Select Page

Biden Hur(t) by transcript

Biden Hur(t) by transcript

On the day that Special Counsel Robert Hur testified in Congress about his decision to not prosecute President Biden for illegally possessing classified government documents, the actual transcript of the interview with the President was finally released. 

The Department of Justice still refuses to release the video. There is no basis in law to reject the Congress’ and the media’s requests to release the video other than politics.  Attorney General Merrick Garland is running interference for his boss.  The argument that such reports are traditionally INTENDED to be kept private if there is no indictment has been repeatedly violated in recent years – and especially in politically-charge cases. 

Now that the DOJ has released the transcript, the refusal to release the video is flagrantly political Judging from the written document, it is more than likely that Biden is going to come across very badly in the video.  The transcript already shows Biden performing far worse than in the previously leaked portions of the transcript.

Exoneration

Upon hearing that Biden would not be indicted, Democrats and their media allies used the term “totally exonerated” in staccato fashion.  Even in the hearing, several Democrats insisted that Biden was exonerated no matter how many times Hur informed them that he had NOT exonerated Biden. 

Washington State congresswoman Pramila Jayapal even insisted – over Hur’s objection – that he did exonerate Biden.  And when Hur again raised an objection, she cut him off saying “this is my time.”  Yes, her time to outrageously lie about Hur’s findings even as Hur corrected her repeatedly.  The same lie plays out over and over on leftwing media – arrogantly insisting that they know better what Hur said and meant in his own report.  The FACT is, Hur did NOT exonerate Biden … period.

Biden’s big lie revealed

You will recall how Biden responded indignantly to being “questioned” about his son Beau’s death – that he could not recall when it happened.  He expressed outrage at Hur for “raising” that issue, saying it was none of Hur’s business.

Weeell … (this is where I take on the Biden whisper) Folks, Hur never asked that question or raised the issue.  That is correct.  What Biden said in that scripted teleprompter response was pure bulls .. uh … malarky.  Biden was performing, not informing. He was telling a … lie.  He was peddling propaganda-for-pity.

In fact, it was Biden who gratuitously entered his son’s death into the interview as a date marker and then fumbled around trying unsuccessfully to put it all together in a rational thought.  When Hur asked where Biden kept government documents, he replied:

BIDEN: This is, what, 2017, 2018, that area?

HUR: Yes, sir.

BIDEN: Remember, in this time frame, my son is – either been deployed or is dying …

When Hillary Clinton ran in 2016, Biden raised his son’s death as an apparent reason for why he was not running then.  But he seem to have it all jumbled up in his brain.

BIDEN: … what month did Beau die?  Oh, God, May 30 …

As Biden struggled for the date White House lawyer Rachel Cotton said, “2015.”  An unidentified male voice repeated “2015.”

                BIDEN: Was it 2015 he died?

                MALE VOICE:  It was May of 2015.

While Biden’s confusion was obvious, the fact that Biden, not Hur, raised his son’s death on two occasions was a stark rebuke to Biden’s press conference responses.  He lied … or maybe he could not remember who said what.

(As an aside.  I was struck by the interjection of answers by the lawyers.  In my experience, I have always been told that lawyers can object to questions, but they are not supposed to answer substantively for the person being interviewed.  One can only wonder how Biden would have done had they not rescued him from his memory lapses.  But I digress.)

Biden’s manifest and disturbing confusions were seen throughout the transcript.  Axios reported “Biden repeatedly asked for help remembering certain dates – and his lawyers frequently stepped in.  Biden would ask, “When did I announce for President?  If it was 2013, when did I stop being vice president?”

And then this, “In 2009, am I still vice president?”  Yes, Mr. Vice President, you were not just “still” Vice President.  You had just started as vice president.  Biden then says, “Trump gets elected in November of 2017.”  At that point he was corrected by someone in the room, saying that it was “November of 2016.”  These are not normal things that are easily forgotten.  (Hell, I know the right dates off the top of my head – as would virtually every politician, pundit and a large portion of the populace.)

There are more examples in the transcript of Biden struggling mentally.  It gives an even darker impression of Biden’s mental acuity — and may explain why the video is not being released.  It also gives some justification for Hur using Biden’s age and mental health as the reason he believed a conviction would not be easily obtained.

