Below is my column in The Hill on the concerning record of Attorney General Merrick Garland on a variety of recent matters, including a frivolous privilege claim to withhold the audiotape of President Joe Biden during the Hur interview. There is a certain corruption of judgment that is evident from this and other decisions by Garland since he became Attorney General.
Here is the column:
This week, Attorney General Merrick Garland took to the pages of the Washington Post to lash out at critics who are spreading what he considers “conspiracy theories crafted and spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the judicial process itself.” His column, titled “Unfounded attacks on the Justice Department must end,” missed the point.
It is Garland himself who has become the problem. The solution is in Wilmington, Delaware, where 12 average citizens just showed a commitment to the rule of law that seems to be harder and harder for the attorney general to meet.
Since his appointment, Garland has repeated a mantra that he is apolitical and would never yield to the pressures of politics or the White House. When he was nominated, I believed that claim and enthusiastically supported Garland’s confirmation. He was, I thought, the perfect man for the job after his distinguished judicial service as a moderate judge.
I was wrong. Garland’s tenure as attorney general has shown a pronounced reluctance to take steps that would threaten President Biden. He slow-walked the appointment of a special counsel investigating any Biden, and then excluded from the counsel’s scope any investigation of the massive influence peddling operation by Hunter Biden, his uncle and others.
However, it is what has occurred in the last six months that has left some of us shaken, given our early faith in Garland.
I have long been a critic of Garland’s failure to order a special counsel to look into the extensive evidence of corruption surrounding the Bidens. As I stated in my testimony in the Biden impeachment hearing, there is ample evidence that Biden lied repeatedly about his knowledge of this corruption and his interaction with these foreign clients.
However, a more worrisome concern is the lack of consistency in these investigations. First, Special Counsel Robert Hur found that Biden knowingly retained and mishandled classified material. However, he concluded that Biden’s age and diminished faculties would make him too sympathetic to a jury. It was less sympathetic than pathetic, given that this is the same man who is running for re-election to lead the most powerful nation on Earth. More importantly, Garland has not made obvious efforts to reach a consistent approach in the two cases by dropping charges based on the same crimes by Trump in Florida. (Such action would not affect the obstruction counts).
Second, Garland has allowed Special Counsel Jack Smith to maintain positions that seem diametrically at odds with past Justice Department policies. This includes Smith’s statement that he will try Trump up to (and even through) the next election. It also includes a sweeping gag order which would have eviscerated free speech protections by gagging Trump from criticizing the Justice Department. While Garland has said that he wants to give the special counsels their independence, it falls to him to protect the consistency and values of his department.
Garland’s most brazenly political act has been the laughable executive privilege claim used to withhold the audiotape of the Hur-Biden interviews. The Justice Department has not claimed that the transcript is privileged, but only that the audiotape of Biden’s comments is privileged. This is so logically disconnected that even CNN hosts have mocked it.
The Justice Department went further in court by adding conspiracy to absurdity as part of its unhinged theory. It asserted a type of “deepfake privilege” on the basis that the release of the audiotape could allow AI systems to create fake versions of the president’s words. It ignores that there are already ample public sources now to create such fake tapes and that, by withholding the real audiotape, the Justice Department only makes such fake copies more likely to arise and ensnare the unwary.
Most importantly, the arguments of a “he-who-must-not-be-heard” privilege or a deep-fake privilege are ridiculous. Garland knows that, as would any first-year law student. Yet, he is going along with a claim that is clearly designed to protect Biden from embarrassment before the next election. It is entirely political and absurd.
After stumbling through a half-hearted defense of the audiotape decision before he was held in contempt of Congress, Garland was faced with another clear test of principle. Three House committees (Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means) this month referred for prosecution cases of perjury against Hunter Biden and his uncle, James Biden. Despite what appear to be open-and-shut allegations that they lied to Congress, most everyone in Washington believes that Garland and the Justice Department will slow-walk and then scuttle the referrals to protect the Bidens.
This is the same Justice Department that seemed on a hair-trigger to prosecute Trump officials for perjury and contempt after referrals from Democrat-controlled committees.
The questions at issue were not “gotcha” traps, like showing up at Michael Flynn’s office to nail him on his description of a meeting with Russian diplomats. These were some of the most-discussed questions heading into Hunter Biden’s long-delayed appearance before the committees.
Hunter is accused of lying about his position at Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a corporate entity that moved millions of dollars from foreign individuals and entities to Hunter Biden. He also allegedly lied about the identity of the recipient of his controversial message to a Chinese businessman, in which he threatened that his father was sitting “right next to me” and would join him in retaliating against the Chinese if they did not send millions. They promptly wired the money as demanded.
