Skip to content

The lie is spreading

Last week, the debate over Biden’s fitness to govern exploded after the release of a report by Trump-appointed special counsel Robert Hur which cleared him of illegally keeping classified documents at his home, but included an instantly memorable description of the president as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”, and claimed that he did not remember “even within several years” when his son Beau died.

We can disregard this because it’s from a Trump appointee.

Which, you know, isn’t quite the case. He was appointed, during the Trump admin, to his position in Maryland, yes:

On November 1, 2017, Hur was nominated by President Donald Trump to be the next United States Attorney for the District of Maryland.[6] On March 22, 2018, his nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote.[7] He was confirmed by voice vote later the same day.[8] He was sworn in on April 9, 2018.

And, yes, Federal DAs are appointed by the Pres, confirmed by the Senate. But not all of them are ideologically placed.

But in the current mess, this is the important thing:

On January 12, 2023, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Hur to oversee the United States Department of Justice’s investigation into President Joe Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents during his time as vice president.

This was an appointment by Biden’s Admin to investigate Biden’s Admin.

There’s a quite deliberate attempt going on to memory hole that distinction.

15 thoughts on “The lie is spreading”

  1. “Robert Hur which cleared him of illegally keeping classified documents at his home,”
    I don’t think Biden was cleared, Hur said that a jury was unlikely to convict him because of his age and failing memory.

  2. Ever since Hilary Clinton got away with using the phrase “I don’t recall” 39 times when interviewed by the FBI about her private email server the Democrats have realised they can avoid answering any inconvenient question or recalling any damaging event without repercussion.

    So why is anyone surprised that the man who makes Abe Simpson look like Abe Lincoln (or his handlers to be truly accurate) follows the same playbook* other than the fact that in his case it’s almost certainly genuine.

    As in “I’m guilty of allowing my staff to place boxes of classified documents in my garage”.

  3. Old crook uses ‘I don’t recall’ defence. Meanwhile anyone who is interested may make their own assessment of his mental state by just looking at the many instances of just how sharp he isn’t.

  4. One, near-certain, sign that Biden has completely “lost the plot” is that having escaped prosecution for keeping classified documents in his garage on the grounds that he’s an “elderly gentleman with a failing memory” his next act was to go public (at least according to the BBC) claiming that there’s nothing wrong with his memory…

    Let’s face it, the silly old bugger is completely senile and should be an embarrassment to the Democratic Party, but isn’t ‘coz he’s an easy-to-manipulate mouthpiece.

  5. Non-US readers might want to bear in mind that criminal suspects in the US have a near-universal Constitutional right to decline to answer questions, and in almost-all circumstances, their declining to answer questions cannot be used in subsequent proceedings to impugn their defence. The answer ‘I don’t recall’ to a specific question is often/usually a soft way to deflect the question, which is preferred to the harder alternative of ‘I invoke my 5th Amendment privilege to refuse to answer’. But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. It’s not that Mr Biden replied ‘I don’t recall’ to a specific question of fact – the Clinton answer. It’s that he couldn’t recall anything at all with any clarity – dates, places, names, it was all a blur. And then blamed it all on his staff, the classic ‘tell’ for a truly-terrible leader.

    This case is another interesting sighting of the “no reasonable prosecutor”, a species which apparently has the most exquisitely-tuned skills for determining what a jury will do with the facts of a criminal case. A more cynical person than I would think that such prosecutors’ skills lie more in the realm of assessing the political inclinations of a given jury pool, rather than their interest in the facts of the case. If the case of Mr Biden, or Mrs Clinton, or indeed of Mr Trump, were to be placed before a jury consisting of persons (like myself) who had been previously cleared for the handling of classified documents, the prosecutor could be assured of a conviction on the facts, and that is (in essence) what Mr Hur wrote. Mr Biden committed these crimes, the evidence is clear, specific and overwhelming, any other person who did this and faced a jury from (say) Peoria, IL would be in route to Leavenworth already, but a jury drawn from overwhelmingly-Democrat Washington DC would simply nullify the case.

    llater,

    llamas

  6. “ I don’t think Biden was cleared, Hur said that a jury was unlikely to convict him because of his age and failing memory.”

    This is the actual lie that is spreading. He found that there wasn’t enough evidence or any likelihood of a successful prosecution. The stuff about Biden being a doddery old bloke was an entirely hypothetical defence tactic that was obviously put into the report for a political dig. He made it up. Openly.

    The fact that Biden’s guy appointed a Trump guy to do the investigation was an attempt at avoiding criticism for not doing that. And they got what they paid for, good and hard.

  7. ” any other person who did this and faced a jury from (say) Peoria, IL would be in route to Leavenworth already, but a jury drawn from overwhelmingly-Democrat Washington DC would simply nullify the case.”

    Which shows the US is now a banana republic. Honduras with nuclear weapons.

  8. Jimmy O’Groats wrote

    “He found that there wasn’t enough evidence . . . ”

    and all I can say to that is to refer readers to Mr Hur’s actual report, which is linked here

    https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1229805332/special-counsel-report-biden-classified-documents

    to read page after page of specific, documented, photographed, incontovertible evidence that Mr Biden did indeed retain classified documents which he had no right to retain, going back almost 40 years, and shared their contents with others who also had no right to them. The evidence of his multiple, repeated and ongoing crimes is simply overwhelming.

    llater,

    llamas

  9. Not just the politicians just look at the verdict in the climate scientists defamation claim where the claim consisted of saying to the jury if you don’t agree with me you are a climate denier and these people I’m suing should be punished for being climate deniers. The jury gave $2 in damages and $1m in punitive damages to punish the climate heretics. Juries seem to be becoming more supine in following the narrative of the day not the facts

    “the prosecution was — in the words of the court, “disjointed” — and was reprimanded on multiple occasions by the judge, most notably for knowingly providing false information to the jury on alleged damages suffered by Mann.”

    Good summary here https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/false-equivalence

  10. Bloke in the Fourth Reich

    So is this a “Trump appointee” position in the sense that the Queen, er, sorry, the King, “appoints” various political, ceremonial, and civil service roles? I.e., the Prez, or King, has a theoretical but never exercised veto?

  11. Slightly more variable than that. Some of such appointments – to these legal posts, – are definitely political. Some are also “That’s a good chap” on professional grounds. It’s not possible to be categoric

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *