Media, Politics

WHCA v. WHCO: White House Correspondents Blast the White House Over Heavy-Handed Media Memo

We have previously discussed the increasingly aggressive role of the White House Counsel’s Office (WHCO) in defending President Joe Biden, including spreading disinformation about various investigations. WHCO spokesman Ian Sams has taken the lead in attacking critics and denying facts related to corruption and other allegations. Now, the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) is blasting a memo in which the WHCO instructs reporters on how to cover the recent Hur report and allegations of the President’s diminished faculties.

Sams is not a lawyer. He is a political operative who has worked extensively for Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee, including a stint with Hillary Clinton. He was recently accused by the former head of the WHCA (and my former student) Jon Decker of giving false statements concerning the Special Counsel’s report.

There have been previous controversies over instructions given to the media by the White House. While the media has often been accused of maintaining a largely unified front protecting the President, actual memos directing their responses insulted many in the media. That is just not how this is done. You have to maintain certain proprieties and appearances.

Indeed, when the President recently snapped at a reporter by saying “that is not the judgment of the press,” it seemed to say the quiet part out loud in the ability of the White House to dictate coverage.

The most recent controversy came after Sams sent another letter with media instructions. Sams lays out how the report should be spinned in the media, putting in writing what is often conveyed in “background” chats with reporters.

It proved too much for WHCA president Kelly O’Donnell who called it “misdirected.” She added that “[a]s a non-profit organization that advocates for its members in their efforts to cover the presidency, the WHCA does not, cannot, and will not serve as a repository for the government’s views of what’s in the news.”

In my testimony at the Biden impeachment hearing, I raised the role of Sams and the White House staff in advocating for the President: ” To the extent that the President has used White House staff to maintain false claims or resist disclosures, it can fit into the type of Nixonian abuse of power model.”

The WHCO has long distinguished between the interests of a president and the presidency. Biden has his own personal counsel to oppose these allegations. That separation has now collapsed under White House Counsel Ed Siskel, who appears to approve of this advocacy role as Sams routinely lashes out at critics and investigators.

As noted in a recent column, Sams’s work is precariously close to the line drawn in past impeachments. Indeed, he may have already crossed over in the effort to swat back investigations into corruption allegations. Sams’s effort to spin out of these scandals could easily end up spinning the White House into an actual impeachment.

166 thoughts on “WHCA v. WHCO: White House Correspondents Blast the White House Over Heavy-Handed Media Memo”

  1. don’t you get it? Democrats are FASCISTS….intent on Destroying America
    Illegals, Drugs, dead rule of law, taking bribes from foreign governments, etc

  2. Sams is not a lawyer. He is a political operative who has worked extensively for Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee, including a stint with Hillary Clinton.

    Pay attention. Who is the taking the heat in this story. A highly placed political operative. Worked for the DNC and Clintons Wife. The DNC who is still covering up the Seth Rich murder. The FBI still refuses of release his laptop.
    The DNC that refused the FBI access to their computers and email servers. because they would have found the DNC emails were never hacked, Just like CrowdStike tesified in front of Congress
    Clintons wife. This guy worked for Clintons wife.
    Who do you supposed placed the highly connected political operative. Would it be the only President of the United States that took up permanant residence in Washington DC?
    But we are not talking about Obama, or Biden, OR even the White House Counsel. We are talking about IAN SAMS. Ian Sams is a political operative

    When all the leftist go nuts about something Trump says, they go all crazy. But what is never examined, President Trump does his own wet work. He refuses to farm it to the highly placed political operatives.
    Trump could haves used a highly placed political operative bring up the fact that only 18 nations of 31 nations that make up NATO refuse to meet their NATO Obligations.
    Trump took, and still taking flack for Practicing politics and defining his foreign policy. He could have used an Ian Sams clone

    But it is preferable to lie about Trumps message, deflecting away from Obama coming the close of his 3rd term. Because Kelly O’Donnell refuses to ask Obama why he insists on living in DC and continues to pull all the strings of his Puppet Biden

  3. Good try by the WHCA – fake right and go left. Who are they kidding? “We have our independence and are free to report objectively on White House affairs. You gotta believe us America. Please, America?”
    What a joke.

    1. Yes, it reeks of Faux Outrage by the WHCA. I am reminded of Captain Louis Renault, in Casablanca, “I am shocked that gambling is happening”, as his gambling winnings are handed to him.

