In a stunning turn of events, it has been revealed that the White House knew about Joe Biden’s document problem before going after Donald Trump. This new information is a major blow to Biden’s defense and could have serious implications for both the criminal and impeachment investigations.
According to legal analyst Jonathan Turley, there is growing evidence that contradicts the White House’s account of how the documents were discovered. Turley argues that Special Counsel Robert Hur, the man responsible for investigating Biden, does not have the authority to charge the sitting president with criminal violations.
The timeline of when Biden’s classified documents were first discovered by his White House staff raises a number of legal issues, including the possibility of false statements. It is clear that the documents were moved and divided up after being removed from the vice president’s office, with some found in his Washington, D.C. office, garage, and library.
Biden had initially expected the investigation to be brief and perfunctory, confidently stating that he had “no regrets” about his conduct. However, it now appears that a critical claim made by the White House may have been knowingly false. The White House has maintained that they immediately notified the national archives, but it seems that this is not the case.
Turley further highlights the potential obstruction of the investigation by a close aide and friend of Hunter Biden, Annie Tomasini. Tomasini, who referred to Hunter as her “brother,” allegedly inspected the classified material on March 18, 2021, months before they were officially found by the Biden team.
If these allegations are true, they would completely discredit the timeline put forth by the Biden team, ultimately undermining both the criminal and impeachment investigations. Charging former President Trump while letting Biden off the hook would be a clear violation of the rule of law, and would make a mockery of the justice system.
It is crucial that these historic legal cases are treated fairly and proportionately, with verdicts and sentencing that reflect the evidence and uphold the integrity of our judicial system.