Merrick Garland seems like he sucks

[wildcat09 29,260]

DOJ indicts Tim Burke for doing journalism that embarrassed Fox News:

Quote

TIM BURKE, A freelance journalist and media consultant, has been charged with 14 federal crimes, including conspiracy. Burke was arrested this morning, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Rolling Stone obtained a copy of the indictment, which accuses Burke of playing “multiple roles in the conspiracy, including utilizing compromised credentials to gain unauthorized access to protected computers, scouring those protected computers for electronic items and information, obtaining and stealing electronic items and information deemed desirable, organizing and exploiting some of those electronic items and information, and intercepting and disclosing contents of wire, oral and/or electronic video communications.”

Mark Rasch, Burke’s lawyer and an ex-federal prosecutor who pursued cases for the Department of Justice’s fraud unit, has maintained that the Fox News clips were obtained legally, and that Burke is a journalist whose activities are protected by the First Amendment. 

Last May, Burke’s home in Tampa, Florida, was raided by the FBI as part of the bureau’s investigation into how unaired clips of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight were leaked to Vice and liberal watchdog Media Matters. The indictment does not name Fox News explicitly, but instead refers to Network #1 “a multinational media company headquartered in New York City, New York that produced and distributed content through multiple brands.”

The clips included video of Kanye West repeating antisemitic tropes, as well as embarrassing footage of Carlson making inappropriate comments to his make-up artist and talking about giving a deposition in the Dominion defamation case — an experience he said “triggered the shit out of me” — that was conducted by a lawyer whom Carlson referred to as a “slimy little motherfucker.” (Carlson was later dropped by the network.) 

The leaks were deeply embarrassing for Fox News, whose executives, the The Daily Beast reported, “full-on freaked out” about the Kanye clip in particular. Fox News lawyers later sent a cease-and-desist letter to Media Matters warning them to stop publishing the clips. “Reporting on newsworthy leaked material is a cornerstone of journalism. For Fox to argue otherwise is absurd and further dispels any pretense that they’re a news operation,” Media Matters president Angelo Carusone wrote in a statement at the time.

A number of Burke’s devices were seized — including his phone, computer, and hard drives — during the raid on his home last year, which reportedly began at dawn and lasted nearly 10 hours. At the time, the affidavit was not made public and Burke’s lawyers did not know what crimes their client was being accused of committing. 

Burke, a former Deadspin reporter, earned distinction for uncovering the elaborate catfishing of Notre Dame football player Manti T’eo, and for discovering and stitching together footage of dozens of local Sinclair Broadcasting anchors reading the same script warning viewers of “one-sided news stories plaguing our country.” After Deadspin, he worked as director of video at The Daily Beast, before launching his own business sourcing video content for media clients. 

Rasch, Burke’s lawyer, described the method Burke used to obtain the videos in an August interview with the Columbia Journalism Review. “Fox, like many other broadcasters, are livestreaming continuously to many different entities — to their affiliates, and so on — and these live feeds are in high definition and encrypted. But at the same time, they are also broadcasting low-definition, unencrypted feeds. They’re internet addressable, with no user ID and password required. All you need to know is the URL,” Rasch said. 

He added in that interview that Burke did not attempt to conceal his activities: “[E]ven a cursory glance tells you where the data came from, and it points right directly to Tim Burke’s IP address. Why? Because he wasn’t being secretive about this. He was going to public URLs from his own IP address. He didn’t try to conceal it. He didn’t circumvent anything. But Fox says it never authorized this, and the government went and ran with that theory.”

“Finding and reporting on newsworthy content is not a crime, no matter who is embarrassed by the reporting,” Burke said in a written statement to the Tampa Bay Times in July, his first public comments on the matter. A legal fund has been set up for Burke to fight the charges.

Garland is now officially worse than worthless. 

[immamac 42,521]

Garland is a stooge

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

That Sinclair thing is one of my favorites.  
 

yeah, whoever okayed this arrest and charge seems to be just doing favors for the big guy.  Let’s go arrest Woodward and Bernstein.

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

25 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

That Sinclair thing is one of my favorites.  
 

yeah, whoever okayed this arrest and charge seems to be just doing favors for the big guy.  Let’s go arrest Woodward and Bernstein.