Hunter’s answers appear to be demonstrably untrue. Yet, there is little faith that the Justice Department will allow the matter to be presented to a grand jury. If Garland’s pledge to remain apolitical were widely accepted, there would be little question about the prosecution of such compelling claims.
Garland now appears entirely adrift in his own department. While mouthing platitudes about being beyond politics, he continues to run interference for the Biden White House. He appears to be looking to close aides for such direction.
He should instead look to those 12 people in Wilmington, Delaware.
Despite facing overwhelming evidence of Hunter Biden’s guilt, his legal team pursued a jury-nullification strategy. Wilmington is Bidentown, the hometown for the president and his family. An array of Bidens, including the first lady, lined up behind Hunter during the trial, in case anyone forgot that fact.
Yet the jury convicted Hunter on all counts without any hesitation. Despite sympathy for a recovering drug addict in a town that has overwhelmingly supported the Bidens for decades, “nobody mentioned anything about political motivations” in the jury room, as one juror noted. “I was never thinking of President Joe Biden,” said another.
Garland needs to show a modicum of that courage and principle as attorney general. He could start by dropping the farcical privilege claims over the audiotape and sending the referrals to the U.S. Attorneys Office for the same priority treatment afforded to Trump officials like Flynn.
As it stands, few believe that will happen, despite Garland’s repeated line about transcending politics. It is not the mantra that is in doubt, but the man.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University School of Law. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon and Schuster, 2024).
I used to think Garland would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. I was wrong.
Is there any law that prevents a US attorney in Texas or elsewhere from prosecuting the AG for contempt of Congress? Does the AG have immunity from federal justice?
They can’t do anything. They would have zero standing.
Of course, you mean zero jurisdiction, right, ignorant Svelaz?
He said prosecute, not file suit.
Spastic Idiot non savant.
Don’t care. Either way they can’t do squat.
I know you dont care how ignorant you are when you respond to someone. That is more than apparent to everyone here.
Makin’ shit up is just “another point of view”
LMAO
So what? The point remains the same.
George, your shit ‘comes to a point’
so your ass doesn’t slam shut when you release it.
But so what, right? Your BS remains the same.
He has been cornholed so badly by Waters since he got here, his ass hole doesn’t close at all anymore.
That would violate the vicinage clause.
. . . which means that a jury trial would need to be held in Washington DC or perhaps Virginia or Maryland. I question if he could be indicted outside Washington DC and then forced to seek a change of venue to WDC. A jury might convict him there.
Pointing out corruption within our government is like shooting fish in a barrel. The problem is we need more people like JT willing to shoot. His assessment of Garland is not surprising in it’s accuracy. It’s the fact it took him so long that reflects something far more troubling. The Regime has near total control of our constitutional system of governance and it seems voices like JT’s are few and far between. The question is whether this election will be a referendum on the power of the Regime, or an endorsement of it’s effectiveness.
Why leave out the appointment of Weiss as special prosecutor for Hunter after he participated in the sweetheart deal and had been accused of wrongdoing by whistleblowers”. This violates the basic purpose of the special prosecutor, which involves bringing in someone with a reputation for integrity from outside in order to guarantee the appearance at least of objectivity. And the appointment of partisan special prosecutors more generall?
“Merrick Garland is a person with unimpeachable ethics and integrity.” (8/16/22) Res Ipsa Loquitur
“I now believe that he would have made a great justice for all the reasons he has proven to be a poor attorney general.” (6/17/23) The Hill
“The fact that this spurious argument is being made by Merrick Garland’s Justice Department is another disappointing sign that he has abandoned his pledge to remain apolitical in office.” (6/2/24) Res Ipsa Loquitur
“As it stands, few believe that will happen despite Garland’s repeated line on transcending politics. It is not the mantra, but the man, that is in doubt.” (6/15/24) The Hill
“There is a certain corruption of judgment that is evident from this and other decisions by Garland since he became Attorney General.” (6/17/24) Res Ipsa Loquitur
If Professor Turley is personally acquainted with Merrick Garland, this must have been a difficult journey. I am impressed.
Republican party should VIRTUALLY nominate President Trump on July 10.
Then the corrupt judge Merchan will be sentencing the Republic Presidential Candidate on July 11 — to prison — if he dares. And you better believe he will do it.
Nominate Trump virtually before July 11.
Abject liars will be abject liars.
Hopefully, eventually, Garland will end up in the D.C. gulag, and be treated exactly as are the innocent J6’ers that his stinking, rotten, corrupt injustice department continues to unlawfully persecuted and imprison. If not, eventually Garland will face The Judge – The Only One that truly matters. And that, my friends will be a fearful experience for the miserable traitor. In the meanwhile I will pray that he, along with all his wicked comrades will repent, admit their crimes and sins, and accept the rightful punishment due them.
The audiotape is conveniently marked “privileged” because it very likely does not align with the released transcript, and therefore too incriminating for voters to hear. Transparency takes a backseat again.
