I've already said that Special Counsel Robert Hur was out of bounds in his final report when he made derogatory remarks about President Biden's memory, which had nothing to do with the actual case he was investigating. But it turns out it's much worse than that. Marcy Wheeler lays out the problem at length here. I'll summarize.
Hur says that his case rests primarily on a single folder of classified documents related to Afghanistan that he found in a "badly damaged box surrounded by household detritus" in Biden's garage. This by itself suggests the documents were there by accident, but Hur argues otherwise by citing a snippet of a conversation Biden had with his ghostwriter just after leaving office in 2017:
So this was—I, early on, in ’09—I just found all the classified stuff downstairs—I wrote the President a handwritten 40-page memorandum arguing against deploying additional troops to Iraq—I mean, to Afghanistan—on the grounds that it wouldn’t matter, that the day we left would be like the day before we arrived.
The most natural interpretation of this is that Biden had just found his copy of the memo he wrote to Obama. This was classified, but since it was a handwritten recollection—like Ronald Reagan's diaries—it was OK for Biden to keep it.
Instead, Hur repeated that bolded 8-word phrase 23 times and concluded that it referred to the Afghanistan documents in the garage—the ones that looked like they hadn't been touched in recent memory. Without this, Hur has nothing, and it really should have been the end of the investigation. Biden had kept some personal records, which was OK; some minor stuff no one cared about; and a single folder of classified information that gave every sign of being forgotten about.
But Hur chose a different direction, insisting that "context" showed Biden was referring to the Afghanistan folder. He then spun a long, tortured story about why Biden might have deliberately kept this folder even though he had returned everything else. Remarkably, it contained language like this:
Like many presidents, Mr. Biden has long viewed himself as a historic figure.... Mr. Biden collected papers and artifacts related to noteworthy issues and events in his public life. He used these materials to write memoirs published in 2007 and 2017, to document his legacy, and to cite as evidence that he was a man of presidential timber.
It's astonishing that a special counsel would use snide language like this. It's especially astonishing when it's there solely to back up a convoluted theory about why Biden would have kept one (1) folder of classified information that he obviously didn't need since he had a copy of the 40-page memo based on it.
And this also explains Hur's editorializing about Biden's memory. There was no case to make against Biden because Biden had done nothing wrong—but Hur didn't want to admit that. So instead he was forced to come up with other reasons for not recommending charges, and one of them was that Biden's faulty memory would persuade a jury he was a sympathetic figure who had just forgotten they were there.
The more likely truth, as Hur himself notes, is that reasonable jurors were unlikely to accept a single vague aside—never repeated and never acted upon—as evidence of anything. Especially since, again, as Hur himself points out:
- Biden said this shortly after leaving office, when he was routinely surrounded by classified documents and they were no big deal.
- Biden was accustomed to having staff handle details of box packing and so forth.
- The classified documents were from 2009 and "concern a conflict that is now over, in a country where there are no longer any American troops, about a subject (the 2009 troop surge) that has already been widely discussed in books and media reports."
- Biden cooperated completely with Hur's investigation and never seemed concerned that the FBI would find anything damaging.
- Biden returned every single classified document he had. This single folder in an old box was the only exception.
You can, as Hur did, invent a long, circuitous story that (a) Biden's aside referred to the Afghanistan folder, (b) he was desperate to keep those documents in order to write a book that had nothing to do with Afghanistan, and (c) even though he was keenly aware the folder was in his garage, he left it in plain sight in an old box instead of hiding it or filing it or tossing it out when the investigation started.
This is Glenn Beck territory. It's ridiculous.
Yet another example….
That without bad faith….
Republicans would have no arguments at all…
I am glad that Trump, but not Biden, was charged around retaining documents. However, the regulation/the definition of the crime does mention if you cooperate, return the documents when requested etc.
By the letter of the law, intentionally retaining these documents (no matter what you do latter) is the crime....
"Intentionally" doing pretty much all the lifting there, which is a major point of the OP. As the SC himself concluded, that probably wasn't provable.
