Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

[Bicco]

Trump was asked to return classified records and Trump's attorneys turned over 38 pages marked as classified and attested that all records with classified markings had been returned to the government.

This was disputed and Trump was charged with violations of a 1917 Espionage Act, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and making false statements to investigators.

What documents were retained? Those that the FBI came and put in their own classified document files folders on them? "Classified document" folder covers they brought with them on the raid, as shown in the Court Ordered documents gained by FOI requests?

Obama's orders proves Trump claims he did have a "standing order" to declassify documents and casts doubt any that were not handed over, were classified.

And of course what stands out is that both Biden as VP and a Senator and Pence as VP, actually did retain classified documents, that had no right to have, did not store them secures LOL, and did not have the White House (not the DOJ or FBI) authorise a raid with deadly force to take approximately 13,000 more records, about 100 of which they claim were marked as classified.

If you think that the FBI has documents, then there’s not much point discussing this with you. That’s full on conspiracy theory stuff.
Trump wilfully attempted to conceal documents from the FBI (and his lawyers) and moved the documents around his properties to do so. There is testimony from his staff that this happened.
Presidents can declassify material, but there is a process to do this. In the simplest of terms, you can borrow a book from a library, but you have to let someone know that you’re taking the book. You can’t just walk out of the library with a bunch of books. Trump didn’t follow this process of declassification and when asked if he had any documents said no. That’s why the FBI raided his property, they knew he had them. They found them. So Trump lied when he said he didm’t have any. Then when they were found he said what you’re saying, that he could take declassified material. Which now goes to the point above. This is basically what the case is about.
With regards Biden, his lawyers were asked if he had any, they said yes and they were returned. It seems to me that if Trump had returned all of the documents in the 1st instance when questioned, the case against him wouldn’t have evolved. It’s the fact that he deliberately tried to conceal his possession of the documents that lead to the charges against him.
Your post above misses a lot of detail that is very important.

 

[poshman]

If you think that the FBI has documents, then there’s not much point discussing this with you. That’s full on conspiracy theory stuff.
Trump wilfully attempted to conceal documents from the FBI (and his lawyers) and moved the documents around his properties to do so. There is testimony from his staff that this happened.
Presidents can declassify material, but there is a process to do this. In the simplest of terms, you can borrow a book from a library, but you have to let someone know that you’re taking the book. You can’t just walk out of the library with a bunch of books. Trump didn’t follow this process of declassification and when asked if he had any documents said no. That’s why the FBI raided his property, they knew he had them. They found them. So Trump lied when he said he didm’t have any. Then when they were found he said what you’re saying, that he could take declassified material. Which now goes to the point above. This is basically what the case is about.
With regards Biden, his lawyers were asked if he had any, they said yes and they were returned. It seems to me that if Trump had returned all of the documents in the 1st instance when questioned, the case against him wouldn’t have evolved. It’s the fact that he deliberately tried to conceal his possession of the documents that lead to the charges against him.
Your post above misses a lot of detail that is very important.

Will you acknowledge that the special counsel said they would charge Biden for the classified docs if he wasn't old and has a bad memory? In other words mentally he isn't there anymore.

 

[E Shed]

Will you acknowledge that the special counsel said they would charge Biden for the classified docs if he wasn't old and has a bad memory? In other words mentally he isn't there anymore.

Perhaps you could comment on the points he’s made about the Trump charges first before switching the focus? He does make a good point about why the ruling referenced earlier doesn’t relate to what Trump was actually charged for.

Biden being cognitively impaired doesn’t have any legal implications for the Trump case.

 

[poshman]

Perhaps you could comment on the points he’s made about the Trump charges first before switching the focus? He does make a good point about why the ruling referenced earlier doesn’t relate to what Trump was actually charged for.

Biden being cognitively impaired doesn’t have any legal implications for the Trump case.

I think the charges against Trump wouldn't be there if his name was Clinton or Obama. In other words I think they are all scum bags

 

[BlueE]

If you think that the FBI has documents, then there’s not much point discussing this with you. That’s full on conspiracy theory stuff.

