Image 01 Image 03

‘Uncle Leo Defense’ Works For Biden in Special Counsel Report: No Charges For An “Elderly Man With a Poor Memory”

‘Uncle Leo Defense’ Works For Biden in Special Counsel Report: No Charges For An “Elderly Man With a Poor Memory”

I don’t know which is worse, that they let Biden off or that we have an “elderly man with a poor memory” in the Oval Office. // UPDATE: BIDEN PRESS CONFERENCE DISASTER,

You remember Uncle Leo from Seinfeld, whose defense to shoplifting was “I’m an old man, I’m confused.”

Didn’t work for him in the bookstore, but it worked for Joe Biden in the Special Counsel investigation into his deliberate retention of classified documents.

Special counsel Robert Hur has declined to prosecute President Joe Biden for his handling of classified documents, but said Biden’s practices “present serious risks to national security” and added that Biden portrayed himself as an “elderly man with a poor memory” who would be sympathetic to a jury.

“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” the report said, but added that the evidence “does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ….

Hur’s report included several shocking lines about Biden’s memory, which the report said “was significantly limited” during his 2023 interviews with the special counsel. Biden’s age and presentation would make it more difficult to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the now-81-year-old was guilty of willfully committing a crime.

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” it said. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Later in the report, the special counsel said that the president’s memory was “worse” during an interview with him than it was in recorded conversations from 2017.

“He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013 — when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’),” the report said.

Biden also had difficulty remembering the timing of his son Beau’s death, as well as a debate about Afghanistan.

“He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died,” the report said.

You can read the full report here.

Yes, of course it reeks of hypocrisy vis-a-vis Trump. I taped a segment on Jesse Kelly show that will run tonight pointing out the one obvious difference in the cases, that there’s no allegation Biden played hide-and-seek with the documents once the feds sought them (which is the allegation against Trump in the Florida case, which I have long argued is his most serious risk). But still, it’s hard not to see that in the Trump records case the feds did their best to find a reason to indict him, whereas in the Biden records case they did their best to find a reason not to indict Biden — including the Uncle Leo Defense.

I don’t know which is worse, that they let Biden off or that we have an “elderly man with a poor memory” in the Oval Office.

UPDATE:

Apparently Joey Bananas had a press conference tonight in reaction to the Special Counsel report, but I missed it.

Here’s how people are reacting:

MEANWHILE

This is what much of America, who didn’t watch the press conference, will hear:

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


 
 0 
 
 35
Peabody | February 8, 2024 at 5:10 pm

Biden is not eligible to run for office because according to the constitution, vegetables are allowed on the menu but not on the ballot.


 
 0 
 
 21
TheOldZombie | February 8, 2024 at 5:16 pm

This is what the Democrats will use to push Biden out of the 2024 race and possibly out of office if they feel they have too do that.

They now have a report from a “trusted outsider” who isn’t on the right and confirms that Biden’s memory is shot full of holes. This gives them the cover to move against him.

But I think it’s going to make things harder for them. President Harris is going to make people wish for Biden as crazy as that sounds.


 
 0 
 
 27
healthguyfsu | February 8, 2024 at 5:19 pm

This is such a joke. His current status as a dementia-ridden old man does not excuse crimes committed when his faculties were intact. It’s also for a jury to decide what a reasonable doubt is.


     
     1 
     
     16
    Peabody in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 8, 2024 at 5:21 pm

    Does this open up a case for removal from office under the 25th Amendment due to incapacitation?


       
       1 
       
       7
      Milhouse in reply to Peabody. | February 8, 2024 at 8:55 pm

      Only if the vice president, a majority of the cabinet, and two thirds of each house of congress agree. Removing a president against his will through the 25A is harder than doing so through impeachment.

      The 25A’s removal procedure was intended for two scenarios: (1) the president is not objecting to his removal but is incapable of resigning, e.g. because he’s in a coma, or has had a stroke and is incapable of communicating . (2) The president’s supporters see the need to remove him but don’t want to subject him to the indignity of an impeachment. The amendment was not intended to be used by a president’s opponents. For them the only way to remove him is by impeachment, which only requires a majority of the house and 2/3 of the senate.


     
     0 
     
     3
    filiusdextris in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 8, 2024 at 6:08 pm

    It doesn’t excuse them, but, if true, it means he cannot put up the full defense to which he is entitled.


     
     0 
     
     3
    buck61 in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 8, 2024 at 8:56 pm

    It is up to the prosecution to hammer that point home from the jury selection, to the opening statement, to closing arguments, to jury instructions


     
     2 
     
     6
    Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 8, 2024 at 8:57 pm

    It’s also for a jury to decide what a reasonable doubt is.

    It is, but it’s also for a prosecutor to predict what a jury is likely to do, and it’s unethical to prosecute someone if you believe the jury is likely to acquit him. The report doesn’t say there is reasonable doubt, but that a jury is likely to find it because they’ll like him and want to find an excuse to acquit him.


       
       0 
       
       11
      Ghostrider in reply to Milhouse. | February 8, 2024 at 9:44 pm

      The report on Biden’s improper retention of classified documents is an obvious red herring.

      It is not relevant whether or not Biden “improperly retained” anything. What is relevant is that Biden illegally removed those documents when he had no authority to remove them.

      In other words, he stole those documents.

      The Special Counsel intentionally ignoring the fact that Biden unquestionable stole those documents, which is an indefensible, serious crime, is inexcusable.


       
       1 
       
       0
      buck61 in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 11:40 am

      Just the opposite applies and is quite evident, the government or a plaintiff will often venue shop, looking for a venue that is much more favorable to their case. Just look at the recent immigration bill, they wanted all cases filed in the DC circuit instead of being able to file them locally in the border state that is directly impacted and may not be as favorable to the government.


       
       0 
       
       1
      BierceAmbrose in reply to Milhouse. | February 10, 2024 at 7:18 pm

      “…and it’s unethical to prosecute someone if you believe the jury is likely to acquit him.”

      Aww, how are they supposed to do lawfare for all, then?

      I mean, not everywhere is DC, which would convict anyone they don’t like on any charge the persecution prosecution is willing to bring.