Why no indictment

What is clear in the transcript and the report is that the decision to not indict Biden was made on Hur’s belief that a jury would not convict him based on his age and mental and physical frailty.  And keep in mind that any trial would be years in the future when Biden’s condition would presumably be worse.

The transcript and the report clearly laid out the essential elements of a crime.  Biden had the documents illegally.  He was aware of them – including classified documents.  He had gone through innumerable briefings on the handling of such documents – and signed documents indicating he was aware of the rules and procedures – even as he already possessed many of them improperly. 

Biden had knowingly revealed classified information in discussions with his biographer – although the final book did not reveal any classified information. (That may be because books of that nature are routinely reviewed by intelligence officials to prevent the release of classified information.)   Regardless, Biden did share classified information with an unauthorized person.

Basing an indictment decision on the health of an individual to stand trial is not new.  It is often the reason to not indict a very old or very sick individual.  What is different in this case is that while Biden is showing signs of aging, he is not so old and so infirmed as to not stand trial by normal measures.

It seems extraordinary for Hur to base his non-indictment on the current status of Biden’s age and mental acuity.  Biden is surely showing signs of a decline in mental acuity, but he is not in the advanced stages of Alzheimer’s.  Were he to significantly decline before a trial, charges could have been dropped.

Based on the facts and evidence, I would argue that Hur should have indicted Biden.

Comparison to Trump

Team Biden argues that the reason for no indictment is that Trump’s situation is much worse – not comparable.  (Hmmm?  Why do Biden’s folks keep comparing them?)  Hur suggests that comparison in the report.

They are not really comparable for all the obvious reasons.  BUT … that does not mean Biden did not commit a similar crime.  I have compared it to two bank robbers.  One cooperates with the police, confesses and returns the money.  The other claims innocence.  Hides the money.  Tampers with witnesses.  One can have more severe charges and punishment, but you do not let the first bank robber off the hook because of the behavior of the other.  And that is exactly what happened in this case.

The court-of-public-opinion

In mounting a defense for Biden in the court-of-public-opinion, Democrats and their media cronies have gone to ridiculous extremes. Perhaps the best (worse) example is MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough who emphatically stated that Biden “is better than he has ever been… intellectually … analytically …”   WHAT!  And Scarborough credits Biden’s superior mental acuity because “he’s been around for 50 years.”  (Actually, Biden has been around for 81 years.)   Scarborough repeated for emphasis (as he often does) by saying “This version of Biden … intellectually … analytically … is the best Biden ever.” (Perhaps Scarborough should be getting one of those mental acuity tests.)

Of course, Scarborough is only reciting from the latest Team Biden Script.  Like the MSNBC host, others go over the top to claim that Biden is not only not declining from old age issues, but he is also rising above his age as some super senior.  It is all observable nonsense, but it feeds the base.  The question is whether it convinces anyone else.

Summary

Yes … technically, according to the evidence, Biden committed a crime in knowingly obtaining, possessing and sharing classified information.  Trump’s case has no bearing on those facts.  And if you were to do a point-by-point comparison, Biden purloined government documents earlier and over a much longer period – even when he was not President or even Vice President.

Hur’s only stated reason for not indicting Biden was his belief that his diminished capacity would have made it hard to obtain a conviction – even though Hur also said that a reasonable juror could vote to convict Biden based on the hard evidence if it went to trial. 

Hur’s testimony did not clear up the lack of logic in his decision not to indict in the face of the evidence.  It did, however, give credence to his legitimate concern over Biden’s increasingly obvious decline in mental acuity.

Contrary to the rule of law, Hur provided the latest example that we operate under the rule of people.  Hur ruled.  The law did not.

So, there ‘tis.

Footnote: Some have said that this was like Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s decisions not to indict Trump for conspiring with Russia to meddle in the 2016 election.  Au Contraire.  Mueller definitively stated in his report that neither Trump now any other American conspired with Russia.  The only thing Mueller left unresolved was whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice during the investigation.  He left that open for his bosses at the Department of Justice to decide – and they decided there was insufficient evidence to indict.  The comparison is that Trump was also not exonerated from the obstruction of justice question. End of case.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

17 Comments

  1. Jim wampler

    More proof that Joe is retarded

  2. Tom

    This article has earned a Stop The Spin rating of STS-3 Here is why:

    1) Trump has often erroneously stated he was exonerated by various reports when the fact is the opposite is true but Larry never points this out.

