More classified documents found

[Coach is Back!]

Get the leg irons ready!

Yep

[Wayne Tracker]

Wrong.  Intent is not required.

it's spelled out quite clearly in the law:  "with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location"

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
U.S. Code

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
(b)For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c)In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809; Pub. L. 115–118, title II, § 202, Jan. 19, 2018, 132 Stat. 19.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

[AbrahamG]

it's spelled out quite clearly in the law:  "with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location"

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
U.S. Code

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
(b)For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c)In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809; Pub. L. 115–118, title II, § 202, Jan. 19, 2018, 132 Stat. 19.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

You are honestly comparing Cornell Law School to the Getbig School of Law?  Sheep.  😉

[Dos Equis]

it's spelled out quite clearly in the law:  "with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location"

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
U.S. Code

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
(b)For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c)In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809; Pub. L. 115–118, title II, § 202, Jan. 19, 2018, 132 Stat. 19.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

Wrong again.

(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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

[Wayne Tracker]

Wrong again.

(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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

quoting a different part of the US code doesn't change or contradict the text of the law that I posted

I revised the bold section of the law that you posted

you failed to highlight the  part of having knowledge that the docs were illegally removed AND "fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer"

So all either special counsel has to prove is willful intent, gross negligence and failure to turn over the documents

The verbiage of the US code that you posted in similar to verbiage in The Espionage Act which I had posted in another thread

Can you show me where Biden or his attorney's obstructed the return of the docs or filed false statements saying they had returned everything

Here are are a couple of pertinent sections of the Espionage Act

You could attempt to make an argument for "gross negligence" for Biden but negligence would require knowledge of the docs and at this point it hasn't been made public how the docs got to his office or home so time will tell on that one

The timeline of Trumps lies and obstruction in relation to the docs has already been laid out in prior posts

(d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, will fully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, 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 list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

[Coach is Back!]

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2023/01/16/tax-cheat-joe-didnt-report-the-50000-month-in-rent-hunter-claimed-he-paid-n1662135

[Soul Crusher]

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2023/01/16/tax-cheat-joe-didnt-report-the-50000-month-in-rent-hunter-claimed-he-paid-n1662135

LibFAILS are going to ignore this like the plague 

[Wayne Tracker]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-was-hunter-biden-paying-joe-50k-month-rent-house-where-classified-documents-found

https://twitter.com/TruthNinja316/status/1615008226977931265

[Coach is Back!]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-was-hunter-biden-paying-joe-50k-month-rent-house-where-classified-documents-found

https://twitter.com/TruthNinja316/status/1615008226977931265

Strawman desperate to clear the good Biden name lol

[Dos Equis]

quoting a different part of the US code doesn't change or contradict the text of the law that I posted

I revised the bold section of the law that you posted

you failed to highlight the  part of having knowledge that the docs were illegally removed AND "fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer"

So all either special counsel has to prove is willful intent, gross negligence and failure to turn over the documents

The verbiage of the US code that you posted in similar to verbiage in The Espionage Act which I had posted in another thread

Can you show me where Biden or his attorney's obstructed the return of the docs or filed false statements saying they had returned everything

Here are are a couple of pertinent sections of the Espionage Act

You could attempt to make an argument for "gross negligence" for Biden but negligence would require knowledge of the docs and at this point it hasn't been made public how the docs got to his office or home so time will tell on that one

The timeline of Trumps lies and obstruction in relation to the docs has already been laid out in prior posts

Wrong yet again.

1.  You said intent was required.  I provided the statute reference for mishandling classified documents showing only gross negligence is required.  So you saying intent is required is wrong (like I said). 

2.  You are misreading the statute I quoted.  Section (f) has two parts.  The first part (1) only requires gross negligence.  The second part (2) requires knowledge of removal and failure to promptly report. 

3.  The news reports provide pretty clear evidence of gross negligence, including Biden storing classified documents in his garage, owned by his crackhead son, for years.  And he had classified documents in multiple locations.  Anyone not named Biden would be in jail for this. 

But the standard has already been set by letting Hillary Clinton get away with one of the most egregious violations ever.  Nothing is going to happen. 

[Wayne Tracker]

Wrong yet again.

1.  You said intent was required.  I provided the statute reference for mishandling classified documents showing only gross negligence is required.  So you saying intent is required is wrong (like I said). 

