Special Counsel Report on Classified Documents

[Anonymous]

Curious, did DoJ release the transcript or Biden? Seems that getting released before this hearing threw a wrench in MAGA GOP plan.

[Anonymous]

Need to hear the audio of Joe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Need to hear the audio of Joe.

Yep. The transcript was bad enough. The audio will be painful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn't listen to a word he said. Have to keep advancing that false narrative.......

He didn't find the necessary evidence or intent to charge Biden.

He didn't use the word exonerate, but the words in the report and his decision not to refer to prosecution, speak for itself.

Very different than even the Mueller Report.

And very different than the Trump classified records case where we know that Trump fought investigators, lied, and was intentionally trying to hide documents and keep them from investigators

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious, did DoJ release the transcript or Biden? Seems that getting released before this hearing threw a wrench in MAGA GOP plan.

yes, they were released this morning.

[Anonymous]

Why is Hur not arrested and facing Disbarment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious, did DoJ release the transcript or Biden? Seems that getting released before this hearing threw a wrench in MAGA GOP plan.

The real question is why the transcript wasn't released concurrent with Hur's report?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious, did DoJ release the transcript or Biden? Seems that getting released before this hearing threw a wrench in MAGA GOP plan.

The real question is why the transcript wasn't released concurrent with Hur's report?

Doesn't really matter. In his testimony in Congress today Hur emphatically and very clearly said he did not believe Biden was suffering from dementia or other issues. His very direct statements under oath negate anything people want to extrapolate or imagine from the transcripts.

[Anonymous]

So I’m the OP of the other thread on today’s testimony. I’m reading the transcript and I’m in tears reading that section about Beau and about Charlottesville. I believe Biden when he says he felt compelled to run for those reasons. I believe that Biden is a decent man. My heart goes out to him for all of the loss he’s experienced. And he certainly knows when his son passed. It’s crude that we are splitting hairs over such a personal thing.

Yet, I can still see the rationale that Hur’s intention was to provide the justification for his findings. Without it, could Biden have been found to have acted with malicious intent?
With the commentary on Biden’s memory, it absolves him (if not exonerates him). Or so goes the report’s findings. And this is a reasonable argument.

Because I can see the logic, and there is no evidence to support political motivation, and I cannot read minds, I cannot get down with the Hur witch-hunt. I don’t see any basis for legal action or disbarment or any of the crazy cries I’ve heard today. There is just no basis at all.

I do think the “can’t even remember his son’s death…” comment was very insensitive and tactlessly sensational. Could that have been interpreted from the exchange? Maybe from someone a little short on empathy and EQ. But is it illegal? No. Nefarious? Don’t know without reading Hur’s mind but there’s no evidence of it.

Sounds like a lot of you are just parroting Schiff’s testimony. I just can’t see how any thinking person, legal scholar or practitioner could take the position that many of you have.

We’ve really lost our way when it comes to approaching life with reason and without bias. I hope we find it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious, did DoJ release the transcript or Biden? Seems that getting released before this hearing threw a wrench in MAGA GOP plan.

The real question is why the transcript wasn't released concurrent with Hur's report?

Doesn't really matter. In his testimony in Congress today Hur emphatically and very clearly said he did not believe Biden was suffering from dementia or other issues. His very direct statements under oath negate anything people want to extrapolate or imagine from the transcripts.

Oh when he wrote that commentary that was meant to imply that Biden was a shell? that’s when he didn’t want anyone to extrapolate or imagine anything?

Hur got caught being a partisan mess. He thought he could drop a deuce and run, but he couldn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sums it up:

“Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘senile’ as exhibiting a decline of cognitive ability, such as memory, associated with old age,” Republican Rep. Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin said. “Mr. Hur, based on your report, did you find that the president was senile?”

“I did not. That conclusion does not appear in my report,” Hur replied emphatically.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/politics/takeaways-robert-hur-hearing/index.html

Give it up, MAGAs. Citing Hur to claim "Biden is senile" is now a dead talking point. Hur himself said so.

How can Hur not being a doctor diagnose Biden? His answer was proper, he did not made that conclusion in his report. But it is not because Biden is not senile, it is because Hur is JD, not MD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sums it up:

“Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘senile’ as exhibiting a decline of cognitive ability, such as memory, associated with old age,” Republican Rep. Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin said. “Mr. Hur, based on your report, did you find that the president was senile?”

“I did not. That conclusion does not appear in my report,” Hur replied emphatically.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/politics/takeaways-robert-hur-hearing/index.html

Give it up, MAGAs. Citing Hur to claim "Biden is senile" is now a dead talking point. Hur himself said so.

How can Hur not being a doctor diagnose Biden? His answer was proper, he did not made that conclusion in his report. But it is not because Biden is not senile, it is because Hur is JD, not MD.

