Too incompetent to be prosecuted but not too incompetent to rule?

Hur lays out the facts and law regarding each and every document, in very great detail, illustrating exactly why, in all cases, there is insufficient evidence to bring charges.

You, on the other hand, can of course neglect the facts if you so choose.

Whatever else may be said about Hur's report, he did not so choose.

 

Maybe you should have appointed instead of Ben Hur.

What are the elements, and which "facts" meet them?

 

Read the report... Joe Biden knowingly broke several laws including the espionage act....

https://s3.documentcloud.org/docume...pecial-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

 

@Nemesis
@clennan


Read the report... Joe Biden knowingly broke several laws including the espionage act....

https://s3.documentcloud.org/docume...pecial-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

Ghost writer to the rescue.. he deleted audio recoding

 

@Nemesis
@clennan


Read the report... Joe Biden knowingly broke several laws including the espionage act....

https://s3.documentcloud.org/docume...pecial-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

Joe is above the law... and he has say in what he keeps..

 

@Nemesis
@clennan


Read the report... Joe Biden knowingly broke several laws including the espionage act....

interesting... Joe willingly retained and disclosed classified information and hid them in his garage..

https://s3.documentcloud.org/docume...pecial-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

 

Noted that you are, in your clip selections, totally evading the factual and legal analyses in the report, whereby Hur concludes that no criminal charges are warranted.

 

Read the report yourself then and present a rebuttal... Hur repeatedly described the laws he willingly broke.... Another Comey report... in your face...
It is not up to Hur now... it is up to Garland to do his job and see that justice is served.... laws were knowingly and flagrantly broken, and Hur spelled them out...

Vice President Joe Biden kept his classified material in unsecure and unauthorized location in his home..
https://s3.documentcloud.org/docume...pecial-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

 

I have read the report - that's how I know that you are totally disregarding the detailed analyses of facts and law showing that there is insufficient evidence to warrant charges on any of the points you're pasting here. So if you want a rebuttal, it is right there for you to read, in the very same place you're getting your clips from. Unless, of course, you're getting those ready-clipped.

 

Ben Hur is stating that "there is evidence" of it, not concluding that he broke the law. In fact, the way that you prove that Biden broke the law is to prove it in court, something Hur concluded that he couldn't do.

Good job cherry-picking and fabricating @popscott. Well, not really a good job.

 

I've now read the report, too. They're taking tiny portions of the report and blowing it out of proportion. Very disingenuous.

The Mueller Report was far far worse for the Orange Manure, but they never read that.

 

I don't think they've read this report either. Among other things, image searches suggest they're copying snips from X (Twitter) posts. Adding the link to the actual report makes it seem like they did their own snips but odd how their snip parameters are exactly the same as X posters. Hmmmm.....

 

Shameful.

READ THE ENTIRE REPORT!

 

We have… and provided multiple portions unedited for content… that show Joe Biden willingly and knowingly broke multiple laws….. it is up to Garland to overrule his underlying and apply the laws appropriately.

 

No, you haven't.

That's why you continue to refute the fact that there is insufficient evidence to warrant charges.

It's also why you have not extracted any of the facts and legal analyses from the report, in order to refute them.

 

Hur also rejected comparisons to Trump's far more egregious conduct, and contrasted Biden's non-criminal behavior with the Orange Cowpie's criminal and obstructive behavior:

"The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts. Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Eiden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation." PAGE 11.

 

Yes we have… the silly game is getting old where actual evidence is presented and some on here just can’t present any credible rebuttal.

 

You plainly haven't. See post #141, for starters. Why do you choose to ignore such things?

 

Yes, the nonsense of ignoring everything but 2 paragraphs is exceptionally old. STOP DOING IT.

 

Feel free to provide a rebuttal or stop posting misinformation and propaganda.

 

You are posting snips from the report detailing the facts and events under investigation yet completing disregarding the legal analyses and conclusions regarding those facts and events, contained within the very same report.

So, there is no need to ask anyone for rebuttals. The legal analyses and conclusions in the report ARE the rebuttals. If you want them, you have them already. And it is these that YOU need to rebut, in order to make your case that Biden should in fact be charged.

 

Then quit yapping and present a rebuttal instead of …… just yapping

 

You are the one contending the conclusions of the report. You, then, must present the rebuttal.

 

Am I correct in concluding that the sum total of your argument is that you have read the report, and it does not show sufficient evidence that a crime was committed? You do this without pointing to anything, yet you are playing the role of the one who has done his homework.

What if someone else says they have read it all and there is evidence that he committed these crimes?

At some point, doesn't one of you need to step up and present exactly where you feel your position has been validated in the report along with the accompanying text?

It is not impressive even slightly for someone to play the thorough one in this analysis without actually displaying the fruits of your thoroughness. In other words, don't tell us how well-versed you are on the subject, SHOW US.

Maybe you are right, but you most certainly have not proven as much (Unless you have posted this validation earlier and I simply missed it).

 

Been there, done that…