      How’s a right thinking persecutor prosecutor supposed to get elected by declaring who they’re gonna get, no matter what they have to charge, if they can only make charges likely to stand up?

      Besides, I have been reliably informed that there are robust mechanisms for enforcing legal ethics. If bringing specious charges were ethically disqualifying, we’d be running out of legal beagles


     
     0 
     
     3
    wendybar in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 9, 2024 at 5:28 am

    Some of the crimes (records he stole from a skif) were done decades ago.


 
 0 
 
 14
TargaGTS | February 8, 2024 at 5:29 pm

It’s wholly inconceivable that Biden will appear on the ballot this fall. That’s has been increasingly clear for several months and this decision is the coup de grâce of his campaign, irrespective if HE understands that in this moment (he probably doesn’t).

Biden will almost certainly remain in the race until he’s secured enough delegates to guarantee no one else can win on the first ballot…meaning they’ll select their nominee using the star chamber of a brokered convention. My sense is the people who actually run the country know precisely who the nominee is going to be…hopefully that person isn’t Michelle Obama because Trump can’t beat her..nor can any Republican. I hope Republican power-brokers are preparing for the eventuality of a non-Biden nominee.


     
     0 
     
     13
    TheOldZombie in reply to TargaGTS. | February 8, 2024 at 5:39 pm

    I don’t think she’s that unbeatable. It would be tough but I think Trump is the one person who could pull it off if only because he’s the only Republican whose not afraid of the racism charge.


     
     2 
     
     4
    Oracle in reply to TargaGTS. | February 8, 2024 at 6:07 pm

    Governor Gretchen Whitmer in the wings.


       
       0 
       
       1
      TargaGTS in reply to Oracle. | February 8, 2024 at 6:57 pm

      Yes, I agree. If I had to wager today who was going to be their nominee, my money would be on Whitmer. She solves a lot of problems for them; she’s reasonably young. She’s a woman, obviously, with a rich history of championing unborn baby murder and – probably more importantly, she’s a popular incumbent governor in a crucial swing state.

      A couple months ago, a poll in Michigan showed Trump beating Biden in the state by seven or eight points. In that same poll, Trump loses to Whitmer by six or seven points. Worse yet for Trump, arguably the biggest political liability that Whitmer has is her draconian COVID policies. She was one of worst governors in the Republic in this regard. To counter that criticism, all she has to say is: I was following the guidance of the Trump Administration. She would be difficult to beat for a man who lost women in 2020 by 13-points or more.


       
       0 
       
       1
      diver64 in reply to Oracle. | February 9, 2024 at 4:51 pm

      You have to be kidding. Stretchin Gretchen won’t make it past go with her boy toy husband pulling the “do you know who I am” card trying to launch their yacht on the lake for a vacation while the rest of Michigan couldn’t buy seeds for their gardens in the hardware stores


     
     1 
     
     0
    JohnSmith100 in reply to TargaGTS. | February 8, 2024 at 6:10 pm

    Biden’s puppet masters can be prosecuted.


       
       1 
       
       3
      Milhouse in reply to JohnSmith100. | February 8, 2024 at 9:02 pm

      Not for the documents. It’s his crime, and it requires wilfulness. The judge would tell the jury that if he didn’t do it on purpose you must find him not guilty, and the jury would leap on that out.


         
         0 
         
         4
        Ironclaw in reply to Milhouse. | February 8, 2024 at 10:46 pm

        Well it’s quite obvious those documents didn’t find their way home with them on accident. Obviously it was purposeful


         
         1 
         
         9
        henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | February 8, 2024 at 10:55 pm

        It requires wilfulness? I don’t think so.
        When I was privy to classified documents, if I had carried one home with me by mistake I would have been prosecuted for my negligence.


           
           3 
           
           3
          Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | February 9, 2024 at 12:59 am

          The report says that it requires willfulness.

          “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”


           
           1 
           
           7
          TargaGTS in reply to henrybowman. | February 9, 2024 at 6:28 am

          @Milhouse

          That’s a prosecutorial sleight of hand. “Wilful intent’ is required for the statute that they cited, 18 U.S. Code § 798. While I think the elements required for conviction under that statute are still CLEARLY met with the facts outlined in the report, if the prosecutors legitimately felt that they couldn’t prove ‘wilful intent’ they had options. For instance, as henrybowman alludes to above, 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information has a provision that only requires NEGLIGENCE, something James Comey also ignored when he fallaciously claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Hillary Clinton.

          There are roughly a dozen or so officers and enlisted men who are court-martialed EVERY YEAR under 18 U.S. Code § 793 because they handled classified materials in a negligent manner, often materials that aren’t even remotely as highly-classified as what’s alleged here


           
           0 
           
           0
          henrybowman in reply to henrybowman. | February 10, 2024 at 3:05 am

          You’re going to take the word for that of the very same fellow who is the prime mover in letting him off he hook in the first place? I wonder what you might find if you read the actual statutes.


           
           0 
           
           0
          henrybowman in reply to henrybowman. | February 10, 2024 at 3:10 am

          Ha ha! and TargaGTS did it, while I was busy overlooking his post!


         
         0 
         
         0
        diver64 in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 4:52 pm

        Not with classified materials. As someone who had a Top Secret I can tell you intent has nothing to do with it.


         
         0 
         
         0
        BierceAmbrose in reply to Milhouse. | February 10, 2024 at 8:07 pm

        +1 to all the folks saying, “That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.”

        Intent, willfulness, or even awareness are not requried for violations of handlng controlled information.


         
         0 
         
         0
        BierceAmbrose in reply to Milhouse. | February 10, 2024 at 8:32 pm

        Sensitive Information Crimes.

        For little people it doesn’t take much to break Teh Rulz for handling sensitive information. Just from the story of Babbling Brandon’s hand written notes, in The Report:

        — Transcribing sensitive information makes a new controlled document. Failure to record that right is mishandling.

        — Removal and retention are their own, enumerated crimes.

        — You don’t keep such stuff in yr garage, no matter how cool your car. More mishandling.

