info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Biden's lawyers forcefully protested Hur report before its release
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Carlile
Feb 16, 2024, 2:47:32 AMFeb 16
to
President Biden’s top attorneys exchanged confrontational letters with top
Justice Department officials before and after last week’s explosive report
from special counsel Robert K. Hur, contending that Hur’s comments
“openly, obviously, and blatantly violate Department policy and practice.”
The letters, obtained by The Washington Post, show that Biden’s legal team
was deeply upset over the tone of the report, which it reviewed before its
public release. The document created political shock waves by describing
Biden as “an elderly man with a poor memory” and calling his practice of
keeping notebooks that contained sensitive information “totally
irresponsible.”
Among other things, Biden’s lawyers argued that Hur had no reason to
assemble a 388-page report in the first place. Justice Department
regulations dictate that if no charges are filed, the special counsel
should send a confidential report to the attorney general explaining that
decision.
The letters highlight the conflict that has erupted between the
president’s team and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who is now accused
by Biden’s attorneys of breaking the department’s norms after being
appointed to reestablish them following the Trump presidency.
Garland did not respond directly to Biden’s legal team. Instead, Associate
Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer, the Justice Department’s
senior career official, wrote back supporting the document’s wording.
“The identified language is neither gratuitous nor unduly prejudicial
because it is not offered to criticize or demean the President,”
Weinsheimer wrote to Biden’s legal team. “Rather, it is offered to explain
Special Counsel Hur’s conclusions about the President’s state of mind in
possessing and retaining classified information.”
Under the department’s regulations, Garland would have had to notify
Congress if he made changes to the report.
The White House Counsel’s Office and Biden’s personal lawyer, Bob Bauer,
initially raised their objections in letters to Hur. Ultimately, they sent
a scathing letter directly to Garland, who oversees the Justice Department
and is one of Biden’s highest-profile Cabinet nominations.
That letter — a last-ditch appeal sent Feb. 7, the day before Hur’s report
was released to the public — was especially impassioned, suggesting that
the special counsel was making the same mistake that FBI Director James B.
Comey did in 2016, when he sharply criticized Democratic presidential
nominee Hillary Clinton in the course of announcing that she would face no
criminal charges.
“Mr. Hur’s criticism of President Biden mirrors one of the most widely
recognized examples in recent history of inappropriate prosecutor
criticism of uncharged conduct,” Biden’s lawyers wrote. “The FBI and DOJ
personnel’s criticism of uncharged conduct during investigations in
connection with the 2016 election was found to violate ‘long-standing
Department practice and protocol.’”
Why DOJ rules let Hur criticize Biden's memory
That election resulted in the presidency of Donald Trump, who is now
seeking to recapture the White House.
Hur is expected to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on March
12, possibly his first public appearance after releasing the report, and
he may face some of the same questions raised by Biden’s attorneys.
In its letter to Garland, Biden’s team objects strongly to Hur’s use of
the president’s inability to recall specific dates to reach the sweeping
conclusion that his memory was “significantly limited.” Hur cited that
conclusion in explaining that he was not prosecuting Biden for mishandling
classified documents in part because a jury would probably find him an
appealing, if forgetful, senior citizen.
“We object to the multiple denigrating statements about President Biden’s
memory which violate longstanding DOJ practice and policy,” the lawyers
wrote to the attorney general. While the special counsel is entitled to
note that Biden could not remember specific facts, they added, “a global
and pejorative judgment on the President’s powers of recollection in
general is uncalled for and unfounded.”
Feb. 7 Bob Bauer and Edward Siskel's letter to DOJ, including attachments
If you’re unable to read the full text, the full pdf is available here.
https://washingtonpost.com/documents/a3534975-d082-4fda-98e5-
79f8199b74ba.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_22
Biden’s lawyers complained that the report repeatedly cited the
president’s memory in a derisive fashion, even though Hur’s interaction
with Biden was limited to a five-hour interview in which he encouraged the
president to do his best to recall events from years ago.
