House releases overview of evidence against Biden

[The Barbarian]

I thought the mug shot was from the Georgia case and had nothing to do with classified documents

That's right. They did waive the mug shot for the theft of classified material charges.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your link says about 16 documents. Didn't you read it?

I did read it....did you? Because 9 boxes unreviewed could be hundreds of documents.

Why do you suppose that the president hasn't sped up the review of those boxes if he's innocent?

 

[The Barbarian]

Because 9 boxes unreviewed could be hundreds of documents.

Your link says about 16 documents. Didn't you read it?

Why do you suppose that the president hasn't sped up the review of those boxes if he's innocent?

Because he's staying completely out of the review. Which he should.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your link says about 16 documents. Didn't you read it?

Again....from the article...


The boxes had been transported from a Washington, D.C., think tank to lawyer Pat Moore's firm, the Archives revealed in a letter to senators. The National Archives says it has not reviewed the material. Documents from Mr. Biden's time as vice president are required to be turned over to the Archives.


What's wrong @The Barbarian ? Do you need me to highlight the relevant text?


The boxes had been transported from a Washington, D.C., think tank to lawyer Pat Moore's firm, the Archives revealed in a letter to senators. The National Archives says it has not reviewed the material.

Now....why would your corrupt lying president not want to clear his name asap?

Because he's corrupt?

 

[Yttrium]

The charges stem from their efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Trying to overturn the results of the election is not in itself illegal. One can pursue that kind of thing in the courts. And they did. But it looks like they might have also taken some illegal approaches along the way. Maybe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your link says about 16 documents. Didn't you read it?

Yeah, I did.

Did you?

This is what your article says about the number of documents:

The president has come under scrutiny from congressional Republicans after records bearing classification markings were discovered at the Penn Biden Center and his Wilmington home.

The White House first confirmed in early January that the roughly 10 documents dating back to the Obama administration were found at Mr. Biden's office at the think tank, and then disclosed a "small number" were discovered in the garage and private library at the president's Wilmington residence.

A subsequent consensual search by the FBI of the Wilmington house on Jan. 20 turned up six additional items with classified markings, according to Mr. Biden's lawyers and the Justice Department. The FBI also searched Mr. Biden's vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, on Feb. 1, with his consent, and did not find any documents.

That's it. Nothing else about how many documents. I realize you probably didn't read it carefully. But that's it.

Pay attention....put on your glasses....read the whole article.

National Archives says it retrieved nine boxes of Biden records from ex-personal attorney's Boston office​

That's the title, right??

What's the date? Is it March 9th, 2023?

Who is the attorney who turned over the 9 boxes? Is he the same attorney who told the dumb brain-dead masses that only 10 documents were found in Biden's offices? Is he a different attorney? Why do you think Biden played a shell game? Why do you think one attorney got 9 boxes and the other 10 documents?

Why do you think the feeble minded masses didn't notice the other 9 boxes of documents turned over to NARA?

Do you know what's in those boxes? Or did NARA not review them?

 

[BPPLEE]

Here....remember what CNN said....


"President Biden’s personal attorneys unexpectedly discover Obama-Biden administration records at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, and notify the National Archives. According to Biden’s personal attorney, Bob Bauer, the president’s attorneys are in regular contact with the Archives for the next eight days."

So you got one attorney....Bob Bauer....telling the worst media outlets currently shilling for the president that only 10 documents were found....


Yet this other sleazeball Boston attorney found 9 boxes of documents....9 whole boxes....and his name is what? Moore?


Let's assume Bauer isn't lying. Then Moore got in there before November 2nd and took out 9 boxes. Otherwise, he can't officially say only 10 documents were found. If he said that, and he knew about the other 9 boxes of documents that went unreviewed....he's going to lose his ability to practice law.

So while the whole charade played out....NARA quietly sat on 9 boxes of documents for the corrupt current president....and hasn't even reviewed them.

I think you meant to respond to @The Barbarian and not me

 

[USincognito]

Valletta said:
“The old Nancy Pelosi line about how we must pursue an investigation because of the seriousness of the charges.”
That has nothing to do with the ACA.

This is why I recommend reading posts before responding.

I recommend reading for comprehension since I have already explained that there's no evidence this supposed "line" from Speaker Pelosi is a thing and Valletta was instead paraphrasing her comments about the ACA reconciliation bill. I'm still waiting for you or him to quote where she said this supposed "line".

 

[USincognito]

And I am just pointing out that @Valletta ’s post that @USincognito was responding to has nothing to do with the ACA or any bill. It had to do with the seriousness of the charges and not any legislation.

Yes. You keep asserting that instead of providing a source for the supposed "line" from Speaker Pelosi showing it to be a real quote and not @Valletta paraphrasing her ACA comment.

Will I ever see a citation?

 

[USincognito]

@USincognito what were you saying about polls?

The same thing I said earlier.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you meant to respond to @The Barbarian and not me

Nah, it's rubbing it in at this point if I aim em all at @The Barbarian

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's try this again more in line with the known facts and without the slant.

Ok.

Moore was one of the lawyers clearing out the Penn-Biden center and, after reviewing 9 of the boxes had them shipped to his office in Washington. To continue the story, to quote from the AP, "Moore had sent the boxes to Boston, where his law offices were located, and as he continued to sort through other boxes at the Washington-based think tank he came across a classified document."

Moore had sent the boxes to Boston, where his law offices were located, and as he continued to sort through other boxes at the Washington-based think tank he came across a classified document, said the person, who had knowledge of the investigation but was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Geez....awfully scared about speaking about the boxes contents on record.

Well...one lawyer shipped 9 boxes to the Archives, which the Archives has done nothing with....nor will they....until Biden is dead or out of office.

That's a totally reasonable explanation....if I had some sort of traumatic head injury lol.

Why turn over 9 boxes full of documents that NARA doesn't need? Future presidential library??? Please.

If he was innocent, the contents of those boxes would be public by now....by an official, on the record.

Let's stick to the facts...

Biden attorneys in talks with federal prosecutors over terms of his interview in classified documents case

Special Counsel Robert Hur, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, is investigating the president’s handling of classified documents after his term as vice president ended.

www.google.com

Attorneys for President Joe Biden and the special counsel appointed to investigate his handling of classified documents have been negotiating for about a month over the terms under which he would be interviewed, two people familiar with the matter said.









Negotiating....for a month. I can only imagine how those are going...

Special Prosecutor- "So, I'd like to talk to the President, about the contents of the boxes, the classified docs, and how and why he decided to send 2 different lawyers to pick them up...."

Biden’s Lawyers- "As long as we're present, and you don't ask him about how he knew that the docs were there, or suspected docs were there, and you can't ask why he sent lawyers to move documents."

Special Prosecutor- "No, that's basically the entire investigation....."

Imagine having to do that for a month lol.

If he wasn't guilty as sin....this investigation would have been wrapped up last June. Your boy isn't just guilty....he's unable to answer anything.

 

[JustOneWay]

The insurrection ended in 1865.

Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

No, Jan 6th is the insurrection at hand.

 

[Arcangl86]

What insurrection law are you talking about? Do you mean the 14th Amendment?

 

[Say it aint so]

That's true, it's Joe's involvement. If Joe really knew absolutely nothing about Hunter's business and had no knowledge that Hunter or any other person Joe was connected received a benefit then Joe is innocent. Unfortunately Joe and his administration are stonewalling on the emails and other records. I hope the American people get to see the records before the election.

Knowing about Hunter's business is not impeachable either. I really don't think you are concerned at all with the powers of the presidency, or for that matter individuals within the presidency, or for that matter people connected to that presidency, not having the American people see their records.

 

[The Barbarian]

Pelosi did a poor job trying to explain herself out of that one. As I've shown before with McCain, Snopes has been as wrong as can be.

Sorry, they cite evidence. Not liking things is not the same as disproving them.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes. You keep asserting that instead of providing a source for the supposed "line" from Speaker Pelosi showing it to be a real quote and not @Valletta paraphrasing her ACA comment.

Will I ever see a citation?

How can you possibly confuse “The seriousness of the charges “ with “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”? There’s no way one is a paraphrase of the other.
Just admit that you made a mistake and move on.
“It’s not the nature of the evidence it’s the seriousness of the charge “ was the battle cry of the left during the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill debacle, I don’t know who it originated from.

 

[BPPLEE]

Charges are charges.

"The charges stem from their efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election."

This does not presume guilt.

Did you read the Politico article?

 

[Arcangl86]

Did you read the Politico article?

I just did. The words "alleged" and "accused" are all over it, which is the opposite of assuming guilt.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Did you read the Politico article?

I read what you quoted of it. Maybe you should quote the part you have a problem with.