Talk:Joe Biden classified documents incident

Best estimate of document count: 20 or 26?
The lead sentence of the article refers to 20 documents. This figure appears to come from a cited CBS story from Jan. 13. The article goes on to mention the discovery of another 6 documents in an FBI search of the Biden residence on Jan. 20, which could not have been included in the CBS figure. So probably the lead sentence should be updated to say 26 instead, but we should first establish a consensus that this change is WP:CALC not WP:SYNTH. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thoughts, anyone? 67.188.1.213 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "in excess of twenty" suffice? SecretName101 (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * taking a closer took, “roughly 20” does not mean 20. So 26 is definitely not established, since we cannot ascertain an exact total of documents that had been found prior to the last 6-document discovery SecretName101 (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, it wouldn't be right to say just "26". I meant that we should replace the "20" with "26" to make the sentence read "roughly 26" because that's what the reliable sources tell us. However, in light of the continuing searches, I'm a little concerned that we might be looking at a lead sentence that needs to be changed frequently. Maybe the "roughly 20" should just be removed. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The day after I started this discussion, I see that CBS updated its own published estimate of the number of "known classified documents" to "between 25 and 30". https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-classified-documents-found-timeline/
 * Because at least two of the searches conducted by the FBI appear to have discovered documents, it seems desirable to make the lede less specific about who discovered the documents, perhaps something like this:
 * From November 2022 to January 2023, "between 25 and 30" classified government documents were discovered in President Joe Biden's former office at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C. and in his personal residence in Wilmington, Delaware, dating to his time in the Senate and his vice presidency in the Obama administration.
 * The new reference could be cited following the existing first three, or we could replace the older CBS reference with the new one. Thoughts? 67.188.1.213 (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither 20 nor 26. The bottom line is that we don't know exactly how many documents were found. And we can't try to add things up on our own and come up with a number; that would be Original Research. Best thing would be for us to find a relatively recent, Reliable Source article and use whatever figure or estimate they use. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm finding nothing. The most recent article on this subject I found was from February 1. Nobody has done a timeline/summary since January 20. I think the press is not interested in totaling up the documents, if they even can - and that leaves us without a number to use.
 * Here's what I suggest. Our lead sentence says "Between November 2022 and January 2023, roughly 20 classified government documents were discovered by President Joe Biden's attorneys..." That is inaccurate; we know it is more than 20 if we include January. I propose we change it to "Between November 2022 and January 2023, 20 to 30 classified documents were discovered..." This is pretty much the same suggestion as made by the IP above. I'd be fine with " 25 to 30". -- MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to "25 to 30". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think this is the right solution. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Development to possibly incorporate once more is known and verifiable
It was reported earlier this month that unidentified sources have told news agencies that the Congressional Gang of Eight began receiving access to the Biden, Pence, and Trump documents from their respective classified document discovery and/or recovery matters. Let's keep an eye out here for further developments.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/11/politics/gang-of-eight-classified-documents/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/congressional-gang-8-gains-access-trump-biden-pence-documents-rcna79096 SecretName101 (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What "lack of transparency"?
Under the heading "Discoveries and other developments: DOJ letter to Bob Bauer", the final sentences make the following assertion: "The letter implied that the DOJ would take the lead in the inquiry; this allowed Biden's team to approach the situation with caution and deference to the DOJ, only acting in coordination with federal investigators in the hope that the matter would be quickly resolved. The resulting lack of transparency in public communications led to perceptions by some in the media that the Biden team was obfuscating details." (emphasis added) The phrase "the resulting lack of transparency is a non-sequitur, since no example of this is provided. A reader would be hard-pressed to understand why such communications, between the DOJ and Biden's personal attorney, would (or should) have been made public at the time. It appears to me that a sentence inserted before the final one, giving an example (if one exists) of this "lack of transparency" would help clear up this confusing segue. Can anyone with more knowledge of this matter help? Thanks. Bricology (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * At first, Biden's team didn't disclose that they knew about additional docs, because those docs were still being reviewed by the DOJ at the time of their initial press release. Them not disclosing the additional docs was initially perceived by the media as them trying to hide something, but later they explained that was the reason. The void century (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Steven Tyrell?
you can't find a better cite than Steven Tyrell, ?

not one? what might that suggest? soibangla (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As opposed to the WP:MANDY cites of Joe Biden, his lawyers, his vice president, Obama's AG Eric Holder, and the spox for Joe Biden's lawyers criticizing Hur across two giant paragraphs? I think we can tolerate one single non-partisan source that is quoted as saying Hur had to justify his decisions in a well established RS, especially since as NYT reports, there are multiple former and current DOJ officials that have said as much. Should we instead fill the section up with similar big-names like Mike Johnson, Tom Emmer, Nikki Haley, etc. and their perspectives on this issue? KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I fully agree we can tolerate one single non-partisan source. More than one, actually. Preferably big shots someone has heard of. I've looked but don't see any. Someone like Tyrell is a reach, no matter that BBC reported it. Did you intend to omit "self-preservation," which tends to dovetail with what Sams said in the preceding sentence, rather than supports an argument that Hur made the right call? soibangla (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you intend to omit "needed to justify"? I omitted due to close paraphrasing concerns. It is presented in contrast to the allegations of wrongdoing by Hur, as part of a passage which delves into DOJ procedure for special counsels, which goes on to state:
 * Justice Department practice dictates that prosecutors “speak through filings” — criminal complaints filed against defendants, rather than in public statements.