I'm happy not to discuss anything if you insist on attacks based on your own misrepresentations.

Facts widely reported were that Trump was asked for and returned 15 boxes to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, and officials discovered in them more than 700 pages of records marked as classified.

The Justice Department issued a grand jury subpoena in May 2022 asking Trump to return any other classified records and Trump's attorneys later turned over 38 pages marked as classified and attested that all records with classified markings had been returned to the government.

In August 2022 was when the FBI raid occurred.

No others were specifically asked for? And he wasn't told initially (not sure if they even know now), what documents they raided were considered "classified"?

I thought the Obama memorandum made it clear that there was a "standing order" that a President could declassify at will.

Seemed the FBI corrupted the search, wanting to reclassify by adding their own "Classification" folders to documents and then take and leak photos to promote their own narrative.

If you go back to 1917 when the "espionage act" that they charged him under was passed, there were no classification of documents. Courts have ruled that the information that may have been of use to foreign adversaries must be "closely held."

I don't think a Clinton sock drawer or Biden's garage open to the street, is closely held. An unused locked bathroom out of 33 in Mara Largo, heavily protected by secret service and other guards on duty is probably "closely held" before Trump's Presidential Library was designated.

 

[BlueE]

Perhaps you could comment on the points he’s made about the Trump charges first before switching the focus? He does make a good point about why the ruling referenced earlier doesn’t relate to what Trump was actually charged for.

Biden being cognitively impaired doesn’t have any legal implications for the Trump case.

What ruling?

Biden's being let off by the DOJ, when he never had any authority to declassify, was not storing his documents in any secure location, was offering them to a journalist that was writing his biography for 8 million dollar advance, is all about two different tiers of justice.

President Biden’s $8 million book deal was a likely motive behind his decision to take notebooks containing classified information when he left the White House in 2017, special counsel Robert K. Hur said.

Biden likely took classified notebooks for $8 million book deal, special counsel claims

President Biden’s $8 million book deal was a likely motive behind his decision to take notebooks containing classified information when he left the White House in 2017, special counsel Robert K. Hur said.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[wahooo]

Will you acknowledge that the special counsel said they would charge Biden for the classified docs if he wasn't old and has a bad memory? In other words mentally he isn't there anymore.

That's not what Hur's report concluded.

Hur, after reviewing all the evidence, concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction.

Hur's comments on Biden's memory, age and the jury's perception of Biden are nothing more than mere speculation, about what a jury 'would likely' find.

I note Hur's comments which you reference are contained in chapter 11, part three of the report titled 'The evidence falls short of establishing Mr Biden's wilful retention of the classified Afghanistan documents beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Your comments are a complete misrepresenation of the report and its findings.

 

[stax on the mull]

Your post that you say you already replied with, made no sense.

As I said, after the championing of an anonymous twitter account that posted AI manipulated video and out of context quotes of Mac Isaac to develop a fake narrative, highlighted in Mac Isaac's sworn court documents, I'm not sure why I should take anything you post seriously.

However now I can see your line of reasoning. Michael Cohen is corrupt and that is why he was employed by Trump and therefore Trump is corrupt.

"blind justice or wilful blindness"

I thought you'd appreciate the Jonathon Turley articles. Highly respected distinguished academic who was vocal in 2020 about Trump, "slamming him for comments alleging Democrats are attempting to steal the U.S. presidential election"

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/524768-turley-hits-trump-for-undermining-legal-team-effort-judges-less-likely-to-take/

Seems fair. Sept 14th 2023.

an impeachment inquiry is warranted. I do not believe that a case for impeachment has been made, but there is clearly a need for an investigation into a growing array of allegations facing the President in this corruption scandal.

I also reject the notion that, because a conviction is unlikely in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the House should not go down this road. I rejected the same argument made by some Republicans during the Trump impeachment. The House has a separate constitutional duty in the investigation of potential impeachable offenses and to pass articles of impeachment if those allegations are found to be valid.