        — Blabby Brandon read from these notes to his ghost writer (who is reported to have deleted audio recordings of these conversations.) That’s disclosure, to start. (Corporeal Ghost Writer sure looks to have done some of that obstruction stuff.)

        — There’s a catch-all term for un-enumerated ways to screw this up. It doesn’t matter how, you made things worse: now you’re in trouble.

        None of these requires intention, willfulness, or even knowing you’re doing it.

        The Report looks like Brandon is playing under The Hillary Rules.


     
     0 
     
     5
    Ghostrider in reply to TargaGTS. | February 8, 2024 at 10:05 pm

    Wait for it: E Jean Carroll is about to announce that she was raped by Joe Biden in the changing room of a K Mart.

    She had blocked out the memory until today. She remembers the song that was playing on the K Mart store speakers. “If we only had Love”.

    I have read on “the internet” that Obama will run as Mr. 10% Vice President.

    When Mr. 10% resigns, Obama will become president.

    Note that the 22 Amendment does not prevent Obama from running as Vice President:
    Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.


     
     0 
     
     0
    BierceAmbrose in reply to TargaGTS. | February 10, 2024 at 7:20 pm

    Someone among The Feckless R’s figures this out: they swapped out the recent Charlie Brown of RNC chairs.


 
 11 
 
 0
rhhardin | February 8, 2024 at 5:30 pm

It’s an overblown hysteria in both Trump’s case and Biden’s case. Classified documents are no more interesting or volatile than any other bureaucratic memo unless it’s something you worked on, and then only interesting to you.

The hysteria was drummed up to get Trump, and then Biden and everybody else turned out to have done the same thing. Just accounting for the hysteria, which apparently now can’t be turned off because the right is insisting on it.

Nobody reports what was in the documents, for good reason. No hysteria fodder.


     
     0 
     
     15
    mailman in reply to rhhardin. | February 8, 2024 at 5:34 pm

    It’s the double standards that stands out like fucking dogs bollocks.

    HEAVILY armed agents raid Trumps residence for supposed secret documents he had every right to be in possession while Biden is asked when they can get their lawyers to pack all the secret documents he had no right to be in possession in far less secure locations spread across multiple sites with no way of controlling access to said secret documents.


       
       3 
       
       2
      Milhouse in reply to mailman. | February 8, 2024 at 9:06 pm

      Except that, as Prof J. wrote:

      the one obvious difference in the cases, that there’s no allegation Biden played hide-and-seek with the documents once the feds sought them (which is the allegation against Trump in the Florida case


         
         0 
         
         9
        Camperfixer in reply to Milhouse. | February 8, 2024 at 9:52 pm

        Neither did Trump, he was in contact with those who told him to add another lock to the closet door. Biden has his crap all over the garage Robert H. Went into regularly. The allegations are fabricated to paint a false picture of the facts and truth of the matter. Trump did nothing out of the ordinary (heck, Barry has his massive number of documents in a converted Kmart outside Chicago…and that’s okay? Baloney.)


           
           0 
           
           0
          BartE in reply to Camperfixer. | February 12, 2024 at 12:29 pm

          Trump withheld classified documents from the National Archives for over a year, he failed to return documents after a subpoena, they had to raid his home to find yet more classified documents We know that he had documents moved after the subpoena. Your position is absurd on its face.


         
         0 
         
         5
        Ironclaw in reply to Milhouse. | February 8, 2024 at 10:47 pm

        No hide and seek was played. They know exactly where the documents were the whole time


         
         1 
         
         9
        gospace in reply to Milhouse. | February 8, 2024 at 11:43 pm

        Wrong, Milhouse. The one obvious difference is- Trump had declassification authority and all documents in his possession, no matter what they were stamped, were presumptively declassified by him under his authority as POTUS. There is no procedure he has to follow, or form he needs to fill out. He says he did it- he did.


         
         1 
         
         9
        DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 2:18 am

        Trump could play hide and seek with the docs, they were his docs, not the government’s. See my comment elsewhere concerning NARA’s negotiation with Trump for the return of the documents. Does “negotiating” sound like “demand”? No, they’re obviously different. You negotiate to get something in possession of someone who can keep what he has. You demand something from someone who possesses something that’s not his to possess. The “hide and seek” angle is nonsense.


           
           0 
           
           0
          BartE in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 12, 2024 at 12:31 pm

          This is silly, asking nicely doesn’t equate to belonging to someone else. Your just plain wrong on the law. There simply is no legitimate reason for Trump to have held classified docs


         
         1 
         
         2
        mailman in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 5:48 am

        This is pretty stupid even for you Law Jesus 😂

        I would have thought the biggest difference between the two is that one had the ultimate authority to decide what was and was not declassified while the other should NEVER have had the documents in multiple unsecured locations to begin with. But here we are 😂😂


           
           0 
           
           0
          BartE in reply to mailman. | February 13, 2024 at 4:16 am

          Mailman. Trump didn’t declassify anything, the notion that he could declassify with his mind is laughable. Indeed we know from recordings that he knew the documents weren’t declassfied. You haven’t really addressed Milhouses point with respect to ‘playing hide and seek’ which makes the clear case for wilful illegal retention and obstruction.


         
         0 
         
         0
        diver64 in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 4:53 pm

        Doesn’t matter in the least. The “I robbed the bank but gave back the money when they caught me” defense is not a thing.


     
     0 
     
     6
    Ironclaw in reply to rhhardin. | February 8, 2024 at 6:42 pm

    If you’re going to choose a weapon like that you better damn well make sure that your guy ain’t guilty of the same. Because when he is, the other side is in the right not to let you forget about it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Sanddog in reply to rhhardin. | February 8, 2024 at 7:46 pm

    They don’t report what was in the documents because they’re classified.


     
     1 
     
     5
    DaveGinOly in reply to rhhardin. | February 9, 2024 at 2:14 am

    “Classified” documents in the possession of a FPOTUS are “presumptively declassified” because Article I of the Constitution grants to the president ALL executive authority, which includes the authority to classify and declassify documents. (All others in government who perform these functions are exercising authority delegated to them from the president and through their chains of command in the various organizational structures of government). A court reached the above-mentioned conclusion because it makes no sense that a president, who can declassify documents merely by treating them as declassified (e.g., by removing them from the White House as he leaves office) can’t be presumed to be illegally in possession of documents that he could have declassified with a thought. (The are no rules concerning how a president must declassify anything – no processes, no forms, no notice need be given. Congress can’t make such rules for the president, doing so would violate the separation of powers because the president’s executive authority comes directly from the Constitution.)

