On Jan. 9, we were introduced to yet another instance of public officials mishandling classified documents. This time it was Biden who messed up. According to a statement from Biden’s attorney, the relevant documents were found last November in the office of his think tank, the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. They were returned to the National Archives the day following their discovery.
The search warrant that took place at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence occurred under a similar context related to the mishandling of our nation’s secrets. Don’t let the similarity fool you, however. There are key differences between the two cases, with the biggest difference pertaining to criminal intent.
The timeline leading up to the search of Mar-A-Lago was extremely cautionary due to the precedent-setting potential of the investigation. The timeline was also extremely hindered by Trump and his legal team. Over six months of investigations took place after an initial warning from the National Archives worried the Department of Justice about the location of the documents.
After a lack of compliance and cooperation from Trump and his lawyers, the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, approved the FBI to submit an affidavit asking for a search warrant. The warrant was approved, and on Aug. 8, 2022, the FBI removed over 20 boxes of files from the former president’s residence.
Some of these documents bore the marking of “compartmented” information. The highest level of security clearance is needed for these kinds of documents, and extreme procedures are undertaken even when merely looking at this kind of information.
The strenuous timeline leading up to the breaking news that swept the media for weeks is quite different from what we have seen with Biden’s case. In Trump’s case, the intentional retention of classified material is clear along with the potential obstruction of justice. These two factors have buried Trump in a considerable amount of legal peril.
Meanwhile, in Biden’s case, the intention and obstruction that we saw with Trump are largely absent. After discovering the 12 classified documents in Biden’s former office, his attorneys decided to search his residence as well. The precaution ended up being worthwhile, as more documents were found stored in Biden’s garage.
It is obvious in Biden’s case that the maltreatment of sensitive material was at play. But maltreatment is far from synonymous with criminal intent. What we have seen so far with Biden and his legal team is speedy cooperation, condensing the cleanup timeline considerably when compared to that of Trump.
The difference thus lies in criminal intent, and that is a crucial distinction to make. The political opportunities this has created for Republicans have already been capitalized on, however. Two GOP-led committees in the House have already launched their own investigations.
Merrick Garland, the attorney general, has also launched his own investigation into Biden’s case. This, however, seems more appropriate than the GOP’s highly politicized and hypocritical investigations. Investigations into this kind of mistreatment of classified material should happen, but politics must be taken out of it.
Still, removing politics from these kinds of investigations is borderline impossible, especially in such a polarized environment. Merrick Garland understands this as well, and he has done his best to remain as objective as possible throughout both cases. Investigating Biden, even in the case of there being no obvious criminal intent, is an example of this objectivity.
Putting the differences and politics aside is useful in these circumstances for two reasons. For one, the American people should be concerned and frustrated that this mistreatment has become a trend. The threat to national security is very evident, and party affiliation should not manipulate these feelings.
Secondly, by putting politics aside, we can begin to think about how we can reform the way in which Presidents interact with classified material. Presidents are unique in how they deal with classified material. For most public officials, a formal process occurs before and after their interaction with sensitive information. This is not the case for presidents.
The process of being “read in” involves paperwork that officials must sign stating that they won’t share information with unauthorized personnel. It also states that they will not store information in unauthorized areas. Being “read out” occurs at the end of an official’s tenure, legally reaffirming and reminding officials of their previous commitment.
This process does not occur for presidents, and when there is someone in office with no previous government experience, like Trump, it is not surprising that malpractice occurs. This is not to say that he is innocent—his lack of cooperation with authorities is concerning—but it is obvious that structural failsafes could be established to prevent these kinds of situations.
Overall, Biden’s case has further invigorated partisan politics. More importantly, Biden’s case has slapped us awake again, demonstrating how a lack of competence can threaten the functionality of our government in the international realm. We can either use Trump’s and Biden’s cases to fuel our political frustrations, or we can take a step back and objectively approach a trend that must end.
