What doesn't get discussed is that Presidents and Vice-Presidents don't do the packing of their papers and belongings when leaving office. That's done by staffers and others hired for the job. Depending on who's been hired for the job, a few or a lot of things will be packed up that should have been left behind. I suspect that a careful perusal of the papers of a lot of elected officials will find similar results. In any case, what really matters is what the person does when such papers turn up later. In the case of President Biden, he had his staff notify the appropriate agencies and transferred the papers to them immediately, unlike Putin's Orange Poodle, who denied, obstructed and lied, all the while trying to insist that the classified documents were now his personal property to use as he saw fit.
What seems to get lost in all the reporting on "found" classified documents, is that there are procedures where, like libraries, the gov't is supposedly aware of who takes what, and when, if it's returned. And how to go about getting them back.
So much for diligence by the media, for NOT looking further than the surface. And yes, I agree, it's highly doubtful Presidents pack their own papers, tho I wouldn't be surprised if Rump put his "love" letters from N. Korea somewhere special.
Procedures similar to libraries’ book check out process are NOT used for all documents. Libraries hold published books.
Classified documents include working papers - think early drafts, outlines, research materials. These aren’t held in libraries. Similarly, these aren’t controlled via a sign in/out process.
They are properly marked and securely stored. But not tracked like library books.
This is what I was thinking of, when I made my comment;
Robert B. Hubbell replied to your comment
Excellent point! There is someone known as a "Special Security Officer" whose job it was to take the documents from the SCIF, hand them to Trump, wait by his side until they were returned to the SSO, and then return them to the SCIF. Even if Trump refused to give the documents back to the SSO, that officer should have sent up a flare to his superiors that highly sensitive defense secrets were not returned to the SCIF as required. I think that many people will lose their jobs and/or be prosecuted over the illegal retention of the documents, including members of the military and Trump's staff.
From tuning briefly into Fox, they are declaring that the Biden's docs contained info about China, Iran and Ukraine, and Hunter's connection to these. How do they know this? Is that true? Also, Jenn Psaki said that staff just place files in boxes, they don't go through each file to look them over. So this could be a very careless mistake by a staff member, and nobody knew there were documents in there for 6 years. Thank you for your analysis and laying everything out clearly.
“And like it or not, we need to address the question of Biden’s alleged actions (and likely innocence) in order to make the case that Trump should be prosecuted for his intentional ones.”
NO. NO. NO!!
Yes, Biden’s actions should be looked into. But making the case the Trump should be prosecuted is not DEPENDENT on whether Biden is.  You’re making it sound like we can’t investigate a Republican unless we (in some bizarre version of “bothsiderism“) we also hold an investigation into a Democrat. 
Addressing the question of his actions and innocence touches upon the exact same set of criteria that we will be assessing for Trump. So talking about why Biden is innocent raises the same questions for the case in proving Trump is guilty.
Yes, it raises the same questions. It’s all part of applying the law equally to all.
My objection is to the “we need to address the question of Biden’s alleged actions ... IN ORDER TO make the case that Trump should be prosecuted” sentiment.
In order to? No.
There is a difference, an important difference, between saying investigate both (apply the law equally) and one investigation is required before the other can happen.
“We should investigate Biden just like we investigate Trump.” Yes, investigating one and not the other would raise an issue. The law should be applied equally.
“Investigating Biden is a prerequisite to being able to investigate Trump.” No. Absolutely not. One is not dependent on the other. It suggests a “You can’t investigate one if ours unless you investigate one of yours also” situation and mindset. Which is no more true than the false equivalence between how Biden and Trump reacted to having classified docs in their possession.
The trouble lies in that parenthetical "(and likely innocence)." If Biden is in fact innocent and Trump is in fact guilty, I have extreme doubt about whether the MAGA crowd is going to just placidly say "Oh, ok, well, it's good that it all got investigated and now we know the answer." The fact that Hur is a FedSoc guy isn't going to help a bit; it's going to be a massive river of "GOVERNMENT WEAPONIZATION!!!11!!" whining and accusations that Hur was in Biden's pocket the whole time. I have serious fears that if Trump suffers any legal consequences whatsoever over his documents and Biden isn't literally perp-walked out of the White House over his, there's going to be a reaction that will make January 6 look like a picnic in the park.
