Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Biden’s physical takes on renewed importance after Hur revelations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mountain Man
    replied
    The fact that Joe isn't being prosecuted for taking classified documents could very well end up helping President Trump since the defense has a strong case for what's known as "selective prosecution".

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post

    But Hur can't rebut the claim, hence he doesn't have the evidence necessary to charge:

    Source: Ibid. pg. 254

    As noted in Chapter Twelve, he provided one answer to our written questions that was not credible-that when he described his notebook entries to Zwonitzer as classified or potentially classified, he did not really mean "classified," he merely meant "private." But, while incredible, we cannot prove this statement was false. Mr. Biden prefaced it by explaining that he did not remember the specific conversations in question, which occurred more than six years ago. And even if this written answer is a strike against Mr. Biden. the other instances of his cooperation with our investigation weigh heavily in his favor.

    © Copyright Original Source



    -Sam
    Even CNN gets it.

    What Hur said Biden said to his ghostwriter

    Hur said in the report that Biden disclosed classified material from his notebooks to the ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer, who worked with him on a 2017 memoir called “Promise Me, Dad.” But Biden categorically denied that he had shared classified information with the ghostwriter, saying he can “guarantee” he didn’t.

    When a reporter responded that the special counsel said he did, Biden responded, “No, they did not say that. He did not say that.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim is false. Hur did say that, writing explicitly that “Mr. Biden shared information, including some classified information, from those notebooks with his ghostwriter.” He elaborated that Biden shared classified information with his ghostwriter by reading “nearly verbatim” from his notebooks “on at least three occasions,” including his “notes from meetings in the Situation Room.”

    Hur did find, however, that Biden “at times” tried to avoid sharing classified information, by stopping at or skipping over certain material from the notebooks. And he wrote that “the evidence does not show that when Mr. Biden shared the specific passages with his ghostwriter, Mr. Biden knew the passages were classified and intended to share classified information.”

    Hur wrote that in one recorded conversation with the ghostwriter in 2017, at the Virginia home where Biden then lived, Biden read from his notebook about a National Security Council meeting about Iraq in 2015, then told the ghostwriter about a 2009 memo he had written to Obama arguing against the deployment of more troops to Afghanistan – and then said, “I just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” Hur noted that more than five years later, investigators found classified documents about the Afghanistan troop surge in Biden’s Delaware garage.

    Hur wrote that he has not heard of any allegations that classified material actually appeared in Biden’s 2017 memoir.






    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    But Hur can't rebut the claim, hence he doesn't have the evidence necessary to charge:

    Source: Ibid. pg. 254

    As noted in Chapter Twelve, he provided one answer to our written questions that was not credible-that when he described his notebook entries to Zwonitzer as classified or potentially classified, he did not really mean "classified," he merely meant "private." But, while incredible, we cannot prove this statement was false. Mr. Biden prefaced it by explaining that he did not remember the specific conversations in question, which occurred more than six years ago. And even if this written answer is a strike against Mr. Biden. the other instances of his cooperation with our investigation weigh heavily in his favor.

    © Copyright Original Source



    -Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    So... that old Joe "willfully disclosed national defense information to Zwonitzer by reading certain passages of his notes, aloud and nearly verbatim, from national security meetings" but that doesn't count as "evidence [that] supports charges of willful disclosure beyond a reasonable doubt."

    Wow.

    Shades of "no reasonable prosecutor."
    Hur's report can be summarized as:

    "There is conclusive evidence that Joe willfully broke the law, but we can't prove intent because he's a confused old man with a poor memory."

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    "We cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt" is also a judgement of the jury's decision, just as much as saying the jury would fine him a sympathetic nice old man with a poor memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    You keep doing the same thing. Ignoring the facts of Biden having and knowingly keeping classified documents and treatin Hur's commentary about whether the charges would stick if it went to court, as "evidence" - it is not. It is his opinion on whether the charges would stick or not. And you already said he should not have made such commentary. But I guess if his commentary supports your view it is OK, but when it calls Biden senile it is unnecessary.

    One of his excuses is that "Mr. Biden prefaced it by explaining that he did not remember the specific conversations in question," - but wait!!! I thought Biden had a PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY? Which is it Sam?

    Your arguments are not convincing in the least.
    Luckily, my arguments don't need to be convincing, as Hur himself repeatedly says that the evidence doesn't meet the standard necessary to secure a conviction. That flatly contradicts your allegation that Hur's sole or primary reason for not charging was imagining how a jury might perceive Biden.

    You were wrong — not entirely your fault, as that's clearly the gist Hur wanted to give in his summary before burying the real reasons not to charge deep enough that certain folk would never find them on their own. But now you've been shown, repeatedly, explicit text where Hur says that the investigation's evidence did not reach the necessary standard of criminal proof. Knowing as much, his obligation as a prosecutor is to decline charging. He knows, even if you refuse to believe, that the evidence available to him doesn't support a conviction.

    Always something to watch people fervently argue that the State should advance charges they know to be based on insufficient evidence, hoping for a wrongful conviction by an ignorant or complicit jury.

    Patriots!