We learned from the Obama years exactly what is to be the role of an illiberal president’s attorney general when Eric Holder (the only other AG to be held in contempt by Congress) proudly describe himself as Obama’s “Wingman.”
In an interview on April 4th, 2013 when asked when he might leave Obama’s side, Holder said, “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the President’s wingman, so I’m there with my boy. So, we’ll see.”
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1517973/images/o-OBAMA-ERIC-HOLDER-facebook.jpg
What evidence is there that that the transcript does not align with the audio tape? There would have to be a claim that the official transcript is fake, but that would require that someone knows both recordings are not aligned. Did Comer or Jordan have access to both? Let’s think about that for a minute. How does anyone know they are not aligned? Why isn’t the person who claims it step forward and say the transcript is fake or has been altered because they knew what the audio tape says?
Res Ipsa Loquitur
So, Svelaz-George would have us believe that for once in his life, Biden was able to speak for several hours without his normal mumbling, inaudible remarks, slurs, misspeaks, etc.
It’s a fake transcript. Doctored. Res Ipsa loquitur
LMAO
You’re just jumping from one bit of conjecture to another because you have no evidence of an altered transcript.
For someone to suggest or claim it is they must know the audio is different. But we both know that someone is more likely to be spreading BS BR because they are angry that Biden is getting away with a “crime” he/she cannot prove. Conspiracy theorists will just keep spinning new theories to justify the lack of evidence on the old ones and the vicious cycle becomes its own reality. You’re already stuck in it you just don’t realize it. It’s pretty sad.
Svelaz-George,
Is it not obvious to you that the transcript must be different from the audio? Otherwise why would both not be released? For the sake of transparency the substance of the transcript, which elite illiberals say is enough for the common man to know, is of deficient
value if not backed up by the substance of the audio. CNN anchor Jake Tapper understands that. Why not you?
Hoffman, the only people claiming the transcript is fake or altered are those who can’t prove it is. So they “need” the audio to prove it.
That’s just plain stupid. Republicans have repeatedly been exposed for selectively releasing statements out of context and proven wrong when the entire transcript is published.
They have no credible reason to say the transcript is altered unless they know something they are not telling everyone else.
They are sayin. The transcript, an official government record created by the SC cannot be trusted. If that’s the case why not subpoena the transcriber? That person can verify the authenticity of the transcribed audio.
The committee already has what it needs to conclude its investigation. They only want the audio to use as campaign ads against the president. That’s not a legitimate legislative need.
Congress already has the interview on record. If they really want it they are going to have to do what Trump did. Have Congress go to court. That’s the lawful process.
Have you thought of the scenario whereby the transcript is not “fake or altered”, but instead simply incomplete? That it may be but only a part of the audio is something reasonable and objective citizens might consider and wish to know. It’s disingenuous to say there is no proof when the bureaucrats in command will not allow the release of the audio that may well bear the proof.
“That’s just plain stupid. Republicans have repeatedly been exposed for selectively releasing statements out of context and proven wrong when the entire transcript is published.”
Says you.
You are stupid
Again, george wants is to believe that Biden didnt speak the same way he has for 4 years.
CLEARLY it was doctored.
So you believe it is plausible that he spoke for several hours with zero stutter, misspeaks, garbled words, muttering, inaudible words, made up words, or any of the other stuff we see from him DAILY?
Really?
There is ZERO doubt that the transcription does not match the audio.
ZERO
“Boy”? Wingman’s lucky the cancellation squadrons never scrambled and shot him down. That’s a former President of the United States. Do not refer to him as “boy,” and especially not as “my boy.” You’ve got it exactly backwards, Mr. Holder.
“Boy”? Wingman’s lucky the cancellation squadrons never scrambled and shot him down. That’s a former President of the United States. Do not refer to him as “boy,” and especially not as “my boy.” You’ve got it exactly backwards, Mr. Holder.
Everyone seems to know why merrick is withholding the video – joe looks like a dementia addled old fool. I don’t think that is the case. Joe was given a pass, because he is a dementia addled old fool. What if the video, proves otherwise?
Old joe look like idiot this past weekend at the G7. Is he really that bad? Or was joe setting expectations for the upcoming debate?
Old joe seems to have remarkable bouts of lucidity when it matters.
Old joe seems to have remarkable bouts of lucidity
That is the nature of stage 4 dementia.
Mad Mike says: The transcript has been edited and that is a fact that everyone will agree. From reading an edited transcript can the reader determine the mental capacity of the that person? The answer is no. Is it possible that the DOJ’s refusal to provide the audio an attempt to allow a competent President not to be charged? Could the audio prove that he is a sympathetic old man that could not be tried or prove that he is not completely senile and could be charged? We may never know until an administration change.