    OTOH, Biden was the VP when he absconded with classified documents. He had no authority to have them in his possession outside of a secure facility, no authority to declassify them, an no authority to retain them. He violated the law in a way that Trump, as president, couldn’t.

    Recall that NARA was negotiating with Trump for the return of the docs. Why negotiation? Because NARA didn’t have the authority to demand the return of the docs. However, the law does allow the agency that owns the records to demand the return of documents being retained illegally, yet no agency made such a demand of Trump. Why? Because Trump wasn’t retaining the docs illegally. Remember, Jack Smith isn’t really trying to convict Trump. His job is to keep Trump from being re-elected. So it doesn’t matter that the charges are a house of cards, so long as it doesn’t collapse too early.

    NOW, the big question: How are they going to let Mike Pence off the hook? Pence is just as guilty as Biden, and nobody would consider him mentally incompetent for a moment.

    Suggestions?


       
       0 
       
       1
      DaveGinOly in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 9, 2024 at 3:11 am

      Correction: The president’s authority comes from Article II, not Article I.
      My senior moment for the day.


       
       1 
       
       1
      wendybar in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 9, 2024 at 5:32 am

      Biden also stole some from the skif as a Senator decades ago… So he began stealing Classified documents years ago and kept them ALL THIS TIME!!


         
         0 
         
         2
        wagnert in atlanta in reply to wendybar. | February 9, 2024 at 9:23 am

        It’s SKIF, Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. It’s only pronounced skiff. It’s State Department bureaucrat-speak for a secure locked room. You know, like the towel closet in Hilary’s bathroom.


       
       0 
       
       0
      diver64 in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 9, 2024 at 4:55 pm

      You bring up a point I’ve been interested in for quite some time. What, exactly, is the process for a President to declassify information? Since he/she is the supreme authority on this then no-one can question it and no law or court can override The President in this manner. Has it ever been brought before a court? I can find no evidence of this.


         
         0 
         
         0
        BierceAmbrose in reply to diver64. | February 10, 2024 at 8:44 pm

        I’m not aware that it’s been applied pre-Trump.

        The constitutional text reads like Prezzy doesn’t even have to declare “I declassify thee; I declasssify thee; I declasssify thee.”

        Talk off review, approval, and declassification processes are The Cult of Administration asserting that doing the thing is only legit if you did form 27 b stroke 6 right, says them.


           
           0 
           
           0
          BartE in reply to BierceAmbrose. | February 13, 2024 at 5:41 am

          As a practical matter no one reads the constitution like the president can declassify in that manner. Otherwise how does anyone actually know the status of the documents. Its also irrelevant since national security information is a matter of contents not its classified status.


 
 0 
 
 6
zillow24 | February 8, 2024 at 5:37 pm

I have top secret gov documents in my garage that I most likely gave to and got paid from a foreign gov. Why would I not be prosecuted for espionage?
And give up the people that helped me?


     
     4 
     
     4
    Milhouse in reply to zillow24. | February 8, 2024 at 9:10 pm

    Because that “most likely” of yours is doing a lot of work. There is no evidence whatsoever that Biden gave the documents to anyone, or got paid for them, let alone to/by China. You suspect that this is true, but you couldn’t prove it even on the balance of probabilities, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. If there were evidence of it, strong enough to take to a jury, the outcome would have been very different.


       
       1 
       
       10
      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | February 8, 2024 at 10:58 pm

      There’s damn good evidence that Hunter plagiarized analyses contained in these documents and sent the information in them to Burisma. How about that?


         
         3 
         
         6
        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | February 9, 2024 at 1:02 am

        1. Burisma is not a foreign government.

        2. Hunter is not Joe.

        For both these reasons this allegation could not support a prosecution of Joe for espionage.


           
           1 
           
           10
          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 2:36 am

          Joe did not secure the documents. This was negligent. His negligence allowed a person not authorized to view the documents (Hunter) to gain access (and he also intentionally allowed his ghost writer access). These are both criminally negligent. The charges require no intent, it does not matter even if nobody ever saw the papers, as having them unsecured is, by itself, a crime.

          This is what galled me about James Comey’s presser about Hillary’s handling of classified documents. As you may recall, Comey read a laundry list of Hillary’s crimes, but then recommended that no charges be brought, in part because it would be difficult to prove she had intent to violate the law. This was complete bullshit. There are two types of laws concerning classified docs and information. The first are the laws against espionage, the intentional theft and distribution of classified materials. The second are the laws that cover negligence – the failure to do that which someone has a responsibility/obligation to do – such as to keep classified documents secure. Hillary was, at least, guilty of negligence, merely by the way she stored the information, and so is Joe.

          Remember the case of the submariner who took a photo of himself for his girlfriend? The photos inadvertently captured a background in which classified equipment could be seen. He was prosecuted and found guilty of negligence with respect to the classified equipment, which he had a duty to keep secure. Hillary, Joe, and Mike Pence are all guilty of the same offense. They had classified information/documents in their possession and failed to properly secure it, in violation of the law. It doesn’t even matter if they were authorized to possess it or not. Unauthorized possession is an entirely different kettle of fish, a kettle in which Pence and Biden should also be boiled.


           
           2 
           
           1
          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 3:10 am

          Dave, that does not add up to a charge of espionage, which is what we are discussing.


           
           1 
           
           5
          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 3:45 am

          Replying her because the thread terminated with your last comment.

          I’m pointing out that it doesn’t matter that there was no espionage. Joe violated the law/committed crimes. But there was espionage.

          Joe shared classified information with his ghost writer. This is espionage.

          Delivery of classified information to a foreign government or agent is not a necessary element of the charge. Unlawful, intentional exposure of classified information to anyone not authorized to have it is espionage. (While accidental exposure, as in the submariner’s case, is negligence.)

