Marcy Wheeler, at her Empty Wheel blog, submits the nearly 400-page Robert K. Hur report to a close textual analysis and concludes that his long-winded effort to find evidence of Biden’s criminality produced nothing other than his gratuitous and mean-spirited comments about Biden’s mental health. The full post is not reproduced here. Open the link to finish it.
She begins:
In the middle of his explanation for why he believed that Joe Biden had willfully retained classified records pertaining to Afghanistan but that he couldn’t prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, Special Counsel Robert Hur admitted that jurors “who are unwilling to read too much into” what Hur describes as an 8-word utterance would find his case lacking.
But reasonable jurors who are unwilling to read too much into Mr. Biden’s brief aside to Zwonitzer–“I just found all the classified stuff downstairs”–may find a shortage of evidence to establish that Mr. Biden looked through the “Facts First” folder, which is the only folder known to contain national defense information. These jurors would acquit Mr. Biden of willfully retaining national defense information from the “Facts First” folder.
I’m puzzled how this is not a confession that he, Hur, was really reading too much into two file folders the FBI found in a box in Biden’s garage.
Indeed, that’s what two bizarre chapters in his story are, Hur the novelist, spinning a story about this box because, he admitted much earlier, this is the best he’s got.
As explained in Chapter Eleven, the strongest case for criminal charges against Mr. Biden relating to the Afghanistan documents would rest on his retention of the documents at the Virginia home in 2017.
The only other retained documents he even considered charging were Biden’s diaries, which Biden seems to have kept under the Presidential Records Act’s exclusion of diaries from the definition of Presidential Records (though Hur included a picture of Biden taking notes in one of these notebooks during a key meeting in the Situation Room, so that notebook, at least, was a Presidential Record).
(3) The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes–
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
To sustain his claim that those notebooks represented willful retention that he couldn’t prove, Hur got in a squabble about the precedent set by Ronald Reagan’s diaries, which similarly included classified information, but which weren’t charged even after they bcame key evidence in the Iran-Contra investigation. Biden had a precedent to rely on, and so Hur didn’t charge.
So left with only the box in the garage to appease the Republicans, Hur worked backward from this reference in a conversation Biden had with his ghost writer in 2017, the 66-word utterance on which he built a 388-page report:
So this was – I, early on, in ’09-I just found all the classified stuff downstairs-I wrote the President a handwritten 40-page memorandum arguing against deploying additional troops to Iraq-I mean, to Afghanistan-on the grounds that it wouldn’t matter, that the day we left would be like the day before we arrived. And I made the same argument … I wrote that piece 11 or 12 years ago. [my emphasis]
Only Hur didn’t call it a 66-word utterance. He called it an 8-word utterance, repeating those bolded eight words 23 times in the report without mention of the 40-page memorandum that Biden mentioned in the same sentence. Only once did he provide the full context.
Biden’s attorneys argued that given that Biden mentioned it in the very same sentence, it’s more likely that Biden was referring to that memo than two folders of documents found in a box in Biden’s garage.
We believe that an accurate recitation of the evidence on this point would recognize the strong likelihood that the President was referring in the recording to his private handwritten letter to President Obama — the one mentioned on this recording immediately after the eight words that you are focused on — rather than the marked classified Afghanistan documents discovered in the Wilmington garage.
There were drafts of the memo — which Biden wrote over Thanksgiving in 2009 in an attempt to dissuade President Obama from surging more troops into Afghanistan — in the box in the garage, but the FBI found the hand-written memo itself stored elsewhere in Biden’s Wilmington home. It too had classified information in it, but Hur treated it like the diaries it was found in, something Biden wrongly treated as a personal document.
Because these documents on Afghanistan were the only thing he had, Hur went to some length to spin a story that might be consistent with Biden finding those documents in a rental house in Virginia in early 2017 and, just weeks after having sent other marked classified documents back to the Naval Observatory, deciding to keep them.
Part of that involved telling two stories, which narratively collapse events from 2017 with the discovery of the documents in question, to provide motive.
Hur’s first attempt suggested that Biden willfully retained these documents to help write his book, Promise Me, Dad, on which he was working with the ghost writer to whom he mentioned classified documents.
MR. BIDEN’S SECOND BOOK, PROMISE ME, DAD, AND THE DISCOVERY OF CLASSIFIED AFGHANISTAN DOCUMENTS
Like many presidents, Mr. Biden has long viewed himself as a historic figure. Elected to the Senate at age twenty-nine, he considered running for president as early as 1980 and did so in 1988, 2008, and 2020. During his thirty-six years in the Senate, Mr. Biden believed he had built a record in both domestic and foreign affairs that made him worthy of the presidency.
In addition to the notebooks and notecards on which he took notes throughout his vice presidency, Mr. Biden collected papers and artifacts related to noteworthy issues and events in his public life. He used these materials to write memoirs published in 2007 and 2017, to document his legacy, and to cite as evidence that he was a man of presidential timber.
Only, that story didn’t work, because Promise Me, Dad wasn’t about Afghanistan, it was about Beau’s death and Biden’s subsequent decision not to run for President in 2016. And while Hur tried to fudge what surely was the result of a classification review, that book had no classified information in it.
Please open the link to finish this excellent exegesis of the Hur report.

Hur himself says in his report that Biden’s book contained no classified information.
LikeLike
Bob, I am surprised you would even comment on this thread. When I told you my take on Hur’s report was from Marcy Wheeler, and referred to her website to contradict your citing of Hur’s report to support your views, your “thoughtful” response was:
“TED: I ordered a replacement part for the sprinkler, but it has not arrived yet.
CAROL: There’s a package from Amazon on the porch.
TED: No it isn’t. I asked Jonie about this a bit ago. She said it hadn’t arrived.
CAROL: Ted, I just came in. I saw the package myself. It’s there. It’s on the porch. I just told you that. I would have brought it in myself, but my arms were full of grocery bags.
TED: Who am I going to believe, you, or Jonie’s expert analysis? She orders from Amazon all the time. Only one of these has a long history of sound analysis and readily admitting when she is wrong.
Yeah, NYC. That makes sense. ROFL.”
Bob, your response speaks for itself.
LikeLike
Diane, really appreciate you posting this.
THANK YOU!!!!!
LikeLike
NYC, thanks for the lead!!
LikeLike
You are very welcome.
You and Marcy Wheeler are among the remaining people with microphones who don’t get sucked into amplifying right wing narratives (even when some of your regular commenters do).
In a time when the so-called liberal media thinks “I read the report” substitutes for analysis of what is true and not true, people like you and Marcy Wheeler are two of the remaining guardians of our democracy.
LikeLike
Thank you. As the saying goes, “I have nothing left to lose.” There’s nothing I want.
LikeLike
We Shall Overcomey, Again …
LikeLike
Exactly!
LikeLike
Hur auditioning to be Trump’s next William Barr.
LikeLike
Fred, either Trump’s AG or a judgeship
LikeLike
yup
LikeLike
I am so sick of that dumpster and his magas. They are grasping and so they LIE. “Lying and committing violence” are all they have.
That is, the dumpster and his magas don’t think critically, nor do they read; all they can do is yell obscenities, cause violence, and tell LIES. And yet they invoke “Jesus’ name as they foist violence on others and America.
LikeLike
Yvonne,
Whenever you hear Trump spew venom, ask WWJD?
LikeLike
Good question, Diane.
I saw the silent film Birth of A Nation by D.W. Griffith copyright 1915. This is one of the scariest movie I have ever seen with the KKK as heroes.
ONE of the most scary part was the image of Jesus rising condoning the many acts of violence against Blacks.
Every senior in high school and those in college should view this silent film…in light of what’s happening today.
LikeLike
Great suggestion.
There’s a meme on Twitter called Republican Jesus. He’s carrying an AR-15 and refusing to help anyone in need.
LikeLike
MAGA won’t read this either. MAGA only drinks from fascist propaganda more toxic and dangerous than arsenic laced Kool Aid because they’re still breathing afterwards.
Still, more US voters turn to traditional media to learn what’s going on. But will millions more voters turning out to vote against Traitor Trump be enough?
Feb 9, 2024 — Political analysis with David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart
“New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including the special counsel’s report on President Biden’s handling of classified documents and comments about his mental fitness, the Supreme Court hearing on Trump’s ballot eligibility and the collapse of the border deal in Congress. — PBS News”
The truth that’s in report will not reach MAGA eyes and ears easily. And even then, will MAGA care? Traitor Trump is the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ to MAGA.
LikeLike
The New York Times ran an editorial today echoing Hur’s concern about Biden’s fitness.