The talking points from Demoncrats / White House apparatchiks are carbon copies of each other
Merrick Garland: “conspiracy theories crafted and spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the judicial process itself.”
Anthony Fauci “conspiracy theories crafted and spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in public health ”
Fauci and Garland’s carbon copied talking points are not a coincidence nor was Biden’s Hitler speech drenched in red with US Marines by his side.
These people are the enemies of the United States of America
lap canem
Garland has the opportunity to be the most loyal AG to his Oath of Office in the entire 21st Century – by providing accountability to the Bush torture attorneys that committed legal malpractice and betrayed their Oath of Office.
Not a single AG – Democrat or Republican – has upheld their Oath of Office in enforcing Ronald Reagan’s torture treaty which is constitutional under Article VI (Sections 1,2 & 3) and part of federal criminal law. All 21st Century federal AG’s have been disloyal on enforcing the war crimes of torture and blacklisting.
Primary culpability is on the torture attorneys, not the DoD and CIA interrogators forced to follow their amateur legal guidance. CIA official John Kiriakou even served years in prison for refusing to follow these political hacks masquerading as attorneys.
Garland could be the most loyal AG in the 21st Century by making these torture attorneys accountable for betraying their Oath of Office and the values of Ronald Reagan on torture and cruel treatment.
What’s the relevance to the subject of the article?
Treaties are not self-executing unless they say they are.
We need to thank our lucky stars that this miscreant never made it onto the supreme court. I shudder to think just how many other such partisan soldiers for the progressive agenda or just plain mercenary soldiers willing to sell their integrity for well-padded government positions were ensconced under the 8 year reign of obama. We have a long hard slog cleaning out these Augean stables of corruption, collusion, sedition, and incompetence.
I wonder if Merrick Garland can define a WOMAN?
That’s easy.
Anyone who can pass Joe Biden’s sniff and grope test.
If Joe says its a woman. then its a woman. (Even if its not.)
Merrick Garland demonstrates the value of a Harvard Law degree: advancement via cronyism. As in ‘Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on your graduation day.’
Must be a tough nut for ‘ol Merrick to crack and swallow: a Harvard Law grad being a stooge for a Syracuse Law grad that cheated while in law school. But such is life and duty for a Democrat.
Everyone knows why they’re withholding the video. They don’t want the American people to see Joe Biden fumbling over the questions and seeing him asked to have the questions repeated for the third time. If this is not true then just show us the video and you can put it all to rest. Just like just show us the proof that it’s not Hunter’s laptop and you can put it all to rest. The resistance is the same for exactly the same reasons. Like father like son.
TiT,
After witnessing Biden’s frozen stares, his shuffling off, and the reports of how he could not focus at the G7 summit, might just be the audio is that damming there would be no way to spin it.
Here is an interesting read, We Can Be Lied To About Anything
https://quoththeraven.substack.com/p/we-can-be-lied-to-about-anything
Thinkitthrough,
*IF* Biden was ever even asked those questions.
The whole thing could be a lie.
TiT
I’m going out on a limb but I imagine that on that tape there’s Joe saying…
“Hey did I tell you about my boy Bo who was killed in combat… I forget when and were, but man, he should have gotten the CMH.
He was the bravest soldier I knew. Just like my other boy Hunter is the smarted conman that I know. ”
What are the odds?
-G
Investigators
selected a sampling of excerpts across Mr. Biden’s notebooks that both appeared to
be classified and that they expected a jury could find are national defense information
under 18 U.S.C. § 793.
Subject to the limitations discussed in Chapter Two, classification authorities
identified each excerpt as containing presently classified information. :i~:3 Of the
thirty-seven excerpts:
111 Eight are Top Secret with Sensitive Compartmented Information, seven of
which include information concerning human intelligence sources,
• Six are Top Secret,
111 Twenty-one are Secret, and
• Two are Confidential
Here is your mens rea, douchebag
*IF* those numbers are correct.
Probably aren’t.
He may have had many more documents.
Do you know what mens rea means?
How does a list of material prove mental state?
There is evidence that, after his vice presidency, Mr. Biden willfully retained
marked classified documents about Afghanistan and unmarked classified
handwritten notes in his notebooks, both of which he stored in unsecured places in
his home. He had no legal authority to do so, and his retention of these materials,
and disclosure of classified information from his notebooks to his ghostwriter, risked
serious damage to America’s national security.
You pulled one line without the numerous statements, which show that the evidence they found is insufficient to prove willful retention of such documents.
Praytell, please show me where it says that the evidence found is sufficient to meet the reasonable doubt threshold needed for prosecution.
Yikes, you do realize that having some evidence means nothing if it doesn’t meet the prosecution’s burden, right?
LMAO move the goalposts much.
A jury should decide.
Same bull shit they pulled with Hillary.
