
<p>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.<del> ;</del></p>



<p>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. </p>



<p>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.</p>



<p><strong>Exoneration</strong></p>



<p>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. ;</p>



<p>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 &#8230; period.</p>



<p><strong>Biden’s big lie revealed</strong></p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>Weeell &#8230; (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 &#8230; malarky. ; Biden was performing, not informing. He was telling a &#8230; lie. ; He was peddling propaganda-for-pity.</p>



<p>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:</p>



<p>BIDEN: This is, what, 2017, 2018, that area?</p>



<p>HUR: Yes, sir.</p>



<p>BIDEN: Remember, in this time frame, my son is – either been deployed or is dying &#8230;</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>BIDEN: &#8230; what month did Beau die? ; Oh, God, May 30 &#8230;</p>



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



<p> ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; BIDEN: Was it 2015 he died?</p>



<p> ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; MALE VOICE: ; It was May of 2015.</p>



<p>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 &#8230; or maybe he could not remember who said what.</p>



<p>(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.)</p>



<p>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?”</p>



<p>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.)</p>



<p>There are more examples in the transcript of Biden struggling mentally. ; It gives an even darker impression of Biden’s mental acuity &#8212; 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.</p>



<p><strong>Why no indictment</strong></p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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. ;</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



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



<p><strong>Comparison to Trump</strong></p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>They are not really comparable for all the obvious reasons. ; BUT &#8230; 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.</p>



<p><strong>The court-of-public-opinion</strong></p>



<p>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&#8230; intellectually &#8230; analytically &#8230;” ; ; 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 &#8230; intellectually &#8230; analytically &#8230; <strong>is the best Biden ever.</strong>” (Perhaps Scarborough should be getting one of those mental acuity tests.)</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p><strong>Summary</strong></p>



<p>Yes &#8230; 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.</p>



<p>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. ;</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>



<p><strong>Footnote:</strong> 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. ; <em>Au Contraire</em>. ; 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.</p>

Biden Hur(t) by transcript