Five Facts That Compel the Biden Impeachment Inquiry

Below is my column in The Messenger on the reason why an impeachment inquiry is warranted. I do not believe that a case for impeachment has been made, but there is clearly a need for an investigat…

jonathanturley.org

Please note, that this article you are linking is dated 14th of September, 2023. The statement you see Mr Turley making in that video, where he conceded that there is not enough evidence to proceed with an impeachment is under oath to the impeachment inquiry, was made on 28th of September 2023. The best he can say is "we don't know".

There's a difference between an inquiry into impeachment which the Republicans have be dragging out for about 2 years for Trumps benefit, and taking a vote to conduct an impeachment trial - which, if you listen to the answer Turley gives when asked in the video - he states that proper procedure should mean that a vote should be taken in the House on whether Joe Biden should be impeached. And as I explained to you the Republicans neither have the evidence, nor do they have the votes from some of their own party members - and this statement is back in Sept 2023, well before the supposed main witness Alexander Smirnov was charged (in Feb 2024) for being a Russian agent who fabricated evidence against the Bidens.

Also, previously when I highlighted this turn of events, you stated that Smirnov's chance to testify has been deliberately delayed until after the election by the Democrats - which is, like much of your opinions, a mirror image of the truth. It's the Trump appointed special counsel David Weiss who has charged Smirnov, and his trial was due to begin in April 2024, but Weiss has delayed it until after the election. Weiss is also in charge of the Hunter Biden tax evasion and unregistered firearms charges which will begin hearings this month despite the request by the defence to seek delays.

It's one of the many bullsh_t things that Trump wants everyone to believe - that there's a witch-hunt only against him, that acts only against him. How is it then that all of Trump's other trials have been delayed until after the 2024 election?
In this current trial, which we should have a verdict on soon, he has been claiming he was being gagged. He was gagged!, but only after being warned several times to stop from criticizing the judge in public and helping identify the members of the jury which he was doing via his interviews outside the courthouse, and he turned that into a claim that he was gagged from giving evidence in his own trial.

Lastly, on this current felony trial. Since you love doing your own research, here's some keywords you can put in a search engine to pick out something from the many articles that will give you the facts on this case:

KEYWORDS:.

DONALD TRUMP
MICHAEL COHEN
STORMY DANIELS,
UNINDICTED C0-CONSPIRATOR,
INDIVIDUAL #1

 

[Kram]

Students scared after 'Jew die' threat sprayed on school fence

The statement, "Jew die", was sprayed across the entrance of Mount Scopus Memorial College late on Friday n...

www.9news.com.au

 

[Demons09]

Students scared after 'Jew die' threat sprayed on school fence

The statement, "Jew die", was sprayed across the entrance of Mount Scopus Memorial College late on Friday n...

www.9news.com.au

Probably someone from the SRP board , don’t expect anything from that weak government they have in place there.

 

[King Huskii]

That's not what Hur's report concluded.

Hur, after reviewing all the evidence, concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction.

Hur's comments on Biden's memory, age and the jury's perception of Biden are nothing more than mere speculation, about what a jury 'would likely' find.

I note Hur's comments which you reference are contained in chapter 11, part three of the report titled 'The evidence falls short of establishing Mr Biden's wilful retention of the classified Afghanistan documents beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Your comments are a complete misrepresenation of the report and its findings.

This is common for a large amount of statements he makes. Inaccurate and biased.

 

[wahooo]

This is common for a large amount of statements he makes. Inaccurate and biased.

Come on man, I like the passion with which you post but no need for this.

However, given the frequency with which poshman has made comments similar to the one I quoted, I think this is a good opportunity for him to acknowledge that what he said was not accurate.

His comments carry the implication that Hur would have recommended prosecution but for Biden's age and memory. That is not true. Hur did not recommend prosecution because there was insufficient evidence.

poshman do you acknowledge that Hur concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove that Biden committed the crimes alleged?

 

[poshman]

Come on man, I like the passion with which you post but no need for this.

However, given the frequency with which poshman has made comments similar to the one I quoted, I think this is a good opportunity for him to acknowledge that what he said was not accurate.