LikeLike
Yep, it was an outrageous editorial that demonstrated everything that makes the NYT a useless guardian of democracy.
The NYT writes hundreds of articles that all amplify the same right wing narrative — Biden’s fitness is a subject of concern — and then they say “polls show that even many Democrats believe that Biden’s fitness is a subject of concern, so that means it is important we write hundreds more articles about how Biden’s fitness is cause for concern”.
And after it becomes a widely accepted “truth” that Biden’s mental fitness is a cause for concern, and we have an authoritarian government, the NYT will write a story musing about why it was that so many Americans thought this perfectly competent man had so many serious cognitive issues.
It’s the same thing the NYT did to Al Gore and HRC.
They present the right wing narrative as fact that is worthy of mention in every single story about that candidate and in addition they write at least one major “news analysis” piece each week SPECIFICALLY on the right wing narrative, since the right wing narrative is newsworthy because people believe it!
The NYT believes they have no responsibility to inform readers of what is true — their only responsibility is to tell them what other people say is true. Especially the Republicans because reporters want to be “fair and balanced” and make sure they are presenting the Republican truth in the most unbiased way possible.
Today’s NYT journalists believe being a good journalist is dedicating yourself to giving equal credibility to “both sides”, not about informing readers of what is true.
LikeLike
It’s dismaying but not surprising that the Hur report is a partisan football. Hur did exactly as the law requires: he submitted a report to the Attorney General that explains why he decided to prosecute or not to prosecute. The Attorney General had the authority to release the report in full, release redacted portions of it, or release nothing.
Hur’s explanation for not charging Biden was that a jury was very unlikely to convict – not that Biden was innocent. If Hur had just said in a general way that the jury would have been sympathetic to Biden – and that Biden in fact did violate federal laws – then the media and public would have demanded more details. OK, so Biden was so forgetful that no jury would convict him – how do you, Hur, justify that assertion? That’s where the damning details come in. Biden couldn’t remember within several years when his son Beau died? That’s clear evidence of cognitive decline; an event like that would be seared into a loving parent’s mind, never to be forgotten until cognitive decline was fairly advanced.
Democratic partisans (e.g. this blog’s host) are mentally contorting themselves every which way to defend Biden – similar to how Trump acolytes contort themselves mentally to rationalize every idiocy of their idol.
LikeLike
You are wrong. You are the one so full of hate toward Democrats and Biden that you can’t see straight nor make any sense.
And the proof that you are wrong is that the Democratic DOJ – despite being led by Democrats – demonstrated the proper way to handle a VP who has been found to have classified material but returns it when it was found. This is what Hur should have issued, and would have issued if he had been investigating a Republican:
From NBC News:
June 2, 2023, 10:30 AM EDT
By Laura Jarrett
Former Vice President Mike Pence will not be charged in the discovery of classified documents at his Indiana home, according to a letter obtained by NBC News.
On Thursday, the Justice Department’s national security division informed Pence’s attorney that it had closed its investigation and that based on the “results” of that probe, no charges will be filed against the former vice president. Pence was interviewed as part of the DOJ’s investigation, along with several aides, according to a source familiar with the matter.
The Justice Department declined to comment, but a DOJ official confirmed that the department had sent the letter.
The timing of the investigation’s ending is a relief to Pence, as he plans to announce his bid for president next week.”
If you weren’t so biased, you’d understand that it isn’t “partisan” to expect Biden to be treated like Pence and all citizens in such circumstances. But it is certainly biased for folks like you to attack Democrats because they expect that and not the kind of biased report that Hur wrote that would get a prosecutor censured unless they have connections among highly placed Republicans.
Your angry attacks on Democrats for expecting professionalism and not partisanship is very revealing of your own lack of principles. I am very sorry for you.
LikeLike
That’s just what I have said, NYC. That Hur should have simply said that intent on Biden’s part could not be proved and so no charges would be filed. ROFL.
LikeLike
Trump’s defenders on Twitter are exulting about the Hur report. There is already a meme about Biden as an elderly man with a bad memory.
I respond that Trump is an elderly man with a cult of white supremacists.
LikeLike
I’m with you up to a point, Mr. Wooster. Hur had to explain his reasons for not charging Biden. And his major reason (he gives others) is that it is not possible for him to prove intent on Biden’s part. He says that the Afghanistan documents could have been first in Biden’s Virginia home and then transferred to his Delaware home without Biden’s knowledge. And he says that Biden could have been completely unaware that he had the “Facts First” folder with the Defense secrets in it. But it was overstepping his bounds to imply that this lack of intent was due to severe cognitive decline. People have memory lapses. Even people who are sharp as tacks. Hur also says that there is precedent (in particular, Reagan’s being allowed to hang onto his diaries, which also contained Top Secret info) for retention by Presidents and Vice Presidents of “personal diaries” and that these are specifically allowed to be retained by the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
LikeLike
Bob,
This may surprise you, but before you prove “intent”, you need to prove that something criminal happened.
That’s where your embrace of Hur’s narrative and your certainty that Hur has made a very convincing case that Biden did something criminal that would certainly be prosecuted demonstrates your own bias.
VP Pence wasn’t prosecuted because accidentally retaining classified material isn’t a crime.
You are mixed up about what “intent” means. Neither Biden nor Pence INTENDED to have boxes that had some material marked “classified”.
But Hur jumps to great hoops to convince folks like you that – despite lack of evidence – Biden INTENDED to put that classified information into a box and retain it because he had his own nefarious purposes (and Hur’s laughable theory about why Biden supposedly wanted to retain classified information are embarrassingly irrational and evidence- free.)
You missed that completely because you don’t know the law. Marcy Wheeler does. Marcy sees how much time Hur is giving to his evidence-free claim that BIDEN HIMSELF packed that box and knowingly put the classified material in it.
Hur MUST make that point, because if someone else packed the boxes, THERE IS NO UNDERLYING CRIME because it would be ridiculous for Hur to try to argue that Biden INTENDED for someone else to put classified documents in this box when he has no evidence that happened.
You have completely misunderstood what “not possible to PROVE intent” means, and why Hur HAD to invoke Biden’s supposedly failing mental state.
Hur wanted to fool people into believing that there was evidence that Biden committed ANY underlying crime. HE COULD NOT. But he PRETENDED he could, by writing page after page about how this ONE box with classified materials provides convincing evidence that Biden committed a crime. IT DOES NOT.
In the Hur narrative which you seem to believe has a lot of credibility, Biden’s possession of that box is, in itself, a crime. BUT IT IS NOT. That’s why Pence wasn’t charged. That is why Biden wasn’t charged.
But Hur doesn’t want to exonerate Biden. He wants people to believe that Biden committed a crime without actually having to substantiate that in a court of law. He knows some people with little knowledge of the law will just take his word about that because they “read the report”.
So Hur says Biden’s mere possession of classified material is a prosecutable crime (it isn’t), but the only reason he isn’t prosecuting Biden for that crime for which he has evidence, is because the jury will see Biden as an elderly man with memory issues.
You bought it all. You still believe there is an underlying crime that would be prosecuted if a younger person in peak cognitive condition had done it.
THERE IS NOT.
LikeLike
Biden did not admit to forgetting when his son Beau passed away. He said he was incensed by the question and that it was none of “their damn business.”https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/08/politics/biden-special-counsel-beau-death/index.html
LikeLike
There are numerous issues with Ms. Wheeler’s analysis. The very points that Ms. Wheeler makes to discredit the Hur report–that Hur could not prove that the Afghanistan docs were in the Virginia home; that Hur could not prove that Biden “curated” the provenance of the box containing the Afghanistan documents; that the documents were in a jumble with other personal documents (a “miscellany”) and so probably weren’t willfully and secretly detained, which would be done with more care; that there was precedent from Reagan’s case and others that it was permissible for ex-Presidents and Vice-Presidents to retain personal diaries (like Biden’s notebooks); that personal diaries are specifically excluded by the Presidential Records Act–are MADE BY HUR HIMSELF in his report!!!
She clearly did not read the Hur report carefully. Oh, and btw, Hur does not say in his report that Biden is well into his eighties, as one commenter here said. He says that “It would be difficult to convince a jury they should convict him–by then [by the time of a trial on the unlawful retention of classified material] a former president who will be at least well into his eighties.”
By then.
Hur stepped way over the line by portraying Biden as a doddering old codger well into cognitive decline, but it’s important to portray the contents of his report accurately. Wheeler’s “analysis” is a hatchet job on a hatchet job. It’s full of false innuendo.
LikeLike
Oh, and two side notes. It is amusing that throughout the material from Biden, including throughout his term, he misspells Afghanistan as Afghanastan. Everyone needs editors.