    2) Biden Big Lie Revealed is not quite fully accurate. There was significant conversation about Beau, and the cancer initiative Beau inspired and Biden’s book. The reality is Joe misinterpreted a question by Hur who was discussing Biden’s book and his loss of Beau. White House spokesman Ian Sams responded that the president was being asked about Beau generally, including the book that the president wrote about his death and his cancer initiative that Beau inspired. We all acknowledge Biden has memory issues, so does Trump but Larry has not written about this. My opinion is that character issues will make a far worse president than memory issues. Any president can get memory help from his staff, but as Trump repeatedly proved, no amount of staff advise can correct deep character flaws.

    3) Larry is correct in his comparison to Trump on document issues, both men should have been charged. And then Biden could have tested the Trump theory of “Self Pardon”. But the article does gloss over Trump’s infractions beyond having classified documents in his possession. The article could have been more honest by going into depth on Trump’s resistance in the example given. What the article does not mention is that news reports said about 10 classified documents were found on Biden whereas in the case of Trump, over 300 were found. And Trump repeatedly thwarted Federal Archives attempts to lawfully retrieve the documents – this was not mentioned. So the article’s comparison of Biden and Trump on this issue is too superficial to be meaningful.

    4) On the Court of Public Opinion, Larry uses one opinion from a Joe Scarborough on MSNBC as his “public”. Larry misheard or misinterpreted Scarborough’s statement about Biden being around for 50 years – Scarborough was talking about how long Biden has been around politics. Maybe Larry needs to visit the ear doctor for at minimum a cleaning! QTips Larry!!! Larry so often cites polls when they are against Biden and he brags about all of the polls he looks at. Why didn’t Larry use a poll to support his “Court of Public Opinion”? Maybe because of this: Some 53% of respondents, including 29% of Democrats, in the four-day poll which closed on Monday, agree with a statement that “Biden received special treatment because he is the U.S. president.” Did you get that, barely over 50%. See *https://www.reuters.com/world/us/half-americans-think-biden-got-special-treatment-document-probe-reutersipsos-2024-02-13/* This is an interesting poll to read.

    5) On “Summary” the article continues it’s disdain for Hur’s decision – not really worth reading. Larry seems to forget that Hur works for the DOJ, is a associate deputy attorney general, and as such is empowered to make the decision as to indicting or not indicting. Thus, the people did make the decision Larry!!! Larry, in case you did not know, the Attorney General and their staff does represent the people!! What you are actually calling for is a public trial – this is illegal. We got rid of those in the early 1800’s when we got rid of the stockades and throwing tomatoes!

    LARRY, overall I agree that Biden should have been charged for the possession. But unlike Trump, Biden cooperated with the DOJ/FBI, Trump did nothing but throw up road blocks and lies. This is the big difference. What Hur could have written is that charges were considered but mitigating circumstances in Biden’s favor such as cooperation with authorities and honesty were considered thus charges are being suspended until an impact assessment is completed on the damage as required by law. Hur could have kept the age thing out of it, but I personally do not feel offended or concerned that he put age in his report because here again, its the truth, and Hur would most likely not get a conviction base on age, honesty, and cooperation of the defendant.

  3. larry Horist

    Tom … Why do you always distract to Trump when the commentary has nothing to do with Trump. Can’t you remain focused on the relevant issue? And yeah, Joe “misinterpreted” the question. Maybe so. Are you saying that he misinterpreted the fact that he first raised the death of his son gratuitously and then claimed he was asked. He lied or has no real recollection … and you are spinning your defense essentially into lie about the lie. And I quoted Scarborough accurately. I assume that you did not see that portion of “Morning Joe” or you could not misrepresent it so badly. The problem is not my hearing, but perhaps your biases or your brain. I find the rest of your response to be something between nonsense and gibberish — unworthy of response. Just my opinion.

    • Tom

      Larry, I am not defending anyone. I mentioned Trump because his gaffes are getting as bad as Biden, so let’s be fair! And if the article is not about Trump, why is there a section titled, “Comparison to Trump”, or did you forget you wrote this section???? Maybe you are getting as bad as Joe? LOL. I am simply documenting what you left out of your article.

