Month: January 2023

The Committee to Unleash Prosperity has released a startling new report entitled “Paying Americans Not to Work.”  I

It reveals that a family of four can receive over $100,000 annualized equivalent in cash and benefits in three states, and over $80,000 in 14 states, with no one working. The analysis was written by Casey Mulligan, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who served as chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisors and  EJ Antoni,  a research fellow for regional economics in the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis.

The study reveals that with existing unemployment benefits and the dramatic recent expansion of ObamaCare subsidies, a spouse would have to earn more than $80,000 a year from a 40 hour a week job to have the same after-tax income as certain families with two unemployed spouses receiving government benefits. In these states, working 40 hours a week and earning $20 an hour would mean a slight REDUCTION in income compared to two parents receiving unemployment benefits and health care subsidies.

This study also finds:

• In 24 states, unemployment benefits and ACA subsidies for a family of four with both parents not working are the annualized equivalent of at least the national median household income.

• In 5 states, those two programs provide the same family with both parents not working the annualized equivalent of at least the national median household income and benefits.

• In 14 states, unemployment benefits and ACA subsidies are the equivalent to a head of household earning $80,000 in salary, plus health insurance benefits.

• This is a higher wage than is earned by the national median secondary school teacher, electrician, trucker, machinist, and many other jobs.

• In more than half the states, unemployment benefits and ACA subsidies exceed the value of the salary and benefits of the average firefighter, truck driver, machinist, or retail associate in those states.

• In a dozen states, unemployment benefits and ACA subsidies exceed the value of the salary and benefits of the average teacher, construction worker, or electrician in those states.

• A family of four with income over $227,000 qualifies for ACA subsidies in all states and families earning over $300,000 a year still qualify for ACA subsidies in 40 states and DC.

While many of the subsidies pre-existed the COVID pandemic, the large amounts of funds provided by government to individuals magnified the issue.

In 2020, The American Institute for Economic Research’s Philip Magness wrote:   “’Never let a crisis go to waste,’ the old adage goes. Unfortunately, political activists and public officials from across the spectrum are now taking this advice to heart amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. While many policy responses to the current crisis are well-meaning, even if misguided, be vigilant of those who would cynically weaponize it to advance their pre-COVID ideological goals…The experience with peacetime regulations of this sort in other countries suggests this has a high probability, carrying with it a labor-market rigidity that translates into persistently high unemployment. Sadly, one also gets the sense that Saez and Zucman would be willing to accept that outcome in exchange for getting their broader economic agenda passed under the cover provided by the pandemic.”

Programs that result in high unemployment, and the bizarre economic reality that it may be more profitable to take government handouts than to work, greatly assists those seeking to replace capitalism, which has brought more prosperity to more people than any other system, with socialism, which has produced markedly inferior results.

 Following the reduction of the COVID crisis, it was reasonable to expect the U.S. economy to rebound sharply.  The continued presence of overly generous government handouts, combined with the Biden Administration’s inflationary war on energy, destroyed that opportunity.

Illustration: Pixabay

Present Biden has stated that he will not negotiate on raising the debt ceiling.  His position contradicts his own comments made in 2011, when, as vice president, he complained that some of his colleagues in government were unwilling to negotiate, stating “that’s not governing.”  

The President’s comments come as The United States has reached its $31.4 trillion statutory debt limit, the threshold set by Congress in December 2021. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit. There has been no indication from the White House that it is serious about examining its own programs to determine how to hold the line on spending.

There are obvious reasons for concern about allowing the federal government to again raise the debt. Reason magazine notes that “Biden has overseen a noticeable increase in the deficit above the pre-pandemic baseline. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal watchdog group that advocates for lower deficits, Biden’s policies have added about $2.5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.”

A BGR Group study note that “The national debt has increased under every presidential administration since Herbert Hoover. The United States has raised its debt ceiling at least 90 times in the 20th century. It has never been reduced…If government hits the debt ceiling and exhausts all other options, it can no longer borrow. Since the government runs an annual deficit, it will run out of money soon after it hits the limit and temporarily default on obligations. If the Treasury Department is not able to borrow additional money, the United States could default on outstanding loans and its credit rating may be downgraded by credit rating groups…”

The federal debt ceiling was already raised in December of 2021 by $2.5 trillion, to $31.381 trillion, which lasted until January 19, 2023. The Treasury Department has begun using accounting tools at its disposal, called “extraordinary measures,” to avoid defaulting on the government’s obligations, This will allow Washington to keep borrowing until June. At the point of exhaustion of those measures, absent a new agreement to either raise or suspend the debt ceiling, the Treasury will be unable to continue paying the nation’s bills and the U.S. will default.