This raises an excellent point. This is I assume a day to day exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  

The only reason this might have crossed Garlands desk is any policy about prosecuting journos with first amendment defenses (worth mentioning that the Obama DOJ didn't have a particularly liberal record on these prosecutions). 

Not sure it's fair or accurate to blame Garland for this. 

And, I suppose stranger things have happened, but US Attorneys aren't known for bringing charges they can't prove. I'm all for the guy publishing this shit, but if he hacked to get it, that is a problem for him.  That to me would be a lot less problematic than when a journalist reles on criminally obtained information that s/he had no part in obtaining. 

Funny too how now we want to believe everything the defense lawyer says instead of calling him an unethical liar playing fast and loose with the facts.  Hmmm. 

Edited February 23 by TwiceHorn

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Funny too how now we want to believe everything the defense lawyer says instead of calling him an unethical liar playing fast and loose with the facts.  Hmmm. 

the arrest was for a journalistic report of a newsworthy event. yeah, real crazy how we are in support of the foundational ideas of our country. that's very at odds with our typical behavior.

[mchookem 16,225]

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

13 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

the arrest was for a journalistic report of a newsworthy event. yeah, real crazy how we are in support of the foundational ideas of our country. that's very at odds with our typical behavior.

Accepting that characterization is about as credulous as accepting Trumps characterization of 1/6 as protected speech. 

The guy is accused of hacking en route to reporting newsworthy events.  

I hope he beats the rap, myself, but the issue is hacking or not hacking. AFAIK there's no first amendment defense to hacking and I was unaware that hacking was a foundational idea of our country. 

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

it's credulous to believe a guy that reports on the news was engaging in news reporting. 

[Dutchrudder 11,115]

I would be very surprised if the prosecutor made claims that he essentially hacked Fox News or an affiliate to gain access to these clips, and then it turns out he got them from a completely public source feed. I would assume the confiscation of his devices could clearly demonstrate that action. 

However, if it's true that every clip he exposed was broadcast publicly via unprotected feeds at one point, but his source for those clips was protected and obtained via illegal means, wouldn't there be a good argument that the "damages" caused by spotlighting the info would be moot? He would still be on the hook for the cybercrimes, but those could be plead down to misdemeanors and made a small fine or slap on the wrist. 

[Dahobbs 17,449]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

 I'm all for the guy publishing this shit, but if he hacked to get it, that is a problem for him.  That to me would be a lot less problematic than when a journalist reles on criminally obtained information that s/he had no part in obtaining. 

Funny too how now we want to believe everything the defense lawyer says instead of calling him an unethical liar playing fast and loose with the facts.  Hmmm. 

 

56 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I would be very surprised if the prosecutor made claims that he essentially hacked Fox News or an affiliate to gain access to these clips, and then it turns out he got them from a completely public source feed. I would assume the confiscation of his devices could clearly demonstrate that action. 

However, if it's true that every clip he exposed was broadcast publicly via unprotected feeds at one point, but his source for those clips was protected and obtained via illegal means, wouldn't there be a good argument that the "damages" caused by spotlighting the info would be moot? He would still be on the hook for the cybercrimes, but those could be plead down to misdemeanors and made a small fine or slap on the wrist. 

Some context here is important. DOJ has been pursuing a very broad interpretation of "hacking" for sometime now. This isn't new. In fact, if you read the statute below, you'll see that intercepting communications, even if they are readily available via a public port, could be covered AND the DOJ has consistently pushed the envelope with this. I think it is bullshit and should be protected, but this isn't just a question of whether he hacked but what in fact it even means to hack.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511

Quote

 

18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

(1)Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(b)intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when—

(i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or

(ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or

(iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or

(v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States;

(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or

(e)

(i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511(2)(a)(ii), 2511(2)(b)–(c), 2511(2)(e), 2516, and 2518 of this chapter,

(ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation,

(iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and

(iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).