His comments carry the implication that Hur would have recommended prosecution but for Biden's age and memory. That is not true. Hur did not recommend prosecution because there was insufficient evidence.

poshman do you acknowledge that Hur concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove that Biden committed the crimes alleged?

I will have to find the full report and go through it. All the coverage of it that I have read suggests that the evidence was there but they didn't proceed due to him being 'an old man with bad memory'.

If you are saying that is not what he said, then I can check that and if you send me a link I will read through his full report and happily admit if he says there is insufficient evidence.

Have you got the link to the full report?

 

[poshman]

This is common for a large amount of statements he makes. Inaccurate and biased.

Once again with the personal stuff... it just continues.

 

[BlueE]

Please note, that this article you are linking is dated 14th of September, 2023. The statement you see Mr Turley making in that video, where he conceded that there is not enough evidence to proceed with an impeachment is under oath to the impeachment inquiry, was made on 28th of September 2023. The best he can say is "we don't know".

There's a difference between an inquiry into impeachment which the Republicans have be dragging out for about 2 years for Trumps benefit, and taking a vote to conduct an impeachment trial - which, if you listen to the answer Turley gives when asked in the video - he states that proper procedure should mean that a vote should be taken in the House on whether Joe Biden should be impeached. And as I explained to you the Republicans neither have the evidence, nor do they have the votes from some of their own party members - and this statement is back in Sept 2023, well before the supposed main witness Alexander Smirnov was charged (in Feb 2024) for being a Russian agent who fabricated evidence against the Bidens.

LOL. Yes I know the Turley article I quoted was 14th Sept 2023, because I clearly labelled it as that. It was making the same points he was making to the impeachment inquiry and in his written submissions. You've selectively quoted "We don't know" to support a fake narrative that Turley addresses, writing on 2nd Oct 2023.

"I testified this week at the first hearing of the impeachment inquiry on the constitutional standards and practices in moving forward in the investigation. In my view, there is ample justification for an impeachment inquiry. If these allegations are established, they would clearly constitute impeachable offenses."

"Without prejudging that evidence, there are four obvious potential articles of impeachment that have been raised in recent disclosures and sworn statements: bribery, conspiracy, obstruction, and abuse of power."

"There is a false narrative being pushed by both politicians and pundits that there is no basis for an inquiry, let alone an impeachment, unless a direct payment or gift can be shown to Joe Biden. That would certainly strengthen the case politically, but it is not essential legally. Even in criminal cases subject to the highest standard, payments to family members can be treated as benefits to a principal actor. Direct benefits can further strengthen articles of impeachment, but they would not be a prerequisite for such an action."

Four Biden Impeachment Articles and What the House Will Need to Prove

Below is my column in The Hill on moving forward with the Biden impeachment inquiry. The column discusses four possible impeachment articles that could be brought by the House and what the House wo…

jonathanturley.org

Besides the dozens of shell companies accounts that allegedly transferred millions of dollars to Biden family, the impeachment inquiry has only just announced new bank subpoenas for "several credit card companies" for the family records of President Biden, claiming the Biden family used credit cards for personal expenses paid for by a Chinese firm.

However, as I've said to you before and Turley made a point in his 14th Sept article, that a conviction is unlikely in the Democrat controlled Senate.

Turley states "An impeachment inquiry does not mean that an impeachment itself is inevitable. But it dramatically increases the chances of finally forcing answers to troubling questions of influence-peddling and corruption."

And with the latest bank subpoenas they seem to be asking for records that will stand up in a Court of Law.

 

[wahooo]

I will have to find the full report and go through it. All the coverage of it that I have read suggests that the evidence was there but they didn't proceed due to him being 'an old man with bad memory'.

If you are saying that is not what he said, then I can check that and if you send me a link I will read through his full report and happily admit if he says there is insufficient evidence.

Have you got the link to the full report?

I don't know how to share a link because it opens as a pdf on my phone. It's easy enough to find on google, should be within the first few results (was for me).

