all documented and clear now, there is not question that this was happening).

    Are we going to get to the actual nature of the information stolen, ever?

  15. Call me cynical, but my bet is that Biden knows the liberal media will cover for him, Hur will throw the case, the WH press core will calm down and go back to being lapdogs, and his faithful Democratic base will defend him to the death. Why wouldn’t he be arrogant and cocky?

  16. “It is also remarkably moronic with a special counsel in the field. Either the President believes that Special Counsel Robert K. Hur will paper over the entire affair or he is doing his best to force his hand with a criminal charge.”
    **************************************
    If ever the 25th Amendment needed to be triggered, it’s here.

  17. President Joe Biden has something that he wants the public to know.

    This is my town. All I here from you spineless cowards is how poor you are & you can’t afford my taxes & protection. If you live to see the sun rise, it’s because I allow it.

    “I have no regrets”

  18. (OT)

    Yesterday, a federal judge in Florida sanctioned Trump and his attorneys over $900K for what he said is a pattern of abusing the court system for political purposes. It’s quite the opinion (e.g., “Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer”): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.302.0.pdf

    1. By the order’s very vituperative tone, it invites an appeal and seemingly proves the judge as a partisan. Not very smart by the judge but he’s a Dim and Clinton nominee. I wouldn’t start the parade just yet.

      1. “Mr. Trump’s lawyers saw no professional impediment or irony in relying upon Russian intelligence as the good faith basis for their allegation.” LOL.

      1. This was a civil suit. If Biden broke a civil law, nothing prevents the aggrieved person from filing suit. E. Jean Carroll filed a civil suit against Trump while he was President, and it will finally go to trial this spring. Did you see Trump’s deposition that was released recently? Trump thought that a photo of Carroll was a photo of Trump’s ex-wife, Marla Maples. So much for Carroll not being Trump’s type.

            1. We understand. Your mind ceased to incorporate anything past the mid-90s. You are stuck there. We can tell. This happens to people when the mind goes.

    2. Anonymous – According to news sources: “The civil suit alleges that Clinton and top Democrats hired lawyers and researchers to fabricate information tying Trump to Russia, and then peddled those lies to the media and to the US government, in hopes of hobbling his chances of winning in 2016. Trump claims they were assisted by “Clinton loyalists” at the FBI, who abused their powers to investigate him out of political animus.” https://abc11.com/donald-trump-news-clinton-files-lawsuit/11678400/ This is completely true. This matter is already on appeal, and the Court of Appeals will probably greatly reduce this sanction. BTW, this judge was appointed by Bill Clinton and refused to recuse himself in a case where the main defendant was Hillary Clinton! Isn’s American justice wonderful?

      1. “This matter is already on appeal”

        It isn’t, though he may appeal it later.

        “this judge was appointed by Bill Clinton and refused to recuse himself in a case where the main defendant was Hillary Clinton”

        So what? Judges appointed by Trump also don’t recuse themselves in cases involving Trump. A judge appointed by President Y is not required to recuse in a case involving former President Y.

        1. Anonymous, the underlying question in the case is did Hillary Clinton make up the Russian Trump collusion story to further her chances of being elected President. For month you said that the Russian collusion story was nothing but the gospel truth. Deflect as you may you have been a collaborator in her scheme. Deflect as you may it will be my pleasure to reminder the reader of your statements in the past so that they will be more capable of evaluating your statements in the present. No need to thank me.

            1. Why are you denying a stance you took in the past. Is this another time that what you said before conflicts with what you say now?

        2. There is more grounds for a clinton appointee to recuse from a case where Clinton could suffer monetary damages.

          The decision itself is proof of the need for the judge to recuse.

          With this case there are only two questions:

          Is this a case that is within the domain of a legitimate torts claim – i.e. are political dirty tricks tortious,
          What are the damages.

    3. Just like Anonymous to change the subject from Biden to Trump. How about a little “they’re both bad guys” from Anonymous. When pigs fly at the hack annual barbecue.

Leave a Reply