It’s also fun to read in Hur’s reports the quotations from Biden in which he uses “salty” language. I already loved Biden, but these make me love him even more.
LikeLike
On Jen Psaki’s show on MSNBC it was revealed that behind closed doors, Biden refers to Trump as that “f*cking a$$hole.”
LikeLike
This is merely accurate.
LikeLike
Back when the Meuller Report came out, I read it. All of it. And so I knew that the report did not exonerate Trump–that quite the contrary, it suggested that Trump had committed crimes that could be tried by Congress. And then for months thereafter, I read news reports and listened to commentary by pundits, journalists, and politicians who clearly HAD NOT READ THE REPORT and said ludicrous, false things about its contents.
On a related note, I’ve read comments by former Congressional aides claiming that their bosses RARELY read the lengthy, complex bills they vote on.
This is not what people are usually referring to when they say that we have a reading problem in the United States. But it clearly is the case that we have this problem.
LikeLike
“The Book Tom Sawyer, by the Great American Writer Mark Twain,” a book report by Ronnie Defarge
This is my report on Tom Sawyer, which is a book by Mark Twain. It is a very good book, specially if you are intrested, as I am. In Tom Sawyer. In fact, I think it is probably the very best book about Tom Sawyer (Who is the main character in the book) ever written by Mark Twain, the author. I think everyone would enjoy this book because it tells all about Tom Sawyer and his life and the interesting stuff that happened to him. Which everyone will want to know about. Mark Twain will live on in history as the author of this great story about this character. Tom. I hope that everyone will have the great experience that I had reading this book. Which I highly recommend as one of the best books by the great writer Mark Twain.
158 words: 8 more than required by the assignment!!!
Teachers are quite familiar with people writing about topics they actually don’t know anything about. ROFL. Not too difficult to spot.
LikeLike
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Your “ROFL” certainty that you have more expertise in analyzing Hur’s report than Marcy Wheeler does says it all.
The Mueller Report was not written as a hit job. The Hur Report was. If you had the legal knowledge that Marcy Wheeler does, you would understand the difference.
As an educator, I hope you understand the difference between a report written by the Network for Public Education and a study by the Hoover Institute that proves charter superiority.
There have been times when the NPE have done the kind of close analyses of the studies that “prove” charter superiority, which is similar to the analysis that Marcy Wheeler does about legal issues.
If I read an NPE critique, I understand that they may have their own agenda, so I check to make sure their arguing is fact-based and sound. IT IS. And they correct mistakes if they find them. They aren’t interested in pushing a false narrative that makes public education look perfect and wonderful; they are interested in a truthful narrative. And correcting the lies that public education is horrible and awful and a failure.
If you don’t get that, it’s hopeless. But you remind me of all the education journalists who are completely uninterested to hear any information that would discredit the pro-charter reports. They “read the report” too. And like you did with Marcy Wheeler, they may look at an NPE critique with an extreme bias about anything the NPE says. And then like you with Marcy Wheeler, they launch personal attacks about how the NPE isn’t to be trusted.
LikeLike
Stop writing about matters of which you have zero knowledge. You have zero knowledge of what is in the Hur report because you have not read it. If you had read it, you would know that these very points you are making against the Hur report ARE MADE BY HUR IN HIS REPORT to explain why he is not charging Trump. ROFL. OMG.
You don’t know what you don’t know, NYC. If you
LikeLike
Bob,
Your dismissal of Marcy Wheeler’s points says it all.
Marcy Wheeler does not do “false innuendo”. You do.
In fact, Marcy Wheeler regularly makes corrections and thinks about criticism and either addresses the points carefully to explain why they are irrelevant or acknowledges that the person has a valid point.
Hur had no credible evidence at all that Biden did anything that would ever be prosecuted. Biden did the same thing that Pence did. Pence was not prosecuted. That is a fact. Not because of favoritism or privileged or Pence’s diminished cognitive state.
Pence wasn’t prosecuted because what he did was the same as what Biden did and is NOT considered a crime when the person willingly returns the classified material when their inadvertent possession of it is pointed out.
LikeLike
“Hur had no credible evidence at all that Biden did anything that would ever be prosecuted.”
That is precisely what Hur details in his report, that there is insufficient evidence (as opposed to “no credible evidence”) to prosecute because it is impossible, given the facts, to prove intent, among other matters, to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. ROFL.
LikeLike
You don’t understand “intent” here. Marcy Wheeler explains it, but you have embraced the false narrative that “intent” is about whether or not Biden is cognitively aware of what he is doing.
I suggest you try reading Marcy Wheeler more closely, without your biased rejection of her points.
LikeLike
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ROFL
LikeLike
Bob,
Exactly why I read Marcy Wheeler. Unlike you, when she is challenged and realizes she is wrong, she doesn’t start throwing out insults.
Bob says:
“There are numerous issues with Ms. Wheeler’s analysis.”
“She clearly did not read the Hur report carefully”
“Wheeler’s “analysis” is a hatchet job on a hatchet job. It’s full of false innuendo.”
Do you realize how bad it looks that you are insulting and mischaracterizing Marcy Wheeler, dismissing her careful analysis as partisan crap?
I know you always get away with treating me with nastiness and insults, but I hope people see that your dismissive and insulting attitude toward Marcy Wheeler reveals an ugly part of your nature, Bob. You should be better than that. I believe you can be.
For the record, Marcy knows what Hur said in the report. THAT IS HER POINT. Hur had no evidence to charge Biden on ANYTHING, so he made the ridiculous “Grand Compromise” to exonerate Biden on most counts, but twist himself into knots to convince gullible people that he had evidence to charge Biden for ONE thing but wasn’t charging that ONE thing because the jury would think Biden was just an elderly forgetful man.
You have missed the forest for the trees. Hur found NOTHING. He wanted to please the Republicans so he pretended that he did find very credible evidence for ONE crime that he is only not charging because of Biden’s cognitive issues.
How many times do I have to say that Biden did what Pence did – which is not ever charged as a crime when the person who was previously authorized to have that material and retains it by mistake returns it.
You still believe Biden did something that would be prosecuted if not for his mental status, but you can’t even say what it was and what evidence there is for it. Because “having documents with classified markings that are returned when found” IS NOT A CRIME. Even when the person is 40 year olds.
You are the one who isn’t reading Marcy Wheeler carefully.
LikeLike
I found her (Wheeler’s) post appalling. It continually insinuated that Hur had failed because he failed to prove this or that when in fact THAT IS PRECISELYH WHAT HUR SAYS IN THE REPORT. This is just dumb.
LikeLike
Or, rather, partisan hackery.
LikeLike
Perhaps if certain folks here had read Marcy Wheeler more carefully instead of depending on their own superior legal knowledge, they would understand a very important point that Marcy made about the distinction between 793(e) from 793(d), which Hur gets wrong.
d) lawfully having possession … or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
(e) unauthorized possession … or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it
“This entire report, all 388 pages of it, is based on a wild misrepresentation of how DOJ approaches Espionage Act prosecutions.”
But certain folks here “read the report” and know better than Marcy does because they “read the report”.
LikeLike
if certain folks here
OMG. ROFL!!!!
LikeLike
Bob, “intent”, “hospice”, words mean what Bob and Hur say they mean and whether that has anything to do with how
“INTENT” would be relevant in an assessment of Biden’s wrongdoing is whatever Bob says it is because Marcy Wheeler doesn’t understand the law the way Bob does — he “read the report!”
“Intent” mitigated by the claim “he’s elderly and has memory failings” assumes an underlying crime. THERE IS NONE. NO UNDERLYING CRIME THAT NEEDS TO BE MITIGATED BY SAYING BIDEN WAS TOO COGNITIVELY CHALLENGED TO KNOW HE COMMITTED A CRIME.
Just like “hospice” isn’t a place that trains intellectually challenged adults in how to live functional lives.
Until you can acknowledge that there is no underlying crime, you won’t accept that Hur’s unprofessional and misleading attempt to prove that there is an underlying crime are a problem.
But since you STILL cannot acknowledge that hospice doesn’t mean a place where people are trained in how to live with their intellectual disabilities, I know you will continue to believe you have superior knowledge to Marcy Wheeler.
You don’t. If you weren’t so implicitly biased (is it because I recommended her website), you might see it.
LikeLike
Biden had classified documents in his possession after his presidency. The law does not allow this. It specifically forbids it. However, for Biden to have committed a crime, he would have had to intended to be in possession of classified documents. Hur says that that cannot be proved. Is that clear enough for you? Really, I get sick of trying to explain to you this really elementary stuff.