There are multiple conclusions in the report that the evidence is insufficient to satisfy the prosecution's burden of proof. Much of that is the mental element of the crime that he 'wilfully' retained the documents. Subjective intent can be proved in a host of ways, there just wasn't sufficient evidence to prove it.

To completely dispel the idea that Biden wasn't prosecuted because of his bad memory let me add - Biden's memory (or lack thereof) would hardly help the prosecution prove that he 'wilfully' retained the documents, unless of course Biden gave evidence that he did.

Hur also explores the differences between Trump's case and Biden's. And as Bicco correctly pointed out earlier, there were aggravating circumstances in Trump's situation which led to prosecution, plus a whole host of other unhelpful evidence for Trump.

It's fair enough that you formed the conclusion you did, many media outlets ran with the comments about Biden's memory because it makes a good headline. But, once you've read the report, if you go back to those same articles you may pick up nuances in the wording which show that Hur just made comments about Biden's memory rather than refusing to recommend his prosecution because he's old and forgetful.

To some extent, it was relevant for Hur to comment on Biden's memory and general demeanour during interviews. But what is notable, is that Hur is not nearly as critical of other witnesses who fail to recall certain events. And, at times Hur shows understanding that these other witnesses could not recall events from years ago.

If you asked what I did on the 27th of May last year, I wouldn't have a bloody clue. I'd be buggered if I were asked to recall events from multiple years ago. **** last week might be a stretch for me.

My personal view is that some of Hur's comments about Biden's memory went beyond what was required of him. They were in my view, political attacks. And they were bloody effective political attacks at that.

I think Biden is old and his memory does seem to be failing him but the important thing is that his age and memory are not the reason he was not prosecuted. The reason he was not prosecuted was because the evidence was insufficient to prove the crimes alleged and because he cooperated with the investigation.

If the situation was reversed and the exact same report had been written about Trump, I'd consider the comments on his memory a political attack. I'd enjoy it, but I'd consider it nothing more than a political attack.

I look forward to you correcting the record once you've had a chance to skim the report. I've seen this same piece of misinformation circulate about on here for some time and I think it's time it stops.

 

[BlueE]

Also, previously when I highlighted this turn of events, you stated that Smirnov's chance to testify has been deliberately delayed until after the election by the Democrats - which is, like much of your opinions, a mirror image of the truth. It's the Trump appointed special counsel David Weiss who has charged Smirnov, and his trial was due to begin in April 2024, but Weiss has delayed it until after the election. Weiss is also in charge of the Hunter Biden tax evasion and unregistered firearms charges which will begin hearings this month despite the request by the defence to seek delays.

It's one of the many bullsh_t things that Trump wants everyone to believe - that there's a witch-hunt only against him, that acts only against him. How is it then that all of Trump's other trials have been delayed until after the 2024 election?
In this current trial, which we should have a verdict on soon, he has been claiming he was being gagged. He was gagged!, but only after being warned several times to stop from criticizing the judge in public and helping identify the members of the jury which he was doing via his interviews outside the courthouse, and he turned that into a claim that he was gagged from giving evidence in his own trial.

Lastly, on this current felony trial. Since you love doing your own research, here's some keywords you can put in a search engine to pick out something from the many articles that will give you the facts on this case:

KEYWORDS:.

DONALD TRUMP
MICHAEL COHEN
STORMY DANIELS,
UNINDICTED C0-CONSPIRATOR,
INDIVIDUAL #1

It's a joke that you argue for the impartiality of 'distinguished academic" Jonathon Turley, but choose to ignore his informed articles on Trumps charges and trial.

Instead, I should do what you do. Search mainstream media for fake news results such as "Hunter's laptop is Russian disinformation", "Michael Cohen was a nearly perfect witness in the Trump trial", "From pr0n star to prosecution key witness"!

Maybe look up Lawfare: Unrestrained litigation at any cost. Unscrupulous plaintiffs and lawyers may actually relish the broader damage they cause by manipulating the process more than the trial verdict.

