Special Counsel Robert Hur says Biden 'willfully' kept classified documents but won't be prosecuted

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by XXJefferson#51, Feb 8, 2024.

  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,645
    Likes Received:
    39,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Huh feeble doesn’t appear in the report once. Strange lie to tell,
    And name someone else charged with having classified material who didn’t lie to investigators or otherwise obstruct?[/QUOTE]

    Too old an feeble minded to stand trial and you want him for President......
     
  2. The Mello Guy

    The Mello Guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    109,789
    Likes Received:
    37,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Too old a feeble minded to stand trial and you want him for President......[/QUOTE]
    Says nothing of the sort. The other option is a criminal….if we’re all trusting the DOJ now lol
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2024
  3. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    9,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From this post you are again showing you have no idea what the PRA is. NONE…..
     
  4. Lum Edwards

    Lum Edwards Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2022
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    It's elder abuse. Dr Jill Biden should be deeply ashamed of herself for allowing them to use her husband in such an advanced stage of dementia. It's time for the 25th. But it's up to the Dems to do it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2024
  5. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,340
    Likes Received:
    13,793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you see the irony of your post in mine? Rhetorical. it's was a hyper partisan hit piece of adjectives and adverbs, totally unprofessional opine by Hur to cover his inability to actually have grounds for charges. He's a Trumper, Hur is, and has lost his professional objectivity.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2024
  6. Lum Edwards

    Lum Edwards Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2022
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Trump supporters felt the same way when Robert Mueller went out of his way to say that he did NOT EXONERATE Trump.
     
  7. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,340
    Likes Received:
    13,793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regardless, he made a clear case that Trump committed 9+ episodes of Criminal obstruction of Justice but was not being charged because he was a sitting POTUS. Mueller clearly indicted many Americans (who plead out), including Russians nationals in Russia. Hur had not such evidence nor case to bring to GJ. Apples/oranges.
     
    clennan likes this.
  8. Lum Edwards

    Lum Edwards Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2022
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Obstruction should only be charged if there is an underlying crime. The Mueller Report was two faced. He testified that he wasn't obstructed, but the report detailed potential instances where it could be charged. It was probably written by Andrew Weissman, who has a checkered past when it comes to ethics.
     
  9. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,340
    Likes Received:
    13,793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To the bolded, obstruction of justice IS a crime. If you believe otherwise, lobby your reps to change the Rule of Law. The rest of your post cherry picks the Mueller which 1/3rd was dedicated to 10 chargable obstruction of justice crimes.

    IOW, how does one prove an underlying crime if there are multiple obstructions blocking that effort?
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2024
    clennan likes this.
  10. flyboy56

    flyboy56 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    15,456
    Likes Received:
    5,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I heard the FBI is able to retrieve most of those deleted recordings. So reminiscent of HRC erasing evidence.
     
  11. flyboy56

    flyboy56 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    15,456
    Likes Received:
    5,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not just wrong but criminal. Since Trump as president had the authority to declassify info I do not believe he is guilty.
     
  12. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,188
    Likes Received:
    9,580
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no such thing as 'prima facie evidence!' Read what I have said.
     
  13. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,532
    Likes Received:
    22,865
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I hadn't heard that.

    Those recordings must be a gold mine. Now I wonder if that ghostwriter is going to be charged with obstruction? He did try to destroy evidence.
     
  14. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    9,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump WASN'T the president when they were found in Mar-a-largo

    And the rules are not different for a POTUS
     
  15. flyboy56

    flyboy56 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    15,456
    Likes Received:
    5,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Trump was president when he left the White House with them after he legally declassified them. Biden never had the same legal authority when he took documents home. Biden told his ghost writer he had classified documents and shared information with the writer. Reminds me of General Petraeus. Are you for releasing the recordings?
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2024
  16. fullmetaljack

    fullmetaljack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    8,029
    Likes Received:
    6,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then it should be very easy for him to establish that at trial and it will all be over super quick .

    Why is he stalling like he’s guilty ?
     
  17. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    9,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually no he didn't. THATS why they confiscated them. But you knew that already

    So Biden sharign them with a biographer is a problem, but Trump sharing them with Party guests is OK ?
     
  18. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    3,147
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lets try theft as the analogy instead shall we. (Because if anyone's robbed a bank recently they must have time machine.) So if I steel $1000 and you steal $100,000 tell me whose going to get the heaviest sentence. If I cooperate with the Police from day one, return the money and do everything else I can to make amends and you do the exact opposite i.e. try to hide the stolen money, deny any involvement and generally attempt to frustrate the investigation at every turn? (Sounds familiar BTW?) Who do you think is going to be treated more leniently in court?