 * But if a special counsel chooses not to indict someone, they are, in a sense, obligated to disclose unflattering behavior that falls short of criminality to explain why they have not brought charges, as was the case with Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s connections to Russia
 * Mr. Hur’s executive summary, which contains many of the most quotable characterizations about Mr. Biden’s memory and age, reads like a standard internal department memo drafted to justify a non-prosecution decision, former prosecutors said. Those are typically circulated inside the department and provide an unvarnished assessment of the likelihood of a case passing muster with a jury.
 * Which was followed up by a critique from Biden's personal attorney that clearly stands in contrast to the aforementioned passage on DOJ procedure: But Bob Bauer, Mr. Biden’s personal lawyer, thought Mr. Hur went over the line
 * To avoid any further confusion, I will include the portion of the article that states: "Mr. Hur’s executive summary, which contains many of the most quotable characterizations about Mr. Biden’s memory and age, reads like a standard internal department memo drafted to justify a non-prosecution decision, former prosecutors said." KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * self-preservation is the key term that fundamentally alters the interpretation of your edit, from support of Hur's narrative to support of what Sams said. Changing "needed to justify" does not have nearly the same effect, not even close.
 * reads like a standard internal department memo drafted to justify a non-prosecution decision ... typically circulated inside the department. That is, a discussion draft not intended for public release. soibangla (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As we can see from the immediate following sentence, it stands in contrast to the opinions of Biden's personal lawyer criticizing Hur, who is in fact cited in this article right now, criticizing Hur. In the interests of civility and cooperation, I'll look for RS that makes this point about public release so it can be included instead of OR. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think including "standard internal department memo," rather than a public document, accomplishes what you seem to think/hope it does soibangla (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a highly-regarded RS presented it as contrasting with the two whole paragraphs of content in this article disparaging the special counsel, exclusively from Biden, his staff, and other dems, and in the interests of NPOV, it deserves inclusion, particularly as non-partisan sources contrasting with partisan ones. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The NYT made clear it was discussing an internal document, not a public one. It seems the inclusion actually works against your apparent intent, and does not improve NPOV. I suggest you find some bigshots to provide balance. soibangla (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are we ignoring every single other line I just quoted? The ones where they clearly lay out "this is what the policy says, and we talked to DOJ people that said as much?" Sure, your characterization of "self-preservation" makes sense, if we completely ignore every bit of context in the article.
 * If you check the article, I provided a bipartisan "bigshot" POV that weighs in partially defending Hur, partially critiquing some of his language, partially explains that the spec council report is both essentially a mix between private and public, with dueling requirements of what to include, and partially critiquing the regulations of special counsels themselves in creating this issue. This is in addition to the inclusion of someone with 20 years of DOJ experience who has lead the entire fraud dept. of the DOJ for several years. KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I read everything from the NYT passage you quoted and concluded none of it supports what you appear to intend to convey in the article. It works against your argument, in fact. soibangla (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the content in the prior passage.
 * Former attorney general Eric Holder said the Hur report "contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with long standing DOJ traditions," adding that if they had "been subject to a normal DOJ review these remarks would undoubtedly have been excised."
 * NYT: But if a special counsel chooses not to indict someone, they are, in a sense, obligated to disclose unflattering behavior that falls short of criminality to explain why they have not brought charges, as was the case with Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s connections to Russia
 * Mr. Hur’s executive summary, which contains many of the most quotable characterizations about Mr. Biden’s memory and age, reads like a standard internal department memo drafted to justify a non-prosecution decision, former prosecutors said. Those are typically circulated inside the department and provide an unvarnished assessment of the likelihood of a case passing muster with a jury.
 * So on the one hand, we have Holder saying the report is "flatly inconsistent" with "long standing DOJ traditions", and said any "normal DOJ review" would see the "remarks excised." Then we have former prosecutors characterizing it as a "standard internal department memo". Presumably, standard internal department memos are not "flatly inconsistent" with "long standing traditions."