  4. Today’s news includes the fact that Bill Barr has said that if it is Biden-Trump he will vote for Trump. FINALLY an honest Republican Trump hater that acknowledges that Biden is killing our country.

    1. Not sure what reality you’re living in. But here in the real world. Inflation is down. Gas prices are way down. Stock market at all time high. Job growth is robust. Unemployment is very low. Interest rates have peaked and are likely going down. Crime is way down. Virtually every economic indicator there is is improved from 2021 when Biden assumed office after trumps complete utter failure to deal with COVID.

      And just think, no more beautiful people attacking our Capitol Building. Most of the ones that entered the building on Jan 6, 2021 have been charged and convicted of crimes. Many have shown sincere remorse that they were blinded by an orange god and see the error of their ways.

      Sounds like you’re choosing to live in a dark world, read some news about what is actually happening in the real world, get some help.

      2. Actually, if you read real news you would of not beclowed yourself by stating inflation is down.
        It went up last month.
        And inflation is cumulative, something you fail to understand.
        Gas prices are way up from when Trump was in office. They have been way up since Biden has taken office.
        If job growth is so robust, why are so many companies laying off employees? The Unemployment reports look good at first glance. Then very quietly get revised significantly downward the next month in the last 11 of 12 reports. The Homehouse Hold Survey shows more people are working two or even three jobs to pay the bills. That is not good.
        Credit card debt has hit another all time record as Americans have to use CC to pay the bills and make ends meet.
        Americans are also raiding their 401ks to pay the bills and make ends meet.
        6 in 10 Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
        Average hourly earnings have increased moderately from $29.93 per hour in January 2021 to $34.55 per hour in January 2024, but when adjusted for inflation since the beginning of Biden’s term, average wages are comparatively only $29.29 per hour, equating to a difference of $5.26 per hour, according to data from the BLS. Inflation has risen rapidly under Biden, with prices increasing a total of 18% since the president took office in January 2021.
        Due to Bidenflation, more GenZ live with their parents than previous generations. Others are even resorting to living in their cars.
        Homelessness is at an all time high.
        Drug deaths from fentnyle are rampant.
        DC is challenging Chicago for death capitol of America.
        Then there is Russia/Ukraine war, Israel/Hamas war, the Houthis attacking US Navy and shipping in the Red Sea, all under the Biden admin.
        Putin endorsed Biden. Why? It benefits Russia, China, Iran, Hamas, the drug cartels along our unsecure Southern border another four more years of a weak president.
        Those are all things happening in the real world.

        1. Great comment on the factual economic numbers.
          Year over year inflation was 3.1%. Higher then the govt predicted, and higher than the Markets anticipated. Like you point out inflation is quoted cumulatively. Inflation since Jan 2021 is 13.8%

          The interesting fact, trolls are typing away on their keyboard, yet all the actual facts are a few keystrokes away, but they have zero interest in learning.

          1. HullBobby,
            Thank you.
            It is not hard at all.
            Those of us who live in the real world, have to deal with reality.
            We all see it at the gas pump, at the check out line at the grocery store. We see it in our utility bills. For those who are not living at home with their parents, they see it in their rent.
            We all know and see how much better we had it under the Trump admin up till the COVID lockdowns. And now we are all seeing how those lockdowns were so very detrimental to everything from our mental well being, to children’s education, our health, and of course the economy. It was only when Red states began to open their economies that the economic recovery started. Biden called it Neanderthal thinking, and there would be a winter of death for those unvaccinated. CA and NY, the two last states to reopen, were also dead last in their recoveries.
            Biden claims he created more jobs than any other president in history! Gaslighting. Those jobs were not “created.” They were there. Just the lockdowns shut them down. That was not a new restaurant that had new job openings to fill with new employees. That was a restaurant that had to shutdown. Same jobs were there.
            So the economy was on its way or was already there to a recovery, again led by Red states, when they passed the American Rescue Act. A number of economists sounded the alarm that act will ignite inflation to include Obama’s economic advisor, Larry Summers. Guess what happened? We got the worst inflation in over 40 years and we are still feeling it. We may be feeling it for years to come.
            The Inflation Reduction Act had nothing to do with inflation, and even Biden said he wished he never called it that. Was he having a lucid moment? What it really was, was the New Green Deal called something else. It is a dismal failure. Due to Bidenflation, a number of those green projects are failing. Off shore wind farms projects being canceled. Electric bus companies going bankrupt. EV sales have dropped so much, various car companies are drastically cutting back on production. Auto dealers are telling car companies they will not take stock of EVs as the ones they have are cluttering up their lots, not moving.
            The real problem is the destruction the Biden admin has done, it will take years, perhaps a decade to recover from. Trump is not going to be able to turn it around in 4 years. No one will.

