"Material distinctions" between President Biden's case and Mr. Trump's case: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1767587344993894402

Glorious.

The only "Material distinctions" that matter are that Biden knew that he had classified material in his possession as early as 2017 and that he was a Senator and later VP, not President.

Lol, nothing glorious about a non-verified account regurgitating biased 'snips' in lock-step with it's Dem overlords.

Of course, part of the problem is: "over-classification." It is entirely common for a standard e-mail footer within government to declare that the e-mail in question is: "classified."

I guess that J. K. Rowling knew what she was talking about when she described her "Chamber of Secrets." "Classified" has simply become "the place where everything is hidden."

No, you are wrong. There are MANY factors that matter under the law. MANY offices are expected to handle common confidential (but not classified) documents that are not covered by applicable law. Fewer handle classified documents (and one category is called "confidential"), and some of those offices require that they be personally retained at times, evaluated for purposes OUTSIDE the NSA issues, and returned to control without disclosure to parties without clearance and a need to know. Finding that such a document has been left in a SECURED location out of control is not a crime, it is minor mishandling. It is if it is in a non-secured location or has been "shared" or "burned" that there is a problem. Almost every congressman and senior white house staffer has found documents in their control after leaving office and returned them to control without prompting and without charges, as did Biden. That is normal. If you attempt to KEEP those documents, or show them to anyone unauthorized to see them there MAY be charges: depending upon circumstances and evidence.

The circumstances around retention and return are a complex issue. The physical circumstances matter, but also evidence of INTENT. If there was no disclosure and there is not evidence of INTENT to disclose, then there may be no crime. This is the Biden case as one example. If there is evidence of insecure storage, INTENT to retain, INTENT to disclose, or BOTH, then there is a crime that Main Justice may advance. This is the Trump case as one example.

I am not a lawyer, but if you read what the objective legal experts say about the evidence and examples above the issues are clear. Biden did not commit a Federal crime, Trump did commit MANY.

Some of use might approve of that fact, and some may disapprove, but neither approval nor disapproval will change the facts.

Unless you are going to stipulate that as a private citizen when he told his ghostwriter (no clearence): in Biden's office in a rented house in Virginia is somehow a 'secured space' for sensitive materials, he fails your conditional:

You're worried about being overlorded, yet you continue to support Mr. Trump?

Wow.

Point two: You clearly haven't read Mr. Hur's report, have you? Your opinion about it is uninformed.

Lol, I've referenced it about a half dozen times. I admit I've only read a couple of hundred pages but I doubt you even have it on your h/d. I guess you prefer to get your info from an unverified source on X.

If you've really read it, you must be quite dense to not understand this outcome.

Meanwhile, imagine being the lawyer trying to defend this guy: https://newrepublic.com/post/179824/...fied-documents

For all of the time he's spent in court he's not very smart, is he?

Other than Hur's decision not to persue an indictment because Biden is old, memory challenged and sympathetic to a jury, post a paragraph that supports your position. IF you've read it, which I doubt, it should be easy to do.

How about this important line from Chapter 12: "We conclude that this evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Or this on page 236:
"We do not believe this evidence would meet the government's burden at trial to prove Mr. Biden knew his handling of the notebooks broke the law."

Those statements are not made from sympathy. They're a plain statement of facts.

For context, since you seem to have a "non-lawyer's" understanding of the mechanics of this: In a criminal law case, the prosecution have to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Mr. Hur's report concludes that insufficient evidence exists for that to happen.

It's not about sympathy for an old man at all.

Like it or lump it, that should be the end of this matter.

Lol, and you seem not to understand the words 'Other than' or https://www.justice.gov/storage/repo...ruary-2024.pdf


Are you a lawyer, there or with standing here?

That the documents were in his posession without authority is not the question here.

The FACT is that there was insufficient evidence to prove "willful intent" beyond all reasonable doubt.

Mr. Trump may have received the same treatment if he had humbly admitted his mistake the same way President Biden did instead of trying to cover it up... breaking numerous other laws in the process.

This might help you understand the concept better:

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/...-and-willfully

"As in other situations, to commit an act "knowingly" is to do so with knowledge or awareness of the facts or situation, and not because of mistake, accident or some other innocent reason."

That's okay, I have no problem understanding this sentence from the SP's report: "To our knowledge, no one has identified any classified information published in Promise Me, Dad, but Mr. Biden shared information, including some classified information, from those notebooks with his ghostwriter."Emphasis mine.

We can go on and on about this or we can agree to dis-agree. Your choice.