No. of Recommendations: 2
Here's something I don't understand. Perhaps Albaby can explain it (I know he can!)
Hur's opening statement said that Biden 1) is on tape saying "I've got all the classified stuff in the basement" (or something to that effect) on a phone call to his ghost writer when Biden was just a private citizen, and 2) boxes of classified "stuff" were actually found in that "basement". But 3) Biden said during his 5 hour interview with Hur that he had no recollection of that phone call.
So, doesn't 1 establish mens rea (guilty mind) and 2 establish actus reus (guilty act)? Yet Hur didn't file charges, citing Biden's "kindly, good intentioned, forgetful old man" demeanor, which could make him sympathetic to a potential jury and make a guilty verdict unlikely.
Just because someone can no longer remember (or at least claims to - item 3) a past crime does not absolve them of that crime, right?
If I rob a bank 20 years ago and there is video tape of me doing it, and I keep the cash in my basement, unspent, and even brag on a recorded phone call to a friend to that effect 20 years ago, yet, when finally indicted and interviewed in the present day, I claim to not remember doing any of that because I'm now a "kindly forgetful old man", am I then absolved of my past crime?