      3. Talk about living in an alternate reality. Nothing you said if factual. EVERYTHING still costs a LOT more than it did since Biden took office. MORE people died from Covid the first year under Biden than Trump. During the 4 years of Trump there were no new wars, Putin didn’t try to invade Ukraine, Israel signed the Abraham Accords along with other Muslim Countries, China wasn’t getting ready to invade Taiwan, and America’s Southern Border was SECURE.
        Joe Biden is the MOST corrupt, incompetent politician in history. He ALLOWED a Chinese SPY Balloon to cross over our most sensitive military installations, allowing China to gather intelligence. Biden then APOLOGIZED to China for shooting it down.
        It’s time people like you WAKE UP! & quit paying attention to the Democrat State Run Propaganda Media. It’s brainwashing you.

        1. Dear Anonymous:

          There’s a phrase that says “you don’t bite, the hand that feeds you.”

          How does it occur to that “the supposedly senile” person from the White House is going to play with those 5 million that fall from the balloons.

          He is senile enough to forget “classified documents”, but he is not to “crazy” enough to forget who finances him! That includes his fierce defense of Ukraine’s financing.

          It is important to keep enough cash in a safe, which he learns from Willis and Menendez,

          because he knows that he will face the fury of the Orange power, which he fears more than, the Red fury.

      4. Bob: There are also 51 Intelligence officials who said the Hunter laptop was Russian disinfo.
        Six ways to Sunday for the Intelligence community to get back at Trump.
        Plus the 10% for the Big Guy, since you’re throwing a bunch of numbers around.

        1. “There are also 51 Intelligence officials who said the Hunter laptop was Russian disinfo”

          No, that’s not what they said. That may be what you think you heard or what you misremember, but it’s not what they said.

          1. Anomalous: The 51 intelligence officials concluded that the laptop issue “had all the classic earmarks of a Russian
            information operation.” Notably, their conclusory statement offered no potential alternative theories. Clearly, their intent in issuing this statement, promulgated by Biden’s campaign manager Tony Blinken, was to establish this as unopposed fact.

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-and-the-51-spies-of-2020-hunter-laptop-new-york-post-russia-disinformation-73072839

            2. Presumably you understand the difference between stating that something “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” and stating that it “was Russian disinfo”?

              Presumably you also know that they said “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.” That’s the opposite of an “intent … to establish this [i.e., it being Russian disinfo] as unopposed fact.”

              Thanks anyway.

              1. Anomalous: I’m busy, but I knew you would immediately respond…(smile) so I stayed on for a few more minutes. Thanks for not letting me down.
                Presumably, you understand “intent.”
                May I add that an obligatory media reprinted the 51 statement over and over ad nauseam, just weeks before the 2020 election. Again, “intent.”
                Did you happen to notice that I, not you, quoted the direct statement, then opined about “intent.”
                Did you happen to notice that my comment was about “intent?” Nothing more, nothing less.
                Sorry to ruffle your fragile feathers.
                (And I’m amused that you suddenly started repeating MY “thanks anyway” closure that I repeatedly used in responding to you over the last year or so. Please try to be original and not to confuse us. That would be most disheartening to me. Thanks anyway. yours truly, lin.

                1. Lin,
                  You have such an elegant, yet devastating way in your epic take downs.
                  You are one classy lady!

                2. “Presumably, you understand “intent.””

                  I do. And as my second quote from the letter shows, it was NOT their intent to have it read as “[they] said the Hunter laptop was Russian disinfo” (quoting the OP) or as “unopposed fact” (quoting you). Your claim about their intent is false. I’m not surprised that you’d omit the second quote since it undermines your claim, though perhaps you instead omitted it because you never read the actual letter.

                  And I doubt that anyone confuses my comments with your prissy ones.

                  1. hey anniny, looks like JT just put you in your place this morning (in the post about Kevin Morris), about what the 51 guys and media intended to do
                    “…many in the media picked up on the conspiracy theory despite ample evidence that the laptop was genuine. Indeed, a similar theory was contained in the now debunked letter of former intelligence officials just before the election — a letter widely used in the media to effectively shutdown coverage. Some later admitted that they assumed the emails were genuine.”

