Special Council Hur’s Final Report On Biden Classified Documents

You do realize that the special prosecutor Robert Hur is a conservative lawyer appointed by Trump to the department of justice. That’s why the report referenced Biden’s supposed cognitive decline. A hit job by a biased prosecutor as far as i’m concerned. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I strongly disagree. Hur's getting flack from Republicans too, about his recommendation to not prosecute Biden. He was just doing his job.

From a WSJ news piece, this is what his former boss said about him:

“For Rob this is not about politics, this is a principled decision,” Rosenstein said. “He went through a rigorous process, and his conclusion that an indictment was not warranted is well-defended.”

Rosenstein and other former prosecutors said the report reads similarly to other internal Justice Department memos that prosecutors write to justify decisions not to bring charges. Hur, they said, was anticipating possible defenses Biden could raise that would make him a sympathetic defendant who jurors might believe had simply forgotten he still had the documents.

Such memos are usually kept out of public view. But if a special counsel chooses not to pursue charges, he is required to disclose why a target’s missteps, however problematic, weren’t criminal. Garland had promised to make Hur’s report public when he appointed him, saying he wouldn’t interfere with the probe. He could have made redactions or edits, but didn’t.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/special...ferno-35c31d7e

From a WSJ opinion piece,

Mr. Hur, on the other hand, is a duly appointed special counsel. Federal regulations instruct that, at the end of Mr. Hur’s work, he “shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached.”

Given the high political interest, it would be hard to keep such a report from the public. The speculation would be of a White House trying to cover something up. So Mr. Hur presumably knew that his summary of the case was likely to be released. But if Mr. Biden’s mental state played any role in his decision to recommend against criminal charges, do Mr. Hur’s critics think he should have simply decided not to tell that to the Attorney General? That would have been a dereliction of duty.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/robert-...inton-9508dc6c Originally Posted by Tiny

I’m only going to respond to the remarks pertaining to my previous post. I’ve truncated Tiny’s quote to reflect just that portion.

I’m sure that Robert Hur was chosen to investigate and prosecute as needed because of his republican bona fides. The Biden justice department wanted to assign a Prosecutor appointed under the previous president (who is also being investigated for a similar crime) to mitigate charges that they whitewashed the investigation.

The result boiled down to its basic elements was that there wasn’t enough evidence of intent to prosecute. That fact was obscured by the prosecution’s opinion on the faculties of the president.

In my opinion and in the opinion of many others Robert Hur knew that he would get a lot of pushback from the republican establishment because he couldn’t find evidence to prosecute like they wanted. He wanted to minimize that pushback by putting his own opinions into the report knowing that his remarks would be made public.

Obviously he failed to thread the needle as he’s getting pushback from both sides of the political spectrum. Democrats think he is a partisan hack who wanted to malign the President and Republicans think he’s a RINO who’s not partisan enough to push a bogus prosecution.

What it comes down to is the fact that this report has given false justification to Trump’s followers to ignore his actions in his own classified documents case.

I am not a l\lawyer so please, someone school me on this:

How does intent have anything to do with breaking the law? If someone knowingly and willfully commits a crime that is one level of culpability, but whit about negligence? Plenty of folks have been charged with negligent something-or-other and convicted.

I have herd quotes from the Hur report that said Mr. Biden
had knowingly and willfully kept documents he was not allowed to have as a Senator or later, as a private citizen.

If the case is that Mr. Biden was in fact in legal possession of these materials, there are still plenty of photos plainly showing that they were negligently stored in a haphazard and unsecured fashion.

I am not a l\lawyer so please, someone school me on this:

How does intent have anything to do with breaking the law? If someone knowingly and willfully commits a crime that is one level of culpability, but whit about negligence? Plenty of folks have been charged with negligent something-or-other and convicted.

I have herd quotes from the Hur report that said Mr. Biden
had knowingly and willfully kept documents he was not allowed to have as a Senator or later, as a private citizen.

If the case is that Mr. Biden was in fact in legal possession of these materials, there are still plenty of photos plainly showing that they were negligently stored in a haphazard and unsecured fashion. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Biden is certainly guilty of possessing documents illegally and storing them in inappropriate locations. I am not certain whether or not Biden, as VPOTUS, was allowed to have those documents in his private office or home. And when the documents were found by Biden's staff, the proper authorities were contacted and the documents returned. So, yes, Biden could be charged with those "crimes" but, as with Pence, I think a jury would not find him guilty of any felony.

