Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Biden invokes executive privilege on special counsel recording demanded by GOP


OverSword

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, OverSword said:

He was very clear when questioned by congress that he didn't recommend charges as he didn't think a jury would convict him because he would come off as a well meaning old man with a poor memory at trial, not because he didn't break the law.  He definitely broke the law.

So why did the person responsible for making that judgement write:

"we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Setton said:

So why did the person responsible for making that judgement write:

"we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"

I am talking about the special counsel not the guy that works for Biden.  He is unquestionably guilty of keeping classified documents in his garage and other places.  That is just not disputable.  And (apparently) unless you are wealthy or powerful the rule is ignorance is not an excuse.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a)

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(b)

For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c)

In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Hmm.  This report here seems to indicate that you are a teller of falsehoods: report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf (justice.gov)

Let me quote the first page for you: "

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 and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden's handwritten 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."

Here is the part that you seem to think condemns him:

"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 willfulness."

To me that just is the SC admitting that a jury wouldn't convict him because of his demeanor.

Yeah i find it interesting that they say, "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...".

So theres clear evidence...

But...

"he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.".

So a jury LIKELY would find reasonable doubt...

Because...

"sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.".

So...

Quote

20 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

No, the SC determined that any crime couldn’t be punished because he comes across as a senile, doddering old man and therefore wouldn’t be prosecuted. Not that there isn’t an crime to punish.

Is actually a True statement. The lack of prosecution is directly due to the appearance of Biden's mental capacity.

They didnt say there was no crime, only that no criminal charges would be brought.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah i find it interesting that they say, "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...".

So theres clear evidence...

But...

"he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.".

So a jury LIKELY would find reasonable doubt...

Because...

"sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.".

 

Meanwhile you or I would get five years in a federal prison. :rolleyes:  Ridiculous.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah i find it interesting that they say, "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...".

So theres clear evidence...

But...

"he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.".

So a jury LIKELY would find reasonable doubt...

Because...

"sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.".

So...

Is actually a True statement. The lack of prosecution is directly due to the appearance of Biden's mental capacity.

They didnt say there was no crime, only that no criminal charges would be brought.

Unfortunately, we live in America where someone is innocent of a crime when there is reasonable doubt- I.E. they committed no crime.

Unless, you want to change that standard.  There are quite a few politicians right now that we have evidence of a crime right now, but not enough to convict.  Kavanaugh, Gaetz, Trump, Clinton, etc.  Testimony of an accuser is evidence of a crime but not enough to overcme reasonable doubt after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Meanwhile you or I would get five years in a federal prison. :rolleyes:  Ridiculous.

I hear you.  

You'd have to overcome the "Can't charge a sitting president" and "Presidents are immune to the law" arguments before you even get a chance at seeing them in court.  Our fault for making them a privilleged class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Unfortunately, we live in America where someone is innocent of a crime when there is reasonable doubt- I.E. they committed no crime.

Unless, you want to change that standard.  There are quite a few politicians right now that we have evidence of a crime right now, but not enough to convict.  Kavanaugh, Gaetz, Trump, Clinton, etc.  Testimony of an accuser is evidence of a crime but not enough to overcme reasonable doubt after all.

Ah. I see your point. You think Hat's is assuming a crime, and a crime requires a gulty plea, or guilty verdict.

I'd still say it's a true statement. 

When Hats says, "Not that there isn’t an crime to punish.". Hes saying since they decided not to pursue, they arent establishing a lack of a crime, but a lack of prosecution. 

That evidence still exists. If Trump gets into office, and theres a new head of Justice Dept, it could very well come back up and be procescuted. 

Theres no lack of a crime. Just lack of prosecuting.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Ah. I see your point. You think Hat's is assuming a crime, and a crime requires a gulty plea, or guilty verdict.

I'd still say it's a true statement. 

When Hats says, "Not that there isn’t an crime to punish.". Hes saying since they decided not to pursue, they arent establishing a lack of a crime, but a lack of prosecution. 

That evidence still exists. If Trump gets into office, and theres a new head of Justice Dept, it could very well come back up and be procescuted. 

Theres no lack of a crime. Just lack of prosecuting.

<shrugs>  By that logic Trump isn't exhonerated of colluding with the Russians.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gromdor said:

<shrugs>  By that logic Trump isn't exhonerated of colluding with the Russians.