In order to eliminate such reactions, all Democrats MUST be very well versed in the details of classified information handling. A full court press MUST be with the media to ensure the public understands what is what.
I fear it’s a near impossible task. The comments I read are so far off base…. But it’s the only way to maybe get through this.
I especially hope that the investigation constructs a clear chain of custody, reliably proving that the documents were where they have been found, not recently planted there by someone.
I generally avoid veering into anything that sounds like unfounded allegations. If there’s a reason to believe these were planted, other than supposition, I’m happy to discuss those, but so far there isn’t.
I expect that the investigation will find that the former president Biden was writing a book or speeches or lectures, etc and had work products in his workspaces. I expect that the investigators will see and understand this and I hope such evidence will not be ignored.
I just saw an amazing story that the tuckerseans of the cable-waves are now proposing that the DEMOCRATS planted them to make it easier to get a different candidate in 2024.
Jay - you've darned near outdone yourself with this one !! You have peeled back all the myriad layers of this 'Onion' of an issue, & laid it all out so astutely for us to read & try to get our "heads around", one layer at a time. I fully & completely agree with you, as always . I just wish more folks would subscribe to your 'Erudite' writings & gain a broader & deeper viewpoint. Thank You !!!
Thanks, anyway ... but I not only cannot afford to "Gift a Subscription", I can't afford to become a "Paid Subscriber" myself ... I'm so grateful that Jay still allows those of us who are borderline 'impoverished' to enjoy "Free" subscriptions.
I join those who thank you, once again, for the clarity of your analysis. But regardless of the false equivalencies of the *trump and Biden document cases, Biden's foolish blunder, whether or not he was actually at fault, has been yet another gift to the opposition. (Other unfortunate gifts include the selection of his hopelessly lightweight VP, the tragic abandonment of - and not just the bungled withdrawal from - Afghanistan, and many other lapses in good judgment - not to mention the burden of his wayward son.) I love Uncle Joe, but this most recent case emphatically underscores my opinion that the number one priority of the DNC should be the recruitment and cultivation of top-notch electable presidential candidates for 2024.
Excellent analysis and exactly what I have been thinking. I haven't been able to find any statute that says that simply discovering you have a classified document is a crime, but it is prima facie evidence until the intent requirements of the governing statutes are determined. Keeping it knowingly is a different kettle of markings. I'm sure we are still going to see some House committee digging deeply into why Biden did the right things upon discovery.
I know the WH doesn't owe anyone an explanation on why they sat on this info, but it's not good optics. I also hate to say it but I think Biden's Press Secretary, Jean-Pierre, just doesn't have what it takes to be a PS. I watched her yesterday and she is all over the place. I think he needs to find someone else because I feel she made the whole scenario so much worse with her pressers.
I'm sure she didn't but whatever information she is given, she doesn't convey the info well. I know I'm spoiled by Psaki, but from the very beginning I didn't think she was a good choice. She seems almost out of her league when dealing with people like Doucy and the douche who was questioning her yesterday. Felt she should have been able to shut him down sooner. Easy for me to say I know. Let's just hope going forward, the pressers are more succint.
Personally I’m super impressed w her, I’m amazed at the ability to respond to the aggressive line of questioning, I often wonder how much prep work is done with anticipation of potential questions. I’m glad they waited until now so that we could all enjoy Thanksgiving and Christmas! This will blow over soon, (imho).
Thanks for so clearly explaining this, Jay. Biden and his aides made an absolutely stupid error in concealing this development for so long -- how can they not realize that it looks like a cover up? While I believe Garland made a shrewd decision in appointing a special counsel, I am still thoroughly dismayed by his delay in appointing Jack Smith. I wonder if there is actually time to indict (and possibly) convict Trump in the time this Administration has left, given our ultra slow moving court system. Would you comment on that?
I don’t think it looks like a cover up, from where I sit. NARA was notified right away, as was the Justice Department. That’s what’s supposed to happen.
Appointing Jack Smith will speed up, not slow down, the process. So if it’s speed you’re worried about, that was the right move, too.