 

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Some context here is important. DOJ has been pursuing a very broad interpretation of "hacking" for sometime now. This isn't new. In fact, if you read the statute below, you'll see that intercepting communications, even if they are readily available via a public port, could be covered AND the DOJ has consistently pushed the envelope with this. I think it is bullshit and should be protected, but this isn't just a question of whether he hacked but what in fact it even means to hack.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511

 

 

 

That is a fair point indeed. I haven't been following super closely but in a related area, criminal theft of trade secrets, DOJ has been pretty aggressive in prosecuting, particularly as prodded by civil plaintiffs.  Also the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act seems to be being abused somwlewhat also pertaining to unauthorized access. 

In the trade secrets area, it seems to stem from some misguided effort to be tough on intellectual property theft.  Which I think is probably valid in the case of foreign governmental actors, but far less appropriate for domestic cases. 

I'm not a fan of the Defend Trade Secrets Act.  Like a lot of the shit complained about elsewhere, we needed a cumulative federal remedy for that like a hole in the head.  On a positive note, though, most federal judges are less tolerant of failure to specifically allege and identify misappropriated trade secrets than a lot of state judges which is where a lot of mischief occurs in the trade secrets area: uh yeah he stole something, we'll let you know what it is... once we figure out If we can prove it. 

Edited February 23 by TwiceHorn

[Neonmoon 38,127]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

what in fact it even means to hack.

[Dnaguy 11,777]

On 2/22/2024 at 1:50 PM, wildcat09 said:

DOJ indicts Tim Burke for doing journalism that embarrassed Fox News:

Garland is now officially worse than worthless. 

Counter point:

Biden DOJ throwing red meat to conservatives for election purposes.

"After November 5th, you won't hear about it anymore!"

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

Overall, though, I detect a tendency to judge the actions of prosecutors pretty solely on the relative merits of the defendant. 

That's an unavoidable part of all this, prosecutorial discretion and all, but it is inconsistent with notions of the rule of law. 

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

3 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Counter point:

Biden DOJ throwing red meat to conservatives for election purposes.

"After November 5th, you won't hear about it anymore!"

That could be, for sure.  Joey Two Scoops is surely willing to do that consistent with his long career. I overall like the guy, but he knows his political expedience and I consider that a significant black mark. 

I would not expect that from Garland, but I again am not sure how privy he is/was to this, at least before the indictment dropped. 

Edited February 23 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104,629]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Overall, though, I detect a tendency to judge the actions of prosecutors pretty solely on the relative merits of the defendant. 

That's an unavoidable part of all this, prosecutorial discretion and all, but it is inconsistent with notions of the rule of law. 

The rule of law is dead.

Folks around here are just proposing that we quit with the propping it up like Weekend at Bernie's ruse.

[Blotto 23,434]

Merrick Garland is a fucking pussy. If he got hit by a bus tomorrow it would at least offer the chance that someone competent could lead the DOJ. 

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

On 2/23/2024 at 5:44 PM, Blotto said:

Merrick Garland is a fucking pussy. If he got hit by a bus tomorrow it would at least offer the chance that someone competent could lead the DOJ. 

I think partisan is the word you are looking for rather than competent. 

[Captainant 27,467]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think partisan is the word you are looking for rather than competent. 

TIL that not waiting three yesrs to prosecute a crime carried out on national broadcast is """partisan""". Wow. What incisive analysis.

[Dahobbs 17,449]

On 2/24/2024 at 9:30 PM, Captainant said:

TIL that not waiting three yesrs to prosecute a crime carried out on national broadcast is """partisan""". Wow. What incisive analysis.

The crime doesn't appear to be based upon a national broadcast in the sense that underlying information wasn't obtained through a broadcast. I'd agree that First Amendment issues here should protect this conduct AND I agree that accessing and disclosing data that is being transmitted openly on the internet (even if unintentionally) shouldn't be a crime. But, as the law is written, it is a crime. And the allegations go farther and suggest an intentional breach requiring gaining unauthorized access to user credentials (although this part is strongly denied by the defendant's lawyer). Whether the First Amendment protects this sort of activity isn't clearly established as far as I know. So yes, not prosecuting this as a crime merely because you like the political results would be partisan. But I would love it if the DOJ established a policy that such activity would not be prosecuted on the basis of the belief that it is protected first amendment activity.

[wildcat09 29,260]

On 2/23/2024 at 5:34 PM, Dnaguy said:

Counter point:

Biden DOJ throwing red meat to conservatives for election purposes.