              2. “earmarks”

                Their use of the weasel word “earmarks” makes their statement *worse* (more deceptive and dishonest), not better.

          2. No, that’s not what they said.

            You pretend we did not live this in real time.

            Yes the direct quote from the letter written for them to sign says ‘signs of Russia disinformation’
            But the talking heads just did the above the fold front page story. Not the facts in section C page 5 penultimate paragraph.
            The cable talking heads and the facebook posts, and the tweet all said. “look 51 past leaders of the Intelligence community all say its Russia Disinformation”. Some reports got is right if you were listening the used the word earmarks of. Easy, intentionally easy to loose in a 3 minute radio, tv block. Easy to forget when 4 talking heads are talking over each other.

            But you and all the leftist immediately start rewriting history.

      5. Boob says that “inflation is down” as it is still over 3% higher than last year which was 9% higher than the year before that. This is how you lie with a statistic…if you are a moron.

      6. “Inflation is down. Gas prices are way down.”

        So here’s the D’s economic message for November: “We’re not impoverishing you as much as we were. Vote for us!”

        Kind of like pleading: Sure, I’m beating you. But last month I broke your leg. Now I only give you a fat lip.

        BTW, in the real world, January inflation was *up*, not down — and inflation is cumulative.

        And in the real world, the national average for regular gas is now about $3.30/gallon. When Trump left office, it was about $2.30/gallon — a jump of about 45%. Add that jump to *all* energy prices, and you have people raiding their savings and retirement accounts just to make ends meet.

  5. How to make one Joe Biden: Mix in one part Woodrow Wilson and his racism against blacks, his fascism against freedom of speech and his hiding a debilitating illness, add one part Spiro Agnew being a VP and taking bribes while sitting as our number 2, stir in one part Jimmy Carter for kowtowing to Iran, killing our energy sector, causing inflation to rear it’s ugly head, allowing his weakness to encourage Russia (the old USSR) to invade a neighboring nation, and watching the Middle East descend into chaos. Sprinkle in a dash of LBJ for spending our way into far left insanity that will be impossible to recoup. Oh yea, I almost forgot, slowly stir in one part Nixon for covering up crimes committed in his name.

    So as Biden is Wilson, Agnew, Carter, LBJ and Nixon the “historians” like Beschloss, Brinkley and Alter have convinced the senile old dementia patient that he is FDR.

  6. JT is embarrased he tied his hitch to the wrong horse. Turns out his star witness is accuses of making up the story that JT relied on so heavily to “recommend” they proceed with impeachment hearings. Oops, can’t use testimony of a guy accused of lying. Same thing happened back on Jan 6. Cassidy Hutchison testified under oath about trump fighting in the car to go the capitol. An SS agent, not under oath not in public said it didn’t happen. JT choose to go with the SS agent. Oops, turns out there was video evidence of trump reaching into the front seat. JT has been silent ever since on that one.

    So poor JT is just trying to distract you from the poor decisions he keeps making trying to cozy up to trump and his sychophants.

    2. Bob I asked you yesterday to support you wild fantasy the Turley defends Trump.
      I asked you to provide just ONE time, Professor Turley defended Trump, and NOT defend the rule of law and the Constitution.
      But like all trolls, not having any intelligence, run away from actualy supporting their smears. Like you smear today predicated on a lie.

      1. Read above. JT wrote that Cassidy committed perjury when she relayed trumps actions in the car after his Jan 6 speech. JT believed the SS agent, not under oath, not ever publicly questioned rather than Cassidy who was under oath.

        JT testified that a Biden impeachment committee should be formed because of reports that a witness had Biden taking bribes from Ukraine. Turns out the witness has now been charged with a crime. Did JT take about that? Nope. Did JT talk about Cassidy telling the truth after video evidence emerged that she was telling the truth? Nope.

        When trump was served and had has Mary a logo castle searched for missing documents. JT was incensed that the FBI didn’t just ask nicely and trump would have certainly given up all the hidden documents. But in reality the FBI and archives had been working for months, asking nicely, and trump kept obfuscating, denying, and hiding documents. So they raided Mary a logo. Now trump is charged with a crime because of his actions.

        And please, what the hell is the plain meaning of “All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have… Fellas, I need 11,000 votes, give me a break.”? Quite dancing around. trump was asking the Georgia election official to break the law and declare trump the winner after losing the election. JT says, oh this is just free speech. Sure. So is it is free speech when someone stands in front of a teller window and said just give me all the money in your money drawer, I don’t have an account here, I just want that money. Is that free speech?