2.  You are misreading the statute I quoted.  Section (f) has two parts.  The first part (1) only requires gross negligence.  The second part (2) requires knowledge of removal and failure to promptly report. 

3.  The news reports provide pretty clear evidence of gross negligence, including Biden storing classified documents in his garage, owned by his crackhead son, for years.  And he had classified documents in multiple locations.  Anyone not named Biden would be in jail for this. 

But the standard has already been set by letting Hillary Clinton get away with one of the most egregious violations ever.  Nothing is going to happen.

Read it again

It lists a number of things spaced by OR and then says AND fails to deliver

So knowledge of the existence of the docs AND failure to deliver is when someone gets in trouble

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.

BTW one of those things listed is "having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody"

This applies to both circumstances.  The special counsel needs to prove: knowledge, intent AND fails to make prompt report

In Bidens case they found the docs when cleaning out an office and immediately notified the national archives and then they began to search all offices/residences specifically for more documents

In order to even begin to attempt to prove gross negligence both Special Counsels need to prove that Biden/Trump had knowledge of the documents. 
Again, there might be a case of gross negligence with Biden (and if so then certainly with Trump) but there is no intent with Biden and he did exactly what you're supposed to do when these types of docs are discovered.

That pretty much where the similarities end....so far




Regarding Hilary - Comey said that  that Clinton and her team were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” but he said there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law.

Again it comes back to intent

Also, later he said that he shouldn't have used the term "extremely careless" which he chose rather than "gross negligence" because he thought it was easier to understand.  So Comey basically said she was grossly negligent but he didn't advice to prosecute.   He later  said the shouldn't even have used 'extremely careless"  It all comes back to intent

In the statement he delivered on July 5, 2016, he described her email practices as “extremely careless.” He initially considered using “gross negligence,” but told Stephanopoulos that was a “lawyer term.”

“My staff convinced me that that's just gonna confuse all kinds of people, if you start talking about statutes and what the words mean,” he said. “What's a colloquial way to explain it? And elsewhere in my statement I had said ‘extremely careless.’ And so they said, ‘Just use that.’ And so that's what I went with.”

He said that he would not use the words “extreme carelessness” if he were to do it again.

“I don't know what it would be, sitting here. [I'd] find some other way to convey, 'cause I wanted to be honest and transparent. This wasn't your ordinary bureaucrat who just mishandles one document. This was something more than that. But not something that anybody would prosecute,” Comey said.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comey-admits-mistakes-describing-clintons-sloppy-handling-classified/story?id=54487996

[Soul Crusher]

Hi Straw. 

Biden had them in a Box next to his car in the garage for YEARS.  He goes to the house all the time and drives that old jalopy frequently.

Either his Dementia is so bad he doesnt remember anything or he has KNOWN the docs have been there for years.  Pick one.   

Read it again

It lists a number of things spaced by OR and then says AND fails to deliver

So knowledge of the existence of the docs AND failure to deliver is when someone gets in trouble

BTW one of those things listed is "having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody"

This applies to both circumstances.  The special counsel needs to prove: knowledge, intent AND fails to make prompt report

In Bidens case they found the docs when cleaning out an office and immediately notified the national archives and then they began to search all offices/residences specifically for more documents

In order to even begin to attempt to prove gross negligence both Special Counsels need to prove that Biden/Trump had knowledge of the documents. 
Again, there might be a case of gross negligence with Biden (and if so then certainly with Trump) but there is no intent with Biden and he did exactly what you're supposed to do when these types of docs are discovered.

That pretty much where the similarities end....so far




Regarding Hilary - Comey said that  that Clinton and her team were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” but he said there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law.

Again it comes back to intent

Also, later he said that he shouldn't have used the term "extremely careless" which he chose rather than "gross negligence" because he thought it was easier to understand.  So Comey basically said she was grossly negligent but he didn't advice to prosecute.   It all comes back to intent

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comey-admits-mistakes-describing-clintons-sloppy-handling-classified/story?id=54487996

[Dos Equis]

Hi Straw. 

Biden had them in a Box next to his car in the garage for YEARS.  He goes to the house all the time and drives that old jalopy frequently.

Either his Dementia is so bad he doesnt remember anything or he has KNOWN the docs have been there for years.  Pick one.   