LikeLike
Btw, the definition of hospice used in that case was not MY definition. It was the definition used by The Center for Family Life, which described itself to the Oklahoman, a newspaper, as “a hospice care center that works with disabled people.” So, evidently, they meant by this hospice as a mode of care, not as facility for care of a particular group–the dying. And this is consistent with what they say on their website, that they attempt not to cure the disabled or to treat them as having issues that require curing but, rather, meet them where they are and try to give them a good quality of life. So, they were/are using “hospice” as a term meaning a mode of care that does not attempt to cure but to provide palliative care and dignity. I have explained this numerous times. It is not my definition but theirs for what they do. People use words with these kinds of extensions of meaning all the time. For example, when people talk of being on the right path, they are not talking about a literal path. When they talk of the White House taking a position, they do not mean, literally, the house. I don’t understand why that would be so difficult to follow, but perhaps there are remedial courses that can help.
LikeLike
Pence had classified documents, too.
Marcy Wheeler explained exactly why mere possession of classified documents that you were once authorized to have that you accidentally retained and returned when found IS NOT A CRIME.
If you read Marcy Wheeler, maybe you would understand why Hur is saying that there is no crime in having posession of MOST of the classified material he had.
But HUR is writing a hit job, so he said that ONE BOX with classified material was a crime. While you accept that uncritically, Marcy Wheeler carefully takes down all the ridiculous, evidence-free conjecture that Hur uses to say that the classified material in that ONE BOX was a crime, but not the other boxes.
Hur knows that he has no evidence that Biden retaining that one box that has classified material was criminal because Biden retaining that is JUST LIKE BIDEN RETAINING THE OTHER BOXES WITH CLASSIFIED MATERIAL THAT HUR ACKNOWLEDGES ARE NOT CRIMINAL.
So Bob, every time you keep harping that Biden committed a crime because there was classified material, you demonstrate your ignorance of the entire case.
LikeLike
Hur explains in his report “exactly why mere possession of classified documents that you were once authorized to have that you accidentally retained and returned when found IS NOT A CRIME.”
HUR does. He is at pains to do so. He does so several times (the report is quite repetitive).
And so on.
ROFL.
Read the freaking report.
LikeLike
I never “harped” that Biden committed a crime. I said that he was in possession of numerous Top Secret and SCI documents and that was not allowable under the law.
LikeLike
And it’s not a good idea to minimize it because there were only a couple of folders and a few stray documents that were major concerns. Each of these folders contained numerous documents, and the Biden notebooks contained Top Secret and SCI materials. So these all belonged, under the law, with the National Archives or with the agencies of the government that produced them. Hur is clear in his report re: the distinction between Biden and Trump, saying that the latter intentionally withheld Top Secret and SCI documents and engaged others to do that (which is conspiracy), whereas it was not provable beyond a reasonable doubt that the former did. Again, HUR SAYS THIS IN HIS REPORT. Duh.
LikeLike
Bob,
The fact that you have no idea that Hur has made a distinction between ONE Box with classified material (Biden committed a crime) and ALL THE OTHER BOXES with classified material (Biden did not a crime) shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what Hur did.
Are we supposed to trust Hur more because he said Biden “only” committed a crime in retaining one box and not the other?
You also misunderstand “intent”. What Hur seems to have convinced you is true is that Biden INTENDED to take the classified material in that one box and but did NOT intend to take the classified material in any of the others.
And then Hur says that the only reason he isn’t charging Biden for the crime of INTENTIONALLY taking classified material IN THAT ONE BOX, is that the jury will see Biden as an elderly, memory-impaired man and decided such a memory-impaired man could have intended to take classified material.
Bob, you seem to believe that Hur isn’t prosecuting Biden because Hur has acknowledged that Biden did not INTEND to take that classified material. You are wrong.
Hur is saying that he COULD prosecute Biden because Biden INTENDED to take the classified material – but only in that ONE BOX. But Hur is not going to prosecute Biden for his crime of INTENDING to retain classified material despite Hur claiming he has copious credible evidence that Biden INTENDED to take that classified material. And the only reason that Hur isn’t charging Biden for the crime Hur says Biden INTENDED to commit is because he doesn’t think the jury will believe him BECAUSE BIDEN IS ELDERLY AND MEMORY-CHALLENGED.
As Marcy Wheeler points out, Hur isn’t prosecuting Biden because the evidence that Biden EVER intended to commit the crime of retaining classified material is NONEXISTENT.
Instead of just acknowledging that there is ZERO evidence that Biden ever INTENDED to retain that ONE BOX of classified material, Hur is basically lying and saying he has lots of evidence that Biden INTENDED to keep that one box (but not any of the others) that contains classified material.
It’s complicated, but it shouldn’t be that complicated for you.
LikeLike
I just described to you precisely what Hur says in his report ABOUT THAT ONE BOX, NYC. Again, about the box containing the Afghanistan materials, he says,
that it is not provable that Biden intended to be in possession of that box containing the Afghanistan materials. He says that Biden could have been unaware that it has been transported to his Virginia home and from there to his Delaware home or that it could have never been at his Virginia home and could have been transported there from some other place without Biden’s knowledge. He also says that when Biden told his ghostwriter that he had just found that box downstairs, he could have promptly forgotten about it because by then the business with the Afghanistan surge, which those documents were about, was old news and not important.
In fact, Hur says WITH REGARD TO THE BOX IN QUESTION, that there are these perfectly “innocent” explanations (Hur’s word) and that Biden cannot therefore be charged for possession of THAT BOX.
LikeLike
And, in his report, Hur systematically goes through all the document finds and eliminates them, one by one, for various reasons, including all the documents found at Penn and the University of Delaware, all the documents found at Biden’s residences, and all the materials found at the home of Biden’s ghostwriter. In fact, the report is almost entirely Hur going through each type of document and explaining why Biden cannot be charged with regard to it INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS IN THE BOX YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
LikeLike
What Hur seems to have convinced you is true is that Biden INTENDED to take the classified material in that one box and but did NOT intend to take the classified material in any of the others.
Quite teh contrary, as I have explained many times, Hur is at pains in his report to detail good arguments for there NOT being intent with regard to that box, for Biden’s possession of it to be, IN HUR’S WORD, perfectly “innocent.”
So, I never said that it was provable that Biden had intent with regard to that box. AND NEITHER DID HUR. In fact, he is at pains to point out that that “intent” IS NOT provable, as you could see for yourself if you read the report.
LikeLike
Tell me Bob why Hur makes a distinction between the one box where he says Biden’s possession could be charged as a criminal act, and the rest of the boxes, where Hur says Biden’s retention of the boxes could NOT be charged as a criminal act.
Hur is making a distinction between one box and all the others. If you missed that, then it speaks for itself.
If ALL of Biden’s boxes with classified material were treated the same, the Hur report would have been completely exonerating. Hur said Biden’s retention of one box was an INTENTIONAL act to retain classified material.
Please tell me you understand that.
LikeLike
Hur makes a lot of distinctions between the various classified materials found. For example, he says that Biden’s notebooks and notecards are not chargeable because the Presidential Records Act specifically excludes diaries, and these can be construed as diaries like those that Reagan was allowed to keep by the DOJ and the National Archives after his presidency. Hur goes through each type of document found and explains why one cannot charge based on this. And there are many different reasons why. For example, Biden’s ghostwriter destroyed (trashed) audio files containing Biden’s comment that he found classified material downstairs (in the basement). But Hur says that this is not obstruction because the ghostwriter fully cooperated with the investigation, turned over transcripts he had of those audio tapes, and was in the habit, for privacy reasons, of destroying his old interview files. Hur does not make a distinction except to say that the materials in this one box are, along with the Facts file, particularly sensitive. He is at pains to explain why–AT ENORMOUS LENGTH, OVER MANY PAGES–why the retention of that box CANNOT be proved to be intentional. So, you are exactly wrong about this. What you claim is exactly the opposite of what Hur in fact does.
LikeLike
Hur also says that the FBI was able to recover the audio files that the ghostwriter deleted.
The report is too long, too repetitive, too tedious and concludes that Biden is exonerated. Should have been boiled down to a single page.
LikeLike
And if you bothered to read the @#$&%&%%@&@& report, you would know that and would stop repeating this clearly false claim about what Hur and I believe over and over and over again. It’s exactly the opposite of the truth.
LikeLike
In fact, Hur devotes MANY PAGES of his report to explaining why it cannot be proved that possession of that box was intentional on Biden’s part. MANY.
LikeLike
BOB: The Earth goes around the Sun.
NYCPSP: There you go amplifying and normalizing heliocentricity.
BOB: Well, that’s because the Earth goes around the Sun.