The lawyers also protested that Hur’s report did not point out that his
questioning of Biden took place the day after the Oct. 7 attacks in
Israel, when Hamas militants surged across the Gaza border and slaughtered
some 1,200 Israelis, igniting a conflagration in the Middle East.
Feb. 8 DOJ letter to Biden's team
If you’re unable to read the full text, the full pdf is available here.
https://washingtonpost.com/documents/527c8c1d-1143-4563-8619-
ea8cddd8a67c.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_30
Bauer and White House counsel Edward Siskel, who jointly wrote the letter
to Garland, did not only complain about Hur’s depiction of Biden’s memory.
They also voiced frustration at a part of the special counsel’s report
focusing on personal notes that Biden took — and kept with him upon
leaving the vice presidency — related to classified information.
Hur had pointedly quoted a statement by Biden that Trump was “totally
irresponsible” for keeping top secret documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate
in Palm Beach, Fla. “Mr. Biden’s emphatic and unqualified conclusion that
keeping marked classified documents unsecured in one’s home is ‘totally
irresponsible’ because it ‘may compromise sources and methods’ applies
equally to his own decision to keep his notebooks at home in unlocked and
unauthorized containers,” Hur wrote.
Biden’s attorneys objected to that statement, saying the practice of
keeping personal diaries was in line with former presidents and vice
presidents — and nothing like Trump’s willful retention of sensitive
documents and alleged refusal to return them.
“To criticize President Biden for a practice that his predecessors openly
engaged in, a practice that the Justice Department has in the past
acknowledged and declined to investigate, a practice that is not charged
conduct, exemplifies the reasons why a bipartisan consensus arose to
change the prior report writing function,” they wrote.
That referred to one of the biggest points of contention between Biden’s
circle and the special counsel’s team — whether it was appropriate for Hur
to write a lengthy report repeatedly criticizing Biden when he had
concluded that no criminal charges were merited.
Biden’s lawyers note that Congress decided in 1999 not to renew the
independent counsel statute, a controversial post-Watergate law, amid
widespread criticism of its requirement that independent prosecutors
produce exhaustive final reports. Those reports often enumerated an
individual’s alleged wrongdoing without any need to prove it in court.
Still, Hur is hardly alone; special counsels have continued to issue
lengthy reports in the past two decades when charges were not filed. Among
the best known is special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report in 2019
that examined whether Trump or his aides colluded with Russia or
obstructed justice.
Garland names Robert Hur special counsel in Biden classified files case
Before Biden’s legal team contacted Garland, it lodged several complaints
with Hur’s office. It wrote to the attorney general, on the eve of the
report’s release, after becoming frustrated that Hur’s office was not
heeding its complaints.
While the special counsel is not subject to the day-to-day supervision of
Garland or other department officials, the attorney general can ask the
special counsel to explain certain steps he is taking. If the attorney
general then orders him to change course, the special counsel has to
notify Congress.
In their letters to Hur, Biden’s lawyers sought the opportunity to review
and comment on a draft of his report. They argued that lengthy, detailed
public reports can cause serious harm to their subjects even if they do
not result in criminal charges.
“We do wish to underscore how important it is under these circumstances to
allow the President’s lawyers the opportunity to review a draft of your
report to address potential inaccuracies or unfair characterizations and
conclusions,” White House special counsel Richard Sauber wrote in an Oct.
31 letter.
He added: “Given that the President, through counsel, has no opportunity
to test any of the evidence discussed in the report, the President’s
lawyers should have a meaningful opportunity to review and provide comment
on the report before it becomes public.”
Once Biden’s lawyers did receive the report, they had vigorous objections.
Treating the handling of personal notes on classified information as a
potential crime, they wrote at one point, “runs the substantial risk of
causing irreparable harm to the Offices of the President and Vice
President by deterring future Presidents and Vice Presidents from using
diaries and notes in the context of the most stressful and important jobs
in the world — jobs that also require nearly continuous interaction with
sensitive national security information.”
But it is the back-and-forth over Biden’s memory that stands out.