          From the first information source I found:
          “…President William Howard Taft signed into law the Defense Secrets Act of 1911, criminalizing both the collection of information from military installations and facilities, and the sharing of sensitive information with those who lacked appropriate clearances.”
          https://www.intelligence.gov/evolution-of-espionage/world-war-1/america-declares-war/espionage-act


           
           1 
           
           2
          wendybar in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 5:33 am

          Accidently upvoted you.


           
           0 
           
           0
          diver64 in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 4:58 pm

          Doesn’t matter. Classified material can be disseminated to no-one without prior approval and certainly not to civilian entities without approval. This is not something taken lightly. As for Hunter not being Joe, that makes it worse. Hunter got the information from Joe which makes Joe liable to treason.
          You should really know something on the subject before posting such nonsense


           
           0 
           
           0
          zillow24 in reply to Milhouse. | February 10, 2024 at 9:19 am

          By your reply you have not read the full report.


 
 0 
 
 4
starride | February 8, 2024 at 5:39 pm

If he is too incompetent to be tried, why isn’t the 25th being invoked…. wouldn’t his memory issues prevent him from being competent enough for holding and performing the duties of the office of the president.

The report speaks for itself. But it also calls into question the faculties of people that continue to praise this obviously deficient man.


 
 1 
 
 6
ghost dog | February 8, 2024 at 5:49 pm

If he’s to incompetent to be tried, is he to incompetent to issue pardons?


     
     2 
     
     2
    Milhouse in reply to ghost dog. | February 8, 2024 at 9:14 pm

    Nope. The report doesn’t say he’s incompetent. It says that his feebleness would appeal to a jury, and wilfulness is an element of the crime, so they would just find that he forgot. That doesn’t make him incompetent. How much competence do you need to pardon someone?


       
       1 
       
       4
      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | February 8, 2024 at 11:00 pm

      So then, a prosecutor inclined to find a reason to drop a case has only to “predict” how a jury will vote. Remind me why we need juries at all.


         
         2 
         
         3
        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | February 9, 2024 at 1:05 am

        We need juries to convict someone, not to acquit them. Judges can dismiss charges and not let them through to the jury, or even to trial. And prosecutors can drop charges or choose not to lay them in the first place. And it’s unethical for a prosecutor to bring a case that he doesn’t believe he can win. That would be putting the accused through the ordeal of a trial just for the sake of punishing him.


       
       0 
       
       3
      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 2:39 am

      No doubt his feebleness appeals to Putin and Xi too.


     
     0 
     
     2
    Sanddog in reply to ghost dog. | February 9, 2024 at 2:09 am

    They gave their assessment based on interviews. They can’t come out and say he has dementia because that’s a medical diagnosis. Their position is that if it ever went to trial and they didn’t hold a competency hearing, a jury would conclude on their own that Biden is mentally incompetent.


 
 1 
 
 8
Gremlin1974 | February 8, 2024 at 5:53 pm

I would like to see the testing that allows the prosecutor to make such diagnostic statements. Doesn’t it usually take a medical opinion to say someone is to impaired to stand trial.

However, as far as the determination I am about as surprised as I was when Comey spent an hour listing Hillary’s blantiant crimes and then announced no prosecution.


     
     0 
     
     1
    gonzotx in reply to Gremlin1974. | February 8, 2024 at 6:12 pm

    A million times ^^^^^^^


     
     2 
     
     1
    Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | February 8, 2024 at 9:16 pm

    No medical opinion is needed. This is not a medical decision, it’s a legal one. The prosecutor didn’t say he’s incapable of standing trial, he said a jury would acquit him. And the only relevant diagnostic for that is how he presents himself. The prosecutor said that if he presents himself to the jury the way he did to us when we interviewed him, the jury will acquit him, so there’s no point in prosecuting him. You don’t prosecute someone out of spite.


     
     0 
     
     1
    DaveGinOly in reply to Gremlin1974. | February 9, 2024 at 2:49 am

    The investigators did not make a medical diagnoses. The special prosecutor is of the legal opinion that Joe’s condition creates a viable route for Biden’s defense to defeat a prosecution (either formally, by way of an examination, or informally, by allowing the jury to observe Joe’s condition themselves), and, because of this, prosecuting him may be a waste of time.


 
 1 
 
 1
thad_the_man | February 8, 2024 at 5:56 pm

This is the Ron Jeremy defense ( look it up).


     
     0 
     
     2
    starride in reply to thad_the_man. | February 8, 2024 at 6:01 pm

    He had syphilis dementia. Not that I couldn’t see Biden suffering from it as well


     
     2 
     
     1
    Milhouse in reply to thad_the_man. | February 8, 2024 at 9:19 pm

    No, it isn’t. The claim isn’t that he’s incapable of standing trial. It’s that his feebleness and poor memory will be a defense on a charge for which wilfulness is an essential element, and the jury would sympathize with him and seize on that to acquit him.


       
       1 
       
       2
      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | February 8, 2024 at 11:01 pm

      Ironic, in light of you telling someone else recently that his “‘probably’ was doing a lot of heavy lifting.”


         
         2 
         
         1
        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | February 9, 2024 at 1:09 am

        He was demanding that a criminal charge be laid against someone, based entirely on his own view that the person had probably committed the crime. I pointed out that there is no evidence that he has done so.

        Here we have a prosecutor whose job it is to predict what juries are likely to do, deciding not to bring charges because in his professional view a jury is very unlikely to convict.


       
       1 
       
       3
      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 2:56 am

      But willfulness is not an element of Joe’s crime. The charge for insecure storage of classified documents is negligence, even when the docs are in the possession of someone authorized to have them (like Hillary). Negligence in this situation is proven by showing that Joe didn’t do something (keep the docs secure) that he had a responsibility to do. It doesn’t matter if the docs were unsecure intentionally or not. See my comments on this elsewhere on this page.


         
         1 
         
         3
        DaveGinOly in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 9, 2024 at 3:02 am

        BTW, it also doesn’t matter if he “willfully” retained the documents or not. They were in his possession, he was someone with an obligation to keep classified documents secure, and he did not. Even if he didn’t know they were in his possession, negligence still applies. Otherwise many people who have been convicted of negligence for accidental, unintentional mishaps with classified docs and information were wrongly convicted.


