Posted on 02/10/2024 9:56:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
We've had a couple of days to digest that damning classified documents investigation report and the Biden administration's disaster of a response to it. This morning I did some browsing around to try to determine where the dust is settling in terms of the White House, the Democrats, the GOP, the media, and even foreign countries. Karen already picked apart what the Biden team's response has been thus far and what will likely happen going forward. That will mostly be nothing aside from optics and cosmetic attempts (in some cases literally) at getting people to forget about it and go about their business. That would appear to be a vain hope, particularly when some of the fire the Biden team is taking is coming from their side of the wall. One of the more amusing assessments I noticed came from former Clinton adviser Paul Begala, who jokingly claimed that the release of the report had caused him to wet the bed. (NY Post)
Paul Begala, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, joked Friday that he “wet the bed” over the findings in Special Counsel Robert Hur’s scathing report on President Biden’s handling of classified documents.
“Look, I’m a Biden supporter. And I slept like a baby last night. I woke up every two hours and wet the bed,” the Democratic strategist quipped during an appearance on CNN.
Hur’s bombshell report asserts that Biden, 81, “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials” but should not face criminal charges, in part because a jury may view the president as an “elderly man with a poor memory.”
Having surveyed the landscape, I believe there are a couple of conclusions we can reach at this point. First of all, the report was nothing short of a disaster in some ways. As others have already noted, the Special Counsel has effectively codified as fact the reality that Joe Biden is not qualified to hold his current job and he very likely represents a significant national security risk to America and the rest of the world as well. But it may not have the impact that many seem to be anticipating. And such a lack of jarring results may be what we probably should have expected.
In more normal times (whenever those were), that report should have been the end of the Biden presidency. The 25th Amendment would have been invoked and - God Help Us All - Kamala Harris would be preparing to be sworn in as the 47th POTUS. But that's not what we're seeing and I don't believe you'll be seeing anything similar for some time to come. There are several reasons for this.
First of all, no matter what the report said (and it said plenty), there was no way that Biden's own Justice Department was going to recommend prosecution no matter how much of an obvious double standard was on display. If there was any surprise in that report, it's that they didn't simply ignore the Trump situation entirely and roll out the "no reasonable prosecutor" line yet again as they've done for all Democrats. The fact that they felt compelled to offer Biden an excuse that involved his age and failing memory was more than I expected and the most would should have anticipated.
As for Team Biden's response, Joe Biden was never going to admit to any wrongdoing or acknowledge any physical or mental infirmity. He was also never going to resign. None of those things are in his character and neither his handlers nor his wife would let him quit. They want to hang on to power too badly and they both hate and are terrified by Trump.
As for the national Democrats, what are their options? At least until the convention, they can't jump up, wave their arms, and embrace the report. If they call for Joe to step aside, they will be admitting that they made a mistake nominating him to begin with and their judgment can't be trusted. Such admissions are not allowed inside the swamp. It's true that many of them are in full-blown panic mode over his approval numbers and polling data, but they are still crossing their fingers and hoping that those figures could improve over the summer. (And that's still a possibility.) The only thing that will spur them to action is a collective belief that the ship has truly sailed and a Trump victory over Biden is inevitable. If that moment arrives, they will act, most likely at the convention. It would be a humiliating non-admission, but they are playing for keeps and they'll try whatever tools they can find in the chest to drag victory kicking and screaming from the jaws of defeat.
So how does Trump prosecute someone who’s not competent?
That’s their whole defense.
Hur actually said that Biden was a sympathetic defendant whom a jury would not convict. That's very different from outright declaring him incompetent to stand trial. Someone who is incompetent doesn't understand the gravity of the situation, doesn't understand what being a defendant in a court of law means, doesn't understand his rights or whether his rights are being adequately defended or not, and doesn't understand what his counsel is telling him regarding the options given to him in pleas, motions, bench rulings, etc.
I think we would both agree that Biden does not meet that definition of incompetent to stand trial.
There are other media analysts who say that Hur made an assumption of possible defense strategies and then made the decision not to prosecute based on those assumptions, but that it is not the job of a prosecutor to suggest defenses. The prosecutor should have indicted and then let the defense assume whatever strategy it wants.
Basically, Hur said that "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict a Democrat.
-PJ
No, it doesn’t. But while entirely, it’s mostly cosmetic service media running with the incompetant wording. And that doesn’t influences a lot of people’s thoughts.
That said, Democrats have long established that they don't indict their own. The report was just more cover for Democrats.
Still, Biden will continue to have lapses and the "incompetent" accusation will continue to be mentioned each time Biden makes a mental lapse. Hopefully, it will be the albatross that Democrats wear around their necks until the convention when they will oust Biden for someone else.
-PJ
I'm wondering what your complete thought was.
-PJ
I need to double check auto correct before hitting reply. Although sometimes the changes are made as the reply is posted. It was meant to say———While not entirely, it’s mostly conservative media running with the incompetent wording. Appreciate you requesting the clarification.
I would disagree. For example and starters Hunter is currently charged. As is Senator Menendez. There have been others.
I don't watch the left-leaning media, so I will take your word for it. I only see the recaps posted here and in media analysis articles.
While they may not be overt about it, I think that reports of "panic" inside the Democrat circles suggests that they're discussing it privately, if not openly like the conservative media is doing. They didn't need the Hur report to suggest competency, but their outrage about it speaks volumes.