To : Sean McKown - Thank you so much for 'gifting' me with a year's "Paid Subscription" to Jay Kuo ... I read all of his emails from 'Substack' as well as everything he posts on F'book ... I got my B.A. in 1971 in "International Relations" (mostly Poli. Sci. with Economics, History & a bit of Anthropology to 'round it out') ... & went on to Grad. School (on a Fellowship) in a new Interdisciplinary field called "Intercultural Communications" ... but the University (of Delaware) cut the program when I'd completed my one year of coursework, & in 1972, I was told I'd never be able to do my Masters Thesis & finish what I had committed my Life to pursuing ... typical, I know, of Institutions of 'Higher Learning'. - where there's rampant 'back-stabbing' & political maneuvering - But, here I am, in my 70's, living in Colorado ( which was also my life-long Dream) for the past nearly 50 years & by reading things like Jay Kuo's writings, & watching MSNBC ( & I loved Rachel Maddow before she stepped away to create her 'Podcasts') -& I still watch "All In with Chris Hayes" - along with my memberships in NRDC, Earthjustice - which I annually renew my membership to - & my ICT (International Campaign for Tibet) monthly donation - all of which provide me with Newsletters that I always read cover-to-cover - I am a lifelong "Unaffiliated" voter who's never missed an Election (Presidential or Midterm) &, as you may have 'gleaned' already, like to keep myself 'informed' - & very much value other people's perspectives ... So, once again, I Thank You (!!!) for your 'Gift Subscription' ... thought you might be interested to know more about who you've 'gifted' ... Peace be with you & yours.
P.S. - to Bryan Sean McKown : Sorry ... I neglected to type out your full name ... but my sincere gratitude for your generosity in "gifting" me with a year's subscription to Jay Kuo ... Thanks again !!!
What doesn't get discussed is that Presidents and Vice-Presidents don't do the packing of their papers and belongings when leaving office. That's done by staffers and others hired for the job. Depending on who's been hired for the job, a few or a lot of things will be packed up that should have been left behind. I suspect that a careful perusal of the papers of a lot of elected officials will find similar results. In any case, what really matters is what the person does when such papers turn up later. In the case of President Biden, he had his staff notify the appropriate agencies and transferred the papers to them immediately, unlike Putin's Orange Poodle, who denied, obstructed and lied, all the while trying to insist that the classified documents were now his personal property to use as he saw fit.
What seems to get lost in all the reporting on "found" classified documents, is that there are procedures where, like libraries, the gov't is supposedly aware of who takes what, and when, if it's returned. And how to go about getting them back.
So much for diligence by the media, for NOT looking further than the surface. And yes, I agree, it's highly doubtful Presidents pack their own papers, tho I wouldn't be surprised if Rump put his "love" letters from N. Korea somewhere special.
Procedures similar to libraries’ book check out process are NOT used for all documents. Libraries hold published books.
Classified documents include working papers - think early drafts, outlines, research materials. These aren’t held in libraries. Similarly, these aren’t controlled via a sign in/out process.
They are properly marked and securely stored. But not tracked like library books.
This is what I was thinking of, when I made my comment;
Robert B. Hubbell replied to your comment
Excellent point! There is someone known as a "Special Security Officer" whose job it was to take the documents from the SCIF, hand them to Trump, wait by his side until they were returned to the SSO, and then return them to the SCIF. Even if Trump refused to give the documents back to the SSO, that officer should have sent up a flare to his superiors that highly sensitive defense secrets were not returned to the SCIF as required. I think that many people will lose their jobs and/or be prosecuted over the illegal retention of the documents, including members of the military and Trump's staff.
Ah, yes. Info held in SCIF is a different animal than the rest of the classified world.
From tuning briefly into Fox, they are declaring that the Biden's docs contained info about China, Iran and Ukraine, and Hunter's connection to these. How do they know this? Is that true? Also, Jenn Psaki said that staff just place files in boxes, they don't go through each file to look them over. So this could be a very careless mistake by a staff member, and nobody knew there were documents in there for 6 years. Thank you for your analysis and laying everything out clearly.
I don’t think they actually know this.
