“Hur’s allies say he needed to include the details about Biden’s mental state because such judgments are critical to decisions about whether to prosecute for these sorts of crimes.”
–Except there was no crime. The report made that clear.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/garland-decision-release-hur-report-00140806?cid=apn
There was no crime (it says at the beginning of p. 1).
However (it says on p. 6), if there -were- a crime, Biden could present himself as a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”
(Therefore, for this and several other reasons listed, incl. how there could be “innocent explanations…we cannot refute”)
“We conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict, and we decline to recommend prosecution of Mr. Biden…” (near the end of p. 6)
/1
@dalfen No, that's not what your highlighted part says.
It absolutely does not say there was no crime. It says they don't believe they could successfully prosecute the crime.
@volkris There was insufficient evidence to conclude that criminal charges were warranted.
@dalfen Even that is a huge leap from saying there was no crime.
This is a statement about prosecutorial discretion, not about innocence.
The investigator concluded that they weren't on a strategic high ground, regardless of criminality.
@volkris I hear you. I didn’t say innocence. I said there was insufficient evidence to convict of any crime. Guilt (of a crime) would have to be proven.
@dalfen the post above said there was no crime.
So that's what I'm addressing.
As far as I can tell there was a crime, but at least we can say that the report doesn't say otherwise.
The report says it's not strategically advantageous to charge a crime, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.
@volkris Well, I guess if they want to find a crime, they will have to keep looking. Meanwhile, the Special Counsel reported that there wasn’t enough evidence to warrant the conviction of any crime.
@dalfen again, they didn't say they didn't find a crime.
And they also didn't say there wasn't enough evidence to warrant the conviction of any crime.
That's just not what document said, even your own highlighted parts.
All they said was that they didn't believe they were in a position to present it at trial, which is an entirely different matter.
@volkris Did you read my third post?