Weinsheimer, the Justice Department official, said in his letter that
Hur’s report provided “significant detail” on why he decided not to
prosecute, including his conclusions on whether Biden acted “willfully” in
possessing classified information.
“The language to which you object goes directly to these issues,”
Weinsheimer wrote, adding: “For these reasons, inclusion of the identified
language in the report and the report itself fall well within the
Department’s standards for public release.”
Weinsheimer called the comparison between Hur and Comey “inapt” in part
because they held different government positions with different powers.
“Special Counsel Hur’s report is readily distinguishable from Director
Comey’s press conference,” he asserted.
When the report was released later that day, it kicked up an enormous
political storm. Republicans criticized Hur for not prosecuting Biden, and
they eagerly seized on the depiction of the president as an elderly man
with a diminished mental capacity.
Following several days of furor — during which Republicans called for
Biden to step aside and Democrats attested to Biden’s sharpness and
pointed to Trump’s own frequently confusing language — Sauber and Bauer
fired off one more letter to the Justice Department on Monday.
They dismissed the argument that Hur’s role was nothing like Comey’s. That
assertion, they said, “reflects a disturbing lack of concern about the
harm that the policy seeks to avoid. An uncharged person, in this case the
President of the United States, cares not about the particular title or
role of the Department official who publicly excoriates him with critical
comments about uncharged conduct. The unfairness is equally profound.”
Overall, they added, “we fundamentally disagree with your assessment that
the comments contained in Special Counsel Hur’s report were consistent
with Department policy and practice. They surely were not.”
Feb. 12 Bob Bauer and Richard Sauber's letter to DOJ
If you’re unable to read the full text, the full pdf is available here.
https://washingtonpost.com/documents/c244ecc3-02ba-4a0e-a42c-
770922a1b68a.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_63
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/15/biden-hur-memory-angry-
lawyers/
Justice Department officials before and after last week’s explosive report
from special counsel Robert K. Hur, contending that Hur’s comments
“openly, obviously, and blatantly violate Department policy and practice.”
The letters, obtained by The Washington Post, show that Biden’s legal team
was deeply upset over the tone of the report, which it reviewed before its
public release. The document created political shock waves by describing
Biden as “an elderly man with a poor memory” and calling his practice of
keeping notebooks that contained sensitive information “totally
irresponsible.”
Among other things, Biden’s lawyers argued that Hur had no reason to
assemble a 388-page report in the first place. Justice Department
regulations dictate that if no charges are filed, the special counsel
should send a confidential report to the attorney general explaining that
decision.
The letters highlight the conflict that has erupted between the
president’s team and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who is now accused
by Biden’s attorneys of breaking the department’s norms after being
appointed to reestablish them following the Trump presidency.
Garland did not respond directly to Biden’s legal team. Instead, Associate
Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer, the Justice Department’s
senior career official, wrote back supporting the document’s wording.
“The identified language is neither gratuitous nor unduly prejudicial
because it is not offered to criticize or demean the President,”
Weinsheimer wrote to Biden’s legal team. “Rather, it is offered to explain
Special Counsel Hur’s conclusions about the President’s state of mind in
possessing and retaining classified information.”
Under the department’s regulations, Garland would have had to notify
Congress if he made changes to the report.
The White House Counsel’s Office and Biden’s personal lawyer, Bob Bauer,
initially raised their objections in letters to Hur. Ultimately, they sent
a scathing letter directly to Garland, who oversees the Justice Department
and is one of Biden’s highest-profile Cabinet nominations.
That letter — a last-ditch appeal sent Feb. 7, the day before Hur’s report
was released to the public — was especially impassioned, suggesting that
the special counsel was making the same mistake that FBI Director James B.
Comey did in 2016, when he sharply criticized Democratic presidential
nominee Hillary Clinton in the course of announcing that she would face no
criminal charges.
