Biden had 8 million dollars worth of reasons to disclose to a civilian classified documents.

[DBA]

That was one reason among many, not that you morons know any better since you are too lazy and illiterate to read it yourselves.

I am not going to argue with you on this nonsense. Hur's primary reason for not recommending prosecution was Biden's general lack of memory. My question is why was he lamenting how a jury may or may not rule in this case? He was tasked with determining if there was sufficient evidence to recommend prosecution, which there undeniably is. Whether or not a jury would find him guilty is irrelevant. If this was you or me(or Trump), we would be preparing for our defense.

 

[struth]

That isn't what Hur's report said.



If you can't prove intent they were not criminal acts.

Intent is required for I to be criminal.



What was outlined in they could not prove intent so they determined not to charge him.


No, he didn't steal them as he didn't know he shouldn't have them.

It's in the report.

Repeating your media sources won't be to helpful here I'm afraid.

I suggest sticking to the report.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden's handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden's Wilmington, Delaware home.

 

[struth]

Hur disagrees with you.

Starting on page 242.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

"Finally, the two main sets of evidence summarized above, suggesting Mr. Biden knew he was not allowed to keep classified notebooks, do not suffice to prove his willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt. The first set of evidence is that . Biden, at his staffs insistence. stored his classified notecards in a SCIF at the Archives, and several months earlier in the fall of 2016 he told Zwonitzer "they didn't even know I have this [notebook]."931 This could suggest that Mr. Biden concealed his notebooks from staff to avoid restrictions on his access to or use of them. But the defense will argue that this treatment of the notecards and notebooks 1s also consistent with an innocent explanation: Mr. Biden may have simply acquiesced to his staffs decision to store his notecards in the Archives SCIF, even though, as he suggested to his ghostwriter onApril 26, 2017, he (like Mr. Reagan and the Department ofJustice before him) did not think he was required to do so. If that is what happened, Mr. Eiden was not required to inform his staff that their (in his view) unnecessary advice could also apply to his notebooks. His failure to flag the notebooks for what he believed to be his staffs overly cautious treatment is not compelling evidence of willfulness. In the same vein, Mr. Eiden could have concluded that the forms he signed about safeguarding classified information in the Archives SCIF were boilerplate paperwork that applied in most cases, but not to the handwritten materials ofa former president or vice president, which historically have been treated as the former officeholder's personal property. And he could point to McGrail's current understanding that the notecards were stored in a SCIF simply to keep them secure, not because they were classified.932 The second set of evidence concerns the guidance on "best practices" that Counsel Cynthia Hogan gave Mr. Eiden in 2010 and 2011 about handling classified information, and his decision after receiving this guidance to store the notebooks in a safe in the White House.933 This evidence, too, is consistent with innocence. By the time Mr. Eiden left the White House in 2017, Hogan's guidance about storage in a safe was six years old, and Mr. Eiden had long since stopped following it. The evidence suggests that he did not store his notebooks in a safe for the last several years of his administration, and no one in the White House raised concern While Mr. Biden may have recalled Hogan's advice and concluded that it meant he should not bring the notebooks home with him when he left the White House, there is no evidence he did so recall. And there would have been good reason for him not to think this way, especially since Hogan gave her 2010 advice seven years earlier during a meeting scheduled to last ten minutes, and Mr. Biden had long since stopped following her advice, which Hogan told us would have reflected best practices rather than legal requirements_9:l5 For these reasons, we do not believe the government could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. B1den knew it was unlawful to retain his notebooks at his home after the vice president."

what about the boat loads of other classified documents, and the fact he sold some for $8 million to a ghostrider?

 

[DBA]

Hur that in his report out of pure politics, and loyalty toward Trump who appointed him US Attorney. Why do I say that, because as Robert Mueller explained, that the letter from the Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel, since its Nixon era letter, that a sitting president can NOT be indicted

A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

www.justice.gov

A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Then why did Garland appoint him in the first place? That makes absolutely no sense.

If it was purely political, Hur could have stated all the reasons why Biden was guilty, which he did, list the mental acuity issues he observed, which he also did, and then simply state that law prevents him from recommending indictment.

 

[Marener]

I am not going to argue with you on this nonsense. Hur's primary reason for not recommending prosecution was Biden's general lack of memory. My question is why was he lamenting how a jury may or may not rule in this case? He was tasked with determining if there was sufficient evidence to recommend prosecution, which there undeniably is. Whether or not a jury would find him guilty is irrelevant. If this was you or me(or Trump), we would be preparing for our defense.

Nowhere does Hur say that was the primary reason.

