A Deeply Fractured US

[brihard]

Yep, it will be figured out in court about Trump but Biden not so much. I just can't believe Biden didn't personally know there were classified documents in the office he used as well as his garage. Another point it was well hidden from the public and only came to light months later when ABC news broke a story. The second batch found was not revealed either until another news story came out.

If you have further information about the details the special counsel considered, I’d be interested to read it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My take away from this is if Trump had some documents, given them back when asked, would have gone the same route.

But sure, lets ignore the differences in context when Trump was actively trying to hide the documents, lied repeatedly and shared information on TS and SA documents which included nuclear and state secrets as some kind of weird flex to impress randos.

The standard isn't what Trump did. The standard is what happens to anyone who is not politically powerful who gets caught with papers they're not allowed to have.

 

[KevinB]

The standard isn't what Trump did. The standard is what happens to anyone who is not politically powerful who gets caught with papers they're not allowed to have.

No the standard is if one finds documents to then:
1) report their finding, and
2) to have them returned to the .gov immediately and
3) conduct a search to see if any other documents remain in possession (and turn those over too

 

[brihard]

The standard isn't what Trump did. The standard is what happens to anyone who is not politically powerful who gets caught with papers they're not allowed to have.

The standard is how the various potentially relevant provisions of the law apply to the very specific set of facts in a given situation/investigation. Bridging from mishandling/misuse of classified information as a policy violation to criminal charges and prosecution can require that a number of different elements be met.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

My take away from this is if Trump had some documents, given them back when asked, would have gone the same route.

But sure, lets ignore the differences in context when Trump was actively trying to hide the documents, lied repeatedly and shared information on TS and SA documents which included nuclear and state secrets as some kind of weird flex to impress randos.

Allegedly. Nothing has been proven, but nice try.

 

[KevinB]

Allegedly. Nothing has been proven, but nice try.

Other than the audio and video of him doing exactly that…

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There are allegations that the Chinatown docs were known about months before they reported it. They held off reporting them until after the election, like the laptop. Biden was VP, with zero authority, to have the docs period. Many of them TS and many that would have only been viewed and discussed in security briefings. I wonder how they got there? Blame it on the packers? Sure, Trump can say the same. If Trump doesn't beat Smith, we'll see what happens on appeal.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Other than the audio and video of him doing exactly that…

You've seen them and heard them then? Post a link to them please Kev.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The standard is how the various potentially relevant provisions of the law apply to the very specific set of facts in a given situation/investigation. Bridging from mishandling/misuse of classified information as a policy violation to criminal charges and prosecution can require that a number of different elements be met.

I suspect that "these are some things you're not allowed to have under any circumstances, and these are some things you're not allowed to store unsecurely", together with "there are legal penalties for deliberate malfeasance, and other legal penalties for mere negligence", and "sign this document to show that you understood this" (or simply "ignorance is no excuse"), is more than policy.

Or is it the case that in the US, carelessness with classified materials carries no criminal penalties whatsoever?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I suspect that "these are some things you're not allowed to have under any circumstances, and these are some things you're not allowed to store unsecurely", together with "there are legal penalties for deliberate malfeasance, and other legal penalties for mere negligence", and "sign this document to show that you understood this" (or simply "ignorance is no excuse"), is more than policy.

Or is it the case that in the US, carelessness with classified materials carries no criminal penalties whatsoever?

Only if you're a Democrat.

 

[brihard]

I suspect that "these are some things you're not allowed to have under any circumstances, and these are some things you're not allowed to store unsecurely", together with "there are legal penalties for deliberate malfeasance, and other legal penalties for mere negligence", and "sign this document to show that you understood this" (or simply "ignorance is no excuse"), is more than policy.

Or is it the case that in the US, carelessness with classified materials carries no criminal penalties whatsoever?

See my last few replies in this thread for some of the additional considerations when looking to determine if something like constitutes or can be prosecuted as a criminal matter.

 

[KevinB]

Why Georgia Republicans Are Protecting the D.A. Who Indicted Trump

G.O.P. leaders, including Gov. Brian Kemp, are shielding Fani T. Willis from political threats, not so much to protect her, as to protect the image of the state.

www.nytimes.com

 

[KevinB]

I suspect that "these are some things you're not allowed to have under any circumstances, and these are some things you're not allowed to store unsecurely", together with "there are legal penalties for deliberate malfeasance, and other legal penalties for mere negligence", and "sign this document to show that you understood this" (or simply "ignorance is no excuse"), is more than policy.

Or is it the case that in the US, carelessness with classified materials carries no criminal penalties whatsoever?

Theoretically No Classified material is distributed outside a SCIF.

However a lot of information is overly classified, which results in a lot of laziness/apathy towards Classified materials.

Additionally the requirements for clearances are different for Military personnel versus Political, as elected officials are often granted clearances based on their positions without the same sort of background checks or time requirements.