Biden’s refusal to negotiate makes a bad situation worse, particularly considering his own fiscal irresponsibility. The White House maintains that it has reduced the budget, absurdly taking credit for COVID-related spending that stop as the pandemic ended.

But the key issue at hand is not about spending.  It is about Biden’s aggressively divisive presidency.  In September, the President delivered a stunning speech in Philadelphia which virtually declared a civil war against those who merely disagreed with his policies.  He has continuously used pejorative language to describe other elected officials who have different ideas, describing them as “ultra MAGA.”

North Carolina Senator Tillis emphasizes that “President Biden has followed his advisor’s recommendation to go it alone. He’s pushed a highly partisan, ideologically-driven agenda. And you don’t need to take my word for it. [Biden’s] agenda [is] designed to pass with no need for moderation and not a single Republican vote. No consensus whatsoever.   There are plenty of Republicans like me who are willing to work with President Biden and even put some of our supporters out of their comfort zone for the good of this nation. In fact, when he was sworn in, I said I would work to find common ground on areas where we may agree and vigorously oppose policies where we do not. Unfortunately, there has been little opportunity to do the latter. The willingness to negotiate has only been a one-way street on the part of Republicans.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Government spying dates back over 6,000 years ago to early Mesopotamia, where history informs us that institutions and people devoted to their ruling regimes worked in secret to preserve and protect rulers using spy tradecraft. In China, written records from the fifth century mention spying in the Indus Valley. Perhaps, one of the best know texts from that era is Sun Tzu’s comprehensive military treatise, The Art of War. Although technology has changed over the millennium, espionage remains a tool that is used to illicitly acquire information from other nation-states and today, the private sector. Beijing runs one of the most complex spy networks in the world, not simply to protect itself from foreign attack, but also as an economic tool to steal and reverse engineer advanced technologies available only in the West. China also employs an extensive electronic intelligence network to surveille and gather information overseas. It has “many schools of small fish in the sea,” according to one Chinese official formerly stationed in Washington, DC. He compared Chinese spies to small grains of sand on a beach. Individually there is not much to see. “Many grains of sand [do] form a beachhead.”  

Beijing has a long history of successfully using good tradecraft to recruit spies in the United States. One former FBI official estimated that there may be over 10,000 spies in the DC area, many of them working for China. This week Philip Lenczycki, an investigative reporter and China Watcher in Washington, DC  exposed yet another case of concern to US officials. It is at least the second time a Democrat from California has been closely connected to a Chinese intelligence operation. In 2018, it was US Senator Diane Feinstein’s staffer. This week the China connection is linked to Rep. Judy Chu. 

For at least 12 years, Chu has been involved with a Chinese front organization and remains listed as its honorary president. The All America Chinese Youth Federation (AACYF) has an innocent sounding name. Like the Confucius Institutes run by communist China inside the US, the name does not give away the true purpose of its operation. Chu helped the group by opening the Silicon Valley high technology corridor to Beijing. “During Chu’s tenure at AACYF, its leadership has included multiple individuals who’ve belonged to China-based organizations that allegedly operate as front groups for a Chinese intelligence service,” says Lenczycki. AACYF’s leadership is purported to include individuals who belonged to organizations allegedly serving a Chinese government agency tasked with overseeing and coordinating CCP influence operations in North America. 

As early as 2013, Congresswoman Chu led events held by the organization, including at a Silicon Valley 

technology summit where she served as “chairman.” Five of AACYF’s leaders who’ve served at the non-profit during Chu’s tenure have “belonged to organizations allegedly serving a Chinese government agency tasked with overseeing and coordinating CCP influence operations,” says Lenczycki. “The so-called United Front Work Department (UFWD) has been identified by government agencies, legislative bodies and experts as a central organ of CCP influence efforts, and experts also say UFWD works in concert with Chinese intelligence operatives,” he adds.

Recently Rep. Chu voted against the formation of the House Select Committee tasked with examining Chinese influence in the United States. She defended her action by claiming the initiative to examine communist China’s influence operations in the country could lead to violence. According to California Rep. Mike Garcia, Congress is interested only in “combatting the CCP, not the Chinese people.” The Resolution passed 365-65 with strong bipartisan support.

