“Special Counsel Investigates President Biden’s Classified Documents Scandal, Alarming New Timeline Emerges.”
This month, the unexpected arrival of Special Counsel Robert Hur created quite a buzz, akin to Bigfoot suddenly appearing on Pennsylvania Avenue. In contrast to his counterpart, Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has been vigorously pursuing former President Donald Trump, Hur has been conspicuously absent since his appointment to investigate President Joe Biden. Hur resurfaced to interview Biden regarding his possession of classified documents dating back to his time as a U.S. senator.
I’ve dubbed Hur a “neutron prosecutor” because he lacks a possible charge under Justice Department policy that prohibits indicting a sitting president. To compound the issue, there may be mounting evidence that contradicts the White House’s account of the discovery of these documents.
This newly emerging evidence could have significant implications not only for the criminal investigation but also for the impeachment proceedings against the president.
The House Oversight Committee recently unveiled a revised timeline of the discovery of classified documents related to Biden. From the outset, concerns were raised about Biden’s claims that he had no knowledge or involvement in the handling of these documents. The most glaring issue is that these documents were moved and divided repeatedly after being removed from his vice-presidential office. Some were found in his Washington, D.C. office, others in his garage, and reportedly in his library.
Biden initially expected a cursory and brief investigation, confidently declaring that he had “no regrets” about his actions and that the investigation would find nothing substantial.
However, it now appears that a crucial claim made by the White House may not only be false but was knowingly false when it was made. The White House had maintained that, upon discovering documents in the D.C. office, they promptly informed the national archives. However, evidence suggests that this was not the case. A close aide to Biden and a friend of Hunter Biden, Annie Tomasini, inspected the classified materials on March 18, 2021, two months after Biden took office, nearly 20 months before the Biden team claimed to have found them.
The Oversight Committee alleges that the White House omitted months of communications and planning among various officials, which contradicts the timeline presented by the Biden team. If proven true, this evidence could significantly impact both the criminal and impeachment investigations.
The timeline has been a crucial point of differentiation made by the White House in distinguishing this matter from Trump’s indictment. Biden claimed to be “surprised” by the discovery of the documents in November 2021, aligning with his lawyers’ narrative. However, repeated searches by Biden’s counsel and associates failed to turn up further classified documents, which was later found to be untrue. There are concerns that the documents’ handling may have been altered during these private searches, potentially contaminating the scene for FBI agents.
It now appears that the discovery had occurred months earlier, which more closely resembles Trump’s timeline regarding the retention of classified material and false accounts about the documents’ discovery.
The key question is what Special Counsel Hur can do if he finds that President Biden lied, either through witness testimony or forensic testing. The longstanding Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president may come into play if Hur seeks an indictment. This policy could also influence the ongoing impeachment inquiry by putting pressure on the House to consider articles of impeachment, including obstruction and abuse of power.
If the new timeline proves accurate, it raises questions about whether President Biden was aware of the false narrative presented by his staff and counsel. It also raises concerns about whether the president knowingly possessed classified documents and lied about their handling, use, and discovery. If Biden repeated these denials to Hur, it could lead to additional allegations of making false statements to federal investigators, a commonly charged federal crime.
It’s essential to await further evidence to support these potential crimes, but what is evident is that the prior narrative may no longer hold. As Special Counsel Smith once said, “We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone… Nothing more, nothing less.” The question for Special Counsel Hur is whether these laws can also apply to a sitting president. Similarly, if these allegations against Biden are substantiated, Congress may need to consider whether he should continue as president.