“Mr. Hur’s criticism of President Biden mirrors one of the most widely
recognized examples in recent history of inappropriate prosecutor
criticism of uncharged conduct,” Biden’s lawyers wrote. “The FBI and DOJ
personnel’s criticism of uncharged conduct during investigations in
connection with the 2016 election was found to violate ‘long-standing
Department practice and protocol.’”
Why DOJ rules let Hur criticize Biden's memory
That election resulted in the presidency of Donald Trump, who is now
seeking to recapture the White House.
Hur is expected to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on March
12, possibly his first public appearance after releasing the report, and
he may face some of the same questions raised by Biden’s attorneys.
In its letter to Garland, Biden’s team objects strongly to Hur’s use of
the president’s inability to recall specific dates to reach the sweeping
conclusion that his memory was “significantly limited.” Hur cited that
conclusion in explaining that he was not prosecuting Biden for mishandling
classified documents in part because a jury would probably find him an
appealing, if forgetful, senior citizen.
“We object to the multiple denigrating statements about President Biden’s
memory which violate longstanding DOJ practice and policy,” the lawyers
wrote to the attorney general. While the special counsel is entitled to
note that Biden could not remember specific facts, they added, “a global
and pejorative judgment on the President’s powers of recollection in
general is uncalled for and unfounded.”
Feb. 7 Bob Bauer and Edward Siskel's letter to DOJ, including attachments
If you’re unable to read the full text, the full pdf is available here.
https://washingtonpost.com/documents/a3534975-d082-4fda-98e5-
79f8199b74ba.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_22
Biden’s lawyers complained that the report repeatedly cited the
president’s memory in a derisive fashion, even though Hur’s interaction
with Biden was limited to a five-hour interview in which he encouraged the
president to do his best to recall events from years ago.
The lawyers also protested that Hur’s report did not point out that his
questioning of Biden took place the day after the Oct. 7 attacks in
Israel, when Hamas militants surged across the Gaza border and slaughtered
some 1,200 Israelis, igniting a conflagration in the Middle East.
Feb. 8 DOJ letter to Biden's team
If you’re unable to read the full text, the full pdf is available here.
https://washingtonpost.com/documents/527c8c1d-1143-4563-8619-
ea8cddd8a67c.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_30
Bauer and White House counsel Edward Siskel, who jointly wrote the letter
to Garland, did not only complain about Hur’s depiction of Biden’s memory.
They also voiced frustration at a part of the special counsel’s report
focusing on personal notes that Biden took — and kept with him upon
leaving the vice presidency — related to classified information.
Hur had pointedly quoted a statement by Biden that Trump was “totally
irresponsible” for keeping top secret documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate
in Palm Beach, Fla. “Mr. Biden’s emphatic and unqualified conclusion that
keeping marked classified documents unsecured in one’s home is ‘totally
irresponsible’ because it ‘may compromise sources and methods’ applies
equally to his own decision to keep his notebooks at home in unlocked and
unauthorized containers,” Hur wrote.
Biden’s attorneys objected to that statement, saying the practice of
keeping personal diaries was in line with former presidents and vice
presidents — and nothing like Trump’s willful retention of sensitive
documents and alleged refusal to return them.
“To criticize President Biden for a practice that his predecessors openly
engaged in, a practice that the Justice Department has in the past
acknowledged and declined to investigate, a practice that is not charged
conduct, exemplifies the reasons why a bipartisan consensus arose to
change the prior report writing function,” they wrote.
That referred to one of the biggest points of contention between Biden’s
circle and the special counsel’s team — whether it was appropriate for Hur
to write a lengthy report repeatedly criticizing Biden when he had
concluded that no criminal charges were merited.
Biden’s lawyers note that Congress decided in 1999 not to renew the
independent counsel statute, a controversial post-Watergate law, amid
widespread criticism of its requirement that independent prosecutors
produce exhaustive final reports. Those reports often enumerated an
individual’s alleged wrongdoing without any need to prove it in court.
Still, Hur is hardly alone; special counsels have continued to issue
lengthy reports in the past two decades when charges were not filed. Among
the best known is special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report in 2019
that examined whether Trump or his aides colluded with Russia or
obstructed justice.