You may have heard of it…two tiered justice system.
Where is the goddam GRAND JURY?
So eat shit, retard.
How have I moved the goalposts?
Do you honestly think any time ANY evidence of a crime is found, a grand jury is summoned to determine whether to indict?
If you read Hur’s report, he stated numerous times that the evidence they found insufficient evidence…
Here, I will make it easy for you. Here is the title of the relevant section to which you cherrypicked your sentence above:
III. THE EVIDENCE FALLS SHORT OF ESTABLISHING MR. BIDEN’S WILLFUL RETENTION OF THE CLASSIFIED AFGHANISTAN DOCUMENTS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
WRONG, lying Spastic Idiot Non Savant
My excerpt was from PAGE ONE
PAGE ONE
PAGE ONE
Are you sure it’s page one? You were wrong about the last claim.
Which claim was that, spastic idiot? That it was page 90? So weak, even for you. YOU claimed i took 2 statements from different chapters when they were back to back on the same page. Page 86 of the report and page 90 of the pdf i provided.
Do you think people cant read the shit you post and see you for what you are? Its amazing how much shame a person will endure so long as they are anonymous.
By the way,
Still waiting for your citation from the “Obama EO” that gave the VP
“similar authority but not exactly the same authority Obama had as president.”
Still waiting
This has to be one of the most ignorant statements you have ever made.
Now justify it.
There were in his personal notebooks, which aids say he “meticulously protected”
mens rea, numbnuts
First, let’s play a game: On what page of the Hur Report is the term “meticulously protected” used?
Second, even if that were accurate, that does not establish specific intent to commit any of the crimes investigated by Hur.
This is first day of Crim Pro stuff… Google “specific intent” and “mens rea” if you need a refresher.
Willful….defined in the report
Page 221
Lisa Monaco tells Garland to “jump” and of course Garland asks “how high, Master Lisa?”
Guess what Anonymous. Ex Presidents are allowed to keep classified documents as a history of their time in office but Vice Presidents and Senators are not allowed to do so. You being such an expert in the law and all you should know this. It’s more proof that you don’t no jack as usual.
Citation?
https://www.archives.gov/news/topics/presidential-records-act
Under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), incumbent Presidents have exclusive responsibility for the custody and management of the Presidential records of their administration while in office. The National Archives and Records Administration has no formal role in how incumbent Presidents manage their records, except when the President proposes to dispose of records; instead, NARA provides guidance and counsel to incumbent Presidents and their designated officials, upon request.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ All power of the Executive Branch emanates from the President. He sets the rules for his administration. He does not need the approval of some minion to classify or declassify anything as the President has Original Classification Authority.
“Please note that the PRA treats the records of the President and those of the Vice President in almost the same manner such that, in most cases below, President and Vice President can be used interchangeably.”
https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2023/nr23-016
Try again?
Press releases do not constitute law.
Section 227 of the PRA: Vice Presidential Records
“Vice-Presidential records shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner as Presidential records. The duties and responsibilities of the Vice President, with respect to Vice-Presidential records, shall be the same as the duties and responsibilities of the President under this chapter, except Section 2208, with respect to Presidential records. The authority of the Archivist with respect to Vice-Presidential records shall be the same as the authority of the Archivist under this chapter with respect to Presidential records, except that the Archivist may, when the Archivist determines that it is in the public interest, enter into an agreement for the deposit of Vice-Presidential records in a non-Federal archival depository. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the establishment of separate archival depositories for such Vice-Presidential records.”
I dumbed it down BTeboe, but here is the statute if you prefer: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html#2207
So that says the Archivist and VP should treat them the same as Presidential Records. So what???
You can do better than that, strawman
press release LMAO
OMG that is Svelaz shit right there
Bwahahahahahahaha
Yea, all except, you get to declassify and keep…LMAO
UpstateFarmer said: “How are they going to get him not only to the debates, the convention and the election?”
I don’t think that they can do so while retaining any credibility for Biden. The result would be that he will be even more unelectable in November than he is today. I think they were hoping that their lawfare would either knock Trump off the ballot, or damage his popularity to the point that voters would ignore Biden’s obvious infirmities; a hope that at this moment very much looks to be futile. I continue to believe that it is much too late to try to replace Biden on the ballot with anyoen else. I see no potential Demon candidate who is both well-known and isn’t weighed down with so much political baggage as to be unelectable. All that they have left in their arsenal is some kind of extreme subterfuge. My only question is what form that subterfuge will take. The most obvious ploys to me are: outright and obvious election theft; overt war with Russia; assassinating Trump; military/executive branch coup (yes, those options overlap). There also could be something to prevent a Trump win that has not yet occurred to me. Another possibility that I have mentioned before is that they clandestinely concede the election to Trump, while concentrating all of their efforts to sabotaging his term, no matter what further damage to the US results.