And that gets to the matter of degree. Trump's actions were clearly intentional. And then he repeatedly evaded attempts by the government to retrieve them, ultimately necessitating an FBI raid! It's still not clear that he's not still holding onto some of them, either in the never-searched closet and/or at another location to which he (intentionally) moved them.
Both retained classified documents, as they shouldn't have done. Biden was cavalier at worst; Trump's actions were (and may still be) deliberately, repeatedly criminal.
There is also evidence Trump showed secure documents to people without security clearances. Pretty hard to claim you didn't know you had secure documents when you were intentionally flashing them in an effort to impress people.
There are several people willing to testify that Trump showed them secret documents even though they have no secret clearances. At least one of these people has video.
So the evidence is awfully strong.
Yeah, as if that case (which is really open and shut) is ever going to get to trial with Judge MAGA Lickspittle on the job.
I think the double standard is that only low level employees ever see prison time for U.S.C. § 1924 violations.
Yes, and the usual explanations that "we were swimming in the stuff" and "staff moved that stuff" -- which are undeniably true -- are no excuse. That's what I mean by "cavalier," and Biden is far from the first or only (recall even Senior Rector Mike Pence, He of Unbesmirched Propriety, found a few things in his garage). Anyone who has worked with classified information and documents knows what you're supposed to do and not do with it, and plenty of people work with almost nothing but classified information and still manage to treat it properly.
Trump was charged with a lot more than retaining documents.
It wasn't the retaining of documents so much as the lying to the FBI and a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Had he just returned the shit right away like Biden (and Pence) did, we wouldn't be here today.
Are we still wondering what was going through Hur's mind?
What's on Hur's mind is no doubt his future job prospects. His political ambitions rely entirely the next Republican to take the White House. He's 50, a former US Attorney, and with now a tenure as Special Counsel under his belt. What's next? Maybe a federal judgeship. Or hell, maybe Attorney General. If he becomes the guy who takes out Biden, how could he deserve anything less?
A simple one-page exoneration of Biden, like the one that Pence got right in time to launch his presidential bid, would effectively end Hur's chance to go anywhere in Republican politics.
But 388 page of hackery? That's a man advertising for a job.
I look forward to his promotion to US Attorney for the newly created Northern District of Montana and North Dakota.
That would be fitting (especially if he hates cross-country skiing) but even now, and even without a trump win, there are any number of foundations, institutes, and think tanks on the right that have $250,000 "fellowships" for people like he's shown himself to be, and plenty of other groups that will start out at 10 or 15 thousand a pop for people like him to orate in front of for an hour. Throw in a corporate board or two and he could soon be pulling in a million a year easy, even without the speaking gigs.
So whatever happens with trump, Hur's report has paved at least one of his possible next steps with gold. "He seen his chance, and he took it," in the immortal words of G. W. Plunkitt.
Back in '37 during the Flint GM Sitdown Strike, a local judge issued an injunction against the strikers. It was overruled, but until recently when the line died out, there was a judge of his distinctive name on the bench.
Hur's like one of those men who bought a peerage after WW1. He did it for his children and his children's children.
Whatever happened to Starr, Comey. Billy Barr, etc. Hur will end up like those traitors/losers.
What this shows is that Democrats need to stop the practice of appointing only Republicans to high level positions in law enforcement and national security. Not only because they continue to be burned by the inevitable unfair and tendentious result, but because it sends a message that only Republicans can be trusted with positions of great responsibility. One would expect that Republicans would want to send such a message, but it's unfortunate that Democrats do as well.
👍👍👍👍👍
No, what this shows is that Democrats should only appoint DEMOCRATS to such posts. One simply cannot trust Republican officials not to be utterly unethical, partisan hacks. Because they almost always are.
It is not Glenn Beck Territory; it is New York Times Territory. Convoluted theories and long, circuitous stories with no evidence of a crime is their wheelhouse. Consider Whitewater & EMAILS!
Remember the NYT partnering with Breitbart to expose the Clinton Foundation nonscandle? This was about the time the Old Grey Lady totally missed the Russian interference in the Trump campaign story.