        So yea, JT has become a delusional trump supporter. Perhaps he is eyeing the AG job in the next trump administration. Sorry to break it to you JT, trump will never be elected to anything ever again. Look at the Republicans track record since trump took over the R party. He won the 2016 presidential election (with less than 50% of the popular vote), but otherwise the track record of Rs winning elections is pretty pathetic. How’d Georgia Senate race work out in 2020? How’d the Santos seat election go? How’d elections in Arizona go since 2020?

        1. Bob all of your talking points are long ago debunked.
          Lets do your first one.
          Turley took the word of a sworn officer of the law, vs a political operative repeating hearsay.
          Turley is a Lawyer. The law gives the word of an officer of the law vastly more weight than hearsay that is not allowed in the court of law.

          So retard Bob. What do you honestly think you understand about anything, when you are clueless about Cassidy, and her “hearsay” spew, that is not allowed in a court of law.
          That facts show Bob knows only the talking points handed him. He’s far too lazy to research the facts, because the talking points support his confirmation bias. (no I am not going to attempt to explain confirmation bias to a retard)

        2. JT testified that a Biden impeachment committee should be formed because of reports that a witness had Biden taking bribes from Ukraine

          Couldnt resist this bit. of…..don’t know what to call this

          You need to document this. I don’t follow the Profs every word, but this does not sound even close to factual

      2. Iowan2,
        As I have stated more than once, bob takes the good professor’s defending Trump when in reality it is the good professor is just pointing out the corruption, the censorship, cancel culture, the weaponization of government institutions, lawfare, wokeism that has taken over the good professor’s party. The good professor is just trying to warn us all of the totalitarian slant the Democrat party is taking.
        Bob, being that non-thinker he is, just screams the good professor is defending Trump.
        The funny thing and that bob is too mindless to see, in the good professor’s article, Trump is not mentioned once.
        Just like yesterdays article too.
        TDS has rotted out his brain.

  9. White House press corp have been sleeping with dogs and now discover their fleas. Too bad, really.

  10. This is like a puppet master sending a memo to the puppet about what it needs to be saying. The WH Press Corp is like Charlie McCarthy or Mortimer Snerd and Biden’s team is as bad at ventriloquism as Edgar Bergan was. Hey Biden, we can see your lips moving.

    1. Bergan’s skill (and he was quite good at it) was at causing the audience to focus its attention on his puppets, not on him. Hopefully the adze-wipes in the Biden administration have less ability to do that.

      1. Grima, I take your point about Biden, but Bergen was a good ventriloquist…on the radio. Once he was in films all could see his lips moving. Yes he was fine at diversion, like Biden, but just as with the current administration facts are facts.

        PS. Sadly Donald Trump is playing the role of W C Fields as the puppets foil.

        1. Bergen was doing live stage performances as a ventriloquist for at least a decade before he ever got on a radio program. But let’s just agree to disagree, rather than sideline this comment thread.

    1. Iowan 2 – Trump was to blame for Biden willfully retaining documents. This was just determined by a NYC jury.

  12. It’s blatancy, pure and simple. They do these things with impunity, knowing the Senate and DOJ will never, NEVER jold them accountable.

    It’s almost as if they know there will never be an election which they will not win…

    2. And, because folks like the WHCA are going to do their best to cover for Biden and the Democrats, as will most of the Main Stream Press. Until and unless, the Powers Behind the Throne, decide to dump Biden. Which it can do by simply sitting idly by and let the press tell the truth. Which is why I think that Biden will suffer some sort of physical illness event, which allows him to choose not to run. Because there is much danger in letting the press off the leash, even for a limited time. Once having tasted Freedom, there might be a few who will not want to be leashed again

  13. This is not a good article because it does not address itself to what Sams actually wrote. Andrew Weissman, in an article in JustSecurity, wrote the same thing. The point they make is that Hur’s report says with respect to virtually all the classified documents that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that Biden knowingly and wilfully retained and disclosed classified information in violation of the law. This is without regard to his senility.

    I can’t stand Biden but the points Sams and Weissman make should be confronted not ignored. Hur hedged throughout his report. He appears to be a weasel.

