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

[Hollie]

Blame Hur then. It's his report.

Nonsense. You wrote. "No, he didn't steal them as he didn't know he shouldn't have them."

How can you write such nonsense?

Biden knew full well his stealing of classified documents was against the law.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm sure Hur would appreciate your compliment.

Cool story bro. You will get the hint eventually

 

[Lisa558]

Dems are evil scum who represent the worst in humanity.

You’re right. I forgot evil as one of the options.

 

[BluesLegend]

Or at the minimum, removed via the 25th.

The only problem with that is we get the Affirmative Action idiot.

Democrats have embraced lawlessness and convinced themselves they are above the law. That's why this criminal bribery ringmaster is still in office.

 

[Billiejeens]

But instead….let’s focus on Trump who paid back his loan, with the lenders happy with the deal, and try to force him to sell his property to raise $350m in cash.

Dems are either 1) stupid or 2) deluded.

Lisa, please!

Democrat politicians are power mad evil incarnate.
The Cult following is not any better.

 

[Hollie]

Blame Hur then. It's his report.

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?

 

[Billiejeens]

Nonsense. You wrote. "No, he didn't steal them as he didn't know he shouldn't have them."

How can you write such nonsense?

Biden knew full well his stealing of classified documents was against the law.

From the SCIF, when he was a senator.
Granted he was well known as perhaps the least intelligent Senator but, still.

 

[Billiejeens]

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?

One simply has to dismiss that poor kitty at this point.

 

[Hollie]

From the SCIF, when he was a senator.
Granted he was well known as perhaps the least intelligent Senator but, still.

And a below average law student with a history of serial plagiarism.

 

[Billiejeens]

And a below average law student with a history of serial plagiarism.

also those.

 

[DBA]

Nope.

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. 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. 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.

 

[meaner gene]

Here is the proof. Biden intended to write a book when he was Vice President. His book paid him 8 million dollars. Biden had that many reasons to commit a crime.

Point being is Trump did not have a book deal that included classified documents.

Biden did though.

This is where stupidity reins supreme in your mind.

28 CFR § 17.18 - Prepublication review.

www.law.cornell.edu

(e) A person's obligation to submit material for prepublication review remains identical whether such person prepares the materials or causes or assists another person (such as a ghost writer, spouse, friend, or editor) in preparing the material. Material covered by a nondisclosure agreement requiring prepublication review must be submitted prior to discussing it with or showing it to a publisher, co-author, or any other person who is not authorized to have access to it. In this regard, it should be noted that a failure to submit such material for prepublication review constitutes a breach of the obligation and exposes the author to remedial action

 

[Marener]

Of course it was. The investigation was slow-walked to make sure the SOL expired.

Hearing Wrap Up: IRS Whistleblowers Expose How Bidens Were Treated Differently - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

oversight.house.gov

Has nothing to do with Garland.

 

[Marener]

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

 

[Hollie]

Has nothing to do with Garland.

Other than Garland is the Attorney General. What do you think his job function is?

 

[Marener]

They’re in a full-blown panic. Their nominee is someone who gave classified info to a ghost writer for his $8 million book deal, and now he’s deemed too mentally unfit to stand trial for it.

That's entirely dishonest.

 

[Marener]

Other than Garland is the Attorney General. What do you think his job function is?

Garland isn't responsible for the delay.

 

[meaner gene]

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

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.

 

[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.

1) yes it was
2) they didn't say they couldn't prove intent....in fact they said that he did it willfully....
3) yes, they said he was willful
4) show me in the report or in his testimony where he said he couldn't prove intent....I'll wait.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Nonsense. You wrote. "No, he didn't steal them as he didn't know he shouldn't have them."

How can you write such nonsense?

Biden knew full well his stealing of classified documents was against the law.

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."