      Actually I had caught that segment of Scarborough and yes, you need to clean your ears. First Joe S. says “Biden has 50 years of experience” then he praises Joe Biden for being so cogent. And then he references how goof Biden is analytically “because he’s been around for 50 years.” Apparently you are the one that missed the first time Scarborough mentioned the number 50 as being Biden’s experience, not his age as you say. If you do not believe me, you can watch it for yourself at *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pb6xXuU5wM* and then you may apologize to me!!! LOL And then the third time the number 50 appears is when Scarborough says “The brazinskis have known him for fifty years too.” Yes you quoted the second thing Scarborough said accurately but either you missed the first thing he said which sets the stage for the second numeric comment, or YOU are lying by omission!!!! Fess up Larry, I caught you again!! I will take your apology now or later whenever you can be man enough to make one! LOL

      The only reason you find the remainder of my response as what you call “gibberish” is because you know I am correct in rebuking your assessment that Hur should let the people decide. You show in your article that you do not know how the system works since Hur works for the DOJ and represents the people in justice matters! This is why you cannot respond, because you know that I am correct!!! Or, maybe that old GOP biased brain of yours is simply forgetting how the system works – which puts you in the same class as Biden and Trump!

      Seriously Larry, listen to the Scarborough segment I put in my response here. I think you will be able to see just how selective your hearing is and why I gave this article an STS-3 rating!

  4. FRANK STETSON

    Rather than focus on whataboutism, comparative exonerations, whatever, at the heart of the matter is the fact that Joe Biden was exonerated by Hur. PERIOD. Good enough for Mueller, good enough on Hur.

    The rest is bullshit to be pissed about in the press.

    The opinion that Biden would be found innocent due to grandfatherly old age and forgetfulness is Hur’s scapegoat to being unable to charge but looking for a career boost. He really can’t back it up, no one’s mind will be changed.

    As to the reasons, as to the mental acuity, it’s all in the report as to why Hur demurred, but that just proves how stupid Hur is. No other prosecutor would ever claim he didn’t go to court because the guy would get off for being old, senile, etc. He never said Biden would plead diminished capacity. So, he surmised the jury nullification, on the record, what a putz. Why Garland let that crap pass is beyond me unless he figured Hur would release it anyway and a Merrick override unveiled would be even worse. Hur’s career advancement in the DoJ is over, he’s betting the farm on the next administration. That’s my bet, a calculated move for promotion under Bush or a great Republican resume bullet for his new job if Biden re-elected. And rightfully so in my book.

    As to the Beau dates, yes, Biden entered the idea, but he knew the date, the day, and one can see with Gaza happening, Hur dredging up and drilling down in events surrounding the time of Beau’s death, that Biden would be thinking about it. I do not recall anyone’s DoD in my family, but I can tell you what was occurring when it happened. Knowing a DoD does not mean much as a test of mental acuity. I keep an embroidery on the wall of my anniversary date. NOTE: never get married on Thanksgiving weekend and expect Thanksgiving to save you in remembering the exact date. Bad idea… :>)

    I find depositions tougher than court. The worst thing you can do is talk, and Biden did a lot of talking. He waxed poetic, went off topic, all things lawyers say nay to. On my first one, it was a Spring Day like today, incredibly nice in the sun traps, the first break from winter. Daffodils barely up. Was slotted for all day, but it was a Friday and I knew better. In the morning, I went long. A trick I learned from press interviews when you don’t want to be quoted… If you think this shit is long, you don’t know how often they stopped me for the next question. LUNCH and I knew I made it. Afternoon, and they lasted a couple of hours until off to the golf course: lawyers, gotta love em.

    So, Biden opened the Beau memory, but Hur was all over the time frame to shake him off center, you can see it. Biden knew the date, May 30th, Hur lied. Another lawyer mentions the year, Biden fumble mouths agreement. I am pretty sure May 30th is a special day, each year, but the year probably melts into others over time. As humans facing great pain and great tragedy will do.

    Tom, there is little precedent to charge Biden. On the classified in the personal notes, others have done it, kept it with approval, Reagan for example. As to the rest, usually when they turn themselves in, no charges. One set was in a locked closet in his office. Another at the house in usually locked garage. This is Biden’s house, you would have to be unknowing, or really motivated to rob Biden’s house. Not your normal house, probably redacted from google maps even. If it was an easy steal, the vet would be history.

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … Your sense of self-superiority is as astounding as it is unearned. YOU claim that Biden was exonerated even though the Special Counsel who undertook the investigation … wrote the report … has repeatedly and emphatically stated that he DID NOT exonerate Biden. Your claim is not even a reasonable or intelligent opinion. It is a misrepresentation of fact … oh yeah… a lie.