    1. Here is my take on the memo:

      The Special Counsel noted that 20 images of underage children engaged in lewd acts were discovered on the President’s personal laptop. Reporting this is simply sloppy reporting! It should be noted, that in four images, the SC was unable to find the children to verify that they were overage, and that he just assumed because they were riding on tricycles and playing with a Barbie Dream house, that they were indeed underage. For another six images, these were simply attachments on an email from Anthony Weiner, and it can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the President ever clicked on the images. Plus, the President did NOT appoint Weiner to the new FBI Gender Affirming Care Task Force, which was created to insure all children who wish to be mutilated, are given the chance. A further eight images could not be proven to be children, because the face was very similar to Dylan Mulvaney, who was known to be at the White House on several occasions, and has been known at times to identify as a young girl.
      —————-
      I note that 4 + 6 + 8 = 18.

      1. Typo – above read, “the SC was unable to find the children to verify that they were overage” should read “the SC was unable to find the children to verify that they were underage”.

        I have only had one cup of iced coffee this morning and I am not fully awake.

    2. “This is not a good article because . . .”

      I don’t get that.

      You want to focus on the *content* of Sams’ memo (which is fine). But JT’s theme is the *purpose* of the WHCO — which purpose, according to him, is being corrupted by Biden.

      You have to evaluate an article based on the writer’s theme, not on the theme you want him to address.

      1. If Sams and Weissman are right, there is no corruption of the kind you mention. The question is whether the reporting accurately conveyed what Hur wrote. There are many places in the report where Hur says, independent of Biden’s senility, that the evidence is insufficient to prove that Biden broke the law. Maybe this is bad judgment on Hur’s part, but it is what he said many times in many places.

        1. Hur said there was no evidence, on a micro level, for some boxes or individual pieces of information. But there were several documents where there was evidence. Then, there was his overall finding that, as EdwardMahl noted, ““Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.”

          Frankly, I am surprised that Hur reported as much as he did. I also note that Sams stayed away from Hur’s “Biden is old and has memory problems” stuff, unless I missed something in the memo,

          1. “For the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecution of Mr. Biden is also unwarranted based on our consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the Department of Justice’s Principles of Federal Prosecution. For these reasons, we decline prosecution of Mr. Biden. … we find this evidence to be insufficient to meet the government’s burden in a criminal prosecution. … we find the evidence as a whole insufficient to meet the government’s burden of proving that Mr. Biden willfully retained the Afghanistan documents in the Virginia home in 2017. … There is also insufficient evidence that Mr. Biden willfully retained the handwritten Thanksgiving memo … We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to meet the government’s burden. In accordance with the Justice Manual, because we do not believe the government is likely to obtain a conviction at trial, we decline prosecution. … There is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Biden intentionally retained the classified documents in the EYES ONLY envelope after his term as vice president or caused his staff to do so. Instead, the evidence supports an innocent explanation for the unauthorized retention of those documents. … There is insufficient evidence to support charging Mr. Biden for the retention of the other marked classified documents recovered from the Penn Biden Center…”
            https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

        2. “The question is . . .”

          That is the question that *you* want to address (which, again, is fine).

          However, *Turley’s* focus is: “That separation has now collapsed . . .” And *his* focus holds irrespective of who’s right about the content of Hur’s report.

      1. The passage you and others quote says he “uncovered evidence.” Yes, Hur says there is some evidence, but is it enough to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Hur says many times in many places that the evidence is not sufficient for that. Nowhere does he say it is. He does not say, for example, that he established proof beyond a reasonable doubt on even one document but would be unable to persuade a jury because of Biden’s senility. If I missed that, please point it out. Hur weaseled his way through the evidence to conclude everywhere that the evidence was insufficient.

      2. Also from that Executive Summary: “We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. … we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecution of Mr. Biden is also unwarranted based on our consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the Department of Justice’s Principles of Federal Prosecution.”
        https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

        1. Actually, a jury is supposed to decide whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The level of proof necessary to get to trial, is a far less quantum. Therefore, a lot of discretion is given to a prosecutor.

          Standard 3-4.3 Minimum Requirements for Filing and Maintaining Criminal Charges
          (a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.

          So, whether Hur truly believes the admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, is something in his own mind. He could have taken this to a grand jury, or not. My bet is, if this was Trump, then Trump would have been taken to trial. But that is only an opinion.

          That is why it is so important that partisan politics, via lawfare, should be kept out of the mix. But they aren’t. Hence, you have the lawfare-based judicial actions against Trump.