LikeLike
And to make it worse, Hur says that he has the evidence that for that ONE BOX, Biden INTENDED to retain the classified material. BUT Hur says he won’t charge because the jury would not believe him BECAUSE BIDEN IS ELDERLY WITH MEMORY PROBLEMS.
Bob, the jury wouldn’t believe Hur when he said that Biden INTENDED to keep that one box because Hur has no evidence that Biden INTENDED to keep that one box and the cockamamie theories Hur presents as “evidence” that Biden INTENDED to take classified material fall apart when examined closely.
But Hur wants to convince the public there is evidence of Biden wrongdoing, so he doesn’t say that the jury wouldn’t convict Biden because there is no evidence that the ONE box was any different than the other boxes.
Instead Hur says Biden clearly committed a crime, but the jury won’t convict an elderly man with memory problems.
You should not condone that. You should be outraged that Biden was smeared by a prosecutor.
LikeLike
And to make it worse, Hur says that he has the evidence that for that ONE BOX, Biden INTENDED to retain the classified material.
No. This is NOT what he says. He says that it is NOT provable that Biden INTENDED to keep this box. He says that over and over and over again in tedious and lengthy detail.
LikeLike
And the whole point of the document is to say that it is not provable beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden committed a crime. NOT PROVABLE. ROFL.
LikeLike
Instead Hur says Biden clearly committed a crime, but the jury won’t convict an elderly man with memory problems.
This is not what he says. Again, you are making false statements about a document that you have not read. If you had read it, you would know that this is NOT the case. Hur says that Biden’s intent is NOT provable.
LikeLike
Bob’s misunderstanding of the law is glaring when he said this:
“Biden had classified documents in his possession after his presidency. The law does not allow this. It specifically forbids it. However, for Biden to have committed a crime, he would have had to intended to be in possession of classified documents. Hur says that that cannot be proved. Is that clear enough for you? Really, I get sick of trying to explain to you this really elementary stuff.”
I get sick of telling Bob to read Marcy Wheeler so he stops demonstrating his ignorance.
“However, for Biden to have committed a crime, he would have had to intended to be in possession of classified documents.”
Hur said that Biden did NOT intend to be in possession of MOST of the classified documents, but that Biden DID INTEND to be in possession of a single box, which Hur implies Biden packed himself, even though it is a cockamamie theory that Bob accepts as credible.
And as Marcy Wheeler explains, because Hur needs to prove that Biden INTENDED to take that classified material IN THAT ONE BOX and therefore packed the box himself IN ORDER TO PROVE A CRIME, Hur leaves out a full accounting of what was in the box.
Hur presents the box as ONLY have material that pertains to the classified issue. But the box was full of all kinds of random stuff that didn’t relate to each other and came from decades apart. It was obviously all thrown together by someone on staff. But Hur NEEDS to prove a crime here for this ONE BOX because Biden’s retention of all the other boxes with classified material IS NOT A CRIME.
I have no idea why Bob is ignorant enough to believe that Biden’s mere retention of classified material is a crime when Hu’s report already acknowledges it is not.
It shows Bob’s fundamental misunderstanding of the entire case. Biden didn’t INTEND to be in possession of ANY of the boxes, but Hur says Biden INTENDED to be in possession of one box, which makes having that ONE BOX a crime. Without providing any credible evidence that retaining that ONE BOX was different than retaining all of the other boxes.
Bob: If he wasn’t so quick to dismiss Marcy Wheeler, he might actually learn something.
LikeLike
“Hur said that Biden did NOT intend to be in possession of MOST of the classified documents, but that Biden DID INTEND to be in possession of a single box, which Hur implies Biden packed himself, even though it is a cockamamie theory that Bob accepts as credible.”
No, this is NOT what Hur says. He says that it is not provable that Biden intended to be in possession of that box containing the Afghanistan materials. He says that Biden could have been unaware that it has been transported to his Virginia home and from there to his Delaware home or that it could have never been at his Virginia home and could have been transported there from some other place without Biden’s knowledge. He also says that when Biden told his ghostwriter that he had just found that box downstairs, he could have promptly forgotten about it because by then the business with the Afghanistan surge, which those documents were about, was old news and not important.
HUR SPECIFICALLY SAYS ALL THIS. HUR DOES. He says that Biden could have forgotten again about the box because he didn’t think it important.
LikeLike
Correct Bob.
But you left out the end of the story.
Hur says all that and THEN he says that there is ONE box in which Hur has gathered credible evidence that Biden INTENDED to retain classified material, and thus committed a crime.
But as Marcy Wheeler points out, the evidence that Hur presents as proving Biden’s INTENT to retain classified material for that ONE BOX is sketchy and laughable. That box was no different than the other box, but Hur jumps through hoops to claim the evidence proves that Biden INTENDED to take classified information.
Do you believe that? Because the evidence that Hur presents is ridiculous. A jury would NEVER buy it. Not because Biden is elderly and memory-impaired. But because it is obvious that Biden didn’t INTEND to retain the classified material in that ONE box.
If your close reading of the Hur report convinced you that Biden intended to take the classified material in that one box, then that’s on you. I don’t believe it for a minute.
LikeLike
Again, No. SPECIFICALLY, with regard to that box in the basement containing the Afghanistan material, Hur has a LENGTHY section of his report that explains why it is NOT provable that Biden had intent to keep that box. As I said above, twice now, Hur says that Biden could have been unaware of the provenance of the box and of his possession of it until he ran across it while looking for stuff for his ghostwriter and that Biden could have promptly, then, have forgotten about it because it was not important to him. HUR SAYS THIS ABOUT THAT MATERIAL. How many times do I have to repeat this?
LikeLike
Bob,
OMG why would a jury deeming Biden to be an elderly, memory-impaired senior be relevant if Hu’s report said that he had no evidence that Biden intended to retain ANY classified material?
It IS relevant to Hu’s report because Hu is saying he had the evidence – for the one box – that Biden INTENDED to retain the classified material in that one box.
LikeLike
If you missed that point, maybe you should read it again.
LikeLike
Again, neither I nor Hur have said that it is provable that Biden intended to have that box in his basement. Here I quote from Hur’s report a small section from a MUCH LONGER discussion of why it is NOT provable that Biden had intent and therefore was criminally liable and prosecutable:
HUR REPORT: We also expect many jurors to be struck by the place where the Afghanistan documents were ultimately found in Mr. Biden’s Delaware home: in a badly damaged box in the garage, near a collapsed dog crate, a dog bed, a Zappos box, an empty bucket, a broken lamp wrapped with duct tape, potting soil, and synthetic firewood.
A reasonable juror could conclude that this is not where a person intentionally stores what he supposedly considers to be important classified documents, critical to his legacy. Rather, it looks more like a place a person stores classified documents he has forgotten about or is unaware of. We have considered-and investigated-the possibility that the box was intentionally placed in the garage to make it appear to be there by mistake, but the evidence does not support that conclusion.
Finally, Mr. Biden’s cooperation with our investigation will likely cause some jurors to conclude that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware home by mistake, which is consistent with him forgetting about the documents soon after he discovered them in the Virginia home. Most significantly, Mr. Eiden self-reported to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage and consented to searches of his house to retrieve them and other classified materials. He also consented to searches of other locations, and later in the investigation, he participated in an interview with our office that lasted more than five hours and provided written answers to most of our additional written questions.
Many will conclude that a president who knew he was illegally storing classified documents in his home would not have allowed a search of his home to discover those documents and then answered the government’s questions afterwards. While various parts of this argument are debatable, we expect the argument will carry real force for many reasonable jurors. These jurors will conclude that Mr. Biden-a powerful, sophisticated person with access to the best advice in the world–would not have handed the government classified documents from his own home on a silver platter if he had willfully retained those documents for years. Just as a person who destroys evidence and lies often proves his guilt, a person who produces evidence and cooperates will be seen by many to be innocent.
END
In addition, Hur makes the important point that Biden could have, after telling his ghostwriter about the box, promptly have forgotten about it because he did not consider it important due to its being old news.
LikeLike
Bob,
I agree that the 180 page report contains MANY exonerating details.
Which begs the question that Marcy Wheeler asks about why Robert Hur would write such an intentionally damaging report.
We both agree that Hur has presented no evidence that Biden intended to retain classified material.
Biden’s MENTAL STATE is entirely irrelevant because – in your telling – Hur wrote a report that clearly shows that there is not a whit of evidence that Biden INTENDED to retain classified documents.
Just like Mike Pence, who wasn’t charged by a Democrat DOJ.
What a jury would decide about an elderly person had no relevance to whether Mike Pence INTENDED to retain classified documents.
Just like with Biden.
