Mediaite reports: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) claimed during a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday that Special Counsel Robert Hur found that President Joe Biden “broke the law, but he’s not going to be charged.” “We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter,” begins the report, which goes on to detail …
There is sufficient evidence to say he broke the law, but there is insufficient evidence to say he did it with malicious intent. I think it’s fair to say “he broke the law”, you just can’t say “he willfully broke the law”
That makes no sense. The laws in question require willfulness. So if you can’t say there was willfulness, you can’t say the laws were broken.
For instance, assault with a deadly requires willfulness, so if a baseball bat slips out of a baseball player’s hands and clobbers someone in the stands you wouldn’t say the player broke the law but lacked willfulness, you’d just say they didn’t break the law.
And who’s to decide if the baseball bat was willfully thrown? The jury! You could still be charged with assault because 1000 people saw your bat hit someone in the face, so its 100% plausible to say you broke the law.
If the law says don’t cross the line, and you accidentally cross the line, you broke the law, regardless of willfulness. Its up to a jury to decide if youre guilty
Its not like the police have an “accident detector” they roll up to the scene to determine if a law was broken.
The law includes willfulness as part of “the line to cross”, so again, no. Without the willfulness included, then there was not a broken law. This really isn’t hard to understand.
Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained
and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private
citizen.
If you keep reading you’ll see you’re making the same stretch that trump supporters made when they said “the Muller report absolves trump.”
The next paragraphs read:
Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained
and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private
citizen.
…
However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence
does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Then on page 219, they say unequivocally:
Mr. Biden will likely present himself to the jury, as he did during his interview with our office, as a sympathetic, well
meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.
So, hur does not say that biden didn’t break any laws, in fact there is evidence biden intentionally broke the laws, but they’re not charging him because they don’t think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with malicious intent because hes senile!
Having a poor memory doesn’t mean you didn’t break any laws…
EDIT: If you read the report instead of that biased article you will see that there is a ton of evidence that biden was told many times to return the classified material and refused.
There is sufficient evidence to say he broke the law, but there is insufficient evidence to say he did it with malicious intent. I think it’s fair to say “he broke the law”, you just can’t say “he willfully broke the law”
That makes no sense. The laws in question require willfulness. So if you can’t say there was willfulness, you can’t say the laws were broken.
For instance, assault with a deadly requires willfulness, so if a baseball bat slips out of a baseball player’s hands and clobbers someone in the stands you wouldn’t say the player broke the law but lacked willfulness, you’d just say they didn’t break the law.
And who’s to decide if the baseball bat was willfully thrown? The jury! You could still be charged with assault because 1000 people saw your bat hit someone in the face, so its 100% plausible to say you broke the law.
If the law says don’t cross the line, and you accidentally cross the line, you broke the law, regardless of willfulness. Its up to a jury to decide if youre guilty
Its not like the police have an “accident detector” they roll up to the scene to determine if a law was broken.
The law includes willfulness as part of “the line to cross”, so again, no. Without the willfulness included, then there was not a broken law. This really isn’t hard to understand.
deleted by creator
This is the second sentance of the report:
Can you explain to me what the lie was exactly?
deleted by creator
Oh they definitely broke the law
deleted by creator
so, in the same way that the muller report doesn’t say that “trump never broke the law”, the hur report doesn’t say that “biden never broke the law”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If you keep reading you’ll see you’re making the same stretch that trump supporters made when they said “the Muller report absolves trump.”
The next paragraphs read:
…
Then on page 219, they say unequivocally:
So, hur does not say that biden didn’t break any laws, in fact there is evidence biden intentionally broke the laws, but they’re not charging him because they don’t think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with malicious intent because hes senile!
Having a poor memory doesn’t mean you didn’t break any laws…
EDIT: If you read the report instead of that biased article you will see that there is a ton of evidence that biden was told many times to return the classified material and refused.