Hur Hearing Backfires on Republicans

[postman]

Bull shit.
Evidence can or can not be entered into the record, but it is still evidence, and attempting to destroy evidence shows intent to conceal that a crime has been committed.

Yet it's perfectly legal to destroy before it becomes subject to legal seizure. Example: A wanted terrorist gets a latte from starbucks, and leaves his fingerprints (evidence) on the cup. He throws the cup in the trash. The donut with his DNA on it (evidence). He disposes of that too by swallowing it. And the receipt for a donut and a latte (evidence) he throws in the trash with his empty cup.

QED

 

[JoeB131]

LOL Spanked the guy that kept their leader out of prison. DEmocrats are scumbags. through and through

Hey, the guy shouldn't have been a partisan hack.

here's the thing, the only thing Hur could have done is recommend charges to congress. you can't indict a sitting president.

This was always a huge nothingburger.

 

[jc456]

I am not a doctor. Makes sense though, referring to Trump, at least as much as Republicans say it against Biden. Are you saying both men may be competent?

because you don't like him? hahahahahahahaahaha. never let truth get in the way of feelings.

 

[Rawley]

Hey, the guy shouldn't have been a partisan hack.

here's the thing, the only thing Hur could have done is recommend charges to congress. you can't indict a sitting president.

This was always a huge nothingburger.

He kept the leader of your party from going to prison. And your party shits on his head. As if you need any more evidence, Democrats are scumbags. through and through

 

[postman]

destruction of evidence is always obstruction!!! you know this right? Evidence does not need to be under subpoena

To help you out. Evidence is not evidence (it's just stuff) until it is put under legal sanction. Such as a 8 year old bank records, being routinely destroyed.

 

[jc456]

Yet it's perfectly legal to destroy before it becomes subject to legal seizure.

no it's not. So getting rid of an end of life tool is not obstruction to the crime?

Tampering With Evidence

Tampering with evidence is the crime of altering, destroying, or concealing physical evidence with the intent to affect the outcome of a criminal investigation or co

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

 

[0311]

This was a disaster for Gym Jordan and the Republicans. Madeleine Dean and Eric Swalwell did some of the most effective questioning. By merely having Hur read his own words, his own transcript, his own report.

They are the committeee that could not find shit.

 

[postman]

WTF are you talking about?

The special prosecutor is a non-biased investigator that isn't suppose to protect or attack the president because of their political leanings.

But that's not the type of US Attorneys Trump hired. Trump picked Hur because of his political loyalty. As was clearly evident in his report, and his refusal to say he wasn't going to take a position in a new Trump administration

 

[postman]

Doesn't matter if it did or not.
Hur said that his Ghost Writer attempted to destroy evidence.

It's not evidence until it's put under legal sanction.

 

[0311]

Hur testified that Biden exhibited a photographic memory in his report

His report was a sham. He lied about Mr. Biden not remembering when Beau died. He is shown himself to partisan party hack of the lowest form.

 

[postman]

you have no idea what you're talking about. Declassified has to be while in office. You know that right? And, Creepy had classified docs from his senator days. come on man, stop licking the man's dick over and over. What's in it for you?

Not if that authority was given to "Dick Cheney" as mudwhistle claims.

 

[mudwhistle]

You got it backwards. Biden like Trump had the authority to retain classified materials while in office. The problem is they both retained the material after leaving office. BUT, the difference is, Biden did so by accident, and in his diary (see the Ronald Reagan case)

They were both told to disgorge any classified materials back to the National Archives. And this is where there is a difference. Biden, like Mike Pence, who also had classified materials from when he was Vice President, both returned their overdue classified documents.

While Trump, not only retained his classified materials, but played hide and go seek (obstruction of justice) with the materials he was ordered, subpoenaed, and search warranted to return.

It doesn't seem to make any difference if they purposely did it or accidentally.

You're assuming that the very people who made up Russian Collusion all of the sudden can be trusted again.

The same people that planned and carried out Crossfire-Hurricane are the very people pulling this latest episode.

1. Trump kept everything he had in a secure area under Secret Service protection.
2. Joe Biden kept documents in an unsecured garage in busted open boxes next to his Corvette.
3. Trump offered everything that the archives branch requested (yes requested....they could not demand it)
4. They came in and rifled thru all of his shit and took with them what they wanted, leaving behind other documents for some strange reason.
5. Then they filed a complaint with the DOJ claiming Trump wasn't cooperating, who then launched a raid of Trump's home in Mar-a-lago and rifled thru everything including his wife's wardrobe and his kid's drawers and closets.
6. They took everything out of the SCIF Trump maintained on his property as president piled them up and took photos of document stacked in a bathroom and tossed some empty Secret file cards on the floor.
7. Then they leaked the photos to the press. This is against the law.
8. Anyone with half a brain can see they planted and moved around evidence.
9. While they were doing this the DOJ had already discovered that Biden had documents in his home and offices but neglected to tell anyone about it till after then knew he had them for several months.
10. Then after the Trump raid they attempted to exonerate Biden by releasing the story to the press many months after the fact.
11. Later Attorney General Merrick Garland testified to congress that he had no input on the raid, but it is discovered later that he not only had input but in fact ordered the raid.
12. So the US AG perjured himself before congress.
13. What else is he guilty of?

 

[mudwhistle]

His report was a shame. He lied about Mr. Biden not remembering when Beau died. He is shown himself to partisan party hack of the lowest form.

Oh, so you're calling Hur a liar now?

Fuck you

 

[postman]

Watching this hearing, I am wondering if Hur even read the report before he put his name to it, because he seemed to not know what was in it.

You may be onto something. Hur always referred to his actions in the third person. Like when he was asked if he wrote something, and he responded "the report on page .... says ...."

 

[BlindBoo]

Hur looked like he took a nutpunch when he was asked to read his own report on the differences between Benedict Donald's handling of the Classified documents and Joe Biden's.

"......several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.

Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."

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

 

[postman]

no it's not. So getting rid of an end of life tool is not obstruction to the crime?

Tampering With Evidence

Tampering with evidence is the crime of altering, destroying, or concealing physical evidence with the intent to affect the outcome of a criminal investigation or co

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

Your citation: When a person intentionally destroys a document or item that is not, and will not, become evidence in an investigation or other proceeding, there is no tampering with evidence.

 

[postman]

It doesn't seem to make any difference if they purposely did it or accidentally.

That's the "criminal intent" (mens rea) needed to convict a person for a felony.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's not evidence until it's put under legal sanction.

Bull shit.

Evidence is something or anything that shows proof of something.
It doesn't have to be filed or entered into court docs to be called evidence.
It can be called direct testimony which is evidence or hearsay evidence.
It doesn't have to be something that a clerk or a lawyer put under seal or documented.

Clearly you cocksuckers want to change the fucking meaning of words to get a desired outcome.

 

[mudwhistle]

That's the "criminal intent" (mens rea) needed to convict a person for a felony.

I know what mens rea means. It's one of the first God Damned definitions you learn in Paralegal school.
And when it comes to criminal intent, attempting to dispose of or destroy evidence is mens rea.

For example, trying to switch places with a drunk who was driving shows criminal intent after an officer stops them for speeding.
The very act or the attempt shows criminal intent.

 

[BlindBoo]

You're assuming that the very people who made up Russian Collusion all of the sudden can be trusted again.

These people?

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security | Homeland Security

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.

www.dhs.gov

Or the political campaign that gleefully accepted Russian aid and requested more of it during the 2016 campaign. The leader of that party absolutely trusts the Russians more than our own Intelligence Community. You know, Benedict Donald.

Never trust either one.