"After November 5th, you won't hear about it anymore!"

That would be even worse than if Garland just let a GOP hack prosecutor do this shit on a lark. How many votes would something like that win over? Fucking zero. Meanwhile a great journalist is effectively prevented from doing his job and has to incur hundreds of thousands in legal fees. 

No, the truth is that Garland is just letting Fedsoc ghouls in the DOJ do whatever they want, and what they want to do is help Republicans and hurt Democrats.

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

There's some backstory on the warrant execution that makes this more disturbing than the arrest/indictment story would indicate. 

 

[Dahobbs 17,449]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's some backstory on the warrant execution that makes this more disturbing than the arrest/indictment story would indicate. 

do tell...

[David Dennison 18,661]

 

[atomheartbevo 89,451]

On 2/23/2024 at 4:09 PM, Dahobbs said:

Some context here is important. DOJ has been pursuing a very broad interpretation of "hacking" for sometime now. This isn't new.

On a side note, this has been happening for fucking decades, and it's not just the DOJ but sister agencies (Treasury/Secret Service back in the day) as well.

More than a few of us here on Surly were probably shitting bricks back in 1990 when the Illuminati BBS here in Austin was raided by the Secret Service (along with the Steve Jackson Games HQ).  And there are plenty of examples all through the 90s of BBSes and later, hosting companies being raided.  Hell, I had a stretch in the early 1990s where quite a few BBSes I posted on or helped moderate across multiple cities (Austin, Lubbock, Houston area) were nailed by the feds, and an ex-girlfriend was convinced I was either an informant or some kind of criminal.  They were always fishing for bigger stuff, and when they didn't find it, nothing happened to them - they'd return some or most of the equipment and act like "no harm, no foul" and any resulting lawsuits were dragged out or little was paid out.

[wildcat09 29,260]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

 

Fed Soc piece of shit applying for his next job. Good going, Garland, you worthless asshole.

[Orale 1,087]

31 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Fed Soc piece of shit applying for his next job. Good going, Garland, you worthless asshole.

Seems like this would help Biden. It exposes this guy as clearly a political hack in Trump's bag. 

[Blotto 23,434]

23 minutes ago, Orale said:

Seems like this would help Biden. It exposes this guy as clearly a political hack in Trump's bag. 

Does anybody even care? Is there anyone backing Trump at this point that would even bat an eye at allegations of dirty pool? The next 8 months are really a waste of time unless one of the two of them stroke out. 

Edited March 12 by Blotto

[F250 28,691]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

On a side note, this has been happening for fucking decades, and it's not just the DOJ but sister agencies (Treasury/Secret Service back in the day) as well.

More than a few of us here on Surly were probably shitting bricks back in 1990 when the Illuminati BBS here in Austin was raided by the Secret Service (along with the Steve Jackson Games HQ).  And there are plenty of examples all through the 90s of BBSes and later, hosting companies being raided.  Hell, I had a stretch in the early 1990s where quite a few BBSes I posted on or helped moderate across multiple cities (Austin, Lubbock, Houston area) were nailed by the feds, and an ex-girlfriend was convinced I was either an informant or some kind of criminal.  They were always fishing for bigger stuff, and when they didn't find it, nothing happened to them - they'd return some or most of the equipment and act like "no harm, no foul" and any resulting lawsuits were dragged out or little was paid out.

I was at Defcon when Dmitry Skylarov was arrested for giving a presentation on Adobe security flaws. I think that was a little over 20 years ago. At another conference a year later, I was in a workshop where the topic of vulnerability disclosures came up. The ethics of disclosure vs. being arrested for reporting security flaws was discussed. Most people felt that getting arrested was not worth the cost even if it was for the public good.

The government used the CFAA like a hammer in the 80s and 90s with everything looking like a nail. Then the icing on top was the DMCA. You are right, this has always been a case of government overreach.

 

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

On 2/26/2024 at 3:19 PM, Dahobbs said:

do tell...

Oh sorry, it's online. The government has been heavy handed in searching and refusing to return personal/professional materials, etc. 