Applied to Trump in a list of novel civil and criminal charges and claims asserted in state and federal courts throughout the country. To fine him a fortune and punish him by putting his companies out of business, the party bringing the case has an opportunity to win regardless of the jury’s verdict or judge’s decision. Bonus is inflicting tangible harm on the Trump defendants, making them spend a fortune and disrupting businesses, lives, and a Presidential campaign for the highest office in the land.

You're complaining about normal due process in delays in bringing some of these Lawfare charges to trial, which could have been avoided if they were charged three years ago.

I stand by everything I've said about Smirnov and will add that another fake narrative your media searches pushed after his arrest, that somehow it exonerated Biden and the Democrats' narrative that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation, the DOJ confirmed it genuine in January 2024 and now will be submitted as evidence in Hunters upcoming trial.

Hunter’s laptop IS real, says … the Biden Justice Department

Yes, that’s right! David Weiss is going to use the laptop as evidence against Hunter, proving ACO, James Clapper and every other disinfo freak was lying the whole time.

nypost.com

 

[poshman]

I don't know how to share a link because it opens as a pdf on my phone. It's easy enough to find on google, should be within the first few results (was for me).

There are multiple conclusions in the report that the evidence is insufficient to satisfy the prosecution's burden of proof. Much of that is the mental element of the crime that he 'wilfully' retained the documents. Subjective intent can be proved in a host of ways, there just wasn't sufficient evidence to prove it.

To completely dispel the idea that Biden wasn't prosecuted because of his bad memory let me add - Biden's memory (or lack thereof) would hardly help the prosecution prove that he 'wilfully' retained the documents, unless of course Biden gave evidence that he did.

Hur also explores the differences between Trump's case and Biden's. And as Bicco correctly pointed out earlier, there were aggravating circumstances in Trump's situation which led to prosecution, plus a whole host of other unhelpful evidence for Trump.

It's fair enough that you formed the conclusion you did, many media outlets ran with the comments about Biden's memory because it makes a good headline. But, once you've read the report, if you go back to those same articles you may pick up nuances in the wording which show that Hur just made comments about Biden's memory rather than refusing to recommend his prosecution because he's old and forgetful.

To some extent, it was relevant for Hur to comment on Biden's memory and general demeanour during interviews. But what is notable, is that Hur is not nearly as critical of other witnesses who fail to recall certain events. And, at times Hur shows understanding that these other witnesses could not recall events from years ago.

If you asked what I did on the 27th of May last year, I wouldn't have a bloody clue. I'd be buggered if I were asked to recall events from multiple years ago. **** last week might be a stretch for me.

My personal view is that some of Hur's comments about Biden's memory went beyond what was required of him. They were in my view, political attacks. And they were bloody effective political attacks at that.

I think Biden is old and his memory does seem to be failing him but the important thing is that his age and memory are not the reason he was not prosecuted. The reason he was not prosecuted was because the evidence was insufficient to prove the crimes alleged and because he cooperated with the investigation.

If the situation was reversed and the exact same report had been written about Trump, I'd consider the comments on his memory a political attack. I'd enjoy it, but I'd consider it nothing more than a political attack.

I look forward to you correcting the record once you've had a chance to skim the report. I've seen this same piece of misinformation circulate about on here for some time and I think it's time it stops.

If you like I can go and copy and paste all the parts where is said Biden shared or kept classified docs. And I can copy and paste the part where Hur says that Biden is on a recording speaking to his ghost writer about 'just seeing the classified docs downstairs'.

I have copied this part:

We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.
1 We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president.

2 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 andforeign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden's hand written 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.

______________________________________

I am not sure you can call it misinformation when it is what the investigator said:

We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning,elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of will fulness. We conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict, and we decline to recommend prosecution of Mr. Eiden for his retention of the classified Afghanistan documents

____________________________

You are labelling that a political attack. Biden is far more than old with a failing memory, he has lost cognitive skill. I don't think it was a political attack, I think it spoke to one of the reasons he didn't recommend charging Biden

_____________________________

Evidence shows that he knew the notebooks contained classified information. Mr. Eiden wrote down obviously sensitive information discussed during intelligence briefings with President Obama and meetings in the White House Situation Room about matters of national security and military and foreign policy. And while reading his notebook entries aloud during meetings with his ghostwriter, Mr. Eiden sometimes skipped over presumptively classified material and warned his ghostwriter the entries might be classified, but at least three times Mr. Eiden read from classified entries aloud to his ghost writer nearly verbatim.
_____________________________

What have I said that is incorrect - I said the reason they didn't go ahead with prosecution was that he was old and lost his memory.