I don't think Faux News actually knows anything, but that might just be me. ;)
Thank you for this excellent analysis. I’ll sleep better tonight than I did last night. 😀
I want a Special Counsel! ... oh, er ... I always thought I was one, sorry, all apologies.
Excellent read Jay!
“And like it or not, we need to address the question of Biden’s alleged actions (and likely innocence) in order to make the case that Trump should be prosecuted for his intentional ones.”
NO. NO. NO!!
Yes, Biden’s actions should be looked into. But making the case the Trump should be prosecuted is not DEPENDENT on whether Biden is.  You’re making it sound like we can’t investigate a Republican unless we (in some bizarre version of “bothsiderism“) we also hold an investigation into a Democrat. 
Addressing the question of his actions and innocence touches upon the exact same set of criteria that we will be assessing for Trump. So talking about why Biden is innocent raises the same questions for the case in proving Trump is guilty.
Yes, it raises the same questions. It’s all part of applying the law equally to all.
My objection is to the “we need to address the question of Biden’s alleged actions ... IN ORDER TO make the case that Trump should be prosecuted” sentiment.
In order to? No.
There is a difference, an important difference, between saying investigate both (apply the law equally) and one investigation is required before the other can happen.
“We should investigate Biden just like we investigate Trump.” Yes, investigating one and not the other would raise an issue. The law should be applied equally.
“Investigating Biden is a prerequisite to being able to investigate Trump.” No. Absolutely not. One is not dependent on the other. It suggests a “You can’t investigate one if ours unless you investigate one of yours also” situation and mindset. Which is no more true than the false equivalence between how Biden and Trump reacted to having classified docs in their possession.
The trouble lies in that parenthetical "(and likely innocence)." If Biden is in fact innocent and Trump is in fact guilty, I have extreme doubt about whether the MAGA crowd is going to just placidly say "Oh, ok, well, it's good that it all got investigated and now we know the answer." The fact that Hur is a FedSoc guy isn't going to help a bit; it's going to be a massive river of "GOVERNMENT WEAPONIZATION!!!11!!" whining and accusations that Hur was in Biden's pocket the whole time. I have serious fears that if Trump suffers any legal consequences whatsoever over his documents and Biden isn't literally perp-walked out of the White House over his, there's going to be a reaction that will make January 6 look like a picnic in the park.
In order to eliminate such reactions, all Democrats MUST be very well versed in the details of classified information handling. A full court press MUST be with the media to ensure the public understands what is what.
I fear it’s a near impossible task. The comments I read are so far off base…. But it’s the only way to maybe get through this.
I especially hope that the investigation constructs a clear chain of custody, reliably proving that the documents were where they have been found, not recently planted there by someone.
I generally avoid veering into anything that sounds like unfounded allegations. If there’s a reason to believe these were planted, other than supposition, I’m happy to discuss those, but so far there isn’t.
I expect that the investigation will find that the former president Biden was writing a book or speeches or lectures, etc and had work products in his workspaces. I expect that the investigators will see and understand this and I hope such evidence will not be ignored.
I just saw an amazing story that the tuckerseans of the cable-waves are now proposing that the DEMOCRATS planted them to make it easier to get a different candidate in 2024.
Jay - you've darned near outdone yourself with this one !! You have peeled back all the myriad layers of this 'Onion' of an issue, & laid it all out so astutely for us to read & try to get our "heads around", one layer at a time. I fully & completely agree with you, as always . I just wish more folks would subscribe to your 'Erudite' writings & gain a broader & deeper viewpoint. Thank You !!!
See "Gift a Subscription" ... easy.
Thanks, anyway ... but I not only cannot afford to "Gift a Subscription", I can't afford to become a "Paid Subscriber" myself ... I'm so grateful that Jay still allows those of us who are borderline 'impoverished' to enjoy "Free" subscriptions.
I join those who thank you, once again, for the clarity of your analysis. But regardless of the false equivalencies of the *trump and Biden document cases, Biden's foolish blunder, whether or not he was actually at fault, has been yet another gift to the opposition. (Other unfortunate gifts include the selection of his hopelessly lightweight VP, the tragic abandonment of - and not just the bungled withdrawal from - Afghanistan, and many other lapses in good judgment - not to mention the burden of his wayward son.) I love Uncle Joe, but this most recent case emphatically underscores my opinion that the number one priority of the DNC should be the recruitment and cultivation of top-notch electable presidential candidates for 2024.
