FBI doubted probable cause for Mar-a-Lago raid but pushed forward amid pressure from Biden DOJ, emails reveal

[beagle9]

Hur was just making political points in the equivalent of sour grapes.
Instead of saying he couldn't prove intent, he instead blamed that a jury would be sympathetic.

That's how smart the guy Hurr was. He was trying to stay neutral no matter what. I think he feared the Democrats were going to continue to hold power as well.

 

[meaner gene]

That's how smart the guy Hurr was. He was trying to stay neutral no matter what. I think he feared the Democrats were going to continue to hold power as well.

His Biden comment wasn't being neutral. It was pure kiss up to Trump.
His jury sympathy speculation was also a false narrative, since such sympathetic jurors would be excluded during jury selection, and play no role.

 

[meaner gene]

Yes, jurors are asked during jury selection (voir dire) if they have biases or sympathies that would prevent them from being fair, and lawyers probe for potential biases, including sympathy for the accused, to ensure an impartial jury that decides solely on evidence and law, not personal feelings or prejudice

 

[ThisIsMe]

Right, because you dont understand the law or the charges and don't care to do so. Because you married a failed talking point.

No, it’s because Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials”….which is what Hur said, but he was never charged for that. Trump was charged with, I think, 31 counts of that.

 

[meaner gene]

No, it’s because Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials”….which is what Hur said, but he was never charged for that. Trump was charged with, I think, 31 counts of that.

For the umpteenth time. Biden wasn't charged, because Hur couldn't prove intent to retain the documents.
As opposed to Jack Smith who could show by several specific and overt acts, that Trump intended to retain classified documents.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, it’s because Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials”

Right, it's as if you dont understand the law and never read the report or the indictment.

So you keep making this dumb statement.

No need to post it to me anymore.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For the umpteenth time. Biden wasn't charged, because Hur couldn't prove intent to retain the documents.
As opposed to Jack Smith who could show by several specific and overt acts, that Trump intended to retain classified documents.

Yes, this has been explained to him, with excerpts from the report and the indictment.

Among other things.

He's just fishing for attention, at this point.

 

[ThisIsMe]

For the umpteenth time. Biden wasn't charged, because Hur couldn't prove intent to retain the documents.
As opposed to Jack Smith who could show by several specific and overt acts, that Trump intended to retain classified documents.

For the umpteenth time +1, if you take something you know you’re not supposed to have, THAT is all the intent you need.


Again, Hur’s declanation to charge Biden was based off of Bidens condition and how it would affect the jury’s perception of him.

Key factors in this conclusion included the difficulty in proving Biden had the specific willful intent required by law for a conviction. The report noted the possibility of "innocent explanations," such as documents being packed unintentionally or Biden forgetting he had them. The investigation also considered how Biden's memory might be perceived by a jury, potentially leading to reasonable doubt about his intent to break the law. Additionally, Biden's cooperation with the investigation, in contrast to other cases, suggested a potential "innocent mistake" rather than an intent to act unlawfully.

Innocent explanations…how many of us would get away with that?

The Robert Hur report on President Biden's handling of classified documents found evidence that Biden "willfully retained and disclosed classified materials" after his vice presidency

When you are given a security clearance, it’s not just something they “give” to you and you can just do whatever. While presidents and vice presidents do not have to undergo training for handling of classified materials, they have to adhere to the EOs for their handling, and they are also advised by national security advisors and Nara.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. There are measures in place to prevent these things from happening.

“Biden forgot”? Not likely, he told his ghost writer he had them “down stairs”. He knew he had them.

These excuses would never fly for anyone else who was a member of the right, but the left gets away with it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, this has been explained to him, with excerpts from the report and the indictment.

Among other things.

He's just fishing for attention, at this point.

And as I just laid out, it was all a pass for Biden. The fact that he WILLFULLY….that’s the key word….WILLFULLY….this means you knew what you were doing …..this means intent….

What else do you need?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And as I just laid out, it was all a pass for Biden.

That's right, Biden didn't do what Trump.did, so he got a pass.

Yes the report existed to explain why. First and foremost, there was not enough evidence.

But now you're just playing the attention begging game. No need to go in circles anymore.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, to review the topic:

Some in the FBI were wary of the raid because of Trump's claim that he telepathically declassified the materials.

Welp, they were wrong, and the raid found exactly what the warrant said it would find.

 

[meaner gene]

For the umpteenth time +1, if you take something you know you’re not supposed to have, THAT is all the intent you need.

Absolutely not.
The particular statute is taking classified documents with the intent to retain

Retention requires that you do something to actively keep it. Such as moving it from place to place. Lying that you have it. or involving other people in it's concealment.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Absolutely not.
The particular statute is taking classified documents with the intent to retain

Retention requires that you do something to actively keep it. Such as moving it from place to place. Lying that you have it. or involving other people in it's concealment.

The letter of the law:

"or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;.."

Trump was asked for the documents. He refused to return them.

Biden was asked. He consented to a search, when asked, and returned them, when asked.

More: "Whoever having unauthorized possession of..."

He was the sitting president. So he was fully authorized to possess all of those materials, when they were found and then willfully surrendered (as opposed to, willfully retained).

 

[meaner gene]

And as I just laid out, it was all a pass for Biden. The fact that he WILLFULLY….that’s the key word….WILLFULLY….this means you knew what you were doing …..this means intent….

What else do you need?

Proof the person knew that he had it.
Not just mere possession, but proof they were cognizant of being in possession of it.

Start with proof that Biden packed the box.

 

[Delldude]

That wasn't the reason given.

The reason given was that there wasn't sufficient evidence.

Liar.
The evidence was overwhelming. We've been over this before, what's your problem with facts?

 

[Delldude]

Hur was just making political points in the equivalent of sour grapes.
Instead of saying he couldn't prove intent, he instead blamed that a jury would be sympathetic.

Yet it is indisputable from Hur's transcript, Biden broke the law.

 

[meaner gene]

Liar.
The evidence was overwhelming. We've been over this before, what's your problem with facts?

The problem that Hur had, and he knew it, was he had no facts to actually prove willful retention.

He could prove possession, but the statute also requires intent to retain.

Such proof might be proving Biden knew what he had, and where he had it. But Hur claimed Biden had a poor memory, and thus he couldn't prove Biden knew he had the documents.

If anything, claiming Biden had a poor memory is exculpatory of an intent to retain.

 

[meaner gene]

Yet it is indisputable from Hur's transcript, Biden broke the law.

Absolutely not.
The law, requires proof of intent to retain. And Hur's own description of Biden, made that impossible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First page of the report.

"We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter."

(That doesn't mean "We could convict him, but nah.")

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

 

[Delldude]

He could prove possession, but the statute also requires intent to retain.

He established that without a doubt. Been proven here from his transcript.

The law, requires proof of intent to retain.

He established that without a doubt. Been proven here from his transcript.

Who we got here?

Marener, Postman or Meaner Gene?