On the other hand, Trump most certainly removed documents from the WH that he had no right to take, was asked to return them and did return some of the documents but lied about returning all of them, was issued a subpeona and ignored it which forced authorities to legally enter his home to recover the documents, and they found the documents inappropriately stored. Then we can get into the allegations about with whom he shared the information in those documents.

OK, the legal problems of President Trump are another and separate issue. We can talk about it in another thread, but right now, we are looking at president Biden and his potential for legal exposure.

I understand that VPs have the same rights and restrictions as Presidents do with regard to classified documents. I am not clear on exactly what those rights and restrictions are.

Additionally, I understand that this does not apply to senators. There are no circumstances wherein a retiring Senator may remove and store classified materials. . . .as I understand it.

Now then, what does intent have to do with acting in a manner not allowed by law?

OK, the legal problems of President Trump are another and separate issue. We can talk about it in another thread, but right now, we are looking at president Biden and his potential for legal exposure.

I understand that VPs have the same rights and restrictions as Presidents do with regard to classified documents. I am not clear on exactly what those rights and restrictions are.

Additionally, I understand that this does not apply to senators. There are no circumstances wherein a retiring Senator may remove and store classified materials. . . .as I understand it.

Now then, what does intent have to do with acting in a manner not allowed by law? Originally Posted by ICU 812

I am not a lawyer but my guess is that intent is relevant to the jurors. One can be guilty of a crime but the jury can take intent into their deliberations. I would assume that the prosecutor didn't think he could get a guilty verdict from a jury of 12 in Washington DC. They would see it as a mistake rather than a crime.

All three were/are investigated for willing and knowingly retaining government property(documents they shouldn't have). Two of the three expeditiously and voluntarily returned the documents. Prosecutors determined that they should not be charged.

One idiot lied, tried continue to retain - willingly and knowingly - documents they should not have. The intent is clear for the idiot since the govt had to pursue the documents through a lawful warrant and execution thereof after the idiot lied, caused his attorneys to lie, moved boxes, etc in order to try to keep the govt from knowing about the documents and keep the government from finding documents being sought subject to a subpoena.

The other two had no such intent since they returned the documents, voluntarily, to the government with the need of the government seeking subpoenas or warrants.

"The three"? Do you include Secretary Clinton as one of "the three"?

My recollection is that Ms. Cliton had documents (files) irrevocably deleted from a server, avoiding forensic examination by the FBI. Other devices such as phones and laptops were physically destroyed.

Is that what was meant by "expeditious and voluntary"?

And now back to the question:

So who here can knowledgably speak to the importance or significance of "intent" in legal prosecutions?

Every traffic ticket I have ever gotten was due to a inadvertent mistake o my part. In another contest, I have heard that, "ignorance of the law is not a defense" or something similar.

Negligent homicide and manslaughter real real tings and people go to jail for those charges every year.

And now back to the question:

So who here can knowledgably speak to the importance or significance of "intent" in legal prosecutions?
Originally Posted by ICU 812

I think that 1B1 answered your question.

I do not know why Trump illegally took classified documents and lied several times on this issue. His INTENT is unknown at this time but will certainly come out in trial. But Trump's alleged use of the classified documents -- he shared the contents of the documents with unauthorized individuals according to the indictment -- differs from anything Biden or Pence did.

"The three"? Do you include Secretary Clinton as one of "the three"?

My recollection is that Ms. Cliton had documents (files) irrevocably deleted from a server, avoiding forensic examination by the FBI. Other devices such as phones and laptops were physically destroyed.

Is that what was meant by "expeditious and voluntary"? Originally Posted by ICU 812

Your recollection is incorrect. And you're wrong as usual. Hillary was not initially investigated for willfully and knowingly possessing documents. In fact, she was Secretary of State and lawfully in possession of the emails that were sent to her. The question that arose was whether the emails were properly designated as classified that were on her server at the time they were sent and whether those designations changed between the time they were sent and were turned over. The other issue was commingling of emails because she used her private email so sorting emails that were work related from private raised questions.