I could add to that, that the investigator thought he would be sympathetic to the jury?

You have been having this discussion in good faith, I hope you can see that I am trying to do the same. I quoted the investigators findings.

Apologies about the copy paste issue, I have gone through and separated large sections of text that had words running into each other on this 'paste' end.

Link below for reference:

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

 

[poshman]

Dem Lawyer and Republican Lawyer with Megyn Kelly on this. She reads through the transcript of the interview.... It is very sad.

Then you see Biden lying when it came out, and saying Hur brought up his son, when the transcript shows Biden did. He had either forgot or was lying.

Anyway - my dad is 80 and he is a touch slower than he was, and he is no where near the level of Biden as far as cognitive decline. He can also tell you the date and day his daughter died and the year she died.

 

[wahooo]

If you like I can go and copy and paste all the parts where is said Biden shared or kept classified docs. And I can copy and paste the part where Hur says that Biden is on a recording speaking to his ghost writer about 'just seeing the classified docs downstairs'.

You can if you like but what good would that be when you ignore the parts where Hur concludes that that evidence is insufficient to prove Biden committed the alleged crimes?

I have copied this part:

We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.
1 We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president.

2 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 andforeign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden's hand written 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.

______________________________________

Yes there is evidence that those events occurred. But Hur concluded it was not sufficient to prove Biden committed the crimes. Why did you not bold the part I have italicised in your quote? Did you miss it?

I'll quote it for posterity, after considering that evidence you bolded, Hur concluded:

'However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'

The evidence did not establish Biden's guilt, will you please acknowledge that?

I am not sure you can call it misinformation when it is what the investigator said:

We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning,elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of will fulness. We conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict, and we decline to recommend prosecution of Mr. Eiden for his retention of the classified Afghanistan documents

____________________________

Once again, you failed to bold the part where Hur concluded the evidence was insufficient.

What I described as misinformation was your comment that 'Hur would have charged Biden if he had not been old and had a poor memory'. It's misinformation because Hur did not say I would charge Biden but for his age and poor memory. Hur said we refuse to recommend prosecution because there is insufficient evidence, a lack of aggravating circumstances (cf Trump) and the jury 'would likely' consider him as old and possessing a poor memory.

Your earlier comments which I described as misinformation carries the implication that there was sufficient evidence to charge and convict Biden, when in fact there was not. That is why your comment is misinformation. Hur reviewed the evidence and concluded it was not sufficient.

Do you think a prosecution should proceed when there is insufficient evidence to prove a crime was committed?

Hur's view on what the jury 'would likely' find is pure speculation and guess work. Furthermore, it's somewhat irrelevant to consider how a jury might perceive a witness when there's insufficient evidence to prove that a crime was committed.

You are labelling that a political attack. Biden is far more than old with a failing memory, he has lost cognitive skill. I don't think it was a political attack, I think it spoke to one of the reasons he didn't recommend charging Biden

_____________________________

'One of the reasons'. I'll consider this progress.

What have I said that is incorrect - I said the reason they didn't go ahead with prosecution was that he was old and lost his memory.

I could add to that, that the investigator thought he would be sympathetic to the jury?

Ah shit. Seems that progress is lost.

Earlier parts of this post explain why your comments were wrong.

You'd still be wrong if you only added that Hur thought Biden would garner sympathy.

Will you acknowledge there was insufficient evidence to prove that Biden committed the alleged crimes?

You have been having this discussion in good faith, I hope you can see that I am trying to do the same. I quoted the investigators findings.