Agreed.. DOJ should prosecute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sums it up:

“Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘senile’ as exhibiting a decline of cognitive ability, such as memory, associated with old age,” Republican Rep. Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin said. “Mr. Hur, based on your report, did you find that the president was senile?”

“I did not. That conclusion does not appear in my report,” Hur replied emphatically.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/politics/takeaways-robert-hur-hearing/index.html

Give it up, MAGAs. Citing Hur to claim "Biden is senile" is now a dead talking point. Hur himself said so.

How can Hur not being a doctor diagnose Biden? His answer was proper, he did not made that conclusion in his report. But it is not because Biden is not senile, it is because Hur is JD, not MD.

Agreed.. DOJ should prosecute.

Prosecute what?
In his report, Hur ALSO found that there was no compelling evidence that Biden had intentionally done anything wrong and that the mishandled Biden documents did not rise to the level of needing prosecution.

Biden didn't lie, he didn't fight and obstruct, he didn't try to hide boxes of documents even as investigators were trying to retrieve them. The crime is with Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I’m the OP of the other thread on today’s testimony. I’m reading the transcript and I’m in tears reading that section about Beau and about Charlottesville. I believe Biden when he says he felt compelled to run for those reasons. I believe that Biden is a decent man. My heart goes out to him for all of the loss he’s experienced. And he certainly knows when his son passed. It’s crude that we are splitting hairs over such a personal thing.

Yet, I can still see the rationale that Hur’s intention was to provide the justification for his findings. Without it, could Biden have been found to have acted with malicious intent?
With the commentary on Biden’s memory, it absolves him (if not exonerates him). Or so goes the report’s findings. And this is a reasonable argument.

Because I can see the logic, and there is no evidence to support political motivation, and I cannot read minds, I cannot get down with the Hur witch-hunt. I don’t see any basis for legal action or disbarment or any of the crazy cries I’ve heard today. There is just no basis at all.

I do think the “can’t even remember his son’s death…” comment was very insensitive and tactlessly sensational. Could that have been interpreted from the exchange? Maybe from someone a little short on empathy and EQ. But is it illegal? No. Nefarious? Don’t know without reading Hur’s mind but there’s no evidence of it.

Sounds like a lot of you are just parroting Schiff’s testimony. I just can’t see how any thinking person, legal scholar or practitioner could take the position that many of you have.

We’ve really lost our way when it comes to approaching life with reason and without bias. I hope we find it again.

I am not of the "he needs to be disbarred" or "he should be jailed" camp - but he went way outside the bounds of conjecture, inserting his own personal statements, into the document and it was done purely for political purposes, and the damage is more than done. Recall how breathless the media was at "cognative decline" and "dementia joe" and clearly that isn't the case, but you don't see the media correcting the perception now, or certainly not with the same fervor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I’m the OP of the other thread on today’s testimony. I’m reading the transcript and I’m in tears reading that section about Beau and about Charlottesville. I believe Biden when he says he felt compelled to run for those reasons. I believe that Biden is a decent man. My heart goes out to him for all of the loss he’s experienced. And he certainly knows when his son passed. It’s crude that we are splitting hairs over such a personal thing.

Yet, I can still see the rationale that Hur’s intention was to provide the justification for his findings. Without it, could Biden have been found to have acted with malicious intent?
With the commentary on Biden’s memory, it absolves him (if not exonerates him). Or so goes the report’s findings. And this is a reasonable argument.

Because I can see the logic, and there is no evidence to support political motivation, and I cannot read minds, I cannot get down with the Hur witch-hunt. I don’t see any basis for legal action or disbarment or any of the crazy cries I’ve heard today. There is just no basis at all.

I do think the “can’t even remember his son’s death…” comment was very insensitive and tactlessly sensational. Could that have been interpreted from the exchange? Maybe from someone a little short on empathy and EQ. But is it illegal? No. Nefarious? Don’t know without reading Hur’s mind but there’s no evidence of it.

Sounds like a lot of you are just parroting Schiff’s testimony. I just can’t see how any thinking person, legal scholar or practitioner could take the position that many of you have.

We’ve really lost our way when it comes to approaching life with reason and without bias. I hope we find it again.

This is a failure of critical thinking.
Biden wasn’t charged, because there wasn’t evidence to support it.
The end.
The only reason to include language disparaging the president, was to score political points.
Hur couldn’t deliver the goods to the Republicans legally, so he gave them cheap (and lying) talking points.
I’m not posting about disbarment or jail, but let’s be clear- Hur did his job for the right wing establishment and echo chamber, was it illegal? Probably Not. Was it entirely unethical? Yes.
And he’ll pop his weaselly head up in another year, and live to chip away at our rule of law another day.
Because the democrats and institutions have still not come to terms with what the republicans have become.