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

a reply to: FlyersFan

Yes. It means there is enough evidence to initiate criminal proceedings against someone. That evidence is lacking in this case. Which means no indictment and no conviction.

In other words, Biden is not guilty.

originally posted by: Threadbarer


We conclude that the evidence

Now. Can you prove the evidence that was found concerning Biden mishandled classified documents is wrong.

Is it False Biden literally shared classified material with an author.

a reply to: Threadbarer

But not exonerated. Hur left the door open.

www.foxnews.com...

Some sort of gray area that Congress will tackle in the coming months.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Or is there evidence, but not enough to persuade a jury to find a memory challenged President guilty.

There is no question Biden mishandled classified documents is there.

originally posted by: RazorV66

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.

I'm entertained.

Aren't you entertained?


I do agree with Hur. Biden would never be proven guilty .....in DC.

Which only exemplifies the double standards being applied

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FlyersFan

Yes. It means there is enough evidence to initiate criminal proceedings against someone. That evidence is lacking in this case. Which means no indictment and no conviction.

In other words, Biden is not guilty.

No. It doesn't mean Biden is not guilty. It means that there is evidence showing that he willfully and wrongly held classified documents and even shared the classified information with a journalist, but the evidence doesn't reach a prosecutable level. That's not 'not guilty'. That's 'not prosecutable'. Big difference. Hur doesn't have the authority to declare someone 'not guilty' or 'guilty'.

You've been told this before. Try to let it sink in.

a reply to: Threadbarer

If I was a doctor, and the DEA found boxes of controlled medicines from the hospital dispensary was in my garage. Do you think I would get off by claiming my staff put it there? This is how stupid this is.

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: Threadbarer

If I was a doctor, and it was found boxes of controlled medicines from the hospital dispensary was in my garage. ...

... and that you didn't notice it sitting there for 30 years. Don't forget that little tidbit.

Let me get this straight. Biden is innocent of mishandling classified documents? But we have an admittance that he allowed the ghostwriter to read from "some" of them? Umm is that not text book mishandling of classified documents? The classified part means not just anyone is allowed to read them! This is prime clown world thinking!

originally posted by: hangedman13
Let me get this straight. Biden is innocent of mishandling classified documents? But we have an admittance that he allowed the ghostwriter to read from "some" of them? Umm is that not text book mishandling of classified documents? The classified part means not just anyone is allowed to read them! This is prime clown world thinking!

Ahem.....

"No reasonable prosecutor....."

a reply to: FlyersFan

And you've been told before that Biden is innocent until proven guilty. Hur could not prove him guilty. Therefore...

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Lazy88

Define prosecution.

Real prosecution IN COURT. "Prosecutors" do not have authority to determine guilt and innocence. The Courts do. Similar to the Hillary email scandals where FBI Director had no authority to determine guilt and innocence. 😃

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FlyersFan

And you've been told before that Biden is innocent until proven guilty. Hur could not prove him guilty. Therefore...

Asked you a question. Is it false Biden shared classified information with an author.

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FlyersFan

And you've been told before that Biden is innocent until proven guilty. Hur could not prove him guilty. Therefore...

Asked you a question. Is it false Biden shared classified information with an author.

is this a secret? anyone can google it. apparently he did. which was probably a mistake. but it doesn't seem to be enough to indict him, if i understand correctly. the sum is more than the individual parts.

a reply to: Lazy88

He shared excerpts from his diaries. The government claims that included classified information but they lacked to evidence to show that Biden knew he was willfully sharing classified information.

The other part of that is that the information pertained to the 2009 Afghanistan surge. As the information was shared in 2017, the surge was long done, making the information outdated and no longer a matter of national security, meaning the Espionage Act doesn't come into play.

a reply to: Threadbarer


Robert Hur testified :

We identified evidence that Biden willfully retained classified materials after the end of his vice presidency, when he was a private citizen.

t.me...

He also testified:

I did not exonerate him

t.me...

But hey, what does Hur have to do, have to do with it?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FlyersFan

Yes. It means there is enough evidence to initiate criminal proceedings against someone. That evidence is lacking in this case. Which means no indictment and no conviction.

In other words, Biden is not guilty.

No. It doesn't mean Biden is not guilty. It means that there is evidence showing that he willfully and wrongly held classified documents and even shared the classified information with a journalist, but the evidence doesn't reach a prosecutable level. That's not 'not guilty'. That's 'not prosecutable'. Big difference. Hur doesn't have the authority to declare someone 'not guilty' or 'guilty'.

You've been told this before. Try to let it sink in.

Hurr doesn't even have the authority to declare someone not prosecutable. He merely made a recommendation. There is more than enough evidence to charge Biden, just as there was more than enough evidence to charge Hillary Clinton during the email scandal.

And just like Hillary, Biden won't be prosecuted because he's a Democrat, not because there isn't enough evidence.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Lazy88
The government claims that included classified information but they lacked to evidence to show that Biden knew he was willfully sharing classified information.

Except that Biden told his ghost writer "be careful, it might be classified" or something to that effect. Sounds like biden knew he could be handing over classified documents. He knew he had them and he knew he was sharing them.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Hur admitted today that a "reasonable juror" could convict Biden on the evidence his report presented.

By "reasonable" he was referring to NOT a D.C. Jury and Judge...where the case would've been tried.

Hur understood a 95-100% [D]emocrat jury (which is the ONLY type of jury D.C. would have to offer) would take the fact that Biden was a forgetful old man as well as their [D]emocrat Party's leader and president...to ignore the evidence in order to find him not guilty.

originally posted by: JinMI
Aren't you entertained?

We are not amused.