Garland names Robert Hur special counsel in Biden classified files case
Before Biden’s legal team contacted Garland, it lodged several complaints
with Hur’s office. It wrote to the attorney general, on the eve of the
report’s release, after becoming frustrated that Hur’s office was not
heeding its complaints.
While the special counsel is not subject to the day-to-day supervision of
Garland or other department officials, the attorney general can ask the
special counsel to explain certain steps he is taking. If the attorney
general then orders him to change course, the special counsel has to
notify Congress.
In their letters to Hur, Biden’s lawyers sought the opportunity to review
and comment on a draft of his report. They argued that lengthy, detailed
public reports can cause serious harm to their subjects even if they do
not result in criminal charges.
“We do wish to underscore how important it is under these circumstances to
allow the President’s lawyers the opportunity to review a draft of your
report to address potential inaccuracies or unfair characterizations and
conclusions,” White House special counsel Richard Sauber wrote in an Oct.
31 letter.
He added: “Given that the President, through counsel, has no opportunity
to test any of the evidence discussed in the report, the President’s
lawyers should have a meaningful opportunity to review and provide comment
on the report before it becomes public.”
Once Biden’s lawyers did receive the report, they had vigorous objections.
Treating the handling of personal notes on classified information as a
potential crime, they wrote at one point, “runs the substantial risk of
causing irreparable harm to the Offices of the President and Vice
President by deterring future Presidents and Vice Presidents from using
diaries and notes in the context of the most stressful and important jobs
in the world — jobs that also require nearly continuous interaction with
sensitive national security information.”
But it is the back-and-forth over Biden’s memory that stands out.
Weinsheimer, the Justice Department official, said in his letter that
Hur’s report provided “significant detail” on why he decided not to
prosecute, including his conclusions on whether Biden acted “willfully” in
possessing classified information.
“The language to which you object goes directly to these issues,”
Weinsheimer wrote, adding: “For these reasons, inclusion of the identified
language in the report and the report itself fall well within the
Department’s standards for public release.”
Weinsheimer called the comparison between Hur and Comey “inapt” in part
because they held different government positions with different powers.
“Special Counsel Hur’s report is readily distinguishable from Director
Comey’s press conference,” he asserted.
When the report was released later that day, it kicked up an enormous
political storm. Republicans criticized Hur for not prosecuting Biden, and
they eagerly seized on the depiction of the president as an elderly man
with a diminished mental capacity.
Following several days of furor — during which Republicans called for
Biden to step aside and Democrats attested to Biden’s sharpness and
pointed to Trump’s own frequently confusing language — Sauber and Bauer
fired off one more letter to the Justice Department on Monday.
They dismissed the argument that Hur’s role was nothing like Comey’s. That
assertion, they said, “reflects a disturbing lack of concern about the
harm that the policy seeks to avoid. An uncharged person, in this case the
President of the United States, cares not about the particular title or
role of the Department official who publicly excoriates him with critical
comments about uncharged conduct. The unfairness is equally profound.”
Overall, they added, “we fundamentally disagree with your assessment that
the comments contained in Special Counsel Hur’s report were consistent
with Department policy and practice. They surely were not.”
Feb. 12 Bob Bauer and Richard Sauber's letter to DOJ
If you’re unable to read the full text, the full pdf is available here.
https://washingtonpost.com/documents/c244ecc3-02ba-4a0e-a42c-
770922a1b68a.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_63
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/15/biden-hur-memory-angry-
lawyers/
pothead
Feb 16, 2024, 11:32:46 AMFeb 16
to
On 2024-02-16, Carlile <car...@work.usa> wrote:
> President Biden’s top attorneys exchanged confrontational letters with top
> Justice Department officials before and after last week’s explosive report
> from special counsel Robert K. Hur, contending that Hur’s comments
> “openly, obviously, and blatantly violate Department policy and practice.”