      • Tom

        Larry, nobody has more of a feeling of superiority on PBP that you, which is why you hurl insults to several of your readers! And with regard to “misrepresentation ” nobody does more of that then you by spin, omission, lack of fact checking, lies, etc. Your misrepresentation is what inspired me to create the STS rating system! In my opinion, the pot should not be calling the kettle black! LOL

        Again Larry, please listen to the Scarborough clip at *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pb6xXuU5wM* and notice your mistake and how you misrepresent what what actually said.

      • FRANK STETSON

        Horist, why you insist on being a dick, imo, and continuing your personal attack instead of factually addressing the issues is amazing. Espeically since you often speak against such tactics.

        On this one, you whine about my self-superiority, being unearned as your simple, stupid, little mind that can’t come up with a cogent argument so instead you dive into the abyss of demeaning people. You say I am not reasonable, intelligent, and a liar. Your words. No facts on the argument.

        Your facts in evidence would be you saying, but do not showign factaul proof, is that Hur repeatedly and emphatically said no exoneration. Hypocrite that you are, you said the opposite about Mueller when I showed you different. Factually. Not just spew as you do. Show us Hur saying he emphatically said “total exoneration.” Repeatedly.

        From Mueller’s first statement after the report:

        “our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” but he added that there’s evidence, and evidence of obstruction, there were people in jail for lying, many Trumper’s critical to the investigation did not appear when asked, even when subpoenaed, or they came and claimed “I cannot recall” more times than a Biden interview.

        On the obstruction: “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” OK, that one’s important: he is clearly saying that obstruction is not exonerated BUT, more important, that obstruction clouds the evidentiary field obscuring the truth.

        After the May statement, his statement to Congress: “During the course of our investig,ation, we charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes, including 12 officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants have been convicted or pled guilty.” Trump later pardens all Americans.

        “Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address “collusion,” which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.” Again, Mueller is saying there is evidence, it’s just not sufficient beyond reasonable doubt. And remember, there’s obstruction, many people in jail for lying, many people who would not be deposed, and more.

        To that point: “Third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable.” IOW —– Mueller counld not find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

        “And let me say one more thing. Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American.” That’s important. Because fools like Horist just want us to forget this. Forget the 1,000 kids STILL separated from parents. Forget the million dead from our terrible response to Covid, one of the world’s worst reponses by Trump. Forget 1/6/2021.

        Forget:
        Papadopolous kicking this off by meeting with Russians to discuss how their stolen info could help Trump.

        Hundreds of meetings between Team Trump and Russian agents, not one of which reported to proper authorities as required. Over 150 meetings before Trump even won the election. So odd. No other candidate ever did that, or ever will.

        The Trump Russia Hotel project he lied about acrtive business dealings with Russia as he campaigned.

        The fame Trump Tower ask meeting. So much smoke.

        Team Trump giving campaign polling data to the Russians. What’s up with that.

        Sorry Horist, not exonerated, according to Mueller’s own words in direct response to dicks like you. Smell the coffee, not much different that Hur’s report. And I print the rest of the smoke so folks understand why we say “not not evidence to indict,” knowing full well he’s no where close to “fully exonerated” as you believe.

    • Richard

      You did a lot of babbling but said nothing. Face it. Joe is retarded. And Mr. Hur helped trump’s campaign by pointing it out. Good job performance by a true patriot Joe is not mentally fit to serve. You mentioned reelection. Biden didn’t get elected the first time. It was proven but nobody would dig into it and the democrats are trying to make people afraid to speak out. That’s coming to an end.

      • FRANK STETSON

        Mr. Horist: I really wish you could honor the code and desist from the personal attacks to cover your shortcomings in arguing the facts. Being a dick seems to follow you in life as you strive to be a big fish in a very small pond. Now it’s PBP where you rule the roost and pretend it means something. You even demean your readers for commenting in such a small pond where no one sees, no one reads.

        I started consulting in a firm like that with a guy living the big fish – small pond life that you have chosen. They arrested him for accosting a mail room boy. Sorry, I digress.

        From Hur’s report: “We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.” Using Horstian logic, I call that EXONERATION.

        “we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” again, like Russiagate, there’s smoke, but not enough fire to indict.