          The ABA also notes that:

          Standard 3-4.4 Discretion in Filing, Declining, Maintaining, and Dismissing Criminal Charges
          (a) In order to fully implement the prosecutor’s functions and duties, including the obligation to enforce the law while exercising sound discretion, the prosecutor is not obliged to file or maintain all criminal charges which the evidence might support. Among the factors which the prosecutor may properly consider in exercising discretion to initiate, decline, or dismiss a criminal charge, even though it meets the requirements of Standard 3-4.3, are:

          (i) the strength of the case;

          (ii) the prosecutor’s doubt that the accused is in fact guilty;

          (iii) the extent or absence of harm caused by the offense;

          (iv) the impact of prosecution or non-prosecution on the public welfare;

          (v) the background and characteristics of the offender, including any voluntary restitution or efforts at rehabilitation;

          (vi) whether the authorized or likely punishment or collateral consequences are disproportionate in relation to the particular offense or the offender;

          (vii) the views and motives of the victim or complainant;

          (viii) any improper conduct by law enforcement;

          (ix) unwarranted disparate treatment of similarly situated persons;

          (x) potential collateral impact on third parties, including witnesses or victims;

          (xi) cooperation of the offender in the apprehension or conviction of others;

          (xii) the possible influence of any cultural, ethnic, socioeconomic or other improper biases;

          (xiii) changes in law or policy;

          (xiv) the fair and efficient distribution of limited prosecutorial resources;

          (xv) the likelihood of prosecution by another jurisdiction; and

          (xvi) whether the public’s interests in the matter might be appropriately vindicated by available civil, regulatory, administrative, or private remedies.

          (b) In exercising discretion to file and maintain charges, the prosecutor should not consider:

          (i) partisan or other improper political or personal considerations;

          (ii) hostility or personal animus towards a potential subject, or any other improper motive of the prosecutor; or

          (iii) the impermissible criteria described in Standard 1.6 above.

          (c) A prosecutor may file and maintain charges even if juries in the jurisdiction have tended to acquit persons accused of the particular kind of criminal act in question.

          (d) The prosecutor should not file or maintain charges greater in number or degree than can reasonably be supported with evidence at trial and are necessary to fairly reflect the gravity of the offense or deter similar conduct.

          (e) A prosecutor may condition a dismissal of charges, nolle prosequi, or similar action on the accused’s relinquishment of a right to seek civil redress only if the accused has given informed consent, and such consent is disclosed to the court. A prosecutor should not use a civil waiver to avoid a bona fide claim of improper law enforcement actions, and a decision not to file criminal charges should be made on its merits and not for the purpose of obtaining a civil waiver.

          (f) The prosecutor should consider the possibility of a noncriminal disposition, formal or informal, or a deferred prosecution or other diversionary disposition, when deciding whether to initiate or prosecute criminal charges. The prosecutor should be familiar with the services and resources of other agencies, public or private, that might assist in the evaluation of cases for diversion or deferral from the criminal process.

          ————
          Pay attention to

          (b) In exercising discretion to file and maintain charges, the prosecutor should not consider:

          (i) partisan or other improper political or personal considerations;

          (ii) hostility or personal animus towards a potential subject, or any other improper motive of the prosecutor; or
          —————–

          See, that is why it was so terrible that Letitia James ran on a “Get Trump” platform, and Bragg. And why the FBI “getting Trump” is such a deviation from American standards of justice.

          Standards above can be found at:

          https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/#:~:text=(a)%20A%20prosecutor%20should%20seek,in%20the%20interests%20of%20justice.

          1. Principles of Federal Prosecution, 9-27.220 – Grounds for Commencing or Declining Prosecution

            “JM 9-27.220 sets forth the longstanding threshold requirement from the Principles of Federal Prosecution that a prosecutor may commence or recommend federal prosecution only if he/she believes that the person will more likely than not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an unbiased trier of fact and that the conviction will be upheld on appeal. Evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction is required under Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to avoid a judgment of acquittal. Moreover, both as a matter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the attorney for the government believes that the admissible evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact.”

            1. As you point out, the standard is “what the attorney believes.” There is no way to know what Hur truly believes. That is all inside his own head. He could just as easily have taken this to trial. You know, one can deconstruct a criminal case into an absurd level, and hardly ever find a rationale for taking it to trial, if that is what one wishes to do. Hur wrote a detailed report and he covered his a$$.