>
> The letters, obtained by The Washington Post, show that Biden’s legal team
> was deeply upset over the tone of the report, which it reviewed before its
> public release. The document created political shock waves by describing
> Biden as “an elderly man with a poor memory” and calling his practice of
> keeping notebooks that contained sensitive information “totally
> irresponsible.”
>
> Among other things, Biden’s lawyers argued that Hur had no reason to
> assemble a 388-page report in the first place. Justice Department
> regulations dictate that if no charges are filed, the special counsel
> should send a confidential report to the attorney general explaining that
> decision.
>
> The letters highlight the conflict that has erupted between the
> president’s team and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who is now accused
> by Biden’s attorneys of breaking the department’s norms after being
> appointed to reestablish them following the Trump presidency.
The interesting point is that there is no need for a report to inform the public that Biden is
> President Biden’s top attorneys exchanged confrontational letters with top
> Justice Department officials before and after last week’s explosive report
> from special counsel Robert K. Hur, contending that Hur’s comments
> “openly, obviously, and blatantly violate Department policy and practice.”
>
> The letters, obtained by The Washington Post, show that Biden’s legal team
> was deeply upset over the tone of the report, which it reviewed before its
> public release. The document created political shock waves by describing
> Biden as “an elderly man with a poor memory” and calling his practice of
> keeping notebooks that contained sensitive information “totally
> irresponsible.”
>
> Among other things, Biden’s lawyers argued that Hur had no reason to
> assemble a 388-page report in the first place. Justice Department
> regulations dictate that if no charges are filed, the special counsel
> should send a confidential report to the attorney general explaining that
> decision.
>
> The letters highlight the conflict that has erupted between the
> president’s team and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who is now accused
> by Biden’s attorneys of breaking the department’s norms after being
> appointed to reestablish them following the Trump presidency.
missing a few marbles.
He proves it every time he is out in public.
I have a suspician that this entire affair is a set up to remove Joe Biden from office and prevent
him from running in 2024.
Why?
There is no way that Biden's lapdog Merrick Garland would have not informed Biden about the Hur
report prior to it being released.
And I suspect that Joe Biden did not know what was happening as he was kept out of the loop.
--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.
Charlie Glock
Feb 16, 2024, 11:59:57 AMFeb 16
to
On 2/16/2024 8:32 AM, pothead wrote:
> On 2024-02-16, Carlile <car...@work.usa> wrote:
>> President Biden’s top attorneys exchanged confrontational letters with top
>> Justice Department officials before and after last week’s explosive report
>> from special counsel Robert K. Hur, contending that Hur’s comments
>> “openly, obviously, and blatantly violate Department policy and practice.”
>>
>> The letters, obtained by The Washington Post, show that Biden’s legal team
>> was deeply upset over the tone of the report, which it reviewed before its
>> public release. The document created political shock waves by describing
>> Biden as “an elderly man with a poor memory” and calling his practice of
>> keeping notebooks that contained sensitive information “totally
>> irresponsible.”
>>
>> Among other things, Biden’s lawyers argued that Hur had no reason to
>> assemble a 388-page report in the first place. Justice Department
>> regulations dictate that if no charges are filed, the special counsel
>> should send a confidential report to the attorney general explaining that
>> decision.
>>
>> The letters highlight the conflict that has erupted between the
>> president’s team and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who is now accused
>> by Biden’s attorneys of breaking the department’s norms after being
>> appointed to reestablish them following the Trump presidency.
>
> The interesting point is that there is no need for a report to inform the public that Biden is
> missing a few marbles.
He is not. This is just something you right-wingnut knuckle-draggers feel you
> On 2024-02-16, Carlile <car...@work.usa> wrote:
>> President Biden’s top attorneys exchanged confrontational letters with top
>> Justice Department officials before and after last week’s explosive report
>> from special counsel Robert K. Hur, contending that Hur’s comments
>> “openly, obviously, and blatantly violate Department policy and practice.”
>>
>> The letters, obtained by The Washington Post, show that Biden’s legal team
>> was deeply upset over the tone of the report, which it reviewed before its
>> public release. The document created political shock waves by describing
>> Biden as “an elderly man with a poor memory” and calling his practice of
>> keeping notebooks that contained sensitive information “totally
>> irresponsible.”
>>
>> Among other things, Biden’s lawyers argued that Hur had no reason to
>> assemble a 388-page report in the first place. Justice Department
>> regulations dictate that if no charges are filed, the special counsel
>> should send a confidential report to the attorney general explaining that
>> decision.
>>
>> The letters highlight the conflict that has erupted between the
>> president’s team and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who is now accused
>> by Biden’s attorneys of breaking the department’s norms after being
>> appointed to reestablish them following the Trump presidency.
>
> The interesting point is that there is no need for a report to inform the public that Biden is
> missing a few marbles.
have to say in order to prove your MAGA bona fides. It's no different than
wearing a MAGA cap. It's pure signaling. You, personally, are clearly very
frightened of being seen as insufficiently MAGA, because you say this shit many
times per week.
Governor Swill
Feb 17, 2024, 7:59:36 PMFeb 17
to
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:32:44 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote:
>On 2024-02-16, Carlile <car...@work.usa> wrote:
>> President Biden?s top attorneys exchanged confrontational letters with top
>On 2024-02-16, Carlile <car...@work.usa> wrote:
>> Justice Department officials before and after last week?s explosive report
>> from special counsel Robert K. Hur, contending that Hur?s comments
>> ?openly, obviously, and blatantly violate Department policy and practice.?
>>
>> The letters, obtained by The Washington Post, show that Biden?s legal team
>> was deeply upset over the tone of the report, which it reviewed before its
>> public release. The document created political shock waves by describing
>> Biden as ?an elderly man with a poor memory? and calling his practice of
>> public release. The document created political shock waves by describing
>> keeping notebooks that contained sensitive information ?totally
>> irresponsible.?
>>
>> Among other things, Biden?s lawyers argued that Hur had no reason to
>> assemble a 388-page report in the first place. Justice Department
>> regulations dictate that if no charges are filed, the special counsel
>> should send a confidential report to the attorney general explaining that
>> decision.
>>
>> The letters highlight the conflict that has erupted between the
>> president?s team and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who is now accused
>> regulations dictate that if no charges are filed, the special counsel
>> should send a confidential report to the attorney general explaining that
>> decision.
>>
>> The letters highlight the conflict that has erupted between the
>> by Biden?s attorneys of breaking the department?s norms after being
>> appointed to reestablish them following the Trump presidency.
>
>The interesting point is that there is no need for a report to inform the public that Biden is
>missing a few marbles.
>He proves it every time he is out in public.
>
>I have a suspician that this entire affair is a set up to remove Joe Biden from office and prevent
>him from running in 2024.
>Why?
>There is no way that Biden's lapdog Merrick Garland would have not informed Biden about the Hur
>report prior to it being released.
>And I suspect that Joe Biden did not know what was happening as he was kept out of the loop.
If you reread the piece you'll see that Biden and Garland aren't getting along.
>
>The interesting point is that there is no need for a report to inform the public that Biden is
>missing a few marbles.
>He proves it every time he is out in public.
>
>I have a suspician that this entire affair is a set up to remove Joe Biden from office and prevent
>him from running in 2024.
>Why?
>There is no way that Biden's lapdog Merrick Garland would have not informed Biden about the Hur
>report prior to it being released.
>And I suspect that Joe Biden did not know what was happening as he was kept out of the loop.
Swill
--
Not left, not right, https://www.forwardparty.com/
"I don't want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in
the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
- Paul Weyrich, co founder of Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority
Not left, not right, https://www.forwardparty.com/
Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!
Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!
Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!
Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>
pothead
Feb 17, 2024, 8:06:12 PMFeb 17
to
On 2024-02-18, Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:32:44 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-02-16, Carlile <car...@work.usa> wrote:
>>> President Biden?s top attorneys exchanged confrontational letters with top
>>> Justice Department officials before and after last week?s explosive report
>>> from special counsel Robert K. Hur, contending that Hur?s comments
>>> ?openly, obviously, and blatantly violate Department policy and practice.?