The United States is a very open society. During the Soviet era KGB agents, posing as Soviet media, held 24-hour, unescorted passes that allowed them to walk freely around the US Department of State and eat lunch in the Main State building cafeteria among US diplomats. President Reagan’s Administration put an end to it. Today, it is the Chinese who are running rampant throughout our institutions. They have been caught working inside the intelligence community for the CIA, FBI, and other areas since the US opened relations with China in 1979. 

In 2018 it was revealed that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) had a Chinese spy on her staff for 20 years as her personal driver. During that time, she served on the US Senate Intelligence Committee. Her staffer reported through the Chinese  Consulate in San Francisco to the Chinese  Ministry of State Security. A top Justice Department official at the time said, “Focusing on his driver function alone, in Mafia families, the boss’s driver was among the most trusted men in the crew, because among other things he heard everything that was discussed in the car.” It appears China had access to a top official’s conversations, documents, home, and office. A former top CIA clandestine officer in 2018 said that the Chinese probably had the driver put down an audio device in her home or offices and target the Senator and those around her who showed vulnerabilities. He said that Beijing “would have had a field day.”

Only three years before the Feinstein case broke, a cyberattack by China into the US Office of Personnel Management’s database resulted in the loss of the security forms for many thousands of cleared executive branch officials. Chinese spies in Washington at the FBI and the State Department obtained information on CIA sources inside China. It is believed to have resulted in the deaths of dozens of individuals in Beijing. The challenges reach inside the White House itself. There are calls for the President and his family to be investigated for their financial connections to China. An open and friendly society is important to the American people, but it should not mean the United States will allow China to walk through our institutions and undermine national security.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

Russia is adept at running public disinformation campaigns, misdirecting foreign officials, and controlling the narrative through propaganda. This week, however, the tenor in the Kremlin appears to be changing. There are a number of Russian officials and insiders with knowledge of President Vladimir Putin’s health admitting that his condition is worsening, and that he may be close to leaving office amid his failing war effort in Ukraine. Such rumors have swirled around Moscow for months, although some are believed to have been planted by the Kremlin chief himself.  Russia’s poor military performance in Ukraine, coupled with Putin’s health issues purported to be from Cancer and Parkinson’s disease, provide greater validity to the notion that the country is getting closer to seeing a new leader in power. Putin has refused to acknowledge, so far, if he is running for re-election in 2024. 

This week marks 11 months since Putin’s forces invaded Ukraine. He has been unsuccessful in capturing Ukraine in what was originally expected by the Kremlin to be a very short, special military operation. His efforts to divide the democratic West over its support for Kyiv have also failed. That does not mean the war will end anytime soon. Most of the potential successors of Putin’s are “all cut from the same cloth,” according to one military analyst in Washington, and “unlikely to give up the Ukraine campaign.” 

In response to requests from Kyiv, this week President Biden agreed to send enough 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukrainian forces. That is enough to arm a battalion. The announcement comes only 24 hours after Germany made public that it intends to provide 14 German-made Leopard 2 tanks. Other allies, including Poland, are also sending Leopard tanks. Warsaw’s ultimate goal is to send Ukraine 88 tanks, enough for about two battalions. Patrick Tucker, a technology editor at the publication Defense One, says that “Combined with promised deliveries of US Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other countries’ tanks, light tanks, and other armored vehicles… Ukrainian forces will soon receive “hundreds” of armored vehicles of various types. Putin’s war, according to analysts, must be wearing him down as Ukraine’s friends in the West continue to supply the country with the materiel its needs to fight for its sovereignty. Already half of the US and Netherlands promised 90 T-72 tanks are arriving in Ukraine this week. 

Help is arriving just in time as Putin is expected to make a major push in the coming weeks. The shipments are critical to Ukraine’s defense effort. Tucker points out that France announced it is sending their Amx-10 [RC] light tanks along with 40 Marders armored vehicles from Germany, and Sweden says it is sending CV 90s. “So, you’re going to see hundreds of armored vehicles, exceptionally capable vehicles, and tanks arriving in Ukraine,” according to Tucker. Analysts are certain Putin recognizes the significance of the US shipment of Abrams tanks and that it represents a long-term commitment by Washington. 

