A classified document found in a garage is no accident, it is a crime

[mystery-ak]

January 19, 2023
A classified document found in a garage is no accident, it is a crime
By Mark Hewitt

People are missing the point and the media are purposely distorting the facts about the discovery of classified documents in Joe Biden's possession. The unsecured classified documents found in Biden's garage is not only a crime scene, it is evidence of espionage. 

Every pundit on the television continually demonstrates having little clue about the law or even the name of the security program that governs the safeguarding of classified materials. 

They cannot and will not cite which law(s) was(were) broken when classified materials are discovered unsecured; irrespective of them being protected by a green Corvette or a garage door. 

Under the Espionage Act, 18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information lists the following:

    (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

    (f) 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.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/01/a_classified_document_found_in_a_garage_is_no_accident_it_is_a_crime.html

[Bigun]

A classified document found in a garage is no accident, it is a crime

And intent does not enter into the equation.

[Kamaji]

And intent does not enter into the equation.

True, but there is a state of mind requirement in the statutes cited in the OP.

[jafo2010]

The state of mind is that Biden provided the CCP with Top Secret information, just like any other spy working for our enemy.  I just heard the CCP flooded $100 million into Penn Biden Center.  If this isn't money laundering, pay for secrets, what is.

Biden and his whole family should be indicted for treason and dealt with accordingly.  Every day Congress does nothing to remove this traitor is one more day the CCP is getting info they have no right to get.  The worst enemies in the USA are folks like the Bidens, and our government does nothing.  Garland is nothing more than a tool for Biden who is a tool for the CCP.

[andy58-in-nh]

...unless you are a Democrat.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Kamaji @Bigun @Free Vulcan

True, but there is a state of mind requirement in the statutes cited in the OP.

Well, state of mind is another way of saying "level of intent", but yeah.  The statute cited pretty clearly contains that requirement:

Under the Espionage Act, 18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information lists the following:

    (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

    (f) 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....

 "I didn't know that was in there" could potentially defeat charges under subsection (e), at least.  Subsection (f)'s "gross negligence" could nail him if he gave some order like "pack up all that stuff" knowing that it hadn't been checked for classified material, etc..

But I do think the fact that at least one classified document was found in the house, and not in the garage, creates the real problem for Biden.  Because while it may be plausible that he might not have been aware of a few classified documents scattered within a bunch of banker's boxes, that "I didn't know they were there" excuse is much less plausible each time they are divided, and some are moved to a different location at his direction.

If just a few documents were found in his office, and classified documents among them, that presents a real problem.  That clearly suggests he removed those documents in particular from the garage, or directed their specific removal, and so would have been aware of their contents.   That fits the "having knowledge" requirement of (f)(2).

My guess is that he'll wave off any attempts from this special counsel for him personally to provide information as to how they got where they were found, etc., but there are always aides, etc..  And ultimately,  Biden's argument has to boil down to "those documents were in my office by I didn't know they were there", which is sketchy to say the least.  And if he discovered they were there but didn't report it immediately, that's a violation of subsections (f)(2).

[Kamaji]

@Kamaji @Bigun

Well, state of mind is another way of saying "level of intent", but yeah.  The statute cited pretty clearly contains that requirement:

 "I didn't know that was in there" could defeat charges under subsection e, at least.  Subsection f's "gross negligence" could nail him if he gave some order like "pack up all that stuff" knowing that it hadn't been checked for classified material, etc..

But I do think the fact that at least one classified document was found in the house, and not in the garage, creates the real problem for Biden.  Because while it may be plausible that he might not have been aware of a few classified documents scattered within a bunch of banker's boxes, that "I didn't know they were there" excuse is much less plausible each time they are divided, and some are moved to a different location at his direction.

If just a few documents were found in his office, and classified documents among them, that presents a real problem.  That clearly suggests he removed those documents in particular from the garage, or directed their specific removal, and so would have been aware of their contents.

My guess is that he'll wave off any attempts from this special counsel to provide information as to how they got where they were found, etc., but there are always aides, etc..  And ultimately,  Biden's argument has to boil down to "those documents were in my office by I didn't know they were there", which is sketchy to say the least.

[Free Vulcan]

As VP, he had no right to the documents. Intent does not factor in.

He's just compounded his crimes from there.

Repubs need to get louder that this happened on Obama's watch.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

As VP, he had no right to the documents. Intent does not factor in.

He's just compounded his crimes from there.

Repubs need to get louder that this happened on Obama's watch.

There are intent/state of mind requirements in the statute.

[Free Vulcan]

There are intent/state of mind requirements in the statute.

The act of illegally taking them and storing them unsecured determined his intent. A long time Senator now VPOTUS, and the second highest elected official in the land, can't claim ignorance or confusion. His position and resume excludes that defense.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Classified documents are to remain in offically secure locations locked GSA-approved cabinets within a locked GSA-approved room with a GSA-approved locked door in a secure building on Government-authorized property.

What Hillary did is a crime.
What Trump did is a crime.
What Joe Biden did is a crime.

Each should be prosecuted and tried in a court of law.

If the laws are not to be enforced for those holding high office, they should be repealed.

I will not risk my life to protect the SWAMP.  Those bastards aren't worth a fecal sample.

[Kamaji]

The act of illegally taking them and storing them unsecured determined his intent. A long time Senator now VPOTUS, and the second highest elected official in the land, can't claim ignorance or confusion. His position and resume excludes that defense.

No, actually, it doesn't, not on a per-se basis.

[catfish1957]

This is kind of a repeat post of a response I made to the Mar-a-lago situation months ago....

Back about 20 years ago, I had Environmental, Safety, and Security at a large petrochemical plant (Manager)

Part of that job was new implementation of newdocumemt managment standards, where all employees were required to have "headers" identifying the document level of classification   or email at hand.  There were about 5 levels that ranged from Personal and Confidential to Business General.  Along with the classification requirement, was the document holder had to execute points of control for each document, like locked office, file cabinets, locked, PC, etc. etc.

After implementation of the policy, I was asked to audit compliance 2 months afterwards.  And guess what....  intitial review indicated 98% non-compliance. 

So what am I getting at?  Document Management is the "ultimate gotcha" kind of legal infraction that can serve as a distraction to more serious matters.  That is at least what my opinion of this whole matter.