Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Secret Service has a List of Regular Visitors to Biden’s Delaware Home That Stored Classified Documents

Secret Service has a List of Regular Visitors to Biden’s Delaware Home That Stored Classified Documents

Now we learn the Secret Service collects “information on guests with regular access to the home.”

The Secret Service said it would provide Congress with a list of people who visited President Joe Biden’s Delaware home if the lawmakers request it.

White House counsel found classified documents from Biden’s time as vice president in the house’s garage last week.

The Secret Service informed the media the agents assigned to the home do not have visitor records “because it’s a private residence.”

I understand why the White House doesn’t have a log of visitors since it’s a private residence. But I wondered why the Secret Service did not for security reasons.

But now Secret Service has a list? Now we learn the Secret Service collects “information on guests with regular access to the home.”

Now we learn the Secret Service keeps the “names of those vetted by the Secret Service depends on a variety of factors, including proximity to the president and the nature of the background check.”

Ah, language comes into play (emphasis mine):

“The Secret Service does not maintain visitor logs at the private residences of protectees,” said U.S. Secret Service chief of communications Anthony Guglielmi. “While the Secret Service does generate law enforcement and criminal justice information records for various individuals who may come into contact with Secret Service protected sites, we are not able to comment further as this speaks to the means and methods of our protective operations.”

A source familiar with the situation told Fox News that the Secret Service is prepared to provide available background information on vetted guests to Biden’s residence if requested by Congress.

Visitor logs. So the Secret Service doesn’t have a list of people who visited the home on a specific day.

This way, we cannot say the Secret Service lied.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Congress: “We want to see the log book of visitors to Delaware home.”

SS: “We do not have a log book of visitors.”

Congress: “You’re so stupid, you don’t even know who visited!”

SS: “Well, we do have a list of visitors. Would you like to see that”.

    Milhouse in reply to Paula. | January 19, 2023 at 2:47 pm

    It didn’t lie at all. It’s not just a matter of not knowing who visited when, which nobody’s really interested in. The point is that the list is only of regular visitors. Not of all visitors. So it is of no use in determining who had access. So long as a person was not a regular visitor, they would have been able to look through the documents all they liked, but would not appear on the list.

      diver64 in reply to Milhouse. | January 19, 2023 at 4:00 pm

      It will give names that the Secret Service did a name check on buy not regular visitors like Chuck Shumer or family members already known to them. It’s called a Name Check, no visitor’s log like what is seen at the WH would probably be kept.

        Gosport in reply to diver64. | January 19, 2023 at 4:25 pm

        Then there is the tiny problem that Biden’s people are trying to deflate the classified documents in the garage issue by stating that “official business” is conducted at the Delaware hovel, thus implying that it is a SCIF. If it’s not a SCIF that severely limits what official business he can transact or even discuss there.

        SCIFs do in fact have very strict visitor control requirements, like logs.

        Milhouse in reply to diver64. | January 19, 2023 at 5:18 pm

        How did you come up with that? That is the exact opposite of what the Secret Service has said. It said it has a list of regular visitors only, and not anyone else. So only Chuck Schumer and the like, not some Chinese spy who only visited once or twice.

      Paula in reply to Milhouse. | January 19, 2023 at 4:19 pm

      Q: Which visitors do you keep a list of?

      A: We only keep a list of Regular Visitors.

      Q: Really? How do your decide which visitors are regular?

      A: We keep track of how often they visit.

      Q: You keep track in your head like, “Oh I remember him, he’s a regular?

      A: No, of course not. We write down when they visit.

        Milhouse in reply to Paula. | January 19, 2023 at 5:19 pm

        That’s speculation. Maybe they decide who’s a regular visitor because they’re told “This person is going to be visiting regularly, so put him down on the list so he doesn’t have to be vetted each time”.

          Paula in reply to Milhouse. | January 19, 2023 at 6:32 pm

          Sweet Sister Josephine. You answer speculation with more speculation by speculating that yours is better than mine.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 19, 2023 at 10:43 pm

          You’re the one asserting something, so the burden of proof is on you. You supported your assertion with an argument that amounts to mere speculation, so I pointed out another equally plausible scenario. Thus your argument fails.

The secrets-leaking-out fear is bogus. At Biden’s and Trump’s level normal security steps are opted out of (registration numbers, audits) without compromising security.

You want the procedures for the millions who have security clearances because their risk is multiplied by millions. A half dozen at the top every four years is too small a multiplier to matter.

What it is, is soap opera for clicks. The dems pulled it on Trump, and unfortunately for dems they wind up with the same problem. But it’s an actual non-problem. In particular visitor logs don’t mean anything.

    henrybowman in reply to rhhardin. | January 19, 2023 at 11:18 am

    They do if they’re written in Pinyin.