To get a TS-SCI down here in the US Military, one need to hold a TS for two years prior and also have a job that requires it.
While a Senator, Congressional Rep, or their staffers can end up with them in days after appointment.

It’s also abundantly clear that penalties are not applied equally, with USMJ penalties being significantly stiffer than Civilian Criminal penalties.


Both Military and Industry have processes that are approved and monitored for classified information storage and distribution. No so much with the Politican side of the coin. While DoD may have a CDO that hands out information, there is no guarantees that once it’s received by a staffer or Elected Official that it is handled appropriately. Additionally when Federal agencies attempt to monitor potential or alleged breaches by Political figures they are often smeared for overreach.

 

[brihard]

Theoretically No Classified material is distributed outside a SCIF.

That’s not accurate. Sensitive Compartmentalized Information - stuff with compartmentalization designators after the classification, yes, stays either in a SCIF or in approved transportation/transmittal between the two. But ‘clean’ classified - Confidential, Secret, or TS without further compartmentalization - doesn’t need the full SCIF treatment and all the ass pain that entails.

I think that’s what you meant; a lot of stuff is classified, needs proper handling and storage in secure workspaces, but doesn’t rise to the level of a full windowless EMCONned SCIF. A lot of work would be damned near impossible if it was.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Trump's creeping up in the polls ...

Trump holds comfortable lead in CNN New Hampshire poll, but Haley is gaining​

Former President Trump holds a large lead in New Hampshire’s Republican presidential primary, while former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley is gaining ground in the key early voting state, according to a new poll.

A CNN poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire and released Thursday found 42 percent of likely GOP primary voters in the Granite State said they would vote for Trump, while 20 percent said they’d back Haley.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie garnered 14 percent support, followed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at 9 percent and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy at 8 percent. No other candidate had more than 2 percent support.

Haley’s support in the poll is up 8 points from the last CNN poll conducted in mid-September.

Among registered Republican voters in the latest survey, Trump remains on top with 55 percent support, followed by Haley at 17 percent and DeSantis at 11 percent.

Trump holds comfortable lead in CNN New Hampshire poll, but Haley is gaining

Former President Trump holds a large lead in New Hampshire’s Republican presidential primary, while former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley is gaining ground in the key early voting state, accordi…

thehill.com

 

[KevinB]

That’s not accurate. Sensitive Compartmentalized Information - stuff with compartmentalization designators after the classification, yes, stays either in a SCIF or in approved transportation/transmittal between the two. But ‘clean’ classified - Confidential, Secret, or TS without further compartmentalization - doesn’t need the full SCIF treatment and all the ass pain that entails.

I think that’s what you meant; a lot of stuff is classified, needs proper handling and storage in secure workspaces, but doesn’t rise to the level of a full windowless EMCONned SCIF. A lot of work would be damned near impossible if it was.

Correct. I suck at typing on my phone. I’m also guilty of not really thinking that non SCI stuff is really classified, and tend only to think of SCIF work in that respect.

Admittedly a lot of stuff that would have been confidential 20-30 years ago is now Secret or TS, and some other things are OS that are mind boggling….

 

[Blackadder1916]

Or is it the case that in the US, carelessness with classified materials carries no criminal penalties whatsoever?

Though most recent attention has been focused on a specific politician's mishandling and retention of classified documents, the US government has prosecuted lesser known individuals. Some examples from this year were:

Former FBI Analyst Sentenced for Retaining Classified Documents

A former analyst with the Kansas City Division of the FBI was sentenced in federal court today for illegally retaining documents related to the national defense at her residence.

www.justice.gov

Defendant Kept Hundreds of National Defense Documents at Her Home in Violation of the Espionage Act
A former analyst with the Kansas City Division of the FBI was sentenced in federal court today for illegally retaining documents related to the national defense at her residence.
Kendra Kingsbury, 50, of Garden City, Kansas, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Bough to 46 months in federal prison followed by three years of supervised release. Kingsbury pleaded guilty on Oct. 13, 2022, to two counts of unlawfully retaining documents related to the national defense.
According to court documents, Kingsbury was an intelligence analyst for the FBI for more than 12 years, from 2004 to Dec. 15, 2017. Kingsbury was assigned to a sequence of different FBI squads, each of which had a particular focus, such as illegal drug trafficking, violent crime, violent gangs and counterintelligence. Kingsbury held a TOP SECRET/SCI security clearance and had access to national defense and classified information. Training presentations and materials specifically warned Kingsbury that she was prohibited from retaining classified information at her personal residence. Such information could only be stored in an approved facility and container.

Former U.S. Air Force Intelligence Officer Sentenced To 36 Months’ Imprisonment For Willfully Retaining Top Secret National Defense Information

Tampa, FL – U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle today sentenced Robert L. Birchum (55, Tampa) to three years in federal prison for unlawfully possessing and retaining classified documents relating to the national defense of the United States. The court also ordered Birchum to pay a fine...

www.justice.gov

Tampa, FL – U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle today sentenced Robert L. Birchum (55, Tampa) to three years in federal prison for unlawfully possessing and retaining classified documents relating to the national defense of the United States. The court also ordered Birchum to pay a fine of $25,000.