    -Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post

    Admitting that you don't even read that reasoning pretty nicely undermines any opinion you might have on its worth but we're not talking about reasoning here; we're pulling directly from Hur's own statement that DOJ lacked sufficient evidence to bring charges that could prove Biden shared classified documents with Zwonitzer in a criminal case.

    Again:

    Source: Ibid. pg. 244

    C. The evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information in the notebooks to his ghostwriter

    We have also considered whether Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information to Zwonitzer by reading certain passages of his notes, aloud and nearly verbatim, from national security meetings.936 Mr. Biden should have known that by reading his unfiltered notes about classified meetings in the Situation Room, he risked sharing classified information with his ghostwriter. But we do not believe the evidence supports charges of willful disclosure beyond a reasonable doubt.

    © Copyright Original Source

    So... that old Joe "willfully disclosed national defense information to Zwonitzer by reading certain passages of his notes, aloud and nearly verbatim, from national security meetings" but that doesn't count as "evidence [that] supports charges of willful disclosure beyond a reasonable doubt."

    Wow.

    Shades of "no reasonable prosecutor."

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    I agree. He did list the facts very well, of how Biden willfully kept classified documents, but his opinion that Biden should not be prosecuted because a jury might excuse him because he is an old man with bad memory and other reasons, is suspect.




    Yes, perhaps Biden really does have a photographic memory. If he does, then he has no excuse for having those classified documents for so long. It shows he willfully kept them and knew about them.

    Great argument Sam! Biden should be prosecuted!
    It really boils down to two things...

    If he is too senile to stand trial he shouldn't be president.

    If he isn't too senile to be president then he should stand trial.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post

    Admitting that you don't even read that reasoning pretty nicely undermines any opinion you might have on its worth but we're not talking about reasoning here; we're pulling directly from Hur's own statement that DOJ lacked sufficient evidence to bring charges that could prove Biden shared classified documents with Zwonitzer in a criminal case.

    Again:

    Source: Ibid. pg. 244

    C. The evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information in the notebooks to his ghostwriter

    We have also considered whether Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information to Zwonitzer by reading certain passages of his notes, aloud and nearly verbatim, from national security meetings.936 Mr. Biden should have known that by reading his unfiltered notes about classified meetings in the Situation Room, he risked sharing classified information with his ghostwriter. But we do not believe the evidence supports charges of willful disclosure beyond a reasonable doubt.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Indeed, Hur acknowledges elsewhere that he doesn't have evidence to rebut Biden's claim that he was referring to an entirely different set of entries on the tape.

    Source: Ibid. pg. 254

    As noted in Chapter Twelve, he provided one answer to our written questions that was not credible-that when he described his notebook entries to Zwonitzer as classified or potentially classified, he did not really mean "classified," he merely meant "private." But, while incredible, we cannot prove this statement was false. Mr. Biden prefaced it by explaining that he did not remember the specific conversations in question, which occurred more than six years ago. And even if this written answer is a strike against Mr. Biden. the other instances of his cooperation with our investigation weigh heavily in his favor.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Emphasis added. Hur explicitly states, repeatedly, that his investigation did not produce the requisite proof to make a charging decision. Your claim that Hur declined such a decision only or primarily because of how Biden might appear to a jury is false, via the source documents.

    Makes it easy: no reasoning required. Just a little reading.

    -Sam
    You keep doing the same thing. Ignoring the facts of Biden having and knowingly keeping classified documents and treatin Hur's commentary about whether the charges would stick if it went to court, as "evidence" - it is not. It is his opinion on whether the charges would stick or not. And you already said he should not have made such commentary. But I guess if his commentary supports your view it is OK, but when it calls Biden senile it is unnecessary.

    One of his excuses is that "Mr. Biden prefaced it by explaining that he did not remember the specific conversations in question," - but wait!!! I thought Biden had a PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY? Which is it Sam?

    Your arguments are not convincing in the least.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    "We cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt" is also a judgement of the jury's decision, just as much as saying the jury would fine him a sympathetic nice old man with a poor memory.
    No, not remotely. If a prosecutor can't refute an alibi in a murder case and understands that they can't secure a conviction without that critical piece of evidence, that is wholly unlike a prosecutor who has such evidence declining to charge someone for murder because a jury might see her as a kind little old lady who wouldn't hurt a fly.

    Just fantastically different things. If you don't have the requisite evidence, you don't have the evidence and that's why you're not making a criminal charge.

    -Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post

    Admitting that you don't even read that reasoning pretty nicely undermines any opinion you might have on its worth but we're not talking about reasoning here; we're pulling directly from Hur's own statement that DOJ lacked sufficient evidence to bring charges that could prove Biden shared classified documents with Zwonitzer in a criminal case.

    Again:

    Source: Ibid. pg. 244

    C. The evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information in the notebooks to his ghostwriter

    We have also considered whether Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information to Zwonitzer by reading certain passages of his notes, aloud and nearly verbatim, from national security meetings.936 Mr. Biden should have known that by reading his unfiltered notes about classified meetings in the Situation Room, he risked sharing classified information with his ghostwriter. But we do not believe the evidence supports charges of willful disclosure beyond a reasonable doubt.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Indeed, Hur acknowledges elsewhere that he doesn't have evidence to rebut Biden's claim that he was referring to an entirely different set of entries on the tape.