              Frankly, I do not think Biden could have been convicted either, because the case would be politicized beyond all belief. But do I think Biden was guilty? Hell yes! He had tons of stuff of classified stuff all over the place, that he never had any right to possess. We have seen pictures of it.

              Think of it like this. Bob owns a pawn shop, and Bob is known to be a fence. The police go into the shop, and out of 1,000 items, they find one stolen guitar, selling for $100, and one Kindle Fire worth maybe $25. Do they prosecute? Probably not. But what if they find 50 stolen items there? Then they prosecute.

              To me, Biden is the guy with the 50 stolen items, and the mere quanta of classified materials he possessed becomes it own proof. But I am not the Special Counsel, and I do not get t decide this. All I can do is express my opinion.

          2. Flyod wrote: “And why the FBI “getting Trump” is such a deviation from American standards of justice.”

            Deviation from putative “American standards of justice” I can agree with. But not necessarily “FBI standards of justice” which, as far as I know, have deviated from that other standard for virtually the entire existence of the organization. And while my comment may be nominally off topic, I think it is appropriate. Those who would put our society back on track would do well to understand and acknowledge that, while the deterioration of Constitutional standards as the foundation of our society is accelerating us toward an ignomious end, that deterioration is not in any way a recent development: it has been in progress for quite a long time. Joe Biden (along with Hillary and Obama) is a disgusting and very ugly symptom of that disease, but a symptom is exactly what he is, not the cause.

    4. I think they didn’t say the “evidence” was not sufficient for “willful” acts; they said Biden’s mind is not sufficient for “willful” acts.

  14. “WHCO spokesman Ian Sams has taken the lead in attacking critics and denying facts related to corruption and other allegations.” “. . . the WHCO instructs reporters . . .” (JT)

    “I will provide a propagandistic casus belli [rationalization for war]. Its credibility doesn’t matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth.” (Hitler’s propaganda machine)

    When your premise is: The ends justifies the means, and your ends is: absolute power — lies are your means, and truth is the first casualty.

  15. Tell me why Boys (?). When The Dems know that this Guy is going to blow a Brain Hemorrhoid at sometime in the next Presidential term,
    They know that the ‘Ticket’ (Biden-Harris) is D.O.A. but should it succeed (a mail-in ballot miracle), they face a House of Reps Majority and may possibly remain in control of the Senate, to have maintained the current ‘Status Quo”.

    (The question) Why would Anyone want a continuation of what the past 4 years have done to the U.S. ?
    IMO: Nothing Adds Up. The Domestic and Global agenda are in a state of Disaster.
    This hasn’t been the Snowflake wonderland promised by the Dems in the previous Election (2020).

    There is nothing to gain (?) the Inmates are in control of the Asylum

    1. “Historians” like David Brinkley and Jon Meacham chose to soil their reputations with hackery during the Trump presidency. Good luck hoping for honesty.

      P.S. I think there will eventually be a reckoning. It may take decades. Probably after the current generation dies off. When historians 50-100 years from now examine actual original source documents, for example, Trump’s State of the Unions – and compare them to how the media reported them they will see huge gaping chasms between reality and how it was reported.

      None of us will live long enough to see this “discovery”.

    2. Anonymous wrote: “If honest people write the history, Biden’s legacy will be on the ash heap.”

      What do you think was the masis of the maxim “history is writter by the victors”? It is typically not written by honest brokers, but by sycophants.

  17. The press has nobody to blame but themselves.

    The White House prepares questions which reporters dutifully read, word for word when called on by Biden or Harris and allow dozens of false claims, by the WH to go unchallenged, yet are now offended at being asked to tone down the criticism of Biden’s cognitive decline?

    The press brought this indignation on themselves!

    1. Amen! The main stream press in this country is like a hooker, for whom you have just put the money on the nightstand, and now acts offended when you ask her to take her britches off. Not that I have any personal experience in that sort of scenario, though.

  19. “… actual memos directing their responses insulted many in the media. That is just not how this is done. You have to maintain certain proprieties and appearances. …”

    B-Movie (Biden-Movie) you must follow the Script says a Co-Director (Ian Sims)

  20. “Sams’s effort to spin out of these scandals could easily end up spinning the White House into an actual impeachment.”

    No, I do not think Biden will be impeached because over this, when he is not being impeached over the Border Invasion or his sleazy business dealings. The WHCA is just a little peeved because Sams said the quiet part out loud, as you said.

Comments are closed.