Number 6,
Great comment.
I could see anyone of those possibilities and even a combination to win the election. The WWIII one is most concerning. But they seem to be that desperate to remain in power, I would not put it past them to get us into a all out war.
It has been speculated the reason for the early debate, if Biden flubs it (cannot imagine he wouldnt), they can still go with another candidate. But as you point out, who? Hillary, again? She made some recent tweet or something and even Democrats were critical of her.
Newsome? His track record of driving CA into the ground would be great fodder for the GOP and Trump.
Michelle Obama? If she was smart, she would stay away from that.
I think they are stuck with Joe, and they know it. Would make sense of all the panic and desperation we are seeing from them.
@Upstate @Number6
I’ve had similar thoughts. Let us hope they cannot go that far, as sanity has left the building at the DNC.
UpstateFarmer- a convenient but less severe action to avoid the debate would be a sudden illness like Avian Flu or Monkey Pox. Must be contagious so he would be isolated from all other possible victims
GEB said: “a sudden illness like Avian Flu or Monkey Pox”
Alternatively, and consistent with my first “option”, they could gin up another phony pandemic based on monkey pox or H5N1, and implement extensive lock-downs in order to better cover up their blatant election cheating. There would be a lot more resistance this time, and disruptions to that regime would be the norm not the exception, but probably no more so than for any of the other possibilities I listed. One thing that I am convinced will not happen: they will not allow Trump to win, and then allow him to be inaugurated, conduct his admistration, and complete his term with the latitude that is legal and customary for an incoming President. If Trump wins AND the Republicans gain a majority in both houses of Congress, I am convinced that they will try every possible tactic to disrupt his governing. As a minarchist/libertarian, I would normally celebrate the paralysis of the Federal government on the premise that it does significantly more harm than good, but these buzzards will no doubt at the same time focus on completely destroying voluntary civil society, which is something that I emphatically reject.
Number 6,
If I did not know any better, I would think they were reading our comments, Secret Democrat plot to replace Biden revealed: How Clinton, Obama, Pelosi and Schumer will topple the aging President… and when they’ll do it
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13481849/democrat-plot-biden-replacement-clinton-obama-pelosi-schumer.html
That ^^^ was me.
UpstateFarmer said: “Secret Democrat plot to replace Biden revealed: How Clinton, Obama, Pelosi and Schumer will topple the aging President… and when they’ll do it’
I don’t see much real substance in that article (like much of what I read in the Daily Mail). I think we already knew the identity of the public faces of hte Demon power brokers, and that is pretty much the only factual content I see there. The rest is highly speculative, and much of it imo improbable. It glosses over the most important questions. “Who” that replacement nominee would be and how he or she would be selected is the most critical factor, and all I see there is hand waving. Also, while it mentions the very real possibility (I consider it more probability) that Biden would resist being replaced, it fails to tell us what Harris’ motivation would be to accept being bypassed. I have seen nothing to suggest that she thinks that she is not Biden’s logical successor. Last for now, many people who were motivated to vote for Obama because of his speech regret their impulsiveness, and are unlikely to repeat their lack of judgement. There is a cotery of idiots who will vote for the Demon candidate no matter who it is, but I think that independent voters who were persuaded to vote for Obama will be much harder to sway with pretty rhetoric this time around.
#6,
Want to bet that its Hunter that is cooking up his ‘special sauce’ to help keep him awake and focused?
Why yes, he’s the smartest man we know. 😛
Professor Turley,
You write: “First, Special Counsel Robert Hur found that Biden knowingly retained and mishandled classified material. However, he concluded that Biden’s age and diminished faculties would make him too sympathetic to a jury.”
This is a GROSS mischaracterization. Let’s turn to the actual report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf
“Evidence supports the inference that when Mr. Biden said in 2017 that he had “just found all the classified stuff downstairs” in Virginia, he was referring to the same marked classified documents about Afghanistan that FBI agents found in 2022 in his Delaware garage. Nevertheless, we do not believe this evidence is sufficient…”
There were SEVERAL reasons presented, including:
1) No evidence they were in his house when they shouldn’t have been: “Both when he served as vice president and when the Afghanistan documents were found in Mr. Biden’s Delaware garage in 2022, his possession of them in his Delaware home was not a basis for prosecution because as vice president and president, he had authority to keep classified documents in his home.”
2) If Biden forgot about them, then they may not have been WILLFULLY retained: “Mr. Biden could have found the classified Afghanistan documents at his Virginia home in 2017 and then forgotten about them soon after. This could convince some reasonable jurors that he did not retain them willfully.”