The New York Post reported last week that “The 70-year-old Putin, whose health has been the subject of intense speculations for many months now, was described as “withdrawn, terse, not meeting virtually with anyone in person, and generally deeply preoccupied,” according to the Telegram channel General SVR, which is said to be run by a former Russian intelligence officer.” Not much is expected to change if he resigns from office this year or decides not to run for re-election.

There are three crucial issues to examine in 2023. Putin’s plans for running for office again in 2024 is the first. The are also two other areas of concern to Western leaders. There is a growing schism among Russian political elites, with the hawks preferring an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. The Carnegie Endowment for Peace says this emerged as “an issue after Russia’s withdrawal from the Kharkiv region and relinquishing of the key city of Kherson, and was fueled by Ukraine’s strike on the bridge to Crimea, the referendums held on annexing occupied parts of Ukraine, and the authorities’ subsequent ambiguity on what Russia’s official borders are.” The hawks, who also support restructuring the country’s political and economic system, are opposed by a group roughly labeled as “pragmatists.” These are mid-ranked career officials and technocrats intend on rethinking the war effort and devising a more realistic approach given Russian losses and its limited military capabilities. It portends a year of internal strife in Russia as Putin intensifies his suppression of opposition voices and the pragmatists reach out to the Russian populace and non-military elites to call for an end to the war.

The third major challenge facing Russia this year concerns the reshuffling of government personnel. Although political analysts are not openly predicting who will be out in senior positions, what they are certain of is that Putin will be searching for dynamic and effective leaders. Tatiana Stanovaya, a Russian expert at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, says that “Putin’s inclination to invite technocrats into the government may grow further, with senior figures in the cabinet, the presidential administration, and the power structures all aged and exhausted by the war and military failings forcing Putin to look for new ideas. Another is the coming presidential contest, given the historical record: reshuffles have preceded all but one of Russia’s presidential elections.” Putin enjoys hyper-secrecy and feels no need to explain his behavior. He still needs, however, to balance his leadership team for it to remain stable and  innovative in a period when senior personnel are dissatisfied with each other. This year could prove a turning point for Russia, not only in its war in Ukraine, but also in Moscow as the next generation of leaders prepares to take over. It looks unlikely, however, that the forces of moderation will succeed in assuming the reins of power. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Putin meets with Dmitry Medvedev and other government officials (Russian Government official site)

A locked room in a basement may not be an authorized location, but it’s certainly more secure than any of the locations where the Biden documents have been discovered.  In fact, investigators went to Mar-A-Lago, saw where the documents were stored, and only suggested that a lock be placed on the door.  This potentially could be deemed a tacit authorization of the location where Trump was storing these documents.

In fact, the unsecured and unauthorized nature of the Biden home in Wilmington is underscored by the activities of the President’s son, Hunter; “President Biden’s formerly crack-addicted son described spending four days inside his father’s 6,850-square-foot residence with other family members as they awaited the results of the 2020 presidential election…(he) described the family ‘curled up on the couch together’ with other relatives ‘filtering in and out’ as returns trickled in…Hunter…added that his parents weren’t even home when the networks finally called the election for his father.”

Further, “(p)hotographs from 2017 obtained from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop show the president’s son in the driver’s seat of his father’s 1967 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray convertible, which the president says was kept in a ‘locked garage’ alongside classified documents from his time as vice president.”

There is one other argument that stands in former President Trump’s favor; his power to declassify documents while serving as President. According to the American Bar Association “Most national security legal experts dismissed the former president’s suggestion that he could declassify documents…(b)ut…legal guidelines support his contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents that are not statutorily protected, while they are in office.”

While the ABA also asserts that “(i)n all cases…a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified,” there is little legal authority to support this view.  The one case cited by the ABA, New York Times v. CIA, states that “(d)eclassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures.” However, the President of the United States, and a “designated official” are not necessarily the same.  In fact, as the ABA admits, “the extent of a president’s legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials — without following formal procedures — has yet to be challenged in court.”

As discussed in The Hill,  “it would be wrong to simply dismiss Trump’s assertion…Presidents have long claimed the authority to classify materials by dint of the president being the nation’s chief executive and commander in chief – the only official vested under Article II of the Constitution with ‘the executive power.’ Any other official involved in classifying materials does so, it is argued, because the president has delegated that authority to that official. And because the president has the underlying power to classify, he has by implication the unilateral authority to declassify.”