It's the same situational outrage they had when James Comey first coined the "no reasonable prosecutor" excuse when letting Hillary Clinton off the hook. At first, the LAAP-dog media didn't know what to make of the Comey press conference, but the outrage grew after Clinton lost the election to Trump. In hindsight, they blamed the Comey press conference for Clinton's loss and retroactively called it "election interference," which is something the Democrats have been screaming ever since when news (often of their own making) goes against them.
I think that's the takeaway from this: the Democrats new battle-cry is "interfering with the election" while they themselves are interfering with President Trump's campaign each and every day. I think this will continue until the convention when they replace Biden with someone else.
-PJ
For years
Remember, they tried to give Hunter Biden open-ended immunity first, but were forced to indict him when Biden retracted his guilty plea after allocution when the unprecedented immunity deal collapsed.
Menendez was found with cash sown inside of clothing and gold bars in his home. That was William Jefferson level stuff.
The issue is the double-standard of declining to indict Democrats for the same thing they indicted Republicans for. Examples are the treatment of Paul Manafort (registered foreign agent), Steve Bannon (contempt of Congress), and Peter Navarro (contempt of Congress) versus Eric Holder (contempt of Congress) and Hunter Biden (registered foreign agent). Look at Jamaal Bowman (obstructing an official procedure) versus George Santos (lying during a campaign???) and J6 trespasser (obstructing an official procedure).
In the case of House Representatives, again it's about power. Democrats have been trying to whittle down the Republican 4-seat lead using procedural tricks while defending their own seats for similar transgressions. They support the ouster of McCarthy and Santos while protecting Omar, Bush and Bowman. It's just how they roll.
-PJ
Exactly.
It’s almost like there are one set of laws for Democrats, and another set of laws for the political enemies of the Democrats...
Indeedz but, It’s just I haven’t heard anyone reporting that he took material from the national archives illegally. We’ve heard that he took material from his office as a senator and VP. But not from the archives
As. A Senator or VP, he couldn’t have removed them
RE: They found that they could charge him....
This is going to haunt President Trump...
How so? Biden was Senator and VP when he took the classified documents. Trump was President and there’s that law that exists called the President Records Act that Trump is invoking. Senators are NOT ALLOWED to take classified documents out to their external, unsecured office and homes.
President Jimmy Carter reportedly took upwards of 2 million unofficial documents and 50,000 pages of classified material with him after leaving the White House in 1981. He sent the classified material back after reviews.
President Ronald Reagan allowed removal of classified information from the White House to his presidential library in California after leaving office in 1989.
So, given these precedents, shouldn’t the haunting be ON the prosecutors and their case?
“President Ronald Reagan allowed removal of classified information from the White House to his presidential library in California after leaving office in 1989.”
Presidential libraries are designed and built with secure storage for classified documents, and run by the Archivist of the United States, so this example does not support Trump’s case. As far as I know, Reagan did not have classified documents sent to his ranch as he left office...
As far as Carter, the Presidential Records Act did not come into effect until Reagan’s Administration. Prior to Reagan, presidential records were considered to be the property of the outgoing president, so Carter broke no laws. From Reagan onward, presidential records have been the property of the government unless they were truly personal in nature - letters not related to his duties as presidents, etc.
Oh, they will find a way...
Even if it’s a long shot, they will find a way...
You should know this by now
President Ronald Reagan faced allegations of violating the Presidential Records Act during his time in office. There were concerns that he had destroyed or failed to preserve official communications, particularly regarding the Iran-Contra scandal. However, no formal charges were ever brought against Reagan for violating the act. In 1994, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) released a report stating that Reagan’s administration had violated the Presidential Records Act by failing to properly preserve and document some of his official communications. The report concluded that Reagan’s staff had destroyed some of his records, and that there were gaps in the historical record as a result. However, no legal action was taken against Reagan or his staff for these violations. WHY NOT?
In 1999, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) released a report stating that the Clinton administration had violated the Presidential Records Act by failing to properly preserve and document some of his official communications. The report concluded that the administration had destroyed some of Clinton’s records and that there were gaps in the historical record as a result. However, no legal action was taken against Clinton or his staff for these violations. In 2001, shortly after Clinton left office, NARA issued a subpoena for tapes that contained phone conversations between Clinton and his top advisors. The tapes were later found to have been destroyed, leading to further allegations of violations of the Presidential Records Act. The case was closed in 2005 without any legal action being taken.
WHY ?
And should we start discussing Hillary Clinton ?
During the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server for official government business, it was discovered that she had used BleachBit to delete more than 30,000 emails that had been deemed personal and not work-related. The FBI’s investigation into the matter found that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information, but ultimately, no criminal charges were filed. Using Bleachbit is “careless” as opposed to WILLFULLY destroying data that should be preserved?
WHY?
Maybe on a proportional basis Dems seem to get favorable treatment. But it appears they don’t get off Scot free.
“However, no legal action was taken against Reagan or his staff for these violations. WHY NOT?”
Violations of the PRA don’t have any criminal sanctions. Bush 41 succeeded Reagan in office and he was not going to pursue civil sanctions against Reagan. Remember, Trump is not charged with violating the PRA.
As far as Hilary goes, yes she should have been prosecuted, but Obama and Lynch were in charge. When Trump had the opportunity to go after her, he chose not to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.