3) Biden may have had no knowledge of the documents being stored at his home at all. “Mr. Biden might not have retained the classified Afghanistan documents in his Virginia home at all. They could have been stored, by mistake and without his knowledge, at his Delaware home since the time he was vice president, as were other classified documents recovered during our investigation.
4) Biden’s limited recall might make basing the WHOLE case on an 8 words that he said during an interview less convincing. Given Mr. Biden’s limited precision and recall during his interviews with his ghostwriter and with our office, jurors may hesitate to place too much evidentiary weight on a single eight-word utterance to his ghostwriter about finding classified 5 documents in Virginia, in the absence of other, more direct evidence. We searched for such additional evidence and found it wanting. In particular, no witness, photo, e mail, text message, or any other evidence conclusively places the Afghanistan documents at the Virginia home in 2017.
5) The 8-word utterance could have been referring to different documents altogether. “When Mr. Biden told his ghostwriter he “just found all the classified stuff downstairs,” he could have been referring to something other than the Afghanistan documents, and our report discusses these possibilities in detail.”
6) Biden could present himself as an elderly man with poor memory. “We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
Thus, there were MANY reasons – completely unrelated to his “diminished faculties” – that were reasons not to bring charges. It is a disservice to your readers to focus on this one aspect of Hur’s conclusions. Even if he was not elderly, this is COMPLETELY different from Trump’s situation, where he intentionally moved and retained classified documents after his term in office.
There is no comparison between the MENS REA of Trump’s case vs. the MENS REA of Biden.
You can throw out “mens rea” all you want but your argument is pathetically weak and unconvincing. Saying he had documents at his home in 2022 is cured by his being president seems to forget the fact that he wasn’t president when he took the documents or when he held them for years and years.
The excuse that sure he knew he had the docs in 2017 but he then quickly forgot about them???? Nice tight ship your boy is running there.
Any reason why Biden wasn’t prosecuted for giving his ghost writer access to CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS? Any reason why the DOJ didn’t squeeze the ghost writer after he erased the tape of having the docs? Any reason why a senator would have classified docs out of a SCIF?
My God man, stop it, you are making a complete fool out of yourself.
HullBobby,
Thank you for bringing the facts to the table.
Had this been anyone else, they would of been charged, convicted, and serving time by now.
Unless their name is Biden.
Or Clinton.
Upstate,
This is blatantly false. Have you actually read the Hur Report? The Report describes the Reagan Diaries at length. One of the reasons they decided not to prosecute was the lack of prosecution against Reagan for his private retention of his diaries, which contained classified information.
Page 243: “The defense will buttress these claims by contending that other credible authorities, including at least one former president and the Department of Justice, also have concluded that a former president may keep handwritten notes even if they contain classified information. As discussed in Chapter Ten, the clearest historical example is President Reagan, who left the White House in 1989 with eight years’ worth of handwritten diaries, which he kept at his private home in California. The Reagan diaries contained classified information, such as entries recounting National Security Council meetings and referencing highly sensitive intelligence sources and methods, including human sources and signals intelligence. Some entries that addressed sensitive subjects included descriptions such as “top secret” and “very hush hush,” and some entries remained classified Top Secret as of 2007, decades after Mr. Reagan wrote them.
… “In short, there will be evidence at that at least one former president did what Mr. Biden now claims it was proper for him to do too: take his diaries home after leaving the White House, even though the diaries contained classified information. As indicated by letters we have received from the White House Counsel’s Office and Mr. Biden’s personal attorneys, the defense will argue that the Department of Justice blessed this view in Mr. Reagan’s case by stating in public filings that the diaries were both classified and Mr. Reagan’s personal records and by taking no recovery or enforcement action. Most jurors would likely find this precedent and Mr. Biden’s claimed reliance on it, evidence of which we expect would be admitted at trial, to be compelling evidence that Mr. Biden did not act willfully.”
Again, grow a brain cell and have a synapse already. The President has original classification authority and can classify or declassify anything he wants and he doesn’t need the approval of a minion to do it. Trump said he declassified what he took. Under the Constitution all the power of the Executive Branch flows from the President.
Upstate, I would really like to hear how you can possibly justify your response given your – I’m sure thorough – reading of Hur’s discussion of the Reagan Diaries.
You write: “Had this been anyone else, they would of been charged, convicted, and serving time by now.”
Reagan is someone else. Why was he not charged and convicted?
If you are going to make statements as wild as that, please at least base them in the ACTUAL HUR REPORT examples. Do you stand by your comments, or do you know they are wildly inaccurate?
Reagan = President
Biden = VP and Senator
So what? Can you cite a single potential law or charge evaluated in Hur’s report, where that distinction has any significance?
If you cannot, do you want to try again?
Presidents can possess outside secure locations. VP and Senator cannot.
This is not true. Under which law? Please cite the statute, rule, regulation, or executive order.