Wait.  Is that the Village Idiot?  I cannot believe I engaged her.  I need to take a shower.  lol

[Wayne Tracker]

Wait.  Is that the Village Idiot?  I cannot believe I engaged her.  I need to take a shower.  lol

I don't know who that is but if you're all out of arguments I understand

I'm not making excuses for Biden.  What he did looks stupid but from what has been reported so far I don't see a prosecutable crime. 

There is a Special Counsel (and he's a Republican as is the custom) so maybe we'll find out that it rises to the level of a crime

[Primemuscle]

“Biden Tax Returns Disappear From Campaign Website for Years Hunter Claimed He Lived at Joe’s Delaware Home”

Tucker Carlson reported Monday night that tax returns for the years 2016-2018 have disappeared from Joe Biden’s campaign website’s financial disclosure page at Joe Biden.com .

Those years cover the same timeframe that first son Hunter claimed on a background check report to allegedly have paid nearly $50,000 per month rent to stay at father Joe’s Wilmington, Delaware home where illicit classified documents were found in December 2022 and last week. (Note added at end to reflect headline edit: Rent claim is in question)

The link for Biden’s tax returns for 2019 for federal, Delaware and Virginia is still active. All the others redirect to a Democrat donation page.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris proudly displayed their tax filings on the JoeBiden.com webpage.

Links to their tax filings were posted on the joebiden.com financial disclosure webpage in July 2019.

The original list of tax filings included filings from 2016, 2017, and 2018:


Open link for the documents, links and rest of the article

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/01/cover-biden-tax-returns-disappear-campaign-website-years-hunter-claimed-paid-50k-per-month-rent-joe/

Oops! It appears that Joe read your post and put the missing 2016-2018 tax returns back on his webpage.

Is it possible Tucker Carlson and Gateway Pundit couldn't figure out how to access them? Maybe they should fire their investigative teams.

https://joebiden.com/financial-disclosure/#

https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2016-Federal.pdf
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2016-DE.pdf

https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2017-Federal.pdf
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2017-DE.pdf

https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2018-Federal.pdf
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2018-DE.pdf

And for good measure here are his 2019 federal returns:
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2019-Biden-Delaware-Virginia-Federal-3.pdf

[Primemuscle]

Doesn't matter.  Joe was the VP, not the president.  He knew it was illegal to keep classified documents, but he did it anyway.  He kept them for six years in a very insecure location.  After the classified documents were found, the WH delayed disclosing that fact, and lied about the number of pages found.

Please explain why Joe being VP and not the President has any bearing on the retention of classified government documents. Keep in mind that once Joe Biden became president on January 20th, Trump became an ordinary citizen. Also consider that it is likely Joe Biden removed these documents when Obama was President. So, if he needed the Presidents authority to move them Obama would have been who gave it to Joe.

If your interested in some of the legal jargon that pertains to this situation read on.

Editorial Notes AMENDMENTS 1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted ‘‘fined under this title’’ for ‘‘fined not more than $2,000’’. § 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material (a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. (b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a). (c) In this section, the term ‘‘classified information of the United States’’ means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security. (Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, §808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809; Pub. L. 115–118, title II, §202, Jan. 19, 2018, 132 Stat. 19.)

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title18/html/USCODE-2021-title18-partI-chap93-sec1924.htm

Any former president, vice president and a few others, by law, have access to all and any classified information in perpetuity by the nature of the position they held. But no one may remove classified information without proper authorization, including the president.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/classified-materials-handled-analysis/story?id=96416984
These are Security Classification 101 procedures, but none of them were material to Trump while he was still the president. He held ultimate authority over classification issues until noon on January 20, 2021. When Joe Biden became the President, however, Trump became just another private citizen who was obligated by federal law not to willingly remove classified records from a secure location and place them in an unsecured basement at Mar-a-Lago. When he took the records from the White House, shipped them to Florida, and stored them at Mar-a-Lago, he arguably ran afoul of Section 1924.
https://www.justsecurity.org/82619/expert-explainer-criminal-statutes-that-could-apply-to-trumps-retention-of-government-documents/
 

[Coach is Back!]

.



While Biddy Jo is getting all the attention for late return of library books has anybody noticed that Don is being
de-sanitised by Ron ?