I thought it was Peter Schweitzer, the author of "Clinton Cash", and well known right wing hatchet man.
Schweizer is Breitbart's "senior editor-at-large".
Indeed.
Their electronic front page features BretBug, MoDo and Lil Ross all saying that Biden has to go. Meanwhile Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman's take is buried so deep you need to search for his name to find it:
"I’ll bet that many readers are similarly vague about the dates of major life events. You remember the circumstances but not necessarily the precise year. And whatever you think of me, I’m pretty sure I don’t write or sound like an old man. The idea that Biden’s difficulty in pinning down the year of his son’s death shows his incapacity — in the middle of the Gaza crisis! — is disgusting."
"As it happens, I had an hourlong off-the-record meeting with Biden in August. I can’t talk about the content, but I can assure you that he’s perfectly lucid, with a good grasp of events. And outside of that personal experience, on several occasions when I thought he was making a serious misjudgment — like his handling of the debt ceiling crisis — he was right, and I was wrong."
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/06/opinion/thepoint#krugman-biden-age
Yes. Thie fits very nicely into the storyline that the NYT has been crafting for this election cycle.
Is anyone not curious why the Attorney General did not edit this report which clearly was in his power to do?
The counter argument is that this would then have been leaked...then fine if so, Garland could/should have gone on an active attack against Mr Hur.
This has just been terrible bad judgement all around, Biden for appointing Garland, Garland for his failure to properly supervise his department.
We need a simple brokered Dem Convention in August...throw all these individuals out that have shown such poor judgment.
Unforgivably bad judgment.
Traveller
PS Yikes, I see this have been taken up at LGM....Hummmm?
Like Traveller, I wonder what this says about Garland. Was Hur bedecked in red flags before he was appointed? And what about Garland letting this report out 'as is'?
I wonder what this says about Garland.
I don't think there's much to wonder about. He's a clueless old fuck who still thinks we're dealing with 1974's Republican Party. He has blinders on. Maybe he doesn't read a daily newspaper?
Not to mention the Daily Howler, where Bob Somerby has become quite a fan.
A brokered convention is insanity. Any idea riffing off what Ross Douthat thinks that Democrats ought to do is a sign you and folks at LGM have been sniffing too much glue.
Let me explain something to you. The reason Biden is not popular is not because of his mental faculties or his age. It's because he's a Democratic president and will be the Democratic nominee. If you found a suitable replacement (and there is none), that person's "popularity" would weather such intense scrutiny and so many vicious, unfair attacks that he or she would be no more popular than Biden, but without the advantage of his incumbency and his experience.
Biden is the nominee and all this second-guessing is just the helping the bad guys. Change your diapers and get to work.
Yes. This!
Hear, hear.
>Biden is the nominee and all this second-guessing is just the helping the bad guys. Change your diapers and get to work.
Fuckin' ay - right on!
I'll second ... third ... fifth that! Donate! Volunteer! Organize if you can! And FFS VOTE, and get your friends out to vote, when the time comes! Stop pining for the sparkly unicorn to appear and save us!
Some people seem to forget that when Democrats ran a verifiable war hero in John Kerry, Republicans lied about his service and work purple bandaids to mock his war wounds. They lied about Hillary Clinton and called her a criminal while electing the rapist with 91 felony counts and massive business fraud over his head.
So yeah, Biden is the nominee, a brokered convention is just too stupid to even discuss, and it's time to get cracking on saving democracy.
I'm not Joe Biden and I approve this message.
I agree a brokered convention is insanity, unless Joe Biden himself decided at the last minute not to run, which is pretty clearly not going to happen. If that were to occur (say, he has a grave health problem) I imagine the best way to go about choosing a nominee would be for the president to release his delegates, and then decide the issue at the convention. People automatically think "chaos" but a multi-ballot, competitive convention need not be vituperative and conflict-ridden.
He stated that he would not get involved with Herr Hur's report, granting him complete freedom, while promising to release the report to the public.