         
         1 
         
         2
        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 9, 2024 at 3:21 am

        Hur knows the relevant law better than either of us, and he says willfulness is an element of the crime.

        As for Kristian Saucier, he didn’t just take a selfie for his girlfriend that “inadvertently captured a background in which classified equipment could be seen”. He deliberately took six pictures of classified equipment, so he could show his family and future children what he did in the navy. He knew they were classified, and that what he was doing was illegal, and took care to destroy evidence of his crime.


           
           1 
           
           1
          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 4:19 am

          I stand corrected. I see Saucier was convicted not of espionage nor of negligence, but rather of “unauthorized retention of national defense information” which is a different statute from those concerning either espionage or negligent handling of classified information. (Now I recall the pivot DOJ made after discovering that Joe and Mike had classified docs. They then began to accuse Trump of having “national security documents” which he failed to “surrender upon demand.” This is not the same as unauthorized possession of classified documents, because not all “national security documents” are classified. I believe they did this to avoid comparisons of Trump’s situation with that of Joe and Mike, but I don’t think they had a lot of success conveying that idea to the public. Trump has, in fact, been charged with violation of this part of the statute within the Espionage Act in a superseding indictment. Please note that a charge under the act doesn’t necessarily involve espionage, as the act includes both intentional and negligent acts, and acts that do not constitute espionage.)

          Willfulness is an element of the crime of espionage. It’s not an element of the crime of negligent handling of classified materials. People who have accidentally mishandled such materials have been prosecuted.

          Stephen Vladeck, an American University law professor and national security law expert, said…(the government can) threaten punishment for anyone who through “gross negligence” allows national defense information to be removed from its proper place of custody.
          (From https://phys.org/news/2016-01-federal-cases.html)

          So while some potential charges against Joe require willfulness, others don’t.


           
           0 
           
           0
          henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | February 10, 2024 at 3:28 am

          “Hur knows the relevant law better than either of us, and he says willfulness is an element of the crime.”

          Hur gets to choose to charge Biden with a crime he knows he will skate on, while failing to charge him with a crime he is certainly guilty of

          Man, Milhouse, if you ever see a guy on the street swapping red Solo cups around on a table… run, don’t walk, the other way.


       
       0 
       
       0
      diver64 in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 5:02 pm

      You are so clutching at straws. Just stop the arguing for the sake of arguing to boost your self esteem.


 
 0 
 
 10
TargaGTS | February 8, 2024 at 5:58 pm

It’s going to be fascinating to see what the headlines of the NYT and WaPo will be tomorrow. It’s been the best day Trump has seen…maybe since he killed Soleimani. They’re going to have to figure out a way to not convey that to their readers.


 
 0 
 
 8
ChrisPeters | February 8, 2024 at 6:00 pm

Traitor Joe has probably forgotten he is supposed to be president of the United States, and not China.


 
 0 
 
 6
alaskabob | February 8, 2024 at 6:14 pm

And Michael Mann of overly bent hockey stick fame prevailed in a D.C. trial against Mark Steyn. Not so much a trial as a vindication of D.C. ideology …. a rubber stamp (p)resident and numerous rubber stamp trials.


 
 0 
 
 9
ThePrimordialOrderedPair | February 8, 2024 at 6:26 pm

willfully retained

STOLE

Dementia Joe isn’t competent to hold office.

Guilty as charged.

I don’t want criminal trials of sitting presidents, even if they shoot someone on 5th Avenue in broad daylight. Wait until after the impeachment and removal from office.

So basically wait until Jan 20, 2025, after noon. But according to this report he’s already too mentally feeble.

Ron Jeremy has escaped prosecution for numerous sex assault charges because of his dementia, instead he is in a mental hospital. And you don’t get better.

Biden goes home, Harris gets to be president but is much too busy to run, so the Dems get to anoint their choice.


 
 0 
 
 6
Sanddog | February 8, 2024 at 7:34 pm

If they can’t prosecute Biden because he’s senile and it would be impossible to prove intent from years ago, he shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the white house.

:An “Elderly Man With a Poor Memory.”

The same holds for Trump. Why; can’t we find anyone other than these 2 senile geezers to represent us as the most powerful nation in the world? What the hell is wrong with America?


 
 0 
 
 5
George_Kaplan | February 8, 2024 at 8:01 pm

If Biden isn’t fit to stand trial, then how is he fit to hold office?


     
     0 
     
     4
    MarkS in reply to George_Kaplan. | February 8, 2024 at 8:31 pm

    he isn’t


     
     1 
     
     1
    Milhouse in reply to George_Kaplan. | February 8, 2024 at 9:25 pm

    Again,

    1. Nobody is claiming he’s unfit to stand trial. That is not what the report says at all.

    2. In any case there is no standard for fitness for office. It’s up to the vice president and cabinet to decide whether the president is unfit, in their judgment, and if he objects then it takes a 2/3 vote in each house to remove him. If he says he’s fit, and 146 reps, or 34 senators agree, then he’s fit.


       
       0 
       
       7
      Camperfixer in reply to Milhouse. | February 8, 2024 at 9:57 pm

      Lawyers parsing words to avoid stating the obvious: The man is addled-brained and needs to be home with a care nurse…and Jill should be horsewhipped for allowing this to continue.


       
       0 
       
       6
      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 3:07 am

      It’s true that nobody is claiming Biden isn’t fit to stand trial. But did the special prosecutor’s report describe someone who is or isn’t fit to stand trial? Did the report describe someone fit or unfit for the office of the presidency?

      It’s my takeaway that this was intentional. The special prosecutor didn’t want to say “Joe Biden isn’t competent to stand trial.” But his description of Biden’s obvious mental deficiencies blares that message.


 
 0 
 
 3
CommoChief | February 8, 2024 at 8:17 pm

The d/prog gonna have a fun time answering the many repetitions of the question many are posing in the thread. This makes the basement campaign strategy a little tougher to pull off outside the true believing kool aid drinkers. I suspect Biden gonna shed voters if he can’t/won’t go out on the campaign trail, hold more Q/A with the press corps and agree to at least one debate.