Because with still 2 years to go no one cares

[Coach is Back!]

Oops! It appears that Joe read your post and put the missing 2016-2018 tax returns back on his webpage.

Is it possible Tucker Carlson and Gateway Pundit couldn't figure out how to access them? Maybe they should fire their investigative teams.

https://joebiden.com/financial-disclosure/#

https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2016-Federal.pdf
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2016-DE.pdf

https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2017-Federal.pdf
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2017-DE.pdf

https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2018-Federal.pdf
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-2018-DE.pdf

And for good measure here are his 2019 federal returns:
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2019-Biden-Delaware-Virginia-Federal-3.pdf

Get in touch with them and tell them they’re wrong..lol 

[Coach is Back!]

Update: At some point on Tuesday afternoon, the missing files were restored to Biden’s website. These files were only uploaded on Tuesday, as one can see by hovering over the links where the files are located.



Original story:

In the wake of accusations that Joe Biden may have failed to report thousands of dollars in rental income on his taxes, it has been discovered that Joe Biden’s campaign surreptitiously removed some of his tax returns from its website.

As PJ Media previously reported, Hunter Biden claimed on a background check form to have paid his dad $49,910 a month in rent — a suspiciously high figure given the value of the home — while he was living at Joe’s Wilmington, Del., home from March 2017 to February 2018 following his divorce — the same house where Biden stashed classified documents in his garage next to his prized Corvette.

However, according to the Schedule E portion of his 2017 tax forms, Joe Biden reported $19,800 in “rents received” and none in 2018. This discrepancy could mean that Joe Biden failed to report more than half a million in income on his taxes.

Related: Charges Against Hunter Biden Could Be Imminent

Curiously, those documents are no longer available on his campaign website — while it appears that his tax returns are still posted to the website for public viewing, most of the files previously made available to the public have been removed. Instead, when you click on most of the links, the website immediately redirects the user to a donation page.

It is not clear when the files were removed or why. But Joe Biden made transparency a key issue of his campaign and presidency, never missing the opportunity to contrast his disclosing of his tax returns with Trump’s refusal to do so. The missing tax returns certainly raise significant questions. Most importantly, is this related to Hunter Biden? Let’s not forget that Hunter Biden has been under federal investigation for tax fraud, among other things. Did Hunter Biden report over half a million in rental payments to his father, but his father did not report that income? Or, if Hunter Biden’s rent claim was filed in error, as some are postulating, were the elder Biden’s tax documents removed
because of the investigation?

Open the link for the rest of the article

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2023/01/17/joe-biden-removed-tax-returns-from-website-and-we-have-questions-n1662417

[Primemuscle]

Get in touch with them and tell them they’re wrong..lol

Why bother? Come to think of it, why bother explaining anything to you because you are too far gone down that rabbit hole to remember how to distinguish reality from fantasy.

Those are links to Biden's tax returns covering the very time that some idiots including you, said had been removed. I easily found them and posted them today within a couple of minutes. Maybe when Biden read that someone named Coach had posted on Getbig that they'd been taken down, he put them back up just to make a fool out of you and Tucker.

Have at it with your inane LOL's... at the rate you are going, you will soon be locked up in the looney bin.

Websites are updated constantly. It was reported the tax returns were down on 1/16/2023 and low and behold, they reappeared the very next day. OMG! This is absolute evidence of a huge coverup.

Read this from the same article you cut and pasted from:
"It is not clear when the files were removed or why." 

[AbrahamG]

Why bother? Come to think of it, why bother explaining anything to you because you are too far gone down that rabbit hole to remember how to distinguish reality from fantasy.

Those are links to Biden's tax returns covering the very time that some idiots including you, said had been removed. I easily found them and posted them today within a couple of minutes. Maybe when Biden read that someone named Coach had posted on Getbig that they'd been taken down, he put them back up just to make a fool out of you and Tucker.

Have at it with your inane LOL's... at the rate you are going, you'll be soon be locked up in the looney bin.

[LurkerNoMore]

Why bother? Come to think of it, why bother explaining anything to you because you are too far gone down that rabbit hole to remember how to distinguish reality from fantasy.