    Source: Ibid. pg. 254

    As noted in Chapter Twelve, he provided one answer to our written questions that was not credible-that when he described his notebook entries to Zwonitzer as classified or potentially classified, he did not really mean "classified," he merely meant "private." But, while incredible, we cannot prove this statement was false. Mr. Biden prefaced it by explaining that he did not remember the specific conversations in question, which occurred more than six years ago. And even if this written answer is a strike against Mr. Biden. the other instances of his cooperation with our investigation weigh heavily in his favor.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Emphasis added. Hur explicitly states, repeatedly, that his investigation did not produce the requisite proof to make a charging decision. Your claim that Hur declined such a decision only or primarily because of how Biden might appear to a jury is false, via the source documents.

    Makes it easy: no reasoning required. Just a little reading.

    -Sam
    "We cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt" is also a judgement of the jury's decision, just as much as saying the jury would fine him a sympathetic nice old man with a poor memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Not believing your convoluted reasoning is not repeating false things. It just means you are not as convincing as you think you are, Sam.
    Admitting that you don't even read that reasoning pretty nicely undermines any opinion you might have on its worth but we're not talking about reasoning here; we're pulling directly from Hur's own statement that DOJ lacked sufficient evidence to bring charges that could prove Biden shared classified documents with Zwonitzer in a criminal case.

    Again:

    Source: Ibid. pg. 244

    C. The evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information in the notebooks to his ghostwriter

    We have also considered whether Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information to Zwonitzer by reading certain passages of his notes, aloud and nearly verbatim, from national security meetings.936 Mr. Biden should have known that by reading his unfiltered notes about classified meetings in the Situation Room, he risked sharing classified information with his ghostwriter. But we do not believe the evidence supports charges of willful disclosure beyond a reasonable doubt.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Indeed, Hur acknowledges elsewhere that he doesn't have evidence to rebut Biden's claim that he was referring to an entirely different set of entries on the tape.

    Source: Ibid. pg. 254

    As noted in Chapter Twelve, he provided one answer to our written questions that was not credible-that when he described his notebook entries to Zwonitzer as classified or potentially classified, he did not really mean "classified," he merely meant "private." But, while incredible, we cannot prove this statement was false. Mr. Biden prefaced it by explaining that he did not remember the specific conversations in question, which occurred more than six years ago. And even if this written answer is a strike against Mr. Biden. the other instances of his cooperation with our investigation weigh heavily in his favor.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Emphasis added. Hur explicitly states, repeatedly, that his investigation did not produce the requisite proof to make a charging decision. Your claim that Hur declined such a decision only or primarily because of how Biden might appear to a jury is false, via the source documents.

    Makes it easy: no reasoning required. Just a little reading.

    -Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post

    tl;dr: Being lazy is not an excuse to repeat demonstrably false things. It is its own kind of willful deceit.

    -Sam
    Not believing your convoluted reasoning is not repeating false things. It just means you are not as convincing as you think you are, Sam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    tl;dr
    tl;dr: Being lazy is not an excuse to repeat demonstrably false things. It is its own kind of willful deceit.

    -Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post

    It's a whole lot easier -- and shorter -- to say something objectively false than to explain why someone's objectively false claims are wrong, true enough. That you can't manage the follow-through of supporting what you write is your flaw, however. Probably shouldn't be on this site, devoted to debate, if that's the case.

    Of course, the posts explicitly discuss Biden's ghostwriter and explicitly detail that Hur did not have concrete proof that Biden "willfully shared classified information with his ghost writer". As Hur writes: "But we do not believe the evidence supports charges of willful disclosure beyond a reasonable doubt." This sufficiently refutes your claim that Hur's decision not to prosecute rested solely — or even primarily — on his fantasies about how a jury might perceive Biden's memory.

    Hur didn't have the evidence to bring a successful case, by his own admission, and so he didn't. The extra bit about Biden's memory, contradicted by Hur's own contemporaneous remarks, was not only gratuitous but wild misdirection.

    Zwonitzer destroyed his tapes, yes, but immediately turned around and provided prosecutors with the drives and they were able to recover the interviews virtually uncorrupted. The content of the tapes is not only discussed in the report, Biden's remarks to Zwonitzer come from a review of those tapes -- if there was anything that Hur could have used to prosecute, he could have done so.

    You made a false claim about Hur's decision to not charge Biden. You made another false claim when you implied that Biden disclosed classified documents to Zwonitzer and there was sufficient evidence of that for Hur to make a charging decision. If you've managed to read this far, you either have to provide support for those false claims from the report (good luck) or acknowledge that you're repeating whoppers that have already been refuted.

    -Sam
    tl;dr

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, Today, 09:38 AM
0 responses
20 views
1 like
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 06:47 AM
50 responses
193 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
48 responses
280 views
2 likes
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Started by Starlight, 04-14-2024, 12:34 AM
11 responses
87 views
2 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by carpedm9587, 04-13-2024, 07:51 PM
31 responses
185 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X