     
     0 
     
     5
    Ironclaw in reply to CommoChief. | February 8, 2024 at 10:56 pm

    I concur, and honestly if Trump is willing to push the limits, he should certainly use this and Joe’s supposed senility to goad him into a debate. After all, if he won’t debate, he must be too senile to handle it.

During his presser on this subject he confused the president of Egypt with the president of Mexico


 
 0 
 
 7
TargaGTS | February 8, 2024 at 8:55 pm

It was the Hindenburg of presidential press conferences. I can’t say that I remember one that went worse for a president. Tonight’s performance was predictable. The only reason his handlers would have allowed is if they want to put him in this position…an untenable position for him to continue to seek reelection. They know he can’t beat Trump, or anyone else, and they want to force his hand.

I think the DNC Convention is mind to late August. I expect these passive-agressive attacks on Biden from within his own White House will continue until August if he doesn’t drop out before then.


     
     0 
     
     6
    Olinser in reply to TargaGTS. | February 8, 2024 at 9:03 pm

    He won’t drop out until enough delegates have voted to ensure nobody can win on the first ballot. Then the DNC can crown their nominee without having to worry about those stupid peasant voters.


 
 0 
 
 11
Olinser | February 8, 2024 at 9:02 pm

And by the way, in any even slightly sane world, any finding that they can’t be held liable for mishandling classified information because of their mental capacity, should come with AN IMMEDIATE REVOCATION OF SECURITY CLEARANCE.

Democrats are a joke.


     
     1 
     
     3
    Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | February 8, 2024 at 9:28 pm

    A president’s security clearance can’t be revoked, by definition, because he doesn’t need one, and because security clearances for other people exist only by his decision.


       
       0 
       
       1
      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 9, 2024 at 3:11 am

      Spot-on, Milhouse. Article II of the Constitution gives the president ALL executive powers. Everyone else in the executive is exercising authority that’s been delegated from the president down through the chain of command/organizational structure. Nobody gives the POTUS a security clearance, nobody can take it away (because he doesn’t have one).


         
         0 
         
         0
        CommoChief in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 9, 2024 at 6:46 am

        In office yes. Beyond the end of their term of office a former POTUS becomes like everyone else and their access to classified information is subject to the same rules/laws and decisions of the current POTUS.

So Biden actually goes on national tv and challenges Hur’s report that he has memory issues, well Hur, put it in front of a jury and let them decide.
based on this conclusion.
What element of a crime is not beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming your evidence is beyond reproach
“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” the report said, but added that the evidence “does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ….


     
     1 
     
     1
    Milhouse in reply to buck61. | February 8, 2024 at 9:30 pm

    It’s pretty simple. “Our investigation uncovered evidence that he did it wilfully”. Not proof beyond reasonable doubt. A sympathetic jury will find that it was not wilful, and therefore will acquit him.


     
     0 
     
     3
    jakebizlaw in reply to buck61. | February 9, 2024 at 2:23 am

    This was Hur going as far as he could in his report after being instructed not to recommend prosecution, His grounds for not prosecuting are a mockery of Biden and his response/defense to the investigators, Hur knows damn well that he had probable cause to indict and that Biden’s only defenses would be sympathy or pity.

Put me on the jury, the Uncle Leo excuse will get him an extra 5 years in a Super Max.

Haley comparing Trump to Biden. She’s becoming a cross between Clinton and Cheney. She’s dishonest.


 
 0 
 
 3
Ghostrider | February 8, 2024 at 10:15 pm

Democrats are at a loss of words about what Joe Biden has done to improve this country.

Democrats keep stating how bad MAGA is, but when you ask them for an explanation on what the Democrats have done except run this country into the ground, they have no response.

Well, I can help them in their cause.

Ever since I changed my pronouns, Joe Biden let me play in a women’s league so I could crush them and win all sorts of awards.


 
 1 
 
 10
Ironclaw | February 8, 2024 at 10:31 pm

So finally the Communists are admitting what we’ve all been pointing out for the last several years, the senile old retarded pedophile is mentally incapable of doing the job.

Millhouse, please correct me if I am wrong here. IMO Biden is really not being charged because he would be incapable of participating in his own defense, a legal requirement in our system. It was “convenient” not to mention that explicitly in the report. But, it sure seemed to be covered implicitly. On the other hand, being capable of doing the job is not a legal requirement to be President (Woodrow Wilson, after his stroke). Removal is not even mandatory under the 25th Amendment.


     
     1 
     
     3
    Milhouse in reply to jb4. | February 9, 2024 at 1:17 am

    That is your opinion, but as you acknowledge the report doesn’t say that, and I don’t see any implication of it. You’re just speculating that the reasons given are a cover, and this is the real reason. I guess that’s possible, but I see nothing to support it.

    What the report seems to say is that he’s guilty as hell, but it will be impossible to convict him. The implication I see is that the prosecutor doesn’t believe his “Uncle Leo” act, but thinks a jury will buy it because they will want to buy it. Which means that in the exact same circumstances he would have charged Trump, because juries are likely to want to convict him and will therefore not be looking for excuses to acquit.

We need Biden for 4 more years so he can really push for that train he’s promised that goes from California to India.


 
 0 
 
 0
Peter Floyd | February 9, 2024 at 9:13 am

This entire case will increase Trump’s lead in the polls, meaning the organized crime syndicate masquerading as Democrats will have to turn up the ballot stuffing this November. Can’t wait to see those 3 Trillion deficits keep rolling in and a war with Russia, China, and Iran all at the same time. Let alone Disease “X” or whatever they call it. The USA is finished.