        “we know of no steps the Department or other agencies took to investigate Mr. Reagan for mishandling classified information or to retrieve or secure his diaries.” see, I didn’t make that up. This takes the diaries off the table.

        In closing: “For these reasons, we believe that the admissible evidence would not suffice to obtain a conviction of the ghostwriter for obstruction of justice. On balance, relevant aggravating and mitigating factors also not support his prosecution.”

        So, prove it Horist. I did. Don’t just say it, prove it. And yes, you are still, and will always be, a dick until you desist with the personal attacks and attack the issues, with facts, instead.

        FYI: the rest of this summary is just spooky from writing political history ala Hur, to cya-ing himself against Republican retribution, to shameless plugs to get his next job either under Trump as President or in some GOP info broker as a spin doctor. It’s really weird stuff at times that seems out of place and unprofessional.

        Either Garland is asleep at the wheel to let this fly, and that’s his discretion OR he figured it would leak anyway. I am guessing the later as Garland kicked himself for not finding a more professional Republican.

        Sure looks like exonerated to me Horist; at least in the report. Seems to me that between Mueller and Hur, we have six of one, half dozen of another when it comes to total exoneration.

        • larry Horist

          Frank Stetson … No one tosses more personal insults on PBP than you — by a longshot. You turn names into pejoratives. You call people names. You use sarcasm to insult. That makes your periodic hypocritical calls for civility laughable — and they do make me laugh. Maybe you should look up the meaning of psychological projection. You might find your name there.

    • Tom

      Frank, not sure why you mentioned “Bush”? Did you mean orange Bush-y haired but balding Trump?

      Hey Frank, go to *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pb6xXuU5wM* and see if I heard Scarborough correct when he uses the number 50 three times, first time Joe’s experience, second time a political longevity comment, third time about others that have known Biden for 50 years. I think Larry heard just the second comment and did not hear the first “50” comment. See my response to Larry’s critique of my response.

      Reports showed 10 document that were classified with red which is “Top Secret” and should not have been in his possession. These documents were not personal diaries although his diaries also had classified information. So I was going on the letter of the law which says he should have been charged like Trump for possession. However being President, nothing would happen now and most likely not later either.

      • larry Horist

        Tom … Have you completely lost your mind. I quoted Scarborough accurately. He said that mentally today’s version of Biden is the best ever. He repeatedly praised Biden’s mind … memory … analytical skills — claiming that Biden is better than ever. That is what Scarborough said — which means his entire harangue about Biden’s mental status is political bs. I do hope folks take you up on viewing the video. It completely vindicates my commentary — and crushes you nutty rebuttal. Just one question. Were my quotes in the commentary accurate? Case closed.

      • FRANK STETSON

        Wow, tom, my own senior moment…bush? yeah, shoulda been trump….. I need decafe….. was working my declined submission for the Kraft class action suit where I bought Kraft, (for pittsburgh’s Heinz) well before the pandemic, they wanted more detail, and due to a data breach, a swap of shares between finance houses, I was very confused and lots of brain cycles to figure it all out. Probably get $3.35 when it’s all done.;…..

        BUT —- for Larry and Tom —- re-read Hur’s summary and tell me: does that make sense that he would even broach some of those topics? I mean for a lawyer, I have never seen so much opinion, judgements, etc. of some very weird stuff that seems tangential to the task and/or way out of Hur’s wheelhouse of expertise to even comment upon. Especially for Larry who dislikes when people attempt to read one’s mind. Seem like Hur was political historian, mind reader, physchiratrist, medical doctor, I mean this man says some really weird shit in this. I can understand Garland not wanting to deny Hur and then face him via leaks to the press, especially on the mental accutity stuff, but some of this crap really does not seem appropriate to the task at hand —- can we indict the guy for having classified documents.

        • Tom

          Hey Frank, I got a notice on that Kraft class action suit as well. My notice came with a link to an online form to complete and submit. Did it right away. Yes, I hope to get at least $3.35. I only had about 500 common shares of that stock.

          Hey Frank, go to *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pb6xXuU5wM* I want your opinion if you have time. Watch the first three minutes. See if I heard Scarborough correct when he uses the number 50 three times, first time Joe’s experience, second time a political longevity comment, third time about others that have known Biden for 50 years. I think Larry heard just the second comment and did not hear the first “50” comment. See my response to Larry’s critique of my response. Bottom line, I think Larry is having a processing problem. Maybe he needs to schedule an MME for himself. Its been about a year since his last one – remember he wrote about it! LOL

          P,S. Larry has not responded to my response to his response where I said that I heard Scarborough correctly and he did not. Seems like Larry’s MO is that when he knows he is wrong, he does not respond, and he just lets his false criticism stand.

