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

[ThisIsMe]

I already did but you ignored it. Shall we prove you’re lying?

Trump was specifically told by his attorneys that it would be illegal for him to defy the grand jury subpoena and hide the classified documents from the DoJ.

Trump did it anyway.

You lied when you claimed they did the same thing. They didn’t.

No, I said they did the same thing by retaining classified materials. I’m asking you to cite the quote that they didn’t have enough evidence that Biden committed a crime, because he clearly states from the beginning that they found evidence that he did.

 

[meaner gene]

No, I said they did the same thing by retaining classified materials. I’m asking you to cite the quote that they didn’t have enough evidence that Biden committed a crime, because he clearly states from the beginning that they found evidence that he did.

But the evidence they found wasn't sufficient to legally prove it in Biden's or Pence's case.
But more than legally sufficient in the case of Trump.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It’s literally what Hur said.

No…he didn’t lol. Cite me where they said they didn’t have evidence of a crime.

 

[meaner gene]

You have to realize, there is evidence, and there is legal evidence.
Evidence is just something you can use to convince some of the people some of the time.
Where legal evidence will convince all of the people all of the time.

 

[ThisIsMe]

But the evidence they found wasn't sufficient to legally prove it in Biden's or Pence's case.
But more than legally sufficient in the case of Trump.

Again, that’s not what he said. The evidence wouldn’t be sufficient to convince a jury because the jury might not see intent because of the “I forgot” defense and the “poor memory” perception.

 

[meaner gene]

No…he didn’t lol. Cite me where they said they didn’t have evidence of a crime.

Hur said We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter

If he had legally sufficient evidence, he wouldn't have said that.

 

[meaner gene]

Again, that’s not what he said. The evidence wouldn’t be sufficient to convince a jury because the jury might not see intent because of the “I forgot” defense and the “poor memory” perception.

In order for evidence to be legally sufficient, it must be able to convince a judge or a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of Biden and Pence, it did not meet that bar. Hence Hur saying up front We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.

 

[meaner gene]

The argument in this case seems to be the widely different degree of evidence in the respective cases.
All potential criminal cases have evidence.
But only evidence sufficient to convince a jury or a grand jury, merits the term.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Hur said We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter

this does not say there is no proof, it says charges are warranted, for reasons stated.

If he had legally sufficient evidence, he wouldn't have said that.

He did, when he said:

Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained
and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen

That is a direct quote from the report.

 

[ThisIsMe]

In order for evidence to be legally sufficient, it must be able to convince a judge or a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of Biden and Pence, it did not meet that bar. Hence Hur saying up front We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.

Hur stated it was insufficient to prove intent because the JURY would buy the “I forgot” defense because of the state Biden was in.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The argument in this case seems to be the widely different degree of evidence in the respective cases.
All potential criminal cases have evidence.
But only evidence sufficient to convince a jury or a grand jury, merits the term.

And Hur stated the had evidence but because if Biden state they didn’t think a jury would convict.

For the willful intent part, it’s because Biden believed the documents were his personal property, well, that would be the same as trump saying he was entitled to them because he declassified them. Willful intent was shown when Biden knowingly took the materials.

I’m not talking about the raid and the returning of the documents, I’m talking about the fact that he had them at all, and was never charged, but trump was charged…just for having them.

• Willful retention of national defense information: This charge, covering counts 1-31, only applies to Trump and is for allegedly storing 31 such documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump was charged with 31 counts just for having them. THAT is the part I’m arguing. Hur said that he had evidence that Biden willfully did this, yet he was never indicted.

 

[Marener]

this does not say there is no proof, it says charges are warranted, for reasons stated.

The reasons stated were lack of proof.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The reasons stated were lack of proof.

No, it never said that. They said they didn’t think the could convince a jury.
Why do you think he would state in his report that they uncovered evidence of what Biden did, and then say there was no proof? That would be contradictory.

 

[Marener]

No, it never said that. They said they didn’t think the could convince a jury.
Why do you think he would state in his report that they uncovered evidence of what Biden did, and then say there was no proof? That would be contradictory.

He couldn’t convince a jury because he didn’t have proof.

He said they uncovered evidence because they uncovered evidence.

What you don’t seem to understand is that evidence and proof are not the same thing. I doubt you’ll ever understand that because you refuse to listen.

 

[Nostra]

Hur specifically says he couldn’t prove it

You need to stop lying.

Hur’s report stated that his investigation “uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice-presidency when he was a private citizen.”

 

[Nostra]

He didn’t have enough to convince a jury he broke the law.

Wrong, he didn’t charge Tater because he wouldn’t know WTF was going on in a courtroom.

 

[Nostra]

You keep lying and omitting facts.

 

[Nostra]

But the evidence they found wasn't sufficient to legally prove it in Biden's or Pence's case.
But more than legally sufficient in the case of Trump.

Lies.

 

[Nostra]

Hur said We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter

If he had legally sufficient evidence, he wouldn't have said that.

Because Biden is a vegetable, Simp.

 

[Nostra]

In order for evidence to be legally sufficient, it must be able to convince a judge or a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of Biden and Pence, it did not meet that bar. Hence Hur saying up front We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.

Because Biden’s brain is oatmeal.