 
 0 
 
 0
destroycommunism | February 9, 2024 at 11:42 am

The DOJ announces their new list of those who can NOT be prosecuted:

we at the DOJ believe it is easier to list WHO CAN BE PROSECUTED:

ALL WHITES WHO IDENTIFY AS PATRIOTS OF THE

“OLD” AMERICA

we thank you for your understanding


 
 0 
 
 1
destroycommunism | February 9, 2024 at 11:44 am

NOW THEY WILL INSERT KAMALALA INTO OFFICE

SO THEY CAN ONCE AGAIN CLAIM

THEY WERE THE FIRST TO GET A BLACK FEMALE INTO

THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLACEMENT OF A LIFETIME


 
 0 
 
 0
destroycommunism | February 9, 2024 at 11:46 am

further investigation has found that the “value”

of the paper was under the $950 freebie limit as dictated by blm>soros

law

biden is now innocent


 
 0 
 
 0
destroycommunism | February 9, 2024 at 11:48 am

btw,,this alllll leads back to obama

obama ALLOWED HIS VP TO TAKE THESE DOCUMENTS

take THATTTT TO THE BANK


 
 0 
 
 0
Tom Orrow | February 9, 2024 at 11:56 am

The fix is in.


 
 0 
 
 1
BiteYourTongue | February 9, 2024 at 1:02 pm

This is crazy reasoning by Hur, Biden can’t be tried because he’s now an old man who has lost his marbles. The question should be, was Biden in possession of his mind when he committed the acts of stealing and disseminating classified information. None of which he had a right to do as a senator or a VP. Claiming that Biden cooperated with the investigation is a joke, since he held onto that information for decades. This is same garbage Comey pulled with Hillary Clinton.


 
 0 
 
 1
scaulen | February 9, 2024 at 2:19 pm

They never once went over the fact that he had no right to have the documents in the first place as he was not the President when he walked off with them.


 
 0 
 
 2
scaulen | February 9, 2024 at 2:20 pm

You can’t use the Uncle Leo defense when he had taken the documents long before he became senile.


     
     0 
     
     1
    willow in reply to scaulen. | February 9, 2024 at 2:44 pm

    The answer is a competency hearing to officially determine whether he is competent to stand trail. People are glazing over that when he took the documents at the time, he knew. Trump has argued that he declassified the documents, that they are his; right or wrong, he is making the claim. Biden never had any argument for taking the documents.


 
 0 
 
 1
Philip J. Vecchio | February 9, 2024 at 2:33 pm

Let’s not forget that Hunter Biden likely had access to at least one classified document about Ukraine and proceeded to repeat the contents of that document in an email to his business associate, Devon Archer. Neither Hunter Biden nor Devon Archer had security clearance. See the comments of U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R – Wisconsin) as revealed by Miranda Devine in an article published in the NY Post on January 25, 2023.

How many times have we been told that Hunter Biden is a “private citizen” and that Joe Biden never spoke to his son about his businesses?


 
 0 
 
 0
mjm2112 | February 9, 2024 at 3:13 pm

Questions for yoos lawyermen:

1) Can you not be prosecuted for provable crimes committed pre-braindead? (Or, at least mostly pre-braindead.)

2) If not, is it because you cannot – according to someone’s opinion – contribute to your defense?


     
     0 
     
     1
    willow in reply to mjm2112. | February 9, 2024 at 3:22 pm

    If he cannot contribute to his own defense, he cannot serve as president. The person who wrote the report knew this.


       
       0 
       
       0
      mjm2112 in reply to willow. | February 10, 2024 at 10:47 am

      Your assumptions do not answer my specific questions.

      We all know Babblin’ Joe is unfit for the Oval Office, or any, and most of us with that knowledge understand it has nothing to do with his current medical condition (see: “a drunk killed my wife” – 2001, 2007, 2008)

      Yet Hur’s refusal to recommend indictment based on jury “sympathy” despite direct evidence of competent “willful” criminal conduct 6, 7, 8 years ago is, to me, absolutely absurd.


 
 0 
 
 1
CaptTee | February 9, 2024 at 9:34 pm

I compare this to Hillary Clinton not being prosecuted for mishandling classified information, because “She didn’t mean to do it.” even though the law doesn’t allow an “intent” excuse. You either mishandled classified information or you did not.
A justice system for senior Democrats and another for the rest of us is not really a justice system.


 
 0 
 
 0
henrybowman | February 10, 2024 at 3:50 am

“He’s stupid. He’s a narcissist. He’s senile. And he’s an asshole who blames other people for his failures.”

There you go.
Now try your hand at describing you people who denied for three full years how much of a senile, narcissistic asshole Biden actually is.

Ghostrider: What is relevant is that Biden illegally removed those documents when he had no authority to remove them.

Many of the documents are Biden’s own notes. Biden has had the right to possess classified documents in the past. Pence also had classified documents in his possession.

TargaGTS: For instance, as henrybowman alludes to above, 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information has a provision that only requires NEGLIGENCE

The Supreme Court has ruled that conviction under the Espionage Act requires “scienter and bad faith”. See Gorin v. United States.

gospace: Trump had declassification authority and all documents in his possession, no matter what they were stamped, were presumptively declassified by him under his authority as POTUS.

Presumptively? Seriously? You mean everything in Trump’s possession was declassified? The nuclear codes? The location of U.S. nuclear submarines? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Classification isn’t required under the law, but whether or not the documents are relating to the national defense. Classification is still a legal issue, however, because the court ordered Trump to return any documents marked classified. Instead, he allegedly tried to hide them from the government.

DaveGinOly : Does “negotiating” sound like “demand”?

Once the court issued an order, after a hearing and the opportunity for appeal, Trump had no choice under the law but to return the documents under subpoena.

DaveGinOly : Biden was the VP when he absconded with classified documents.

Vice President Biden had original classification authority under Executive Order #13526.

BiteYourTongue: The question should be, was Biden in possession of his mind when he committed the acts of stealing and disseminating classified information.

The report indicates that he is and was capable of forming intent, but that the jury would likely believe him when he says the documents were mixed up with his private records or that he forgot to return the documents.

This story isn’t over … there seems to be 9 boxes of documents missing from the Hur report

Chuck Grassley
@ChuckGrassley
Last yr in response 2 Grassley-Johnson oversight the Natl Archives said they picked up 9 boxes of potentially classified Biden docs & FBI reviewed the contents Where were those 9 boxes mentioned in Hur’s report? NOWHERE Im asking for an explanation We need 2 know what was in them
https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1757145031809384758

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.