TITLE 32
Subtitle B
Chapter XXVIII
Part 2800
Where you at, big mouth? Still reading it? I can tell you what it says, from memory, if you like
UpstatePartisan most likely won’t answer.
You’re posting as ‘Anonymous’
and are thus beneath him.
^^^Anonymous talking to himself
Nope, just sharing some truth with a fellow Anonymous.
We’re getting to be like Spartacus.
“I am Anonymous.” “No I am Anonymous.” And so on.
Riiiiight
Try again. Mens Rea is needed to prosecute. Without it, there is no case. Do you know what MENS REA is?? Wow.
PAGE 10: “But the evidence does not show that when Mr. Biden shared the specific passages with his ghostwriter, Mr. Biden knew the passages were classified and intended to share classified information. ”
For More Detail:
PAGE 246: When Mr. Biden could not read a particular word in the entry, he showed the entry to Zwonitzer but warned him, “Some of this may be classified, so be careful … I’m not sure. It isn’t marked classified, but…” Mr. Biden nonetheless continued to read aloud and nearly verbatim portions of the same passage of his notes, some of which remain classified at the Secret level.
“Mr. Biden’s decision to read notes nearly verbatim to Zwonitzer that Mr. Biden had just identified as potentially classified cannot be justified. But the evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to share classified information. Mr. Biden told Zwonitzer he was “not sure” the notebook passage he read was classified. That is enough to create reasonable doubt about whether Mr. Biden acted willfully.
“There is also evidence that Mr. Biden took some steps to avoid sharing classified information with Zwonitzer. As explained in Chapter Five, Mr. Biden sometimes skipped over notebook passages to avoid reading classified information. And if called as a witness at trial, Zwonitzer would testify that Mr. Biden mentioned the need to be careful “because he was worried that there was a possibility that … some of this stuff [handwritten entries in the notebooks] could be classified,” and, “there were things he couldn’t tell me, lines he couldn’t cross.”
There is evidence that, after his vice presidency, Mr. Biden willfully retained
marked classified documents about Afghanistan and unmarked classified
handwritten notes in his notebooks, both of which he stored in unsecured places in
his home. He had no legal authority to do so, and his retention of these materials,
and disclosure of classified information from his notebooks to his ghostwriter, risked
serious damage to America’s national security.
mens rea
“there is evidence” does not mean there was sufficient evidence. NUMEROUS times (which I noted above), Hur concluded that the evidence was insufficient to meet the high burden needed to prosecute.
If the cops get a tip that “John Smith” robbed a bank, and they brought in a random John Smith for questioning, they would have some evidence that this individual committed the crime. But in no way would it meet the burden needed to prosecute. What you continually repeat is essentially the same thing. Some evidence DOES NOT MEAN sufficient evidence, capice?
Yikes!
Grand Jury decides if sufficient evidence to indict. Jury decides if “beyond a reasonable doubt”
WHAT? You think every case that a prosecutor investigates goes to a grand jury to determine whether an indictment is warranted?
WOW.
OBVIOUSLY, if prosecutors do not feel a case is strong, they drop charges/investigation. Come on, man!
What Hur said (and I have combed the report) was basically, Biden has some defense or another against all of it, even if its just “i dont recall”.
Bull shit.
There is EVIDENCE he did it WILLFULLY. EVIDENCE of mens rea. Evidence of INTENT TO ACT UNLAWFULLY. Not my words. Hur’s.
What did I say that was untrue?
Yes, there was some evidence. No, Hur determined there was not enough evidence. If you want to disagree with Hur’s assessment regarding the weight of the evidence, fine. You can have that opinion.
But, IF YOU SCROLL UP, the point of this post was that Turley grossly mischaracterized Hur’s report by claiming: “However, he concluded that Biden’s age and diminished faculties would make him too sympathetic to a jury.”
That is only one of the many “defenses or another” (as you put it), which led Hur to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to proceed.
Tell me, when you “combed through the report,” did you find the many other reasons (completely unrelated to Biden’s faculties), which Hur gave not to proceed?
He literally devoted an entire chapter to comparing this case to historical practice with Reagan’s diary. That was given as a reason he decided not to prosecute. DOES THAT HAVE A DAMN THING TO DO WITH BIDEN’S “MENTAL FACULTIES”?
Oh so, you’re going with Hur on the whole “not enough to indict thing”, but on the doddering old fool thing, Hur is just a political hack. Got it.
Hullbobby, you’re clinging to your ignorance pretty hard. Hur’s report is saying all of that. That you don’t want to accept it is your choice. But it’s not the facts.
George, as someone who is here every day spreading your own forms of
partisan hypocrisy and covering for one team while bashing the other,
c’mon man, you know their game. You’re playing it yourself. No one buys your BS.
You’re missing the point. The President had authority to declassify the material and he said he did, Biden did not.