If Ross Douthat wrote it, Doubt that it is true or possible.
Whatever.
It is a particularly ugly election year and the Rs are doing everything they can to paint Biden as old and decrepit and the Ds are doing everything they can to paint Trump as old and crazy and evil. We have about 9 more months of this to suffer through.
They could have the election tomorrow for all I care - I know I won't vote for Trump and nothing the magats can possibly say or do will change my mind. We have ranked-choice voting here so I don't have to put Biden at the top of my ballot, so Woo Hoo!
As bad as Hur's conduct is, Garland's is worse. If he was determined to release Hur's report then he had an obligation to do so along with his commentary on how inappropriately partisan it is. Instead, as always, we get nothing from Garland. He appears to believe he's still on the bench instead of the AG. Maybe he's the one with memory problems.
👍👍👍👍👍
If he was determined to release Hur's report then he had an obligation to do so along with his commentary on how inappropriately partisan it is.
I disagree. If we take politics out of the occasion, sure, have at it. But it's only 8.5 months before the election. Best not to magnify a controversy that is raising the salience of Joe Biden's age. That's exactly what Republicans want.
Democrats need to fight this outrage, absolutely. But the best way to do that is viciously attack Donald Trump on the very legitimate issue of TFG's serious dementia.
But in any event Garland has to go. And no Democrat should EVER again appoint a Republicans to an important role such as Special Counsel or FBI Director. That's just willful suicide at this point.
We should point out inappropriate behavior when it happens.
“We” (commenters, non-MAGA citizens, pundits, journalists, bloggers) *are* pointing out inappropriate behavior, rightly so. Paul Krugman has a blistering column out in the New York Times. So have many others. Twitter is now ablaze with such criticisms. Indeed, Kevin‘s post is an example of this. But should administration officials likewise devote significant time and resources to such an effort? I think it’s a very questionable proposition based on the likely MSM coverage this will attract. I believe James Carville‘s war room was an important innovation in political communication, but those guys chose their battles carefully and strategically.
Meant to add: if we could have a reasonable guarantee the headlines from MSM coverage of a major DOJ pushback read something like "Attorney General Rips MAGA Bias" I'd be more open to this course of action.
But, knowing the GOP-friendly press in this country, we're more likely to see headlines like "Merrick defends Biden on dementia charges" or somesuch.
Again, fight the enemy on a battle of your choosing, not theirs. Hur is a deeply cynical, highly politicized MAGA operative. That's abundantly clear. Keeping the "dementia" stories in the headlines is what this is all about.
Garland has been an unmitigated disaster for the country.
I read an article on Kos about Hur's report. One thing the writer caught was that Hur contradicted himself. In the first part of his document he claimed Biden "willfully" took the document. Towards the end of the document he stated that there was insufficient evidence that Biden willfully took the document.
He spends a lot of time caveating heavily and then, on page 304(!) of the report concludes there is:
Then again, on page 307 he again concludes:
E. There is insufficient evidence to support charging Mr. Biden for the retention of the other marked classified documents recovered from the Penn Eiden Center
Link to full article over here.
He could have just said "No charges recommended." and stopped there.
I noticed that - AFTER all of the news reports I read emphasized "willfully." I do not forgive them for that omission & failure.
Yeah, a search on "willful" in the Hur document turned up 98 uses of
(mostly) "willfully" and a few "willful" comments. I was trying to flip through quickly because my wife and I were coming up on a dinner date, but the amount of repetition was numbing.
This article by Andrew Weissman and Ryan Goodman at Just Security is an interesting take on the depth of deception that Hur appears to have successfully pulled off with his executive summary:
https://www.justsecurity.org/92090/the-real-robert-hur-report-versus-what-you-read-in-the-news/
Everything Kevin says is true, but unfortunately there is no way to counter the damage. Garland deserves every bit of the abuse being thrown his way.
We can expect to see Mr Hur on national TV in a few months, describing to Jim Jordan's committee how sad it was to see the President of the United States mumbling and fumbling as he tried unsuccessfully to remember when his son died or what year he became vice president.
but unfortunately there is no way to counter the damage.