>>>
>>> The letters, obtained by The Washington Post, show that Biden?s legal team
>>> was deeply upset over the tone of the report, which it reviewed before its
>>> public release. The document created political shock waves by describing
>>> Biden as ?an elderly man with a poor memory? and calling his practice of
>>> keeping notebooks that contained sensitive information ?totally
>>> irresponsible.?
>>>
>>> Among other things, Biden?s lawyers argued that Hur had no reason to
>>> assemble a 388-page report in the first place. Justice Department
>>> regulations dictate that if no charges are filed, the special counsel
>>> should send a confidential report to the attorney general explaining that
>>> decision.
>>>https://www.history.com/news/immigration-act-1965-changes
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:32:44 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-02-16, Carlile <car...@work.usa> wrote:
>>> President Biden?s top attorneys exchanged confrontational letters with top
>>> Justice Department officials before and after last week?s explosive report
>>> from special counsel Robert K. Hur, contending that Hur?s comments
>>> ?openly, obviously, and blatantly violate Department policy and practice.?
>>>
>>> The letters, obtained by The Washington Post, show that Biden?s legal team
>>> was deeply upset over the tone of the report, which it reviewed before its
>>> public release. The document created political shock waves by describing
>>> Biden as ?an elderly man with a poor memory? and calling his practice of
>>> keeping notebooks that contained sensitive information ?totally
>>> irresponsible.?
>>>
>>> Among other things, Biden?s lawyers argued that Hur had no reason to
>>> assemble a 388-page report in the first place. Justice Department
>>> regulations dictate that if no charges are filed, the special counsel
>>> should send a confidential report to the attorney general explaining that
>>> decision.
>>> The letters highlight the conflict that has erupted between the
>>> president?s team and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who is now accused
>>> by Biden?s attorneys of breaking the department?s norms after being
>>> appointed to reestablish them following the Trump presidency.
>>
>>The interesting point is that there is no need for a report to inform the public that Biden is
>>missing a few marbles.
>>He proves it every time he is out in public.
>>
>>I have a suspician that this entire affair is a set up to remove Joe Biden from office and prevent
>>him from running in 2024.
>>Why?
>>There is no way that Biden's lapdog Merrick Garland would have not informed Biden about the Hur
>>report prior to it being released.
>>And I suspect that Joe Biden did not know what was happening as he was kept out of the loop.
>
> If you reread the piece you'll see that Biden and Garland aren't getting along.
>
> Swill
True.
>>> president?s team and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who is now accused
>>> by Biden?s attorneys of breaking the department?s norms after being
>>> appointed to reestablish them following the Trump presidency.
>>
>>The interesting point is that there is no need for a report to inform the public that Biden is
>>missing a few marbles.
>>He proves it every time he is out in public.
>>
>>I have a suspician that this entire affair is a set up to remove Joe Biden from office and prevent
>>him from running in 2024.
>>Why?
>>There is no way that Biden's lapdog Merrick Garland would have not informed Biden about the Hur
>>report prior to it being released.
>>And I suspect that Joe Biden did not know what was happening as he was kept out of the loop.
>
> If you reread the piece you'll see that Biden and Garland aren't getting along.
>
> Swill
My point is that Biden and his handlers knew about this report before it was released.
It just smells bad.
I suspect this is the democrats plan B to jettison demented Joe Biden.
Jill Biden ain't gonna like this at all.
Governor Swill
Feb 18, 2024, 11:43:16 AMFeb 18
to
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 01:06:10 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote:
>My point is that Biden and his handlers knew about this report before it was released.
>It just smells bad.
>I suspect this is the democrats plan B to jettison demented Joe Biden.
They need to do something.
>My point is that Biden and his handlers knew about this report before it was released.
>It just smells bad.
>I suspect this is the democrats plan B to jettison demented Joe Biden.
>Jill Biden ain't gonna like this at all.
0 new messages