    Sanddog in reply to rhhardin. | January 19, 2023 at 11:22 am

    Except it’s not to small too matter when you have given unrestricted access to someone like Joe Biden, who takes it home, stores it in his garage which allows his crack-head son access to it as well, for the paltry sum of 50K per month in “rent”.

    BierceAmbrose in reply to rhhardin. | January 19, 2023 at 1:15 pm

    “At Biden’s and Trump’s level normal security steps are opted out of (registration numbers, audits) without compromising security.”

    We seem to have demonstrated this is not so.

    From Gropey Joe’s dispersed unsecured stashes, to The Donald’s stash in Melania’s underwear drawer, to losing an Intelligence Service director for too-casual handling, to Secretary “What difference … does it make?” having god knows what transmitted to unsecured devices. (I get it — inaccessible now that they’re physically smashed, we seem to have demonstrated that the risk of compromise is quite high with these folks.

    Conveniently, these folks have staffs, and elaborate document handling infrastructure in place already; what’s the archives been fighting about w/ The Orange Crush, but Presidential Records? Where’s Oprah when you need her? “You get your own personal document-wrangler. And you get one. And you get one…”

    BierceAmbrose in reply to rhhardin. | January 19, 2023 at 1:21 pm

    “A half dozen at the top every four years is too small a multiplier to matter.”

    Well, a half a dozen (<– that's the small multiplier) times a couple a year (<– that's around the observed normalized rate), times nuclear codes (<– that's a proxy for the impact per) is … a pretty big number.

    Risk math is hard; people leave out one term or another all the time.

Hey, haven’t we seen this dance before recently?
Vintner Pelosi, in the Hallway, with the Hammer?

The national security/ sources and methods arguments are BS excuses to deflect accountability. The federal employees are just that, our employees. This whole attitude of disdain for the citizens and ‘top men’ crap is getting old. The entire security state apparatus needs reforms which if resisted should result in dismantling these agencies.

The Federal government only answers questions if they are phrased in the present conditional or present continuous conditional tenses.

    henrybowman in reply to Oracle. | January 19, 2023 at 12:15 pm

    Soon we will be resorting to the disjunctive conditional:
    “Five seconds to answer or we destroy [skeletal joint].”

Meanwhile, there comes word of a woman named Kathy Chung who has worked for several high-ranking Democrats in Congress and the Administration, who was apparently feeding sensitive (although apparently unclassified) records to Hunter.

Otto Kringelein | January 19, 2023 at 12:51 pm

Does anyone really believe that this “list of visitors” is going to be a complete and true “list of visitors” and hasn’t been most carefully vetted and edited to remove the most embarrassing names on any such list? Why else the previous fabrication (dare I say lie) that no such “visitor list” exists. Just gave them time to alter the list. Nothing more nothing less. And now that the Biden regime has edited the visitor list and removed the names of all those people they don’t want to reveal they pass it back to their Secret Service operatives with the orders to “find” the list and provide it to the public.

But in the end it won’t make a difference. Any more it made a difference that it is apparent that Biden’s lawyers were going through his documents at Biden-Penn and then his home to remove any embarrassing unclassified documents before any congressional investigation could subpoena them. Nothing ever happens to democrats. Nothing ever happens to the Biden family. And nothing ever will.

    Does anyone really believe that this “list of visitors” is going to be a complete and true “list of visitors”

    Of course not, because it’s not supposed to be.

    Why else the previous fabrication (dare I say lie) that no such “visitor list” exists.

    No, you dare not say “lie”. You dare not even say “fabrication”, because it is you who are fabricating. You are misquoting what the Secret Service says it has, either deliberately or through careless reading. Either way you are at fault, and have no right to accuse others of lying.

      Otto Kringelein in reply to Milhouse. | January 19, 2023 at 10:26 pm

      No, I’m not lying or fabricating anything. The Secret Service claimed they had NO list of visitors to Biden’s Delaware residence because they do NOT keep such lists for private, personnal residences. They said that. There was NO list kept.

      Secret Service doesn’t record visitors at Biden’s ‘weekend White House’ where classified docs were found

      So why did they make that claim, Milhouse. Why did they make that claim. NO visitor lists kept. They said it Milhouse and there’s not getting around it.

      The Secret Service either HAS

      I neither lied nor fabricated what I wrote. Please retract your libelous statement immediately.

        Yes, you are lying through your teeth.

        The Secret Service never said it had no visitor list, and it has not said now that it has one. It said it does not have a visitor log, and it now says it has a list of frequent visitors. Those are two utterly different things. For the purpose for which the visitor log was requested, the frequent visitor list is useless.

        You accused the Secret Service of lying, and you did so by lying yourself, both about what it said before and about what it’s saying now. That makes you a lying liar who lies.

