OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Newly uncovered evidence that was revealed earlier this month produced by special counsel Robert Hur, who was assigned to investigate President Joe Biden’s possibly illegal possession of classified documents, may tank the president’s defense regarding the matter, according to a noted legal expert.
Earlier, Hur interviewed the president regarding his possession of the documents, some of which include his days as a U.S. senator. And though Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, Hur could also have evidence that the Biden White House has provided false evidence regarding the discovery of the documents, according to a piece written by Georgetown University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley that was published in The Hill.
“The new evidence could prove transformative, not only for the criminal but the impeachment investigation of the president,” he wrote.
“This week, the House Oversight Committee released a new timeline on the discovery of classified documents in various locations associated with Biden. From the outset, many of us flagged problems with the account that had been given by Biden, who insisted that he had no knowledge or involvement in the removal or use of the documents,” Turley said.
“The most glaring problem is that, after they were removed at the end of his term as vice president, the documents were repeatedly moved and divided up. Some were found in the Penn Center office used by Biden in Washington, D.C. Others were found in his garage and reportedly in his library,” he added.
Turley said that, from the get-go, Biden said he expected the probe to be “perfunctory and brief.” He also said he had “no regrets” about his conduct and said publicly that the document probe would end soon because there is nothing to see.
“Now, however, it appears that a critical claim by the White House in the scandal may not only be false, but was knowingly false at the time it was made,” Turley wrote. “The White House and Biden’s counsel have long maintained that, as soon as documents were discovered in the D.C. office, they notified the national archives. Many asked why they did not call the FBI, but the White House has at least maintained that, unlike Trump, they took immediate action to notify authorities.”
But, Turley said, that claim appears to be false.
He added:
One of the closest aides to Biden and a close friend to Hunter Biden is Annie Tomasini. She referred to Hunter as her “brother” and signed off messages with “LY” or “love you.”
Tomasini was once a senior aide to Joe Biden and, according to the Oversight Committee, inspected the classified material on March 18, 2021, two months after Biden took office — nearly 20 months before they were said to be found by the Biden team.
The committee now alleges that the White House “omitted months of communications, planning, and coordinating among multiple White House officials, [Kathy] Chung, Penn Biden Center employees, and President Biden’s personal attorneys to retrieve the boxes containing classified materials. The timeline also omitted multiple visits from at least five White House employees, including Dana Remus, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams, Annie Tomasini, and an unknown staffer.”
If that’s true, Turley said, the evidence destroys the timeline that has long been claimed by Team Biden. And that may have a quick impact on the criminal and impeachment probes into the president.
After Biden said he was “surprised” by the discovery of the documents, “Biden’s counsel and associates conducted repeated searches and declared repeatedly that no further classified documents were found. That was repeatedly found to be untrue,” Turley wrote.
“Now it appears that the discovery had actually been made months earlier. The timeline would now more closely mirror Trump’s timeline in the knowing retention of classified material, the failure to turn over all of the classified material despite assurances from counsel, and alleged false accounts about the document’s discovery,” he added.
“If this new timeline is accurate, the question is whether Biden knew that the account being put forward by his staff and counsel was false. It also raises the question of whether the president knowingly possessed classified documents and lied about their removal, use, and discovery. Finally, if Biden repeated his public denials to Hur, there could be added allegations of false statements to federal investigators, another commonly-charged federal crime,” Turley wrote.
He also said he disagreed with Justice Department policy that a sitting president could not be indicted, which, he added, dates back to Bill Clinton’s presidency, when he faced calls to be indicted for perjury.