    I'm going to quote some facts I posted in another thread. Yes I know you hate facts but what can I do? Reality is what it is (despite your best efforts).

    'All Presidents have 'authority' to declassify documents under the Constitution but two of the charges listed in the warrants executed on the his residence in Florida didn't even require classified documents. These were concealing or destroying government records, and concealing documents as part of an effort to obstruct an investigation or other official effort. No 'top secret' stamp involved. Also Trumps initial problems arose because even if he did personally declassify the records found in his possession as he once claimed (he's gone dark on this issues since being charged BTW) he still didn't follow procedures for 'documenting' the declassification while doing so.

    Result? There's no evidence or record of him doing so anywhere
    , not even witnesses who heard him say it! Which means effectively the documents remain classified because no-one in Government could possibly know they weren't! Could they?

    Now he's facing multiple charges under the Espionage Act for unauthorized possession of defense documents which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison! On top of that he faces obstruction of justice charges for trying to prevent the recovery of the records and making false statements. (Hint if your going to take government records and get asked to (politely) to hand them back don't lie and say you don't have them and then compound the problem by trying to hide them when the authorities come a looking!

    Conclusion? All of this mess is entirely
    of his own making. If he had followed proper procedures? No problem. If he had cooperated from the start when asked to return the documents? Again no problem. Chances are he'd probably be getting the same free ride Biden got albeit most of Biden's records also appear to have been personal notebooks containing sections of sensitive information. Trump shot himslef in the foot simply by failing to return the docs when informed that the records were still classified.'

    Prove the DoJ is launching a politically based prosecution. Don't just keep saying it, present some evidence (for once) because its a fact that the DoJ and the FBI are, in the majority conservative leaning in terms of their politics (it comes with any job in law enforcement). That means that historically? They tend in a majority to vote Republican. Now produce your evidence that suddenly there's a massive conspiracy at play to convict Donald Trump because ....????

    Unfortunate as it may be for American democracy (well at least your screwed/totalitarian version of it) you still need evidence for an impeachment. Stating I have have 'no problem' with the idea of Biden being prosecuted is not the same thing as saying he should be prosecuted. (And again we're back to the whole 'evidence' problem again. You want Biden's neck in a noose, evidence be dammed. I want to see that evidence in a court of law proving he's guilty first. I guess I'm just funny that way.

    Yes they were classified. My point however was that unlike officially produced classified documents dairies don't normally have security clearances printed on them. and the only way anyone would know there were classified entries in them would be to read every f'ing page. My comment was not an excuse for Biden failing to return the documents to authorities , it was an explanation. What explanation does Trump have for not returning official documents clearly marked "TOP SECRET' as per my previous point above?

    I 'know' what the standard legal procedure is in such cases, I 'know' the FBI has never alleged all of the relevant documents were not returned by Biden and I 'know' on-one else (including you) has any evidence to the contrary!

    No. :no: I'm saying there's no evidence. Yet! And unlike you I require evidence before I decide to convict people of any crime. Not that that seems to be a problem as far as your concerned, as long as they;re Democrats of course.)

    I didn't 'assume' anything. I'm was simply losing tack of where you were going with your ramblings. The documents case was mentioned earlier, that's all.

     
  19. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,340
    Likes Received:
    13,793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My understanding is Biden shared his personal handwritten notes with the writer but not actual classified docs. Now, I am not saying his personal notes did not contain classified info, just clarifying that they were hand written notes not official docs.
     
    clennan and grapeape like this.
  20. randlepatrickmcmurphy

    randlepatrickmcmurphy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,799
    Likes Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Joe Biden is completely exonerated! (To use Trumpian logic).

    [​IMG]
     
    Hey Now likes this.
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,645
    Likes Received:
    39,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes there is such a thing as prima facie evidence of which I gave you an example. A false affidavit is prima facie evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice.
     
  22. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,645
    Likes Received:
    39,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And your bromides and platitudes about Hur also do not refute anything.
     
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,645
    Likes Received:
    39,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obviously I do since you have not shown otherwise, are you asserting the PRA doesn't not include former Presidents and their presidential records?
     
  24. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,340
    Likes Received:
    13,793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Says a poster with total hyper partisan bias that can't address the Hur unprofessional and inappropriate opining when he could not find criminal intent but perfers, not unexpected but definitely desperate, to try to make the thread about me and my accurate assessment. Do better?
     
    fullmetaljack likes this.
  25. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,188
    Likes Received:
    9,580
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, the false affidavit might or might not be enough to establish a prima facie case of perjury. Do you see the nuance?
     

Share This Page