          BLSinSC in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2023 at 10:33 am

          Wow, Millhouse!! Got your panties in a wad over this one!! SO now consider the ORIGINAL statement from the FBI – highly documented and completely CELEBRATED by the left – that they keep NO VISITORS “log” for private residences. But then they acknowledge that they keep a LIST!! So in leftist logic they didn’t LIE because a LOG is NOT a LIST! You are losing this case, but keep trying! And HOW MUCH do you get for your “alternative logic” to most of the articles on here? Some of the rest of us would like to CASH IN with OUR LOGIC!!

          Otto Kringelein in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2023 at 11:07 am

          Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire! The Secret Service LIED when they said they didn’t have a LIST of visitors to the Delaware White House. They LIED. It doesn’t matter if it’s called a LOG or a LIST. The Secret Service LIED when they claimed NOT TO KEEP A LIST OF VISITORS.

          The SS (odd how that abbreviates) lied. But now they claim to have a list they will turn over to Congress if subpoenaed to do so. A carefully vetted and edited LIST created from what I don’t know as they claimed never to have or keep a LOG (which consists of a LIST) of visitors.

          So until proven otherwise the SS FABRICATED a “list” of visitors to hand over to Congress in the event it is subpoenaed. And why would they do that unless they have something to hide.

Anybody with a speck of common sense knows that a property being protected by the Secret Service has records of visitors, even if it is not called a visitor log. Of course, Washington has no end of people without common sense…

White House visitor logs should be public and posted at the end of every day. Otherwise all we get is politicians trying to make political points about (shifts voice to lower registry) “What horrible reasons can we blather about XYZ visiting the White House last week and why the (fill in name) administration was trying to keep that secret.”

Visitor log = unfiltered, everyone who comes and goes

“Regular visitor” log = filtered, only who we want to tell you about.

    Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 19, 2023 at 2:57 pm

    Or, how about just what it says. A visitor log and a list of regular visitors are two extremely different things. If you want to know everyone who had access to these documents, let alone everyone who had access on a specific day, this list will be useless.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | January 19, 2023 at 9:51 pm

      It’s a curated list, that’s the whole point.

      Most people that would be a security risk are not “regular visitors”

        Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 19, 2023 at 10:53 pm

        No, it’s not “curated”, or “filtered”. Rather than applying weird and twisted interpretations, why not take the Secret Service’s words as stated? Their plain meaning is obvious. What they have is not a list that has been cleaned or filtered in some way. It’s a list that never had casual visitors on it, because they don’t record that. They don’t keep a record of people’s comings and goings, so as to preserve the residents’ privacy. But they do have a list of frequent visitors; that is not compiled by logging them in and out, but by knowing in some other way that they are frequent visitors, and the most obvious way they would know that is that they’ve been specifically told so.

          BLSinSC in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2023 at 10:38 am

          Do you REALLY think that a “casual visitor” can sashay up to the residence? Come on, you know better than that! I mean it’s not like a late night underwear party with a demented leftist yielding a hammer!! This is the PRESIDENT? of the USA!! NO ONE gets in that home without the Secret Service knowing WHO they are, WHERE they’re from, and THEIR “known” background! And for your “definition” of a “casual” visitor, how would they be KNOWN as a “casual” visitor if the SS didn’t record their visits?

      BierceAmbrose in reply to Milhouse. | January 20, 2023 at 4:59 pm

      “‘Or, how about just what it says. A visitor log and a list of regular visitors are two extremely different things. If you want to know everyone who had access to these documents, let alone everyone who had access on a specific day, this list will be useless.”

      — So, you’re saying a list of regular visitors to where the docs were found wouldn’t be useful in characterizing the risk?

      — A list of who had likely — “regular visitors” — been around wouldn’t be a useful place to start chasing down what happened?

      — We know a particular day we care about? Which day was that? Why — do we know the docs were nefariously accessed some particular day? Do tell.

      — Absent a known day, what’s the different investigative value of a log vs. frequent visitors list?

      How do you think risk management works? Investigations?

Pro tip for the Secret Service – If you are guarding it, it’s NOT a ‘private residence’, just one not owned by the federal govt.

2smartforlibs | January 19, 2023 at 3:52 pm

Don’t get distracted by this sudden head fake. The Buydens are agents for foreign governments and suddenly no longer use to the DNC.

You should have listened to Dan Bongino’s podcast as he laid this out already.

Steven Brizel | January 20, 2023 at 6:13 am

Request and subpoena that list now !

Now we learn the Secret Service collects “information on guests with regular access to the home.”

Yes, but they want to make that list not obtainable by subpoena, that’s why it’s a secret. They’ll claim “national security” and refuse disclosure. An odd strategy, really, since it would be easier and less suspicious to appear forthcoming and “disclose” a sanitized list. Judges never give non-government actors the right to independent discovery against government agencies, you get only what they deign to give you, so it’s impossible to tell if you get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in response to your subpoena.