Those are links to Biden's tax returns covering the very time that some idiots including you, said had been removed. I easily found them and posted them today within a couple of minutes. Maybe when Biden read that someone named Coach had posted on Getbig that they'd been taken down, he put them back up just to make a fool out of you and Tucker.

Have at it with your inane LOL's... at the rate you are going, you will soon be locked up in the looney bin.

Websites are updated constantly. It was reported the tax returns were down on 1/16/2023 and low and behold, they reappeared the very next day. OMG! This is absolute evidence of a huge coverup.

Read this from the same article you cut and pasted from:
"It is not clear when the files were removed or why."

This.  This is all that needs to be said on any of Qoach's posts.  And when you explain to him you aren't going to waste time doing so, he doesn't understand that either.

[Coach is Back!]

.

[Soul Crusher]

This.  This is all that needs to be said on any of Qoach's posts.  And when you explain to him you aren't going to waste time doing so, he doesn't understand that either.

Biden smirks and LAUGHS at reporters while again refusing to answer questions on classified files - as shocking report reveals Department of Justice made deal to keep FBI agents AWAY from search
Daily Mail UK ^ | 17 January 2023 | By EMILY GOODIN, SENIOR U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER
Posted on 1/18/2023, 12:38:12 PM by Red Badger

Grinning Biden refused to answer questions from reporters in the Oval Office

Reporters shouted questions on the documents - but he just sat and smiled

And new report found DoJ cut a deal with Biden team to keep FBI out

Justice agreed to let Biden's team search solo

White House is under intense scrutiny for their response to the files scandal

It took them two months from the first discovery to acknowledge them

********************************************************************************

President Joe Biden smiled and laughed Tuesday as he ignored a barrage of questions about the classified documents scandal that has engulfed his administration while a shocking new report detailed a deal made by the Justice Department to keep the FBI away from the search.

The grinning Biden stayed silent at the end of his meeting with Netherlands' Prime Minister Mark Rutte - while the media asked about the sensitive files found at his D.C. think tank and garage at his Wilmington home.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal revealed on Tuesday that the Justice Department considered having FBI agents monitor Biden's personal attorneys as they searched his Wilmington and Rehoboth homes but decided against it, deciding Biden's lawyers were cooperating with them.

Biden's legal team, after the discovery of the first tranche of documents at his D.C. think tank, talked with the DoJ about having FBI agents present while Biden's lawyers conducted the additional searches.

Ultimately the two sides cut a deal where only Biden's attorneys would do the search and immediately report any findings. They did find more documents - in the garage and 'personal library' of the president's Wilmington home.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

[LurkerNoMore]

Biden smirks and LAUGHS at reporters while again refusing to answer questions on classified files - as shocking report reveals Department of Justice made deal to keep FBI agents AWAY from search
Daily Mail UK ^ | 17 January 2023 | By EMILY GOODIN, SENIOR U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER
Posted on 1/18/2023, 12:38:12 PM by Red Badger

Grinning Biden refused to answer questions from reporters in the Oval Office

Reporters shouted questions on the documents - but he just sat and smiled

And new report found DoJ cut a deal with Biden team to keep FBI out

Justice agreed to let Biden's team search solo

White House is under intense scrutiny for their response to the files scandal

It took them two months from the first discovery to acknowledge them

********************************************************************************

President Joe Biden smiled and laughed Tuesday as he ignored a barrage of questions about the classified documents scandal that has engulfed his administration while a shocking new report detailed a deal made by the Justice Department to keep the FBI away from the search.

The grinning Biden stayed silent at the end of his meeting with Netherlands' Prime Minister Mark Rutte - while the media asked about the sensitive files found at his D.C. think tank and garage at his Wilmington home.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal revealed on Tuesday that the Justice Department considered having FBI agents monitor Biden's personal attorneys as they searched his Wilmington and Rehoboth homes but decided against it, deciding Biden's lawyers were cooperating with them.

Biden's legal team, after the discovery of the first tranche of documents at his D.C. think tank, talked with the DoJ about having FBI agents present while Biden's lawyers conducted the additional searches.

Ultimately the two sides cut a deal where only Biden's attorneys would do the search and immediately report any findings. They did find more documents - in the garage and 'personal library' of the president's Wilmington home.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

And?  What should he do?  Throw ketchup on the walls?  Claim the FBI planted them?  Say he declassified them with his mind?