Whether Biden, as Vice President, could have declassified the documents found in his possession is not as clear-cut; “A March 2003 executive order signed by President George W. Bush empowered the vice president to classify sensitive materials. That same executive order grants declassification powers to ‘the official who authorized the original classification’ or ‘a supervisor official.’ Under the executive order, vice presidents are granted the power to declassify documents they classified themselves. But it’s unclear if the vice president would be viewed as ‘a supervisory official’ with the ability to declassify sensitive documents from the CIA and other intelligence agencies. That leaves it muddled whether a vice president can declassify documents.” 

In any event, Biden doesn’t claim he declassified anything.  Instead, “President Biden said...he was ‘surprised’ to learn…that his lawyers found classified government documents in his former office at a think tank in Washington, and he said he does not know what information they contain.” 

Apparently, Joe Biden has never heard another old adage – “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

As we discussed at the time of the Mar-A-Lago raid, “(u)nder 18 USC 2071(a), ‘Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record…document, or other thing, filed or deposited…in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.’”   Further, “(u)nder 18 USC 1924(a), ‘(w)hoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.’”

There is no “it’s only a couple of pages” defense, nor is there a “private-office space” distinction from a “personal home” in either of these statutes.  In fact, as Sky News admits, it is irrelevant how many documents are involved, or where they were kept.  Possession of the documents outside of a secured location itself is the crime.

Therefore, we are left with intent as the crucial issue. But the legal standard for “willfully and unlawfully…removes” and “intent to retain such documents…at an unauthorized location” is not the same as the dictionary definition of those words.  As we discussed in our review of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified materials, “to be found guilty of a violation of (these laws), you do not need to have intended to break the law – you need to have intended to retain the classified documents ‘at an unauthorized location.’ As discussed by Anthony Christina in the Penn State Law Review,  ‘(t)o convict Clinton, it must be shown that she had knowledge that classified emails were contained on her private server. The most recent total by the State Department of their review of 30,000 Clinton emails indicates that at least 671 emails sent or received by Clinton contained classified information…(t)he conclusion is inescapable – if a ‘reasonable person’ would know that almost 700 emails were classified, and had no place on an unsecured server, it would not be hard to establish that then-Secretary Clinton intended  ‘to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.’”

To understand this distinction, let’s review several cases where the Justice Department has prosecuted people for mishandling classified materials.

Earlier this year, “(a) former civilian employee of the Defense Department was sentenced…to three months in prison after admitting to taking materials containing classified information to her hotel room and to her personal residence…(t)he ex-Defense Department employee…Asia Janay Lavarello, was on a temporary assignment at the US Embassy in Manilla when she took classified documents from the embassy to her hotel room, according to court filings. She hosted a dinner party at her hotel on the day she removed the documents, March 20, 2020, and an embassy co-worker in attendance found the documents, which had classified markings on them, according to the court filings…The documents she took home were three…classified theses, her lawyer told CNN, and she had no intention of transmitting the classified information or of harming the United States.”

In 2013, “(r)etired Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin Pierce Bishop was arrested in Hawaii and charged with one count of unlawfully retaining documents related to the national defense…Court papers alleged Bishop, who was working for a defense contractor, stored 12 documents containing classified information at his residence.”

Then there is this case we described in an earlier article; “On April 23,(2015, General David) Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924…(i)nstead of turning his journals — so-called ‘black books’ – over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home – an unsecure location – and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence.’ (For more detail on the Petraeus case, read here)  Did Gen. Petraeus ‘intend to break the law?’  No – but he did intend to retain classified documents at an unsecured location, and fail to keep them secure.” 

In each of these cases, it did not matter whether the defendant kept the classified documents in a private residence, a hotel, or any other location.  The fact that the location was not authorized is the key factor. 

Thus, it doesn’t matter whether Biden kept those documents in his garage, his residence, or an office at the University of Pennsylvania.  It matters that all of those places are “unauthorized location(s).”

Further, the number of documents is equally irrelevant.  Lt Colonel Bishop only had 12 documents; Ms Lavarello had 3; yet both still faced criminal prosecution.

Most important, however, intent does not mean, “I purposely broke the law.”  It means you intended to remove the documents from an authorized location, and kept them at an unauthorized location.  Like your office at the University of Pennsylvania.  Or your garage, next to your Corvette.  Or your residence.

