-----Original Message-----
From: Paul and Bill from Ringside at the Reckoning <ringsideatthereckoning@substack.com>
To: add1dda@aol.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2023 10:30 pm
Subject: The phony war over "equivalence"

Biden's removal of documents must be judged on its own, not in relation to Trump's  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

	Open in app or online The phony war over "equivalence" Biden's removal of documents must be judged on its own, not in relation to Trump's Paul Mirengoff Jan 23   Cross-post   As soon as the public discovered that Joe Biden retained classified documents at unauthorized locations after he left the vice presidency, the debate began over whether Biden's possession of such material was similar to Trump's or whether this was a "false equivalence." But that was never the real issue raised by this discovery. The real issues were whether Biden's possession of the material was improper — which it obviously was — and whether it is a crime. It's easy to understand why debate centered on the issue of equivalence. Trump's supporters obviously have an interest in showing that "Biden did it too." Biden's supporters, in addition to wanting to differentiate their man from Trump, have a clear interest in debating whose actions were worse — an argument they believe they can win — rather than debating Biden's culpability. Ringside at the Reckoning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. In particular, Biden's backers want to focus attention on what happened when the president's lawyers learned their client possessed classified material — the National Archives, they say, was promptly notified and the documents were turned over — and compare it to Trump's refusal to give some documents back. Thus, Biden apologist Neal Katyal argued that Biden was like a guy who discovers he has library books he didn't check out and returns the books, whereas Trump is like a guy who refuses to return them. The problem is that if it's a crime to take the books in the first place, it remains a crime even if, years later, the books are returned voluntarily. The return might play a role in the sentence, and could conceivably influence the decision whether to prosecute, but the removal is still a crime. And, as we'll see below, the relevant portion of the Espionage Age talks about removal, not retention. Was it a crime for Biden to remove classified documents when he left office? I'm not expert in this area; nor are all the facts known at this point. Thus, I won't offer a firm opinion. For what they're worth, though, here are my thoughts. 18 U.S.C. 793(f), a provision of the Espionage Act, makes it a crime for someone, "through gross negligence," to permit documents relating to national defense "to be removed from [their] proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed." We don't know the exact nature of the documents Biden removed. However, some of them reportedly were marked "top secret," so it's likely they relate to national defense. Were these documents removed through "gross negligence"? That's how it looks to me. As argued here, this doesn't appear to be a case where large batches of documents were thrown into boxes helter-skelter in a last minute effort to clear an office — a scenario that might reasonably be characterized as ordinary negligence. And even if the documents discovered at the Penn Biden library fit this description, those stored at Biden's home don't seem to. Assuming there was gross negligence, was it Biden's or that of some functionary? We don't know the process through which the removal occurred or who was involved. However, it's difficult to believe that Biden didn't select the small number of documents he kept at his home. Why else would they be there, so close at hand, and not at the library with the other stuff? And arguably, Biden acted with gross negligence in permitting someone to do the selecting for him, especially if he did not provide clear instructions that any materials marked classified or top secret be left behind. As a practical matter, however, it's my understanding that Espionage Act cases involving document removal generally are prosecuted only when the wrongdoing is intentional. Was Biden's wrongdoing intentional? I'm not sure. But the more we learn about the matter, the more intentional Biden's behavior seems. As my friend Jim Dueholm has pointed out: It appears government documents taken from Mr. Biden's house to his newly formed DC think tank were largely if not wholly classified, which suggests they were intentionally selected.  The fact that there are documents in different locations, including Biden's home, also suggests a design to retain and distribute them — those with possible research value to a library; those of personal interest to the residence. In both cases, the intent would be for the classified documents to be used. But even if the intent was only to store them, the violation would be intentional. My sense, then, is that Joe Biden might well be guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act. But even if he is, I doubt this is what the special counsel will conclude. I think Biden will walk. And as a result, it looks more and more like Trump will too — "false equivalence" or not.   Cross-post     Comment Share