Secret Service Refusing To Hand Over Emails On Biden’s Vistors To Delaware

The Secret Service Refuses to Hand Over Emails on Biden’s Visitors to Delaware: What You Need to Know

As President of the United States, Joe Biden would expect to be under close scrutiny by the media and the public. Journalists and other interested parties frequently request information on how he conducts his official duties. However, a recent case suggests that some of this information could be kept under wraps. The Secret Service has refused to release emails that identify visitors to President Biden’s homes in Delaware, stating that they are not agency records subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

This article will delve into the background of the issue, the details of the case, and reactions to the Secret Service’s refusal to hand over information. It’s worth noting that the Secret Service is one of the most secretive agencies in the world, tasked with protecting the President and other high-ranking officials. As such, it’s not surprising that they would be reluctant to reveal information that could compromise their mission.

What’s the backstory?

The FOIA is a federal law that requires the release of government records to the public upon request. However, there are exceptions to what can be requested. One such exception is for national security. The Secret Service maintains that emails that identify visitors to President Biden’s residences in Delaware are not considered agency records subject to FOIA. This means that they would not be required to disclose them to the public.

This isn’t the first time that the Secret Service has been involved in a case regarding visitor logs. During the Trump administration, a judges’ ruling upheld the Secret Service’s claim that the emails regarding visitor logs for the President’s residence were not agency records subject to FOIA. The Secret Service seems to be standing by that precedent with regards to President Biden.

What are the details of the case?

The New York Post filed a FOIA request for emails from the Secret Service that would identify visitors to President Biden’s residences in Delaware. However, the Secret Service refused to comply. The agency stated that these emails are not agency records subject to FOIA. They cited the 2020 case of Doyle v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security as legal precedent.

The Secret Service also claimed that there were no visitor logs for Biden’s Delaware residence, to begin with, thus there was nothing to turn over.

What are the implications of this case?

The implications of the case could be far-reaching. The information contained in these emails could potentially be relevant to high-profile controversies involving the president’s family’s business dealings and even the handling of classified records. The fact that the Secret Service is refusing to hand over the information could lead to speculation that they’re trying to hide something.

What are the reactions to the Secret Service’s refusal?

Reactions to the Secret Service’s refusal have been mixed. Some supporters of President Biden feel that the information requested is private and should not be subject to FOIA requests. Others have raised concerns that the Secret Service could be withholding information that would shed light on potentially illicit activities.

Former President Donald Trump has been vocal in his criticism of the Biden administration over the lack of visitor logs from Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, residence. Trump dubbed Biden’s garage, where classified material was discovered next to his cherished Corvette Stingray last week, “flimsy” and “unsecured” before painting a contrast with Mar-a-Lago. Trump wrote that “Mar-a-Lago is a highly secured facility, with Security Cameras all over the place, and watched over by staff & our great Secret Service. I have INFO on everyone!” This suggests that Trump himself kept better visitor records than the Biden administration.

In conclusion

The Secret Service’s refusal to hand over information on President Biden’s visitors underscores the tension between holding the government accountable and respecting the privacy of public officials. The case has once again called attention to the limitations of the FOIA, which may not be well-suited to cover sensitive information that could endanger national security. As the case moves forward, it will be interesting to see how the public and the media continue to react and what implications the outcome could have for government transparency.