Biden’s Lawyer’s Search for Classified Documents: A Clear Incompetence or Unjustified Scrutiny?

Several high-profile searches have been conducted regarding classified documents related to former US President Joe Biden. The focus here is on the actions taken by his attorneys and the implications of these searches. This article delves into the legality and necessity of such actions, comparing them to the conduct of another former president, Donald Trump.

Legal and Ethical Concerns Surrounding Attorney Involvement

Quite frankly, it is illegal for Biden's attorneys to be conducting the search for these classified documents without the correct security clearances. Under standard protocols, an individual must have the appropriate level of clearance and be in the designated secure venue to access such documents. It is only when one has the security clearances that the document's classification status can be determined. Unfortunately, Biden’s attorneys lack these prerequisites.

Why Do We Need Security Clearances?

Accurately determining the classification of a document requires proper access to the document itself. This ensures that all necessary information is taken into account, including any markings or annotations indicating its status. Without the security clearances and appropriate viewing conditions, any determination of a document's classification is unlawful and unreliable.

The Legal Obligation and Misconduct of Biden and Trump

Biden’s cooperation with the National Archives and the report he provided through his attorneys underscore his adherence to legal procedures. In contrast, Trump’s actions during the_period of classified document searches and retrievings demonstrate a significant disregard for these protocols:

Biden's Cooperation: Upon realizing the relevance of certain documents to ongoing investigations, Biden's attorneys took the responsible step of informing the National Archives. This transparency aligns with the ethical and legal standards expected of government officials.

Trump's Deception and Inefficacy: Trump initially claimed rights over the documents, then attempted to declassify them without proper formal process. When the FBI obtained a warrant to search Mar A Lago and other properties, Trump's supporters and he himself quickly characterized this as an “attack,” despite it being a well-justified search.

Attorneys' Motive: Attorneys in such scenarios typically have a vested interest in uncovering any classified documents and reporting them to the appropriate authorities before the FBI intervenes. This is to prevent potential legal penalties.

Comparing Biden and Trump’s Legal and Ethical Approaches

While both presidents mishandled documents, the nature of their errors and subsequent actions differ greatly. Biden reported the issue to the National Archives and cooperated with their investigation. Trump, on the other hand, engaged in public defiance and misinformation, leading to a broader misconception of what transpired.

Implications and Future Actions

The process highlights the ongoing need for proper handling and reporting of classified documents. Biden’s actions, despite the implication of a possible oversight, uphold a higher standard of transparency and legal compliance. The effectiveness of attorneys in such cases is crucial to ensure that documents are reported and handled appropriately.

For the National Archives and other security agencies, ensuring robust protocols and transparent communication with the White House is essential. Missteps, such as the 1461-day break in services mentioned, cannot be overlooked.

Ultimately, the legal and ethical handling of classified documents requires a rigorous approach, one that Biden’s case does not fully reflect, while Trump’s actions set a concerning precedent based on deception and incomplete rectification of the issue.

Conclusion

The current scrutiny on Biden’s attorneys’ search for classified documents reflects a broader concern about security and transparency in government proceedings. While both Biden and Trump mishandled documents, the differences in their approaches underscore the necessity of stricter protocols and more transparent communication between government officials and security agencies.

For those in positions of power, the lessons from both men’s mishandlings should serve as a reminder of the importance of compliance with legal and ethical standards.