I couldn't disagree more. Attacking Trump ruthlessly and effectively on the dementia issue will counter the damage. The smear on Biden only works politically if there's a net advantage to MAGA.
But if enough persuadable voters can be convinced (of the truth, let's be blunt) that Donald Trump is suffering from significantly impaired brain function, it won't matter if they likewise have doubt about Biden's mental fitness. Because the two issues will cancel out each other, and voter choice becomes about different things.
Frankly, for this strategy to work, it isn't even necessary to convince voters of the reality that Trump's decline is a lot worse than Biden's. (Although sure, it would be nice if we could accomplish this!)
Inflicting damage on Trump is sensible and necessary, but unfortunately it does nothing to undo the damage already done to Biden. It simply reinforces the impression that voters have to choose between a doddering old man and a ranting maniac. That is bitterly unfair to the president, even if he ends up winning.
A Trump appointee.
Has there ever been one worth the piss to put out a campfire? No, wait, that's actually worth something.
This is a Hillary re do. r’s suck big time. They simply can’t win by playing fair. They are so underhanded and evil.
Duh.
Bad faith, as always.
James Comey 2.0 but less intelligent.
The question is: will there be discipline? As many have already said, the summary and other entries are clearly out of bounds. Behavior that needs to be mentioned at least in a formal way that will follow him into the grave. Or until the minimum time has passed to purge the jacket.
First it was Starr, then it was Comey, and now it's Hur.
There's a certain class of people whose ego writ large think it's their responsibility to speak up and gratuitously editorialize with unnecessary details. They think they're better than the rest of us.
I like to call these folks Dipshits.
Wow. A whole post built around an emptywheel "analysis?" Why not just go full Pelosi and claim that Hur is on Russia's payroll? Weak.
Obviously, there weren't supposed to be classified documents in Biden's house. Biden's ghostwriter wasn't supposed to attempt to destroy evidence. Hur had to say something about why he wasn't charging any crimes. What should he have said? "Oh, Biden's a really good guy. Everyone makes mistakes. Let's not define the man by his worst security lapses."
Very simple: "There is no evidence to support any charges in this case."
Everything beyond that - including speculations about age and implications of senility is right-wing authoritarian revenge porn bullshit, HIGHLY inappropriate, and would get a regular prosecutor seriously reprimanded.
Hur eventually gets around to admitting he has no evidence to support charges - I found them at page 304 and 307.
Lol. Love these type of responses.
----
I dont like this, we should not talk about it because.....HEY LOOK OVER THERE! DEMOCRATS ARE BAD! PELOSI!! DEMOCRAT! SO WEAK!
The end!
----
Brilliant stuff. It never gets old. You can use it on any topic.
Pelosi didn't. But hey, you apparently didn't need any evidence to make inappropriate comments, either.
What does full Pelosi mean? That a woman said something you don't like. Toughen up snowflake.
He should have said what he did say: there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to bring charges against anyone. For example, there was no evidence to show how some of the classified documents even got into Biden's custody. People don't seem to understand they constituted a handful of documents among literally millions, the vast majority of which Biden had never even looked at. Staff packed the whole lot up and sent it off into storage.
The contemptible stuff about the president being an old duffer with memory problems was utterly gratuitous and irrelevant.
My dad kept - and then I kept - the notes about a highways project he'd done as the first project for the Quinault Nation in the 80s. The highways still hasn't been built (although they keep thinking about it). I had all his handwritten notes for everything he did for the next twenty years. It was fascinating.
But I never found a place to put them or anyone else who cared so I finally recycled them save some pictures last summer.
How is this any different?
If Hur thought that he could protect himself from attacks from the right, he miscalculated. Here's Johnathan Turley writing on his blog (Feb 11, 2024):
Hur didn't actually “find willful misconduct,” but if you use your Special Counsel report to imply that Biden did something wrong, you make it easier for the right to attack you for declining to prosecute.