In this regard, Trump may actually have a better argument in his behalf than Biden.  According to CNN, “(i)n early June, a handful of investigators made a rare visit to the property seeking more information about potentially classified material from Trump’s time in the White House that had been taken to Florida..the investigators asked the attorneys if they could see where Trump was storing the documents. The attorneys took the investigators to the basement room where the boxes of materials were being stored, and the investigators looked around the room before eventually leaving,..Five days later, on June 8, Trump’s attorneys received a letter from investigators asking them to further secure the room where the documents were stored. Aides subsequently added a padlock to the room.” 

The Article Concludes Tomorrow

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

(Note: As this article was being prepared, even more documents were found in Biden’s inappropriate possession.)

On August 8, 2022, the FBI executed a search warrant at the Florida residence of former President Donald Trump. At the time, Trump stated “My beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents.”   The search was intended to recover documents housed at Trump’s residence that the National Archives claimed did not belong in the former President’s hands.

Apparently, a series of documents labeled “classified” were recovered from Mar-A-Lago pursuant to the search. 

Current President Joe Biden wasted no time in criticizing his predecessor.  “When it emerged President Trump had so many top secret documents in his possession, Biden asked: ‘…how that could possibly happen? How anyone could be that irresponsible? What data may be in there that may compromise sources and methods?'”

Perhaps Joe Biden never heard the phrase, “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

On November 2, 2022,  “President Biden’s personal attorneys unexpectedly discover(ed) Obama-Biden administration records at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, and notif(ied) the National Archives.”  On December 20, 2022, “Biden’s personal attorneys inspect(ed) (the) garage at the president’s Wilmington (Delaware) home and identif(ied) a ‘small number’ of potential classified records.” Then, on January 11, 2023, “Biden’s personal attorneys search(ed) the president’s homes in Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach for additional records. They locate a potential record with classified markings in a room adjacent to the garage.”

The documents recovered from these offices and residences appear to date from Biden’s time as Vice-President.

“People close to the White House say there is currently a mood of quiet resignation among Biden aides – an ‘It is what it is’ mentality – as they, too, wait to learn if news of more misplaced classified documents will surface in the coming days…Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow said the discovery of the classified documents was ‘certainly embarrassing’ for Biden. ‘It’s one of those moments that, obviously, they wish hadn’t happened,’ Stabenow said on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’”

“It is what it is?”  “Certainly embarrassing?” “Wish hadn’t happened?”

Compare these understatements from Biden supporters with the rock thrown through Biden’s glass house by Peter Doocy of Fox News after the second batch of documents were found in Biden’s garage – “Classified materials next to your Corvette? What were you thinking?”  All Biden could answer was “that the garage had been locked and that he took the proper handling of classified documents seriously.”

Other than Doocy’s direct question, the rest of the media has been very understanding of Biden’s incompetent handling of classified materials.  According to “Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, ‘I’d bet you that if they go back to all of the living presidents and root through their homes and their libraries and their warehouses and garages, they’re going to unearth some classified documents there’…Such security lapses are a somewhat regular occurrence, according to one former senior security official involved in protecting classified presidential documents under Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama…Mark Zaid, a lawyer who specializes in the handling of classified information, said such lapses date back to World War II or earlier, and are far more common than is known publicly.” 

Sure, no big deal!  Happens all the time!

But if Biden’s mishandling of classified documents is a routine matter, why was it necessary to use dozens of FBI Agents with a search warrant to recover documents from Donald Trump that “all living presidents” have in their homes, libraries and garages?  

According to Sky News, there are three main differences between Trump and Biden’s situations; “Firstly, quantity. Fewer than twelve documents were found at the Penn Biden Center and “a handful” were found in Delaware. More than 160 were found at Mar-a-Lago. This excuse might not hold water: one document in the wrong hands could be one too many. Secondly, location. In relation to the first batch of Biden documents discovered, it’s arguable that a private office-space is distinct from a personal home which doubles as a country club (Mar-a-Lago). But then the second batch was found in President Biden’s garage alongside, as it happens, his Corvette! The key difference between the two cases is intent. It’s not unusual when someone at the top of government leaves office to find cases where documents of a secret nature get mixed up with those of a personal nature.”

All three of these alleged differences cannot withstand scrutiny.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC.

THE ARTICLE CONTINUES TOMORROW

Illustration: Pixabay