Your question shows your own ignorance. The DoJ manual says to prosecute only if the evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Hur notes this in the report, page 201 which none of you guys read.

 

[struth]

Did he say Biden was incompetent?

I didn't say he did, but incompetent is just another word for someone in such cognative decline they can't stand trial.

but again, let me be clear, I agree with you....I think it's scapegoat by Hur to avoid recommending to Garland he charge his boss.

 

[Marener]

I didn't say he did, but incompetent is just another word for someone in such cognative decline they can't stand trial.

Hur never said he couldn’t stand trial.

 

[DBA]

Nowhere does Hur say that was the primary reason.

Your question shows your own ignorance. The DoJ manual says to prosecute only if the evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Hur notes this in the report, page 201 which none of you guys read.

Wow, that is quite a very crazy thing. Think about how absolutely ridiculous that really is and how absurd that would be to apply to all potential indictments.

 

[meaner gene]

Then why did Garland appoint him in the first place? That makes absolutely no sense.

If it was purely political, Hur could have stated all the reasons why Biden was guilty, which he did, list the mental acuity issues he observed, which he also did, and then simply state that law prevents him from recommending indictment.

Same reason AG Sessions appointed Robert Mueller. Or congress investigates. They investigate, and issue a report. And if the statute of limitations don't bar it, indict the subject, once they leave office.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Nonsense.

You wrote "If you can't prove intent they were not criminal acts."

Utterly nonsensical. Stealing classified material is a criminal act.

Are you suggesting Biden should offer the defense that he stole classified material not intending to steal the materials?

Are you suggesting that is anything but nonsensical?

I suggest nothing. I am simply conveying what the report says.

Hur determined they didn't have the evidence to prove intent.

It's in the first paragraph in page one.

If you need more details do a search for the word intent in the document.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Regardless of what YOU and other dimwitted Democrats think, the special prosecutor chose not to prosecute specifically because the felt a jury would be sympathetic to a doddering old fool.

That isn't what Hur said in his report.

You are mischaracterizing Hur's report.

I disagree with his assessment that this is a reason not to recommend prosecution, but, that was his opinion. If he had not had this opinion, he would have most certainly recommended Biden for prosecution.

But it was his opinion. Ifs are irrelevant.

It seems as though Democrats was their cake and to eat it too. You should be happy that the prosecutor had such an opinion to save Biden's butt, but you should be worried that man with these mental limitations is running our country.

Most elders have a reduced memory.

To bad we have two old men running for president.

 

[struth]

Hur never said he couldn’t stand trial.

of course he did. That was the reason he didn't recommend charges for willfully retaining and disclousing classified documents

 

[Marener]

Wow, that is quite a very crazy thing. Think about how absolutely ridiculous that really is and how absurd that would be to apply to all potential indictments.

It does apply to all potential indictments. It’s in the DoJ manual.

Why press charges if you don’t think you’ll get a conviction?

It’s ironic how you often you like to accuse the other side of being poorly informed.

 

[Catsnmeters]

1) yes it was

Then what did it say?

2) they didn't say they couldn't prove intent....in fact they said that he did it willfully....

Page 1.

"Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden's handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden's Wilmington, Delaware home. However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecution of Mr. Biden is also unwarranted based on our consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the Department of Justice's Principles of Federal Prosecution. For these reasons, we decline prosecution of Mr. Biden."

3) yes, they said he was willful

You forget context included in the report.

4) show me in the report or in his testimony where he said he couldn't prove intent....I'll wait.

Use the search function and search "intent".

It's all there.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Marener]

of course he did

Provide the quote.

 

[Catsnmeters]

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden's handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden's Wilmington, Delaware home.

You left out context. Deliberately?

See post 194.

 

[struth]

You left out context. Deliberately?

See post 194.

what context? I literally quoted the entire paragraph. He didn't prosecute because he didn't think a jury would convict due to his cognitve decline. He made that cleark in the report, and in his testimony...I've linked both in this thread for you

 

[Marener]

what context? I literally quoted the entire paragraph. He didn't prosecute because he didn't think a jury would convict due to his cognitve decline. He made that cleark in the report, and in his testimony...I've linked both in this thread for you

That's entirely different than saying he's unable to stand trial.

Either you're stupid or a liar.

 

[BS Filter]

It does apply to all potential indictments. It’s in the DoJ manual.

Why press charges if you don’t think you’ll get a conviction?

It’s ironic how you often you like to accuse the other side of being poorly informed.

And what was his reasoning for not pressing charges...? Let's see how honest you are.

 

[Marener]

And what was his reasoning for not pressing charges...? Let's see how honest you are.

There were a lot of reasons which varied depending on what documents they were considering.