 * As I mentioned earlier regarding the value of context, in the NYT article, it actually even brings up Biden's lawyer bringing up an argument very akin to Holder's POV to contrast with the idea that report was standard: But Bob Bauer, Mr. Biden’s personal lawyer, thought Mr. Hur went over the line, and accused him of disregarding Justice Department “regulations and norms” KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * you still don't seem to distinguish an internal discussion memo from a public document. obligated to disclose does not mean to the public, in the form of personally disparaging remarks in an election year that might have implications for the election outcome. The DOJ is not in the political smear business. Holder is right: there is a longstanding DOJ policy to avoid publicly tainting the reputation of anyone who has not been indicted. What DOJ discusses internally is a different matter. soibangla (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I have a source for Eric Holder stating that his remarks are regarding reports that touch public eyes? I have a NYT article that actually brings the prosecutors' characterization of an "standard internal department memo" contrasting it with statements given by Biden's personal lawyer, using very similar language to Holder. I'm perfectly 100% fine with you including an analysis like that tweeter's, provided an RS is given, like I did with BBC and NYT quoting expert non-politically affiliated POV. Establishing NPOV was my entire point in adding this content in the first place. In fact, the "big shot" Rosenberg article I provided says somewhat similar items, although not as disparagingly. KiharaNoukan (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I have a source for Eric Holder stating that his remarks are regarding reports that touch public eyes?
 * have you ever worked in a professional capacity in any large organization that publishes documents to the public? have you ever seen a document marked "draft" and "internal purposes only?" The DOJ handles a ton of highly sensitive information that is never publicly released, and they're really careful about it, because they're not in the political smear business. And people like Holder understand this. soibangla (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Tyrell and his years of exp as a DOJ dept head, enough to be quoted by the BBC as an expert POV, also understands this, and he gave a full defense of the report. It's almost as if different POV is valuable to have rather than sticking to one (partisan) perspective. I can see this isn't going anywhere, so let's drop it for now and wait for other editors. KiharaNoukan (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * one last thing: I posit that credible conservative legal analysts who dislike Biden do not have much of an incentive to step forward to acknowledge that people like Holder happen to be correct. I'd like to hear from, say, Bill Barr, who I seem to recall making Holder's point in a different matter some years ago. This might explain why it's hard to find credible  conservatives in RS finding fault in the language of a registered Republican appointed by Trump in 2018 as a US attorney soibangla (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jonathan Turley has weighed in, as has a smallshot? Trump admin attorney. Included both in article for a conservative perspective. KiharaNoukan (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Turley is a bigshot who should be included and it was highly biased of me and others to exclude that USA Today article that was published just as we were talking here, rather than on Thursday or Friday. Obviously I and everyone else intentionally ignored Turley to create a pro-Biden POV, and this is yet more proof Wikipedia is controlled by antifa. smh soibangla (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Lawfare: "pouring sensitive investigative impressions into the public domain is almost always a bad idea" soibangla (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read the entire article, which is actually rather in depth and explanatory from a neutral perspective, see above. In terms of expert POV that provides NPOV and is DUE, it certainly is at least as worthy, if not more, as any of the two paragraphs of repeated mentions of people affiliated with Biden or his party dropping one-liners disparaging the special counsel. KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe it is excessively cited to overcompensate for the fact there aren't many RS rushing to Hur's defense. More bigshots more succinctly cited would be better. soibangla (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's take a step back and look at before and after.
 * We currently have 3 sources, all non-MANDY from bipartisan/nonpartisan expert POV, presenting an alternative analysis to two paragraphs of Biden and Dem officials attacking Hur. Prior to my edits, those two paragraphs, consisting entirely of people affiliated with Biden or his party, constituted the majority of all article content regarding the reports inclusion of comments on Biden's memory. You can present quite a few sources citing Dems, I'm sure, but WP:DUE applies, they're all partisan sources affiliated with Biden admin or Dem Party. Would this article be improved by similarly including multiple paragraphs for the vast amount of sources discussing GOP criticism of Biden in response to the report? KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We're barely a day into this story. We first wrote about Hur's findings and the fact his language stirred controversy. Naturally, the next step is to include responses from involved parties and their allies, some of whom (like Holder) know a thing or two about these matters. In seeking responses from others, I have found little more than the typical shrieking from MAGA partisans, so this is why I ask you to find credible bigshots in some numbers to provide balance. I do not find Tyrell compelling, and Rosenberg is excessively cited. soibangla (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the "day into this story" exception to NPOV and DUE that allows for the majority of content on this topic to be dominated by a series of criticisms entirely from Democrat partisans across two paragraphs with not a single mention of any pushback, even if multiple RS with nonpartisan expert POV exists to push back. KiharaNoukan (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have looked for credible sources that effectively push back rather than shriek political slogans, but I have not found much, and it appears you haven't either. soibangla (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, by whatever application that two paragraphs of disparaging lines being dropped by exclusively Biden or other Dems, covering the majority of content on this topic, is somehow DUE and NPOV, I'm sure that it also qualifies multiple sources providing alternative POV from expert non/bipartisan affiliates. KiharaNoukan (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * find. them. soibangla (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 3 of them are cited in the article already. KiharaNoukan (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * so, do you still have an issue, or is it resolved? it's not as though anyone has been "silenced" here. the story broke on Thursday soibangla (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. You started the talk section? I trimmed some of the alternate POV down per your suggestions if that's what you mean by issue being resolved. I'm not sure what you mean by "silenced", my problem was with balance, which I resolved by adding in other POV from non-partisan sources in RS... which ended up in this talk section. KiharaNoukan (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)