          • FRANK STETSON

            Oh my, you have Kraft, I have Kraft, the bromance is back on!!!!! Did you file with two different legal firms OR are there two cases? I am pretty transactional on this stuff, but think I filled out two.

            Apparently they want my sales date which means I must audit this mess again….it’s two lots of 200, second bought to double down on the first tank over sec violations. Then I xferred it from one findance house to another. One lot was in a benficiary IRA, where I am forced to take RMDs. I had stupidly forgot and invested most in CDs so no cash to pay the RMD, no way to add cash because bene IRA, IRA, so many reasons…..So I said frack it and sold at a loss because I am taking so many captial gains that I wiped out my HUGE loss carryover from funny numbers on selling real estate where I could value way over actual cost and then take a huge loss while profitting greatly. Funny real estate / inheritance accounting. Mom would be proud. Thought it would be easy to just show I still owned it, now I have to specify the sale of half of it —– so a data hunt five years back to present day. Yeah, I dropped a gear or two while doing it :>)

            Kraft has been so funny starting with buying because Heinz/Pittsburgh and Buffet holding. Then it tanks, I buy more, then sec investigation and it cratters. Well, 4.5% interest ok in those years, especially. As 2020 covid unfolded, I told wife: “damn, we’re holding, who can’t make money on mac and cheese in a pandemic?” I was wrong and 4.5% look just OK now so I took the loss.

            Oh well, I listened to Joe and heard two of the 50’s, as you said. Sorry, but I don’t jump to listen to Joe, he’s not exactly news.

            On Hur, not the interview, that’s a clown show, but the actual report summary. It’s really weird where he goes, the drifts he takes, and the assumptions he lays out as facts. Some really weird shit in there.

            As to the documents: given Reagan, I think the diaries are and have been off the table for indictment. As to the rest, I don’t know. I do know these folks have classified all the time, fess up, return them, and no indictments. Especially Pres and VPs.

            As to Trumps documentation case; it’s nothing to compare with Biden’s, I am not sure we can find a historical comparison as hard as Republicans try.

            As to classied documents. I think we all agree the system sucks that lets a scif document escape the scif. As well as any notes in the room. I think most will agree that the way the government treats classifled would not fly in any corporation in America. They all would be fired all the way to Pence and Hillary. But unitl they change their standards, we have what we have and we also have some pretty weird stuff being classified that does not deserve it.

            So, for both of these fellows, it’s all “aledged,” and we should suspend judgement even on the top secret unitl it’s looked at, vetted, and the risk of it being out determined. Think we need more, even for Trump, even for rumors of nuclear secrets, before we say one thing is equal to another. For example, would we punish the same for current relevant nuke stuff versus old, outdated and unimportant nuke stuff? Of course not.

            But Trump is unusual due to volume, storage, movement, sharing, before you get to the “quality” of all that top secret stuff. There is no doubt he’s in another higher risk arena IF for the sheer numbers of the crap. But he can be off the hook for any personal diaries and whatever they have it them :>) (I wonder if he lies to himself in his diary?)

        • Tom

          Yes Frank, I did listen to the congressional interview of Hur. I thought he was professional, well prepared, and in cases did seem to depart from the factual and into the opinionated. He claimed he was following the outlined process procedure in investigating and writing his response. Since I do not have a copy of the procedure and report guidelines, I can’t say anything more than some comments seemed opinion, not fact – that would play into Trump’s campaign. I fully expect to see one or two GOP commercials featuring Hur in the September to November 2024 time frame.

          I personally think that both Biden and Trump have memory problems which is why neither of them address the issue. They let their proxies do this for them. But as I said earlier, I am more comfortable with a memory problem because a president has aides to assist. Lets face it, there’s a heck of a lot to remember when working that job. I am not at all comfortable with a leader that has severe personality flaws and doubles down when its pointed out to him. Severe personality flaws can not be corrected by aides as Trump proved over and over again with the revolving cabinet door of over forty cabinet members during his four years. And so far I am unaware of any of those forty actually endorsing Trump for a second term.