Special Counsel Report on Classified Documents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this backfired on Republicans.

Yep. A total dude. We know this because even Fox wasn’t talking about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
[img]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.[/img]
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.

Where is the evidence to support this claim?

There is none.
PP is upset because her favored candidate has been shown to have a limited memory and poor recall of significant recent events.
It was what we all knew years ago..... but some people here just cannot deal in reality.
So, they resort to character assassination. Just like the Dems in the hearing yesterday.

Not at all. In fact the transcript shows he remembers events clearly.
There was no evident of a crime.
Biden is totally exonerated.

Completely. What a bunch of circus freaks the GOP has become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What we know....

1. Biden was not exonerated by any stretch.
2. Biden was not deemed "innocent" in any way.
3. Biden could not remember significant details of recent events.
4. Biden kept classified docs in at least 7 locations
5. Biden knew he had classified docs and shared them with his ghostwriter.
6. Biden did NOT keep docs under "lock and key" as he previously stated.
7. Hur did NOT bring up Beau's death as Biden indignantly accused him of - it was Joe who brought it up.
8. Biden was not prosecuted because he was an old man with a poor memory.

Bad day for Biden.

Biden was exonerated.
Totally.
We now know Hur refused to use that word, because he is a political operative.
He know Hur lied about the transcripts.
This has been a disaster for republicans
Again.

Bad day for reason and logic. The republicans are pissed at Hur. The Democrats are pissed at Hur. That alone is a good sign that he stood by the truth. There are plenty of people that work in government everyday under different - and often changing - party leadership and just do their jobs totally non-politically. Of all people, those on this board should know that.

Uhm WHAT? Are you delusional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you take issue with the whole “memory” notion or the words that were used, such as “elderly”? It sounds like Hur found the memory issue to be the reason to clear Biden because it shows that Biden didn’t knowingly retain classified documents. Without that lever, Biden might be in a different boat.

Biden was not cleared but no jury in DC would convict him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you take issue with the whole “memory” notion or the words that were used, such as “elderly”? It sounds like Hur found the memory issue to be the reason to clear Biden because it shows that Biden didn’t knowingly retain classified documents. Without that lever, Biden might be in a different boat.

Biden was not cleared but no jury in DC would convict him

There was nothing to “clear”
Hur couldn’t/ didn’t find evidence to support an indictment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you take issue with the whole “memory” notion or the words that were used, such as “elderly”? It sounds like Hur found the memory issue to be the reason to clear Biden because it shows that Biden didn’t knowingly retain classified documents. Without that lever, Biden might be in a different boat.

There is a difference between what Trump has done and what Biden did, and their respective responses, should be enough for most reasonable, sentient people to understand.

Maybe actually read the key parts of Hur's document, particularly where he distinguishes between the two cases to really understand why Biden (and Pence) are not being charged with any crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What we know....

1. Biden was not exonerated by any stretch.
2. Biden was not deemed "innocent" in any way.
3. Biden could not remember significant details of recent events.
4. Biden kept classified docs in at least 7 locations
5. Biden knew he had classified docs and shared them with his ghostwriter.
6. Biden did NOT keep docs under "lock and key" as he previously stated.
7. Hur did NOT bring up Beau's death as Biden indignantly accused him of - it was Joe who brought it up.
8. Biden was not prosecuted because he was an old man with a poor memory.

Bad day for Biden.

+1
I find it deeply amusing that Democrats are trying to spin this as a "bad day for the GOP."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
[img]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.[/img]
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.

Where is the evidence to support this claim?

There is none.
PP is upset because her favored candidate has been shown to have a limited memory and poor recall of significant recent events.
It was what we all knew years ago..... but some people here just cannot deal in reality.
So, they resort to character assassination. Just like the Dems in the hearing yesterday.

Not at all. In fact the transcript shows he remembers events clearly.
There was no evident of a crime.
Biden is totally exonerated.

Completely. What a bunch of circus freaks the GOP has become.

Tell us you haven't bothered to read the transcript.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
[img]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.[/img]
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.

Where is the evidence to support this claim?

There is none.
PP is upset because her favored candidate has been shown to have a limited memory and poor recall of significant recent events.
It was what we all knew years ago..... but some people here just cannot deal in reality.
So, they resort to character assassination. Just like the Dems in the hearing yesterday.

Not at all. In fact the transcript shows he remembers events clearly.
There was no evident of a crime.
Biden is totally exonerated.

Completely. What a bunch of circus freaks the GOP has become.

Tell us you haven't bothered to read the transcript.
DP

So Hur was lying when he wrote that Biden had a photographic memory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you take issue with the whole “memory” notion or the words that were used, such as “elderly”? It sounds like Hur found the memory issue to be the reason to clear Biden because it shows that Biden didn’t knowingly retain classified documents. Without that lever, Biden might be in a different boat.

Biden was not cleared but no jury in DC would convict him

There was nothing to “clear”
Hur couldn’t/ didn’t find evidence to support an indictment

Yes, agreed. “Cleared” as in found to be not prosecutable & case closed. It’s a good day for Biden.
I’m beginning to think this is feigned outrage over the comments on age and memory because: 1) it was ultimately a good legal outcome for Biden and 2) memory and age issues are not new information for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What we know....

1. Biden was not exonerated by any stretch.
2. Biden was not deemed "innocent" in any way.
3. Biden could not remember significant details of recent events.
4. Biden kept classified docs in at least 7 locations
5. Biden knew he had classified docs and shared them with his ghostwriter.
6. Biden did NOT keep docs under "lock and key" as he previously stated.
7. Hur did NOT bring up Beau's death as Biden indignantly accused him of - it was Joe who brought it up.
8. Biden was not prosecuted because he was an old man with a poor memory.

Bad day for Biden.

^ a poster of prodigious legal acumen /s

Probably someone who also still can't figure out why Hillary didn't get locked up but probably is nonetheless out there still dying on that hill and likely wouldn't hesitate to throw around some dumb conspiracy theories on why. And 20 years from now, will be in a nursing home still carrying on about "lock them up" with visiting grandchildren standing there trying be polite and not roll their eyes... Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you take issue with the whole “memory” notion or the words that were used, such as “elderly”? It sounds like Hur found the memory issue to be the reason to clear Biden because it shows that Biden didn’t knowingly retain classified documents. Without that lever, Biden might be in a different boat.

The President cannot be charged.

[Anonymous]

President wrote a book in 2017 all about his son's death and that it kept him from running for President. Now he can't remember the year or that it happened before he left office and was still the VP. He tried to use his son's death as cover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:President wrote a book in 2017 all about his son's death and that it kept him from running for President. Now he can't remember the year or that it happened before he left office and was still the VP. He tried to use his son's death as cover.

My husband died a year and a half ago, and I have to stop to think about the year. I don’t know the exact date, only that it was a couple of weeks before his birthday. Trauma responses vary from person to person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:President wrote a book in 2017 all about his son's death and that it kept him from running for President. Now he can't remember the year or that it happened before he left office and was still the VP. He tried to use his son's death as cover.

My husband died a year and a half ago, and I have to stop to think about the year. I don’t know the exact date, only that it was a couple of weeks before his birthday. Trauma responses vary from person to person.

Biden repeatedly says Beau died in Iraq