Even on forensic review the FBI could not determine whether Hillary’s emails were actually denoted in the header as classified as they should have been. So no, she is not one of the three. Pence and Biden, both VPs had possession of documents after they left office but they returned them voluntarily. The idiot, Trump in case you couldn't figure that out, refused to give back the documents, lied, had his lawyers lie, moved documents and allowed those documents to be accessed and moved by unauthorized persons. Just stop the stupid arguments and comments. They are not becoming.

My advice to you is stop getting your information from right-wing media. You're constantly wrong and you just appear ignorant by making repeatedly incorrect statements. It's tiresome and insulting. Noone wants to try to have a reasonable conversation or debate with someone who continues to intentionally operate on a fact deficit.

The generally answer your intent question.

Some laws do not require intent. An example of which would be statutory rape. You don't have to know the age of the victim to be found guilty. Merely the act and circumstance fill the legal requirement. Same with your speeding ticket. Driving beyond the limit is all that's required. Let's also take a DUI. Simply driving and being over .08 is sufficient to be charged regardless of what you intended.

Other criminal acts require mens rea or “criminal mind”. You have to intend the act which forms the basis of the crime. But you don't have to have an intent to commit the crime. Hence the saying ignorance of the law is no defense. Felony theft is a good example. You steal a bag with what looks like trinkets. You get caught and it's determined those trinkets cost $1000. You're charged with felony theft. You intended to steal the bag, hence you have the “intent” to commit the act. You didn't know it was felony theft but that's irrelevant.

Now trump took the document and intended to take them. He also continued that intent when he was asked to return them and refused. Even were his initial removal of the documents to his private residence without intent, it was no longer the case when he refused to return them and took actions to conceal them.

I understand what you have written above. If Mr. Trump violated the law, there should be consequences.

How does any of that apply to President Biden then?

Surely, as a retired Senator with many years of experience in these matters, he knew that taking and keeping classified materials. It is certain that was unlawful. That he had them could be explained as an oversight. That he retained for do many years them cannot be so construed.

Certainly, Secretary of State Clinton knew that when she left office, retaining classified materials as digital files on unsecured servers was unlawful.

To assume that either of these responsible, experienced and knowledgeable holders of high government office did not intend to retain classified materials in contravention of the applicable laws is ludicrous.

Enforcement of these matters seem uneven to me.

That's plain silliness. Biden returned the documents. He in fact informed the DoJ that he had the docs and had them.take possession. He also authorized them.to search other locations to find other documents. If you can't grasp the difference between that and what Trump did by trying to keep the docs and acting to hide them.so the DoJ couldn't retrieve them, then theres nothing else to say.

As for Hillary, I already explained at length that and you still don't understand the factual difference or what the issue was. Keep in mind, she didnt walk off with paper. She had emails, which were not properly marked when sent to her. Not even close to the same thing.

That's plain silliness. Biden returned the documents. He in fact informed the DoJ that he had the docs and had them.take possession. He also authorized them.to search other locations to find other documents. If you can't grasp the difference between that and what Trump did by trying to keep the docs and acting to hide them.so the DoJ couldn't retrieve them, then theres nothing else to say.

As for Hillary, I already explained at length that and you still don't understand the factual difference or what the issue was. Keep in mind, she didnt walk off with paper. She had emails, which were not properly marked when sent to her. Not even close to the same thing. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

It’s just more MAGA conflatulation

Your recollection is incorrect. And you're wrong as usual. Hillary was not initially investigated for willfully and knowingly possessing documents. In fact, she was Secretary of State and lawfully in possession of the emails that were sent to her. The question that arose was whether the emails were properly designated as classified that were on her server at the time they were sent and whether those designations changed between the time they were sent and were turned over. The other issue was commingling of emails because she used her private email so sorting emails that were work related from private raised questions.

Even on forensic review the FBI could not determine whether Hillary’s emails were actually denoted in the header as classified as they should have been. So no, she is not one of the three. Pence and Biden, both VPs had possession of documents after they left office but they returned them voluntarily. The idiot, Trump in case you couldn't figure that out, refused to give back the documents, lied, had his lawyers lie, moved documents and allowed those documents to be accessed and moved by unauthorized persons. Just stop the stupid arguments and comments. They are not becoming.

My advice to you is stop getting your information from right-wing media. You're constantly wrong and you just appear ignorant by making repeatedly incorrect statements. It's tiresome and insulting. Noone wants to try to have a reasonable conversation or debate with someone who continues to intentionally operate on a fact deficit. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

... ... Ok... Reckon THAT explains it...

#### Salty