Why?
Excellent analysis and exactly what I have been thinking. I haven't been able to find any statute that says that simply discovering you have a classified document is a crime, but it is prima facie evidence until the intent requirements of the governing statutes are determined. Keeping it knowingly is a different kettle of markings. I'm sure we are still going to see some House committee digging deeply into why Biden did the right things upon discovery.
I have been looking forward to your analysis on this. Thanks!
I know the WH doesn't owe anyone an explanation on why they sat on this info, but it's not good optics. I also hate to say it but I think Biden's Press Secretary, Jean-Pierre, just doesn't have what it takes to be a PS. I watched her yesterday and she is all over the place. I think he needs to find someone else because I feel she made the whole scenario so much worse with her pressers.
I doubt that Jean-Pierre made the call as to what to and not to discuss.
I'm sure she didn't but whatever information she is given, she doesn't convey the info well. I know I'm spoiled by Psaki, but from the very beginning I didn't think she was a good choice. She seems almost out of her league when dealing with people like Doucy and the douche who was questioning her yesterday. Felt she should have been able to shut him down sooner. Easy for me to say I know. Let's just hope going forward, the pressers are more succint.
Personally I’m super impressed w her, I’m amazed at the ability to respond to the aggressive line of questioning, I often wonder how much prep work is done with anticipation of potential questions. I’m glad they waited until now so that we could all enjoy Thanksgiving and Christmas! This will blow over soon, (imho).
Thanks for so clearly explaining this, Jay. Biden and his aides made an absolutely stupid error in concealing this development for so long -- how can they not realize that it looks like a cover up? While I believe Garland made a shrewd decision in appointing a special counsel, I am still thoroughly dismayed by his delay in appointing Jack Smith. I wonder if there is actually time to indict (and possibly) convict Trump in the time this Administration has left, given our ultra slow moving court system. Would you comment on that?
I don’t think it looks like a cover up, from where I sit. NARA was notified right away, as was the Justice Department. That’s what’s supposed to happen.
Appointing Jack Smith will speed up, not slow down, the process. So if it’s speed you’re worried about, that was the right move, too.
To : Sean McKown - Thank you so much for 'gifting' me with a year's "Paid Subscription" to Jay Kuo ... I read all of his emails from 'Substack' as well as everything he posts on F'book ... I got my B.A. in 1971 in "International Relations" (mostly Poli. Sci. with Economics, History & a bit of Anthropology to 'round it out') ... & went on to Grad. School (on a Fellowship) in a new Interdisciplinary field called "Intercultural Communications" ... but the University (of Delaware) cut the program when I'd completed my one year of coursework, & in 1972, I was told I'd never be able to do my Masters Thesis & finish what I had committed my Life to pursuing ... typical, I know, of Institutions of 'Higher Learning'. - where there's rampant 'back-stabbing' & political maneuvering - But, here I am, in my 70's, living in Colorado ( which was also my life-long Dream) for the past nearly 50 years & by reading things like Jay Kuo's writings, & watching MSNBC ( & I loved Rachel Maddow before she stepped away to create her 'Podcasts') -& I still watch "All In with Chris Hayes" - along with my memberships in NRDC, Earthjustice - which I annually renew my membership to - & my ICT (International Campaign for Tibet) monthly donation - all of which provide me with Newsletters that I always read cover-to-cover - I am a lifelong "Unaffiliated" voter who's never missed an Election (Presidential or Midterm) &, as you may have 'gleaned' already, like to keep myself 'informed' - & very much value other people's perspectives ... So, once again, I Thank You (!!!) for your 'Gift Subscription' ... thought you might be interested to know more about who you've 'gifted' ... Peace be with you & yours.
P.S. - to Bryan Sean McKown : Sorry ... I neglected to type out your full name ... but my sincere gratitude for your generosity in "gifting" me with a year's subscription to Jay Kuo ... Thanks again !!!
It’s all about retribution with the Republicans. The sound of air going out of their sails, phhhht!