True. Lots of people still say he did. 

The DOJ, and SC, didnt establish a "reasonable doubt". Only a trial by jury could do that. They are assuming the reasonable doubt. So, saying they've proven there was no crime is incorrect. They only chose not to prosecute charges.

If Biden gets back in office and has a D Congress. Im sure if more "Russian Collusion" evidence was found. Say, documents at Mar Lago got shared with the Rooskies, the DOJ would happily pursue an investigation, and possible charges. 

If Mueller had said, "Due to Trump being old, I decline to advise to press charges", people would have **** themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2024 at 1:50 AM, OverSword said:

I am talking about the special counsel not the guy that works for Biden.  He is unquestionably guilty of keeping classified documents in his garage and other places.  That is just not disputable.  And (apparently) unless you are wealthy or powerful the rule is ignorance is not an excuse.

Aren’t they both guilty of the documents fiasco…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shadowsfall said:

Aren’t they both guilty of the documents fiasco…

Yes and trump is guilty of obstruction as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 hours ago, Shadowsfall said:

Aren’t they both guilty of the documents fiasco…

Yes, but Biden is a kind old man... and so no charges.

Maybe he got a slap on the wrist behind that woodshed he occationally talks about. Probably be in the tell all book Hunter will write after Joe passes away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I read they found MORE documents at Mar Lago recently. FBI cant even conduct document raids properly. :whistle:

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I read they found MORE documents at Mar Lago recently. FBI cant even conduct document raids properly. :whistle:

In the shithouse I hear too….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2024 at 11:50 AM, OverSword said:

I am talking about the special counsel not the guy that works for Biden.  He is unquestionably guilty of keeping classified documents in his garage and other places.  That is just not disputable.  And (apparently) unless you are wealthy or powerful the rule is ignorance is not an excuse.

I am going to try to make this very clear.  People with a Secret clearance and above are authorized to have classified documents.  The Trump cases have confused some people.  Not all classified documents have to be viewed in a SCIF.  The maps we received while deployed with grid numbers, and known target numbers were classified.  We carried those every day.  You kept it in your backpack.  I've known people to find that map a year later while in garrison.  No issue, you turn it in.  You had it illegally, but without intention.  Joe Biden's attorneys notified authorities that he had classified documents, and turned them in.  If he burned them, no one would have known.  Donald Trump was the one that was notified that he had classified documents.  He ignored it.  The two cases aren't even remotely similar.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

I am going to try to make this very clear.  People with a Secret clearance and above are authorized to have classified documents.  The Trump cases have confused some people.  Not all classified documents have to be viewed in a SCIF.  The maps we received while deployed with grid numbers, and known target numbers were classified.  We carried those every day.  You kept it in your backpack.  I've known people to find that map a year later while in garrison.  No issue, you turn it in.  You had it illegally, but without intention.  Joe Biden's attorneys notified authorities that he had classified documents, and turned them in.  If he burned them, no one would have known.  Donald Trump was the one that was notified that he had classified documents.  He ignored it.  The two cases aren't even remotely similar.

The special counsel said he retained them illegally but did not recommend charges. See post 28 and read what he violated. That should make it very, very clear.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Agent0range said:

I am going to try to make this very clear.  People with a Secret clearance and above are authorized to have classified documents.  The Trump cases have confused some people.  Not all classified documents have to be viewed in a SCIF.  The maps we received while deployed with grid numbers, and known target numbers were classified.  We carried those every day.  You kept it in your backpack.  I've known people to find that map a year later while in garrison.  No issue, you turn it in.  You had it illegally, but without intention.  Joe Biden's attorneys notified authorities that he had classified documents, and turned them in.  If he burned them, no one would have known.  Donald Trump was the one that was notified that he had classified documents.  He ignored it.  The two cases aren't even remotely similar.

But we have words from Joe Bidens own mouth that he knowingly retained the documents, and knowingly shared them with an author.

He didn't just find them to be accidentally mixed in with random stuff.

And, IIRC, some of the documents Biden had were SCI. 

What if your map buddy not just held onto his map, but did so on purpose, hiding it purposefully from NCOs, and officers. And than took it to town and showed it to a news reporter? Who wrote a story and published it, based on the map. Still no problem?? Yeah, there'd be trouble, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.