Biden Said, "Come Get Them"; Trump Said, "Go Fuck Yourself"
- Thread starter martin
- Start date
Kamala Trump
Verified User
that's wrong.
this is why you're losing.
they said he would not be convicted due to being sympathetic.
that shouldn't be a factor in charging documents.
that's for the jury to decide.
you suck at law.
are you paid for your stupidity?
Sympathetic now means mental incompetence? Can you point me to the dictionary that says that?
TOP
Retired Teacher
Hur's job is to evaluate evidence and people...there was enough evidence to charge Biden, but the opinion of the court after 5 hours of evaluation was that it would not be advantageous to do so...
ExpressLane
Verified User
Biden stole Classified Documents from a SCIF then did not return them for decades later. Biden gave his Ghost Writer Classified information with sources and methods. Biden bragged about having boxes of Classified Documents in his basement. Somehow this seems to have escaped Martin.
ExpressLane
Verified User
If he was, he'd be a millionaire.
TOP
Retired Teacher
"Psychologically fragile" is mine...And yes, the report is in...with mention of the crimes he committed...I'm quite sure you've read Hur's reasoning not to charge...He opted not to charge though the crimes existed...
ExpressLane
Verified User
Willfully retained and disclosed classified military and national security information. Biden not indicted because he is SENILE!!!.
TOP
Retired Teacher
Especially one so psychologically fragile...
TOP
Retired Teacher
We're discussing Joe...he "cooperated" but it was clear he wasn't sure what was going on....
QP!
Verified User
Biden : Hey I looked and found these. Come get them. And yes feel free to do a search, my doors are open to you.
Trump : Why is the Archives demanding documents. Tell them we have none.
- What, they refuse to believe me. OK give them a small amount and tell them that is all we got.
- What, they sent a subpoena as they believe i have more? Ok have the lawyers lie on a sworn statement saying i have none.
- What, they are executing a search warrant and have found the dozens of boxes i lied about??
SELECTIVE TREATMENT. WHY ARE THEY NOT TREATING ME AND BIDEN AND PENCE THE SAME, WHEN WE ALL DID THE SAME THING???
Trump : Why is the Archives demanding documents. Tell them we have none.
- What, they refuse to believe me. OK give them a small amount and tell them that is all we got.
- What, they sent a subpoena as they believe i have more? Ok have the lawyers lie on a sworn statement saying i have none.
- What, they are executing a search warrant and have found the dozens of boxes i lied about??
SELECTIVE TREATMENT. WHY ARE THEY NOT TREATING ME AND BIDEN AND PENCE THE SAME, WHEN WE ALL DID THE SAME THING???
christiefan915
Catalyst
Didn't take long for the spin to begin.
I'm afraid you're confused so I'm listing a few bullet points from the document. Note how many times the words "insufficient" and "evidence" occur.- Insufficient evidence exists to prove Mr. Biden willfully retained the classified information in the EYES ONLY envelope
- There is insufficient evidence to support charging Mr. Biden for the retention of the other marked classified documents recovered from the Penn Eiden Center
- There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden with willful retention of marked classified documents Al and A2
- There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden with retention of marked classified document AS
- There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden with retention of marked classified documents A9 and AlO
- The evidence does not establish that Mr. Biden or anyone else knowingly removed or retained the classified documents found at the University of Delaware. These documents appear to have been included in his Senate papers by mistake.
- THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
- Finally, none of these decades-old documents contains information so obviously sensitive that a jury would find it compelling enough to convict a former president and vice president of mishandling classified information. For these reasons, it is likely that the few classified found in Mr. Biden's Senate papers were there by mistake. The documents found at the University of Delaware are not a basis for criminal charges.
- THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
- The evidence does not support a charge under Section 1519
CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1229805332/special-counsel-report-biden-classified-documents
Last edited:
TOP
Retired Teacher
Who is Mr. Eiden?Didn't take long for the spin to begin.
