New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Hur “pulled a Comey” on Biden

Bugsy McGurk

President
These Republicans in law enforcement clearly can’t help themselves.

First we had that idiotic “investigation” into “Hillary’s emails.” After endless “investigation” of Hillary for using private email, just like the two GOP secretaries of state before her, Comey realized that there was no evidence warranting charging her with a crime. What did he do then? Contrary to DOJ policy he came out and publicly yapped about the baseless “investigation” and, to make matters worse, he nevertheless criticized her in the midst of her presidential campaign.

Flash forward to Hur’s investigation of Joe Biden. Realizing there was no evidence justifying charging Biden with a crime, he just couldn’t help sliming Biden in the midst of his presidential campaign, spewing nonsense about Biden’s mental capacity, as if he was qualified to do that, and as if it was relevant to his fruitless search for evidence of criminality by Biden. To make matters worse, he dug the knife in by yapping about Biden’s dead son, which has nothing to do with the classified document issues he was supposedly investigating. Needless to say, Trump cultists and hapless media nitwits are running wild with Hur’s gratuitous slime, just as the media and Trump cultists did with the slime hurled at Hillary by Comey.

Hur “pulled a Comey” on Biden - hurling slime, contrary to DOJ policy, when failing to find evidence to justify prosecuting a Dem. Because that’s what Republicans do when supporting Donald “91 Felonies” Trump - they can’t charge Dems with a crime, so they just slime them to give Trump a boost during a campaign.

Deplorable!
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
These Republicans in law enforcement clearly can’t help themselves.

First we had that idiotic “investigation” into “Hillary’s emails.” After endless “investigation” of Hillary for using private email, just like the two GOP secretaries of state before her, Comey realized that there was no evidence warranting charging her with a crime. What did he do then? Contrary to DOJ policy he came out and publicly yapped about the baseless “investigation” and, to make matters worse, he nevertheless criticized her in the midst of her presidential campaign.

Flash forward to Hur’s investigation of Joe Biden. Realizing there was no evidence justifying charging Biden with a crime, he just couldn’t help sliming Biden in the midst of his presidential campaign, spewing nonsense about Biden’s mental capacity, as if he was qualified to do that, and as if it was relevant to his fruitless search for evidence of criminality by Biden. To make matters worse, he dug the knife in by yapping about Biden’s dead son, which has nothing to do with the classified document issues he was supposedly investigating. Needless to say, Trump cultists and hapless media nitwits are running wild with Hur’s gratuitous slime, just as the media and Trump cultists did with the slime hurled at Hillary by Comey.

Hur “pulled a Comey” on Biden - hurling slime, contrary to DOJ policy, when failing to find evidence to justify prosecuting a Dem. Because that’s what Republicans do when supporting Donald “91 Felonies” Trump - they can’t charge Dems with a crime, so they just slime them to give Trump a boost during a campaign.

Deplorable!
The current bunch seem to ignore that Hur was given the task of determining if there was a crime as specified by the Espionage act or the Presidential Records Act. He blew past those boundaries into finding a political statement to kiss Trump's ass.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
The current bunch seem to ignore that Hur was given the task of determining if there was a crime as specified by the Espionage act or the Presidential Records Act. He blew past those boundaries into finding a political statement to kiss Trump's ass.
Actually, if I remember correctly I think he elected not to prosecute not because there was a lack of evidence, but because the likelihood of conviction was minimal
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Actually, if I remember correctly I think he elected not to prosecute not because there was a lack of evidence, but because the likelihood of conviction was minimal
ETR quoted the report conclusion.

We have concluded that there is not a prosecutable case against Biden. Although there was a basis to open the investigation based on the fact that classified documents were found in Biden’s homes and office space, that is insufficient to establish a crime was committed. The illegal retention or dissemination of national defense information requires that he knew of the existence of such documents and that he knew they contained national defense information. It is not a crime without those additional elements. Our investigation, after a thorough year-long review, concludes that there is an absence of such necessary proof. Indeed, we have found a number of innocent explanations as to which we found no contrary evidence to refute them and found affirmative evidence in support of them.

