>

one former president might do more than leak them.
I'm beginning to think that political people who don't go through the normal vetting process to handle classified information aren't treating it as carefully as people who might lose their job for mishandling it. >

And who get mandatory refresher training twice a year to handle it. And who still continually make mistakes, which is why half the training is telling you what to do when you have spillage. 
Elected officials don't have to apply for clearance either, do they? They just get it automatically? Maybe that's something we should change, too, if my assumption is correct. >

100% assume they don't do the training. Too "busy". Trump forced the gov to give Kushner a clearance when he couldn't pass normal vetting standards. They play by different rules with no consequences. >

At the banks I have worked for, if you dont pass the tests and quizzes, they dont let you have the power to say open checking accounts. Even if their manager really felt they should be allowed to do it.
Sure it would disqualify tons of people from holding office, but basic reading and retention skills should be a job requirement of holding elected or appointed office.
Dont let people too stupid to operate the seashells make big important decisions >

That's what elections are supposed to be. The problem is that a third of the population thinks the other side of the fence are baby eating lizard people and will gladly vote for someone who failed high school rather than someone with a reasonable grasp of the issues but a slightly different opinion on who should be allowed to have sex with whom. >

During the American Revolution, one third supported the crown and one third supported the revolution and one third had no opinion.  
“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”
― Mark Twain >

Supporting the crown and supporting the revolution are clear distinctions rooted in reality. Unless of course the crown supporters were solely swayed by stories of the revolutionaries sucking the blood out of victims in the dead of the night and that mr. washignton's wooden dentures were funded by jews. >

It wasn't that extreme but there was definitely propaganda although more for the revolution than against the revolution. Early protests against the British were actually filled with people who were mostly paid to be there.
The thing is prior to the revolution life was actually improving for most colonists. The only group it wasn't improving for were the wealthy land owners and merchants. They didn't like the taxes levied against them and they also didn't like that the crown had begun allowing people to buy directly from British merchants which cut out the colonial middle men. Many of the United States founders were these middle men.
The only issue the common man really had against the British government was that they wouldn't allow them past the proclamation line because of treaties with native tribes.
Personally I'm glad the American revolution happened but it was hella astroturfed at the start. >

The American Revolution could have happened for free if they'd just waited 30 years for Napoleon. >

Or if you'd just waited two centuries, they would've booted you out of the empire after everyone else has already left.
From your friends up north, who only got their constitution repatriated in 1982. >

This like Biden’s deal… not a huge deal and prob speaks to broad classification issues. Seems like they both handled it like any non-insane person would. Imagine it’s more common than we currently know. 
Trump on the other hand…….. >

They are handling it the correctly, but the news cycles of this just muddy the trump handling. Honestly this just makes me roll my eyes and go fuck it every politician handles classified documents incorrectly its a non story anymore. Even though it is a big deal.. >

Agree I’m a little concerned about even “left leaning” news sources muddying the waters with Trump but ultimately if it matters at all with Trump it won’t be political. >

Do you mean the news sources muddying the waters in trumps situation about not wanting to give the papers back to the point that the fbi had to raid his home? >

And the news media would have probably never caught wind of it if Trump didn't alert everyone about it and try and make this a personal attack. This would have been a complete non-story but trump had to make it all about himself. Seeing government agents come and go from an ex presidential residence? nothing out of the ordinary. >

Like when he gave the eulogy recently at Diamond’s funeral, denied knowing Silk, and spoke mostly about himself? >

I'm not American, but why do I got the feeling only Trump hid tons of shit on purpose?
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. >

Because that is the difference here.  Trump had intent and broke more than just the possession law. >

Trump broke a second law in terms of obstruction.  
Intent is irrelevant on the subject of whether you mishandled classified information to begin with. >

Intent is absolutely relevant.  Intent to possess is important when discussing mishandling.  Taking documents with the intent to use not for the role of your job is more than mishandling. >

Actually with the law that was broken, intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to applying it. Maybe we would like intent to matter but it doesn’t. >

Intent matters in the prosecution.  But I think you will keep going back to saying it doesn't.
I think we are done
Have a good day! >

Another lost soul and you are right to not waste your time with them. >

agreed and walked away.. >

It feels important that 435 House members, 100 senators, A President and a Vice President aren’t vetted by usual standards for a security clearance.  537 people at any given time.  Elected officials should absolutely have access to information required to do their job, but if I have to sit through the same sexual harassment and micro-aggression e-learning courses each year, these fucks need to spend some damn time taking mandatory classes about handling documents. >

Think they should be vetted very thoroughly before running for election. I'm playing loose with my words here but in theory, the masses could elect anyone. How do we know that person is trustworthy to handle important information? >

We don’t even know if George Santos is eligible to be a House member. In particular, it’s not clear that he’s even been a US citizen for 7 years, which is required. >

Search every living President, every congressional person, and all Supreme Court justices. >

Supreme Court Justices leak their documents. >

Likely at least one former president does as well.