Appreciate you quoting some of the investigator's findings, I just find it peculair that you ignored Hur's conclusions that the evidence was insufficient.

I repeat, will you acknowledge there was insufficient evidence to prove Biden committed the alleged crimes?

 

[wahooo]

Put another way.

Why would you place any weight on a prosecutor's opinion of how a jury may perceive a witness, if that same prosecutor believes there's so little evidence that the case should never be argued in a court room?

 

[poshman]

Put another way.

Why would you place any weight on a prosecutor's opinion of how a jury may perceive a witness, if that same prosecutor believes there's so little evidence that the case should never be argued in a court room?

He doesn't say that though. This is where I think you are adding some bias. He says Biden willfully did it, BUT that proving that when he is old and lost memory etc and will be 80+ etc will be very difficult.

You and I both know there are cases where they believe someone did something and have evidence they did it but don't go forward for a number of reasons. One of those is the money it costs vs likelihood of success.

His opinion of how a jury will perceive the witness is critical because he used it as a key reason not to proceed. It is not me introducing that as a reason.

 

[poshman]

You can if you like but what good would that be when you ignore the parts where Hur concludes that that evidence is insufficient to prove Biden committed the alleged crimes?

Yes there is evidence that those events occurred. But Hur concluded it was not sufficient to prove Biden committed the crimes. Why did you not bold the part I have italicised in your quote? Did you miss it?

I'll quote it for posterity, after considering that evidence you bolded, Hur concluded:

'However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'

The evidence did not establish Biden's guilt, will you please acknowledge that?


Once again, you failed to bold the part where Hur concluded the evidence was insufficient.

What I described as misinformation was your comment that 'Hur would have charged Biden if he had not been old and had a poor memory'. It's misinformation because Hur did not say I would charge Biden but for his age and poor memory. Hur said we refuse to recommend prosecution because there is insufficient evidence, a lack of aggravating circumstances (cf Trump) and the jury 'would likely' consider him as old and possessing a poor memory.

Your earlier comments which I described as misinformation carries the implication that there was sufficient evidence to charge and convict Biden, when in fact there was not. That is why your comment is misinformation. Hur reviewed the evidence and concluded it was not sufficient.

Do you think a prosecution should proceed when there is insufficient evidence to prove a crime was committed?

Hur's view on what the jury 'would likely' find is pure speculation and guess work. Furthermore, it's somewhat irrelevant to consider how a jury might perceive a witness when there's insufficient evidence to prove that a crime was committed.


'One of the reasons'. I'll consider this progress.

Ah shit. Seems that progress is lost.

Earlier parts of this post explain why your comments were wrong.

You'd still be wrong if you only added that Hur thought Biden would garner sympathy.

Will you acknowledge there was insufficient evidence to prove that Biden committed the alleged crimes?

Appreciate you quoting some of the investigator's findings, I just find it peculair that you ignored Hur's conclusions that the evidence was insufficient.

I repeat, will you acknowledge there was insufficient evidence to prove Biden committed the alleged crimes?

Is that what he said? Please do what I did and quote that part. Or did he give reasons as to why it would be difficult to pass the bar, one he set himself quite high of 'will fully'?

Again, I read through and have bolded his findings. I have since provided video of partial transcripts.

You cannot in good faith bold a section that says for reasons below we find the evidence does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then not say the bar is wilfully and then not look at the reasons he gave. Is that good faith?

 

[Sherriff Incorporated]

As one of the growing number of people who cant stand the whole never ending left versus right crap I think its important to call out bullshit from both sides.
After Laura tingles comments I'll leave the research done (linked to to the Australian University website) here and let people decide whether it was racism or a desire to not divide Australia by race that drove the rejection of the Voice Referendum.

Voters rejected Voice due to fears of division: ANU study | Australian National University

www.anu.edu.au

If anyone wants to check the full report is available online

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Just watched Josh Frydenberg’s documentary, Never Again: the Fight Against Antisemitism. One word : BRILLIANT. I was constantly on the verge of tears. Must be compulsory viewing in schools to counter the evil messaging being circulated among young people.