Remember that Hur had no authority to bring charges against the sitting president. An impeachment would be before the republican House...and the idea that they'd be sympathetic to Biden is simply silly.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Actually, if I remember correctly I think he elected not to prosecute not because there was a lack of evidence, but because the likelihood of conviction was minimal
That makes no sense. If a prosecutor has the evidence of a crime, he has a likelihood of conviction. Hur knows that he didn’t have the evidence, so he slimed Biden instead.
 

TBLee

Governor
Actually, if I remember correctly I think he elected not to prosecute not because there was a lack of evidence, but because the likelihood of conviction was minimal
“According to the report, investigators found Joe Biden’s “memory was significantly limited” in interviews they conducted with him in 2023 as well as interviews with his ghostwriter.

Because of that, special counsel Robert Hur wrote in the report, investigators concluded that 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.”

“Pres. 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,” they wrote, adding that Biden “is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.”
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
“According to the report, investigators found Joe Biden’s “memory was significantly limited” in interviews they conducted with him in 2023 as well as interviews with his ghostwriter.

Because of that, special counsel Robert Hur wrote in the report, investigators concluded that 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.”

“Pres. 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,” they wrote, adding that Biden “is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.”
Plus they found he knew in 2017 that he possessed classified docs
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
He doesn’t have evidence of a crime. He said so.
a lie.
verbatim... see it... it says uncovered evidence .....

.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 Pres. 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 Pres. Biden's Wilmington, Delaware home. However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Pres. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
a lie.
verbatim... see it... it says uncovered evidence .....

.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 Pres. 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 Pres. Biden's Wilmington, Delaware home. However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Pres. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yup. The money quote…
“we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Pres. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Ain’t no “lie.” Hur has no case. He said so. File closed. Move on.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Yup. The money quote…
“we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Pres. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Ain’t no “lie.” Hur has no case. He said so. File closed. Move on.
We were discussing something else.

There is evidence as quoted and outlined in the report.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
We were discussing something else.

There is evidence as quoted and outlined in the report.
Rare is the investigation of anybody without ANY evidence that might suggest wrongdoing. But that’s irrelevant. The relevant question is whether Hur’s investigation turned up evidence justifying a prosecution. His answer is clear - NO.

So, he “pulled a Comey” - he hurled gratuitous slime at Biden during a campaign, contrary to DOJ policies. Who really did something wrong? Hur. But that doesn’t stop Republicans and hapless media nitwits from running with Hur’s slime - the same thing that happened when Comey hurled his gratuitous slime at Hillary in the midst of her campaign, helping to bring the nation the nightmarish Trump presidency.

It’s all quite disgraceful.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Rare is the investigation of anybody without ANY evidence that might suggest wrongdoing. But that’s irrelevant. The relevant question is whether Hur’s investigation turned up evidence justifying a prosecution. His answer is clear - NO.

So, he “pulled a Comey” - he hurled gratuitous slime at Biden during a campaign, contrary to DOJ policies. Who really did something wrong? Hur. But that doesn’t stop Republicans and hapless media nitwits from running with Hur’s slime - the same thing that happened when Comey hurled his gratuitous slime at Hillary in the midst of her campaign, helping to bring the nation the nightmarish Trump presidency.

It’s all quite disgraceful.
So, anyway, there is evidence, as evidenced by the.. evidence. There is doubt that securing a conviction is possible.

Thank you
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Right. The report outlines the rest.
Oh yes. A hack like Hur can’t “pull a Comey” without stuffing his report with gratuitous nonsense that doesn’t support prosecution for a crime. After all, the purpose of the slime is to harm Biden in the midst of a campaign; not to support a decision to charge him with a crime. Completely inappropriate and contrary to DOJ policies. And that’s my point.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Oh yes. A hack like Hur can’t “pull a Comey” without stuffing his report with gratuitous nonsense that doesn’t support prosecution for a crime. After all, the purpose of the slime is to harm Biden in the midst of a campaign; not to support a decision to charge him with a crime. Completely inappropriate and contrary to DOJ policies. And that’s my point.
It's a hack point

That classified documents were found in his possession is true and perfectly valid.
That it can be adjudicated to conviction is the consideration he decided not to pursue
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
It's a hack point

That classified documents were found in his possession is true and perfectly valid.
That it can be adjudicated to conviction is the consideration he decided not to pursue
It is the motivation for that decision that is subject to discussion. His summary says he had no evidence of intent. The espionage act hinges on intent.
 
Top