Birchum pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing and retaining classified documents relating to the national defense of the United States on February. 21, 2023. According to the plea agreement, Birchum previously served as a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force. During his 29-year career, Birchum served in various positions in intelligence, including those requiring him to work with classified intelligence information for the Joint Special Operations Command, the Special Operations Command, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. While on active duty, Birchum entered into several agreements with the United States regarding the protection and proper handling of classified information.

In 2017, however, law enforcement officers discovered that Birchum knowingly removed more than 300 classified files or documents, including more than 30 items marked Top Secret, from authorized locations. Birchum kept these classified materials in his home, his overseas officer’s quarters, and a storage pod in his driveway. None of these locations were authorized for storage of classified national defense information. In particular, the criminal information charges that Birchum possessed two documents on a thumb drive found in his home that contained information relating to the National Security Agency’s capabilities and methods of collection and targets’ vulnerabilities. Both of these documents were classified as Top Secret/SCI, and their unauthorized release could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Trump's creeping up in the polls ...

And Trump, DeSantis, and Haley are all positive in matchups against Biden in the RCP averages. DeSantis was negative for a long while until recently. Democrats still have time to find a better candidate, but they seem strongly divided into "can't change" and "must change" camps.

 

[Kirkhill]

A nice review and summary of a pro-Democrat book, in the sense the book was written by and for Democrats.

The Majority That Didn’t Emerge

Ruy Teixeira and John Judis explore why the Democrats’ “coalition of the ascendant” didn’t come together as promised.

www.city-journal.org

Judis and Teixeira offer a clear-eyed assessment of the challenges that the Democratic Party faces and offer a plausible route for the party to win broader majorities: focus on delivering for working-class Americans while offering a more inclusive message on culture. They note, for instance, the popularity of increases to the minimum wage and expansions of Medicaid subsidies even among Republican electorates.

The disruptions that the authors explore point to further complications. If Republicans and Democrats find themselves in a new political paradigm, what exactly constitutes a “right” or “left” approach to economics remains unsettled. For instance, while many Americans support efforts to reinforce the safety net, they also prize economic growth. How to synthesize those two imperatives is something for both political parties to work out. The Biden White House now projects annual budget deficits of around 5 percent of GDP indefinitely. The precise balance of growth, budgetary reforms, and tax policies to bring the deficit down to earth will put pressures on both political coalitions.

The Great Divide has many causes, ranging from deeper cultural trends to the Internet’s disintermediation of media and commerce. But policymakers have also contributed to these divisions, and they may have a role in remedying them. Renewing the economic middle and strengthening local communities could help rebuild a civic center. A party that shows itself up to that task could reap significant political rewards—at least until the next election.

These passages resonate the most with me...

Judis and Teixeira suggest that the collapse of mediating institutions, evisceration of industrial infrastructure, and withering of inherited traditions have produced two polarized reactions: Prometheanism and despair. In postindustrial urban hubs, that Promethean impulse can be seen in the frantic race to create new secular “identities and lifestyles.” On the other side of the Great Divide, many Americans respond to this disruption with a sense of mourning or resentment. The local factory has closed, the neighborhood church has been shuttered, and the children of these communities face uncertain futures. Yet even the Promethean quest to create ever-more boutique identities may itself reveal deeper anxieties.

Judis and Teixeira’s diagnosis of Democratic struggles also highlights another divide—between the “governing coalition” that sets the policy parameters for a political party and the “electoral coalition” that puts that party in office. They argue that the Democratic governing coalition—with its “shadow government” of activists, academics, and other stakeholders—fundamentally misunderstands the incentives of the party’s electoral coalition. This formulation might have a lesson for Republicans, too. Some have argued that the governing coalition of the pre-Trump GOP projected a certain ideological rigor onto Republican voters (regarding trade or entitlements, for instance). That mismatch left the old party establishment unprepared for Trump’s populist insurgency. A similar question hovers over the current Republican primary: whether the “shadow government” of a more Trump-aligned GOP infrastructure is optimized to build a winning electoral coalition.

For me, I read "governing coalition" as being synonymous with "elite". And I will go farther and suggest that that "elite governing coalition" crosses party lines, borders and oceans.

As to the "electoral coalition", I define that as "voters". Explicitly they are voters that agree with the "governing coalition" regardless of party identification. Voters who disagree are the masses easily swayed by their emotions and susceptible to demagoguery by populists.

The division is not new. I can point to tracts from 1946 that explicitly reference the division between the elites and the real people that support them and the emotional masses that need to be contained, tutored and led.

 

[mariomike]

A nice review and summary of a pro-Democrat book, in the sense the book was written by and for Democrats.

For Team Red, Nikki offered this review and summary,

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625905691520118829