Hur basically cited the equivalent of jury nullification — and not lack of evidence – for why he didn’t bring a criminal case against Biden.
If Hur had cited lack of evidence, the matter would be over with Biden, just like it was with Pence.
Why is that so hard to understand?
LikeLike
Hur makes the point that one cannot prove intent on Biden’s part and that that is ONE REASON why he is declining to charge Biden. He gives various reasons for not being able to prove intent, including VARIOUS alternate plausible theories as to how Biden came to be in possession of highly classified documents for various particular documents and theories as to why he might not know or remember that he has them. He goes exhaustively and tediously through all the types of documents found and several specific documents detailing why intent is not provable or why they are otherwise not sufficient to require pressing charges. Included among these for which he says one cannot prove intent are the documents found in that basement box. The ones labeled in various places “Afghanastan” (LOL) by Biden.
LikeLike
By the way, the answer to my “why” question can be found in the 40 or 50 posts you have made about this.
You have amplified the two right wing talking points over and over again.
And even now, you think Marcy Wheeler is too “partisan” and her analysis is not to be trusted.
LikeLike
Her “analysis” was breathtakingly weird. Read the report.
LikeLike
You are relying upon a false characterization of the report. If you were actually to read the report, you would find that that’s so.
LikeLike
Bob,
I did skim the report, and if you carefully read all 350+ pages, more power to you.
Consider why a report that appears to exonerate Biden could be used to incriminate Biden — not just for WILLFUL mishandling of classified documents, but in mischaracterizing the occasional typical inability to accurately recall events long past as if there must be some underlying very negative reason that just happens to support the right wing’s favorite narrative that Biden has cognitive problems because he is an elderly man. That goes against every ethical prosecutorial practice.
Why did the media and you, too, jump in to express your concern about all the things that right wingers want voters to be concerned about — Biden’s supposed very serious breach of handling classified documents, and Biden’s cognitive failings?
I know you hate this, but maybe other folks in education will understand the problem with what Hur did and the problem with you helping to legitimize the false narratives.
There is an economist named Emily Oster whose work was frequently being cited by the media and the Republicans as proving it was absolutely safe for schools to re-open during the early pre-vaccine months of covid. She testified before anti-public school, pro-Trump right wing Republican controlled state legislatures who blamed lazy teachers and their very powerful and corrupt unions for schools being closed. And Emily Oster constantly reinforced their favorite narrative that she had gathered a huge amount of indisputable evidence that it was totally safe for schools to re-open long before mass vaccination, when covid was still an unknown disease straining the healthcare system.
Now during the very rare times that a credible journalist challenged her, Emily Oster denied what she was doing. She claimed that her findings were taken out of context. And it is possible to closely read one of her studies and make an argument that her studies don’t exactly present the “schools are safe to re-open” issue with the certainty that the media presented it as.
But whose fault is that? Oster benefited tremendously from the hyping of her statistical “evidence” that schools could reopen safely. She IGNORED every critic, often demeaning them, and made no effort whatsoever to correct the right wing hyping of what she (only on the very rare times she was asked) acknowledges is not an entirely accurate picture of what the right wing claims her report says.
Marcy Wheeler gets this because what Hur did was “breathtakingly weird”, especially in choosing to bring up Biden’s memory fails and implying that unlike the memory fails of every other person who has ever sat down for hours of question, Biden’s signified something very negative about his serious cognitive issues.
Hur had the opportunity to read the Biden response and consider whether he wanted to write a report that the right wing would hype, or correct it to present a fair assessment for not charging. He chose the path of giving the right wing ammunition.
Just like Oster did. So forgive me if I find it irrelevant if an Emily Oster defender points out that a very close reading of Oster’s work shows that she didn’t actually say that she had gathered unimpeachable evidence that every public school in America could be safely re-opened immediately with no changes and no mask wearing. She allowed that false narrative of her work to be amplified and legitimized by the right in order to ATTACK LAZY TEACHERS’ UNIONS for demanding school closings because they were too lazy to teach. It helped Oster’s career NOT to acknowledge that the hyped version with unwarranted conclusions that were NOT supported by evidence was not true.
Hur did that, too. If he isn’t like Emily Oster and actually believes in truth and not promoting his career and profile, he will correct the misleading narratives. But I believe they were intentional, just like I believe Emily Oster found it far more rewarding NOT to amplify the truth, but to legitimize the hyped false narratives about her work.
And who suffers? The “enemies” of the far right — Biden and public school teachers. The right cites them to make Biden and public school teachers look bad. And the people being cited – Oster and perhaps Hur – deny responsibility. Hur didn’t have to write that kind of report. He chose to. Oster didn’t have to help the right wing mis-use her work. She chose to.
LikeLike
So, you finally decided to open the report. ROFL. And yes, I did read it.
LikeLike
Oh do tell me more. Much, much, much, much more. It’s such a pleasant distraction from working with Luthor, Satan’s demons, and Republicans to amplify and normalize false narratives in order to bring about the end of democracy, peace, justice, Mom, apple pie, butterflies, ponies, sugar and spice, and Bambi, which is such hard work!
LikeLike
Bob,
Please stop replying to NYCPSP.
You made your points.
LikeLike
Bob,
Wow, you got me. Now I must agree with you that the Hur Report TOTALLY EXONERATES Biden of all wrongdoing! mea culpa!
Bob, I BELIEVE that you concede that the Hur Report does mischaracterize the memory lapses that people of ALL ages have when they sit for hours long testimony to imply that Biden’s memory lapses are due to his aging, cognitive-declining brain. But maybe I am wrong.
Perhaps you believe the Hur Report says Biden’s failure to recall is no different than everyone else’s failure to recall during hours of testimony, and I agree that’s true, so that’s fine with me. I will be happy to see you stop pushing the narrative that the report supports your constant harping that you very much wish Biden would step down so a better, younger person could replace him, but you’ll vote for the elderly man if he won’t do the right thing (in Bob’s opinion) by stepping down and being replaced by someone younger.
Given that we apparently agree that the Hur Reporrt is a fabulous exonerating document, and not designed to smear Biden, I don’t even know why you ever expressed any concern, since you keep telling me that I don’t understand that Hur’s report makes it absolutely clear to you that Biden did nothing at all that was criminal.
Why didn’t you just say that? Or, if you believe that you have been telling me for the last 2 days that the Hur Report says Biden did nothing wrong, then we agree!
Satisfied? LOL!
LikeLike
Fun fact: Not counting the title of the post, the words “Marcy Wheeler” have been typed 33 times in this entire thread, and only once in the post itself.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
Love how you didn’t offer a single comment of meaningful contribution to this discussion of Marcy Wheeler and Marcy Wheeler’s work dissecting Hur’s report. Even Norman Ornstein was impressed by Marcy Wheeler, but FLERP! – not so much.
But ya did count the number of times “Marcy Wheeler” was typed in comments replying a post whose subject is….wait for it….MARCY WHEELER! and Marcy Wheeler’s work!
I really have no need to ever say insulting things to you, because your posts where you count how many times “Marcy Wheeler” is typed in comments speak for itself. If you don’t want to talk about Marcy Wheeler and the good journalism Marcy Wheeler does, you should certainly feel no pressure to talk about Marcy Wheeler. But I really do believe that you’d learn something if you read Marcy Wheeler’s excellent blog “EmptyWheel”. By Marcy Wheeler.
Also, no need to thank me for giving you something to keep you busy. I think there is a bit more counting for you to do, FLERP! Go to it. You are welcome!
LikeLike
Just chill out a little. Not everything has to be a match to the death.
LikeLike
Lol! The person who reads through 80+ comments to count how many times “Marcy Wheeler” was written out is advising me to “chill out”!
You are trying to parody yourself, right flerp!?
You are making me laugh so much tonight, flerp! Please, go on! You are a funny guy!
LikeLike
NYC,
Please let it go. You have made your points.
LikeLike
Diane,
I don’t understand why you’d tell me to let it go and not tell FLERP! or Bob to let it go.
Just pointing out that for whatever reason, you seem to have a double standard, where those two are frequently launching insulting and snarky personal comments at me without you ever telling them to stop. I can take it, but I do find it odd that you tell me to stop for doing far less, but let their nastiness go unchecked. The way Bob constantly demeans Linda astounds me, especially as you haven’t stepped in.
I posted a comment about Marcy Wheeler’s blog – a perfectly benign post explaining why I trusted her – and Bob replied by writing the unaccountably derisive comment with an invented discussion about an Amazon delivery, ending with “Yeah, NYC. That makes sense. ROFL.”
I know I write many long comments, but so does Bob. Many more than I do.
But I will stop. Thank you for your blog.