- Insufficient evidence exists to prove Mr. Eiden willfully retained the classified information in the EYES ONLY envelope
- There is insufficient evidence to support charging Mr. Eiden for the retention of the other marked classified documents recovered from the Penn Eiden Center
- There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Eiden with willful retention of marked classified documents Al and A2
- There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Eiden with retention of marked classified document AS
- There is insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Eiden with retention of marked classified documents A9 and AlO
- The evidence does not establish that Mr. Eiden or anyone else knowingly removed or retained the classified documents found at the University of Delaware. These documents appear to have been included in his Senate papers by mistake.
- THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
- Finally, none of these decades-old documents contains information so obviously sensitive that a jury would find it compelling enough to convict a former president and vice president of mishandling classified information. For these reasons, it is likely that the few classified found in Mr. Biden's Senate papers were there by mistake. The documents found at the University of Delaware are not a basis for criminal charges.
- THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
- The evidence does not support a charge under Section 1519
CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1229805332/special-counsel-report-biden-classified-documents
QP!
Verified User
christiefan915
Catalyst
Here are some points from the White House response to Hur's report. Hur's double standard and bias towards Biden really stands out in the letter.
"We are pleased to see thaL after more than a year of investigating. you have determined that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. Though we wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. we are taking this opportunity, pursuant to our agreement. to address specific issues that we have identified in the report. We do so in the interest-which we believe that the Office of Special Counsel shares-of a final report that is both accurate and consistent with Department of Justice policy and practice.
We do not believe that the report's treatment of President Biden's memory is accurate or appropriate. The report uses highly prejudicial language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses: a lack of recall of years-old events. Such comments have no place in a Department of Justice report, particularly one that in the first paragraph announces that no criminal charges are "warranted'' and that "the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt."
...fact there is ample evidence from your interview· that the President did well in answering your questions about years-old events over the course o ffive hours. This is especially true under the circumstances, which you do not mention in your report, that his interview began the day after the October 7 attacks on Israel. In the lead up to the interview, the President was conducting calls with heads of state, Cabinet members, members of Congress, and meeting repeatedly with his national security team.
At the outset of the interview, you recognized that the questions you planned to ask ··relate to events that happened years ago.'' but nonetheless expressed your hope that the President would '·put forth [his] best efforts and really try to get [his] best recollection in response to the questions we ask.'' It is hardly fair to concede that the President would be asked about events years in the past. press him to give his ''best" recollections. and then fault him for his limited memory.
...The same predictable memory loss occurred with other witnesses in this investigation. Yet unlike your treatment of President Biden, your report accepts other witnesses' memory loss as completely understandable given the passage of time.
(Continued)
The letter starts at page 384 of the document.
"We are pleased to see thaL after more than a year of investigating. you have determined that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. Though we wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. we are taking this opportunity, pursuant to our agreement. to address specific issues that we have identified in the report. We do so in the interest-which we believe that the Office of Special Counsel shares-of a final report that is both accurate and consistent with Department of Justice policy and practice.
We do not believe that the report's treatment of President Biden's memory is accurate or appropriate. The report uses highly prejudicial language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses: a lack of recall of years-old events. Such comments have no place in a Department of Justice report, particularly one that in the first paragraph announces that no criminal charges are "warranted'' and that "the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt."
...fact there is ample evidence from your interview· that the President did well in answering your questions about years-old events over the course o ffive hours. This is especially true under the circumstances, which you do not mention in your report, that his interview began the day after the October 7 attacks on Israel. In the lead up to the interview, the President was conducting calls with heads of state, Cabinet members, members of Congress, and meeting repeatedly with his national security team.
At the outset of the interview, you recognized that the questions you planned to ask ··relate to events that happened years ago.'' but nonetheless expressed your hope that the President would '·put forth [his] best efforts and really try to get [his] best recollection in response to the questions we ask.'' It is hardly fair to concede that the President would be asked about events years in the past. press him to give his ''best" recollections. and then fault him for his limited memory.
...The same predictable memory loss occurred with other witnesses in this investigation. Yet unlike your treatment of President Biden, your report accepts other witnesses' memory loss as completely understandable given the passage of time.
(Continued)
The letter starts at page 384 of the document.
Last edited: