Since he wasn’t arrested, was testifying under oath, and I’m pretty sure he had council, I don’t think it would have been done.
I’m in my mid 40s, lost my mom a few years ago, and only know it was around the end of August. My dog died, I think in March, and I’m not sure of the specific year. Those are the two deaths most personal to me, and I sort of don’t care to know the exact date.
Meanwhile, as others have noted, Biden has always been a poor speaker, prone to gaffes. Big woop: Thomas Jefferson was such a poor public speaker that he delivered his state of the union address in writing. Nobody today accuses him of being dumb.
Besides, it’s a legal strategy to say you don’t remember when questioned under oath.
“Don’t guess” is commonly the advice: “If somebody asks you what you had for breakfast last week, you might be pretty sure of the answer, but if you don’t know exactly, the best response is to say you don’t recall.”
You only have to be mirandized if you are “in custody”, which usually refers to being in handcuffs or sitting in an interrogation room at the police station.
I’m guessing Biden voluntarily answered questions.
I have no doubt that had Biden fielded such questions this way, the report would have noted an almost inexplicable belligerence and defensiveness in response to simple questions, behavior common to the elderly in their dotage.
Yes…I know that my father died in early January but the only way I remember the exact year is by the memory trick that he lived long enough to see the unfortunate event of Trump being elected but not long enough to see the unfortunate event of Trump being inaugurated. Then I know it was 2017. And, I also used to have trouble with the exact date in early January but now I can remember it because it has…after the fact…now one of the most infamous American dates in the last several decades, January 6, and that dovetails with the fact that his birthdate (Sept. 11) is the other most infamous American date in the last several decades!
For my mom, it is still recent enough (October 2022) that I can calculate back. (“Well, it wasn’t this past October but the one before, so that makes it 2022.”) I have no idea if I will be able to retrieve the year so easily a few years from now.
Anyone watching Biden’s press conference after knows what the special counsel was talking about. He presents exactly as they said, an old man with poor memory. It’s also clear he struggles with reading his notes, and takes a long time to process things.
But if you think the special counsel was just being a partisan and taking a swipe at Joe, and Biden actually remembers everything as well as any average person…then I guess he’s guiilty and should be charged. I don’t see how you can have it both ways - that he can’t be charged because a jury won’t convict an obviously diminished man, or he’s not diminished at all, in which case he acted with willful intent and should be charged.
I saw a CNN panel saying that the problem was that Joe gave his press conference in the evening, not in the morning when he would have been more sharp. Good thing presidents never have to make critical decisions at night. That 2 AM phone call can be handled by an underling, I’m sure.
Hardly a day goes by where I don’t get the feeling that I’m watching a bizarre live version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
Do you really think the only options are that he’s either senile or lying? Did you forget that people forget things?
That’s not what they said. They said he would present to the jury as a kindly old man with a poor memory, and they wouldn’t convict. That was the reason given for not proceeding with charges.
His press conference afterwards was a perfect demonstration of what they were talking about.
I prefer to vote for the candidate that forgets some things with no ill intent. Instead of the one that willfully forgets more things and has ill intent.
I’d be interested to know if the interviews were video recorded. If so, I expect the Administration to come under a tremendous amount of pressure to release the tapes.
I don’t have any problem with prosecuting Biden if he broke the law. But the quip about Biden forgetting his son’s death was clearly entirely unnecessary, and only a gratuitous and callous personal attack. There was no reason at all for something so deeply personal. And the idea that it’s more likely a sign of memory loss than deep emotional reaction is not credible (or at least not credible that he could be so sure about it that he would include it in this supposedly purely legal document!).
Hur wanted to throw in a political shot to help Trump (or make it look like he’s helping Trump). Just like Comey wanted to throw in a political shot in '16. Maybe because of pressure they were feeling from Trumpers, or for some other reason. But whatever the reason, it’s bullshit. Joe is right to be upset.
And his performance at the press conference was absolutely fine. He should be angry. Sometimes anger is an appropriately human response. His gaffes today are no different than his gaffes 30 years ago.
I know. It’s what you said. You can tell because I quoted you. However, you didn’t address this:
Who said that part? Did they also say that or was that you excluding the middle?
Exactly. The kindly old man who is competent and well meaning, or the complete asshole determined to hold power for his own selfish needs. I do think Biden is declining, but I’d rather have him in the White House on his worst day than Trump on whatever he would consider his best day. Biden has been a very effective and sucusseful President. I’m happy to give him another term without hesitation. If he coesn’t complete it for any reason, I’m happy to have Harris take over.
It reminded me a little of the Michael Dukakis moment when, in a debate, he was asked “if your wife were raped…?” Many say he should have retorted emotionally, perhaps “how dare you ask such a thing,” but instead he gave a milquetoast, legalistic answer.
(But at least that was a hypothetical.)
Did you read the report? So much of what is claimed in this thread is contradicted in the report. For instance, the notion that Biden didn’t realize he had the documents and cooperated immediately once he found them is simply not true. The SP showed that Biden retained the documents with “Willful intent”, as evidenced by the fact rhat he showed them to his ghost writer, telling him that they were classified.
From the AP:
The bottom line is that the special prosecutor says there is enough evidence to charge Biden, but that his presentation to the jury as a kindly old man with memory problems would call into queation his ‘willful intent’ at rhe time, and they’d never convict.
Here is their conclusion:
No it wasn’t, it was standard questioning to test memory. They ask you for dates of major life events to see if you can sort it out. They also asked him what years he was vice president, and he struggled with that too.
And testing his memory WAS necessary, as was documenting the finding that his memory was very bad even in 2017, because that’s the reason given for not charging him. That, plus his current presentation, would make a finding of willful action not provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
Again, if Joe Biden has no cognitive issues preventing him from ‘Willful’ lawbreaking he should be charged for his obvious crimes. He literally shared classified information with his ghostwriter - exactly what David Petraeus was cashiered for. Biden had Top Secret/SCIF data stored in the open in his garage, with documents in plain sight. Not even in a locked box.
I don’t buy it.
If Biden did what this guy claims then charge him. I believe the law needs to be followed.
In fact, if there’s real evidence that he’s guilty I want him charged.
The idea that he won’t bring charges because of some Republican talking points about Biden being in decline shows 100% that this guy is a hack. I wish they’d had someone competent doing a real investigation and not a political hit job.
If Biden really did all this, I want him charged. But I think the special prosecutor is full of it.
So prosecute, fine with me. But this “no prosecution, but let’s throw in gratuitous, personal partisan attacks” is the same bullshit Comey pulled in '16.
I don’t have a problem with asking questions about major life events. I have a problem with obvious personal attacks placed in this supposedly purely legal document. He didn’t need to include the quip about Biden forgetting his son’s death in this report. It was callous, cruel, and entirely unnecessary, unless the goal was about politics (which it quite obviously was).
With this report Hur demonstrates that his mission (as he saw it) was about politics, not about the law. This was a political report.
Precisely.
Either Biden is guilty and this guy isn’t doing his job by not charging him, or he isn’t and it’s an attempt at character assassination. Either way this is a clown show.
Was that the only reason?
Did you?
Here’s the part of the report that the AP article snipped some quotes from:
Given Mr. Biden’s limited precision and recall during his interviews with his ghostwriter and with our office, jurors may hesitate to place too much evidentiary weight on a single eight-word utterance to his ghostwriter about finding classified documents in Virginia, in the absence of other, more direct evidence. We searched for such additional evidence and found it wanting. In particular, no witness, photo, email, text message, or any other evidence conclusively places the Afghanistan documents at the Virginia home in 2017.
In addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute. When Mr. Biden told his ghostwriter he “just found all the classified stuff downstairs,” he could have been referring to something other than the Afghanistan documents, and our report discusses these possibilities in detail.
We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Eiden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.
We conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict, and we decline to recommend prosecution of Mr. Biden for his retention of the classified Afghanistan documents.
Bolding mine.
They quote age and memory remarks from the first and third paragraph, but for some reason leave out the giant obstacle to proving a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt that Hur mentions in the second paragraph.
“In addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute.” Case closed. There should never be a prosecution when innocent explanations that can not be refuted exist.
I do not believe Hur was asking questions to test Biden’s memory. That’s not his job and there’s no reason to believe he was doing that.
No, not everyone does.
The special counsel indicated in his report that it would be unremarkable for any VP a month out from the end of his term to forget he had such documents. Once you’ve reached that conclusion, why is it necessary to offer subjective bullshit?
I also agree with this. Prosecution at all levels normally takes care, once they decide someone will not be charged, not to offer up anything that is not irrefutable fact so as not to fuck up someone’s life who now has a permanent (or at least current) presumption of innocence. Mueller certainly did.