LikeLike
I told Bob to let it go. I have said the same to FLERP on several occasions.
LikeLike
One hour ago, I wrote to Bob:
Bob,
Please stop replying to NYCPSP.
You made your points.
The exchanges between you and Bob are repetitive. Enough.
LikeLike
Me and the Hur report.
LikeLike
FLERP,
Hur should have been given a max page limit. Like 40 pages.
I felt like he was running up billable hours.
I wish I had been his editor. I could have easily trimmed half his verbiage for a start.
LikeLike
Glenn Kessler analysis for those who believe the Hur Report totally exonerates Biden but felt compelled anyway to amplify false narratives that they claim the never report said:
“As a reader service, here’s what the report says about each specific set of documents discovered in the year-long investigation and whether Biden willfully retained national defense information or willfully disclosed it — which would be the basis for criminal charges.”
Notebooks used for a memoir:
“Bottom Line: This is the strongest example of Biden possibly mishandling classified information. But the report concludes that the case would be weak, given the Reagan example and given that Biden generally appeared to be careful to not repeat classified information to someone not cleared to receive it.” (Note the POSSIBLY, with the case being weak and not because the jury would be sympathetic to the “intent” of a decrepit elderly man with cognitive problems but because of Reagan example)
Afghanistan documents:
“Bottom Line: The report concludes it cannot claim that Biden willfully kept this information — and that it may no longer be that sensitive anymore.”
Handwritten Thanksgiving memo:
“Bottom Line: The report concludes that Biden did not think this memo was classified and it probably was not.”
Classified materials found at Penn Biden Center:
“Bottom Line: The report exonerates Biden and blames staff error.”
Classified materials found at the University of Delaware
“Bottom Line: The report exonerates Biden and blames staff error.”
LikeLike
This is precisely what I said, NYC PSP. The report does not claim that Biden can be proved to have intentionally kept the box with the Afghanistan material in it. YOU were the one you falsely claimed, again and again and again, that both Hur and I said that in this case Biden was a criminal. The facts do NOT compel this conclusion. Hur said that. I reported what he said.
LikeLike
Bob,
I honestly believe that we have some serious miscommunications and I can’t quite figure out why. I readily acknowledge I sometimes jump to conclusions and misinterpret things you say, but sometimes your reply seems (to me) to not dispel my mistaken understanding of what you are trying to say, but instead support it. I am not trying to deliberately misunderstand you. But sometimes your replies to me seem like you are more interested in insulting me than in trying to understand what it is I believe about you that is incorrect, and explaining to me why it is incorrect. I concede that you probably don’t agree.
I just read a comment you wrote in the “Who is Robert K. Hur?” post discussion in response to this:
jsrtheta
February 10, 2024 at 4:31 pm
I was a prosecutor for 15 years, so I think I know at least a little about the job.
And a prosecutor’s first job is to do justice. It is not to trash a potential defendant in self-serving statements. A statement that a prosecution is declined because its chances of success are slim at best is all that’s needed.
It is manifestly NOT to trash a defendant he/she is declining to charge. It is not to call a defendant “guilty but too sympathetic”, which is what Hur was trying to communicate.
A prosecutor violates legal ethics by announcing a declination to charge while simultaneously implying the defendant is actually guilty. Unlike defense attorneys, prosecutors are limited in what they say. I never had a problem with that.
Hur should be disciplined for his rank partisanship and free-ranging statements that are designed only to humiliate a defendant he knows he could never convict.”
This is exactly my criticism of Hur’s report:
Hur “violates legal ethics by announcing a declination to charge while SIMULTANEOUSLY IMPLYING THE DEFENDANT IS ACTUALLY GUILTY.”
“It is not to call a defendant “GUILTY BUT TOO SYMPATHETIC”, WHICH IS WHAT HUR WAS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE.”
And Bob, your reply to this post was “Thank you, JSR, for your informed opinion.”
I was stunned because what I kept seeing on this thread was you defending Hur and pointing out that he was saying exonerating things about Biden.
But the exonerating things you kept citing were lost because Hur was “SIMULTANEOUSLY IMPLYING THE DEFENDANT IS ACTUALLY GUILTY.”
Obviously JSR communicates far better than I do. But Bob, you did not challenge the accuracy of JSR’s comments by quoting a place where Hur wrote something that exonerated Biden. I assume because you understood that point – when JSR made it – that the entire Hur report was innuendo that Biden was guilty.
I think we agree, but I am still mystified as to why we didn’t agree a long time ago, since I was trying to make the same point that JSR made and you just kept quoting from Hur’s report as if it contradicted my point. And Marcy Wheeler’s point. And JSR’s point.
Hur wrote a report that (despite all the quotes you cited) “simultaneously implied that Biden is actually guilty”. That’s what JSR said and you agreed with him, so hopefully you agree with me, too.
And that is a wildly inappropriate thing for a prosecutor to do.
Maybe I am mistaken, but if you re-read your posts here, it sure seems like you are DEFENDING Hur – often quoting to demonstrate that Hur wrote a report that exonerated Biden. But you didn’t acknowledge that he was ALSO implying Biden was guilty at the same time.
LikeLike
Yes, as I have repeatedly said, Hur stepped way over his bounds by including the frankly partisan and indefensible stuff about Biden’s age. But no, Hur did not conclude in any case that Biden was arguably guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, he did precisely the opposite. See my summary of the report, below.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
Please stop. I asked you before and I’m asking again.
Just stop arguing.
No one wants to read it.
LikeLike
Apologies, Diane.
For the record, this brief thread began with a comment I made before you asked Bob and me both to stop. It was not a reply to Bob. The only reason it became an exchange with Bob is because Bob responded to my comment an hour AFTER you asked him to stop, and addressed me directly. Since you didn’t object to Bob directly responding to me after you told him to stop, I replied to him.
But I misunderstood and I was wrong not to realize that what you meant is that only one of us is welcome to post.
Thank you for this blog.
LikeLike
Also, Diane, in the interests of fairness, and conforming your policy that your readers should not make personal attacks (especially blatantly FALSE personal attacks), can you please delete all Bob’s comments where he falsely states that I haven’t read TKAM. I don’t know why Bob’s false accusations are allowed to stand, but you deleted my corrections.
LikeLike
I deleted some of Bob’s comments.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
Worth reading as well, Wheeler’s post from Wednesday, two days before the Hur report was released.
Because of the aforementioned supine press, because there is no accountability structure in place for Special Counsels, and because as prosecutors they enjoy broad immunity (though Durham tellingly backed off false claims he made in his report when he testified to Congress), the Special Counsel process was exploited by Bill Barr in retaliation for Rosenstein’s appropriate decision to appoint one.
I don’t expect Hur’s report to be as corrupt as Durham’s. I expect it to overcompensate for claims that Trump was treated differently for intentionally stealing 300 classified records (and hiding still more) than Joe Biden was for negligently taking some home and then giving them back.
I’d note that both on Emptywheel and Diane’s blog, I often learn as much from the comments as I do from the post.
LikeLike
The Hur report is tedious reading. So, I’m going to save those who understandably do not want to go through it all the trouble by hitting upon the major takeaways from it.
The Hur report is a declination document. In other words, its ostensive purpose is to explain why the Special Counsel, Hur, has chosen to charge or not to charge the person being investigated. This term of art was a new one for me. In this case, the person being investigated is Joe Biden, and Hur’s decision is NOT to bring charges for various reasons, including an inability to prove criminal intent on Biden’s part to be in unlawful possession of classified documents.
Biden was found to be in possession of at various times when he was not a Senator, the Vice President, or the President, with the necessary clearances to be in possession of them, quite a few classified documents, some classified at very high levels as Top Secret or Sensitive Compartmental Information (SCI). These documents were discovered in Biden’s residences. Additional classified documents were found among Biden’s papers at the University of Delaware and the Biden Penn Center, both of which housed documents from Biden’s various terms in office. In addition, Biden’s ghostwriter was in possession of documents, including transcripts and audio files of conversations with Biden, some of which referenced in passing and not in detail those highly sensitive classified documents.
In his report, Hur goes through each of the types of classified documents found and sometimes particular documents, one by one, and in each case, he discusses various theories as to why the document or documents of a particular type ended up where they or it did. This exhaustive and repetitive discussion of each type of document or particular document makes the report extremely boring, tedious reading. In each and every case, Hur describes various theories about the documents and explains why he believes that Biden cannot be criminally charged for possessing them, even though it is not legal to possess them. Reread that sentence. It’s the key one here. All the documents were supposed to have been turned over to the National Archives or to the document’s originating agencies.
