Hur on the Hill--Former SC Testifies on Biden Classified Doc Report LIVE

a reply to: Threadbarer

Correct. They have the evidence and they concluded that he willfully and wrongly held classified materials and that he shared it ... but the evidence did not reach the levels that they could get a successful prosecution. So between the fact that the evidence, which there was, didn't reach the level of prosecution AND the fact that the jury would have just seen Biden as an old man with a faulty memory, Hur did not recommend prosecuting.

He didn't say there was no evidence.
He DID say that Biden willfully and wrongly held classified materials and that he shared it.
He did say that the evidence did not reach what was needed for a successful prosecution.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FlyersFan

THE EVIDENCE FALLS SHORT OF ESTABLISHING MR. BIDEN'S WILLFUL
RETENTION OF THE CLASSIFIED AFGHANISTAN DOCUMENTS BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT

butwhatabout all the thousands of others? 😃

Social Media lighting up like a new Christmas Tree today with shills galore defending Biden and creating hundreds of red herrings and deflections. 🤣🤣🤣

a reply to: FlyersFan

He did say that the evidence did not reach what was needed for a successful prosecution.

Ergo, Biden is innocent.

See this is part of that whole ethical guidelines thing that Hur was able to skirt around by resigning yesterday. If he was still employed by the DOJ he would not have been able to editorialize what was in the report because it would have fallen outside the scope of the report.

His report finds that Biden is not guilty of retaining classified information based on lack of evidence.

a reply to: xuenchen

The Afghanistan documents were the only ones that Hur was able to find any evidence Biden knew of their existence.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
Ergo, Biden is innocent..

No. Hur did not declare him innocent. He declared that the evidence showed that Biden willfully and wrongly held classified information but that the level of evidence didn't reach levels that were prosecutable. That's different than declaring someone 'innocent'. Hur doesn't have the authority to declare anyone guilty or innocent.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: xuenchen

The Afghanistan documents were the only ones that Hur was able to find any evidence Biden knew of their existence.

Except for the thousands of others, and all his notebooks that he knew he kept. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: xuenchen

The Afghanistan documents were the only ones that Hur was able to find any evidence Biden knew of their existence.

So those few documents were somehow perfectly separated for Biden's convenience and he never saw any others mixed in, and he never knew how he somehow collected thousands of classified documents over decades. OK 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

a reply to: FlyersFan

And yet he was more than willing today to claim that Biden was guilty of retaining documents.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FlyersFan

And yet he was more than willing today to claim that Biden was guilty of retaining documents.

Do you have evidence to exonerate Biden?

Do you have evidence that Hur drew the wrong conclusions?

a reply to: Lazy88

It is not my job to exonerate Biden. Nor was it Hur's. It was Hur's job to determine whether there was enough evidence to show the Biden broke the law behind a reasonable doubt. His conclusion was that there was not enough evidence.

Therefore, since there is not enough evidence to show Biden broke the law no exoneration is needed. He is innocent in the eyes of the law.

Today we learned that Biden is unequivocally above the law.

Fantastic.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Lazy88

His conclusion was that there was not enough evidence.

For a prosecution.

If you believe your quote is true and in context, then quote and site where hur writes that out in the report.

a reply to: Lazy88

Define prosecution.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Lazy88

Define prosecution.

Quote what is documented in the report concerning the evidence against Biden’s mishandling of classified documents, and prove its wrong.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
Define prosecution.

Seriously? You are pulling a Bill Clinton? (Define the word 'is' ....)
Comeon ... everyone here knows what prosecution means.

originally posted by: JinMI
Today we learned that Biden is unequivocally above the law.

Fantastic.

And the paid shill here is very intent on making sure we never forgot it.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Lazy88
It was Hur's job to determine whether there was enough evidence to show the Biden broke the law behind a reasonable doubt. His conclusion was that there was not enough evidence.

Therefore, since there is not enough evidence to show Biden broke the law no exoneration is needed. He is innocent in the eyes of the law.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. Hur determined that, given the situation, evidence and biden's mental state, that he would not be able to be successfully prosecuted. That is not a declaration of innocence. The inquiry brought to light plenty of evidence, including biden's own admittance, that he knew he had classified documents, and willingly shared them.

a reply to: Lazy88

We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to meet the government's burden. In accordance with the Justice Manual, because we do not believe the government is likely to obtain a conviction at trial, we decline prosecution.

If you want to know how they came to this conclusion, read Chapter 11 of the report. It's over 20 pages so I'm not copying and pasting the whole thing on here.

A question for those who would know:
I saw some turd play a compilation of gaffs by President Trump. It had no relevance to the inquiry at all. Can't someone request that material like that be stricken from the record?