Among the classified documents found to be in Biden’s possession, there were a number of notebooks and notecards kept by Biden during his various terms of office. Some of the notebooks had classified documents stuck into them. Many of the notebooks contained notes regarding Top Secret or SCI information and thus were themselves Top Secret or SCI. In his discussion of these notebooks, Hur points out that other presidents, most notably Ronald Reagan, had retained notebooks or diaries that they kept during their terms of office and were not subject to demand for their return by the National Archives or criminally charged by the DOJ. In addition, Hur notes that the Presidential Records Act specifically excludes notebooks or diaries. So, Hur concludes that Biden cannot be charged with regard to the personal notebooks he kept, even though some of them contained Top Secret information.
With regard to a great many other documents, Hur concludes that an argument can be made that Biden was unaware of his possession of the documents. This is important because, to be criminally charged, Biden had to have intent to possess the documents unlawfully. So, in those cases, Hur concludes that Biden cannot be charged because there are plausible explanations for how Biden came to be in possession of those without his knowledge and thus without his intent.
Some of the most sensitive documents were found in a folder of materials dealing with Afghanistan and, in particular, with the troop surge there ordered by Obama and opposed by Biden. At one point Biden was aware that he had this material because he mentioned to his ghostwriter that he had “just found” them in his basement. Hur discusses a theory with regard to these document in that folder in the basement box that Biden intended to keep them because they could be used as part of a vindication for Biden of his opposition to the surge. But this theory is not, Hur concludes, sufficient to charge Biden, for there are alternative theories that would not involve intent on Biden’s part, which Hur describes in detail and at length, including that Biden was unaware that the documents had been brought first to his Virginia home and then from there to his Delaware home, that he was unaware that they were brought directly to his Delaware home, that when he ran across these in his basement, he told his ghostwriter about them but then promptly forgot about them because by that time, the Afghanistan surge was old news and unimportant. In other words, Biden discovered them but then promptly forgot about them. He had other things to think about.
Another significant set of documents was found in a file in a file cabinet in Biden’s home office. This set contained information about U.S. Defense materials and methods covered under the Espionage Act. So, possession of this material was quite serious indeed. But Hur discusses these and concludes that it is LIKELY that Biden didn’t know he had this stuff and so again could not be plausibly charged with intent to possess them illegally.
Hur is also at pains early in his report to distinguish Biden’s case from Trump’s. When classified documents were found at his residences, Biden promptly turned them over. Biden fully cooperated with the subsequent investigations, allowing agents to come into his home and offices to look for documents and sitting for extensive interviews with the FBI/DOJ. Trump, on the other hand, delayed and delayed turning over documents, was found to be in possession of many more documents, stored the documents haphazardly in insecure places, showed some of the documents to people without security clearances, knew that he had the documents but still tried to hold onto them, refused to be interviewed regarding the documents, and vehemently opposed submitting to searches by the FBI, none of which Biden did. So, Trump had intent to be unlawfully in possession of highly classified documents, and Biden arguably did not. All this Hur says in his report, near the beginning.
In the end, Hur concludes that in every case with every collection of documents or particular document possessed by Biden, there are plausible explanations for Biden’s possession of the documents that do not involve intent to possess them illegally and that Biden fully cooperated as a nonguilty person would and so cannot be charged because intent cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
That’s what Hur’s report says.
Unfortunately, among the theories that Hur details (in excruciating detail) for why intent on Biden’s part cannot be proven, there is the notion that Biden has a very poor memory resulting from age-related cognitive decline, and many times during his report, Hur returns to this, as he discusses the situation with various particular documents.
In doing that, Hur stepped way over his bounds. In my opinion, he did not have to editorialize about Biden’s cognitive capacity to make his point, and this was clearly partisan and political. In this case, he overstepped his authority.
LikeLike
his proper scope or compass
LikeLike
Bob,
I searched the Hur report for the total number of classified documents; could not find it although maybe I missed it in the endless recitation about files and cabinets and their locations.
I googled and got an estimate of 25-30 documents, some dating back to the 1970s.
By contrast, Trump had more than 300 classified documents in his possession, plus 48 empty folders with classified markings. They included documents from the security services about our most closely held secrets re troop levels, nuclear weapons, etc.
Again by contrast, the “documents” in Biden’s possession included his hand-written notes of meetings.
LikeLike
Appendix A of the Hur report lists 98 recovered documents. Appendix B lists 37 notebooks and notecards containing materials that were Secret or Above. Appendix C lists some additional “Evidence Items”–laptops, hardrives, audio files, etc. One wonders what became of the documents in the empty folders found at Mar-a-lago.
And, of course, as Hur made abundantly clear, Biden fully cooperated to return the documents in his possession, including the notebooks and notecards, whereas Trump delayed and obfuscated and hid documents and engaged others in conspiracies to do so. Biden freely submitted to interviews and searches. Trump did not. Biden was honest with investigators. Trump, being Trump, lied to them again and again, either directly or through lawyers.
LikeLike
Did any of the recovered documents at Biden’s locations include details about nuclear secrets or troops or naming our spies, as Trump’s did?
Hur considered Biden’s descriptions of his foreign travel from 1973-79 to be classified. Really.
LikeLike
13,000 documents were recovered from Mar-A-Lago, of which more than 300 were classified, some at the highest level, plus 48 empty folders labeled classified.
LikeLike
Which doesn’t include the documents that perhaps abide in the secret room the FBI failed to check because it was locked.
LikeLike
I don’t recall whether Trump’s Bedminster, NJ golf club was searched. Does anyone know?
LikeLike
It was not. This was particularly egregious because Trump lackeys were photographed moving boxes from Mar-a-lago to Trump’s plane, which was heading to Bedminister, in the midst of the investigation into the document Trump was refusing to release.
LikeLike
If it has, that information has not been made public.
LikeLike
The media has repeatedly mentioned that he sent boxes of documents to Bedminster, but I have seen no mention of a search there.
LikeLike
Jack Smith seems to keep his cards close to the vest. It’s one of the reasons I read Wheeler’s site. She’s got an eagle eye for small disclosures and the ability to connect even obscured dots.
LikeLike
CX: 98 documents labeled “Confidential” or above
LikeLike
“And, of course, as Hur made abundantly clear, Biden fully cooperated to return the documents in his possession”
This seems like the biggest and most obvious distinction that weighs heavily against criminal charges. Biden’s conduct, unlike Trump’s, is fully consistent with someone who did not intend to violate the law. Hur could have made that distinction the basis of his explanation of why criminal charges weren’t warranted, instead of the cheap shot against Biden’s mental acuity.
LikeLike
Hur does say that this cooperation from Biden was among his considerations.
LikeLike
But I hasten to say that you are right, Flerp. There was no reason for Hur to attack Biden’s acuity. That was beyond his (Hur’s) commission and way, way over into partisan-land, which is not surprising, given Hur’s background.
LikeLike
Also, a sitting President cannot be criminally indicted, as Hur notes.
LikeLike
CX: The Hur report is a declination document (as in to decline to do something). In other words, its ostensive purpose is to explain why the Special Counsel, Hur, has chosen not to charge the person being investigated.
LikeLike
Thanks for the overview, Bob. I am among those too lazy and/or uninterested to read the whole thing.
People sometimes have trouble with the distinction between unlawful conduct and criminal conduct. The latter requires a separate statute in which a legislature defines the elements of a crime—and here, intent is one of those elements.
LikeLike
FLERP, I can’t say I blame you for not reading. It is incredibly repetitive and tedious. It reads like it was passed to make it more impressive. The endless details about the precise location of file cabinets and cabinets is grueling.
LikeLike
On Friday, while I was psychologically imprisoned in a cell furnished only with gloom, rage, and despair, a calming wave of sanguinity washed over me. I had realized that, although I could not always predict the behaviors and utterances of my closest friends, most respected political figures, and even my wife of almost a quarter-century, powerful present-day Republicans are as reliably predictable as the photon absorption of a cesium-133 atom. This superhuman reliability provided me with a measure of consolation and comfort. No matter who sits at the Resolute Desk, powerful Republicans can be relied upon to disrespect the office of the Presidency. Even when Cabinet officers and agency administrators are not of their own choosing, these men and women can be counted on to violate norms, rules, convention, laws, and elemental human decency in pursuit of a political advantage. And more, much more. Best of all, whereas these Republicans’ doings and sayings vary from situation to situation, from one manufactured crisis to the next, there is one commonality binding them in blessed certainty: They will accuse Democrats of committing the precise perfidies and treasons of which they themselves are guilty.
Thank you, powerful present-day Republicans, for bringing not a little constancy to my unpredictable, ever-changing world!
LikeLiked by 1 person