A bit here. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tim-burke-s-lawyers-say-feds-search-warrant-request-omitted-key-information/ar-BB1jvYyP

As mentioned up thread, it seems, politics aside, DOJ has been unusually willing to carry water for private, mostly civil litigants in the areas of hacking and trade secrets. This kind of policy may have originated as a response to foreign, e.g. Chinese, IP theft, but has seemed to go a little haywire. 

Edited March 12 by TwiceHorn

[Walser 1,107]

I was at Defcon when Dmitry Skylarov was arrested for giving a presentation on Adobe security flaws. I think that was a little over 20 years ago. At another conference a year later, I was in a workshop where the topic of vulnerability disclosures came up. The ethics of disclosure vs. being arrested for reporting security flaws was discussed. Most people felt that getting arrested was not worth the cost even if it was for the public good.
The government used the CFAA like a hammer in the 80s and 90s with everything looking like a nail. Then the icing on top was the DMCA. You are right, this has always been a case of government overreach.
 

Ha! I was at that Defcon. 2001 I believe. Held at a little two story motel off strip that year.

[Reynolds Woodcock 4,670]

11 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Fed Soc piece of shit applying for his next job. Good going, Garland, you worthless asshole.

FWIW, Hur is getting a frosty reception from the circles he used to run in due to the political shit storm he caused with his report. He'll certainly land on his feet, but it may be a bit more Trump-y than he personally prefers (which I suppose now means he could end up at Jones Day).

[wildcat09 29,260]

1 minute ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

FWIW, Hur is getting a frosty reception from the circles he used to run in due to the political shit storm he caused with his report. He'll certainly land on his feet, but it may be a bit more Trump-y than he personally prefers (which I suppose now means he could end up at Jones Day).

I don't think he gives a shit. He's auditioning for AG or even a SCOTUS pick if Trump gets re-elected. 

[Reynolds Woodcock 4,670]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I don't think he gives a shit. He's auditioning for AG or even a SCOTUS pick if Trump gets re-elected. 

Eh, that's not my understanding (on the first part), but I concede I don't personally know him. I think he made a poor judgment trying to straddle the line. Like I said, he'll land on his feet (maybe via the path you suggest), but I don't think it's his desired outcome. 

[wildcat09 29,260]

4 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Eh, that's not my understanding (on the first part), but I concede I don't personally know him. I think he made a poor judgment trying to straddle the line. Like I said, he'll land on his feet (maybe via the path you suggest), but I don't think it's his desired outcome. 

Bullshit. You don't resign from the DOJ and prep for this shit today with GOP ratfuckers if you're remotely concerned with ethics or propriety. 

ETA: you also don't wildly mischaracterize aspects of the interview to cruelly misrepresent Biden as not even remembering when his son died. That's some heinous fucking behavior.

Edited March 12 by wildcat09

[Horn Dog 9,674]

Hur seems like an excellent candidate to win the next "I Can't Believe The Leopards Ate My Face" award.   It is always amazing to me when minorities are so surprised when the anti-immigrant party that openly embraces racists eventually treats them poorly once they use up their usefulness. 

[wildcat09 29,260]

5 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Hur seems like an excellent candidate to win the next "I Can't Believe The Leopards Ate My Face" award.   It is always amazing to me when minorities are so surprised when the anti-immigrant party that openly embraces racists eventually treats them poorly once they use up their usefulness. 

You hate to love to see it.

[HenryJames 65,890]

13 hours ago, F250 said:

I was at Defcon when Dmitry Skylarov was arrested for giving a presentation on Adobe security flaws.

[Horn Dog 9,674]

 

Schiff without lube

[wildcat09 29,260]

26 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

 

Schiff without lube

Honestly, I think Schiff still went easy on him.

Given the transcript pretty clearly demonstrates that Hur misrepresented the details around the conversation concerning Beau's death, I wish one of the Democrats had been better about cornering that little rat fuck even further.  Surely Hur had the transcript of his interview available to refer back to when writing his report. No remotely intelligent person could read that transcript and then present it the way Hur did in his report. So either he knowingly lied, or he didn't bother to actually review the transcript when preparing his report and was relying on a clearly-faulty memory of his interview with Biden.  

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So either he knowingly lied, or he didn't bother to actually review the transcript when preparing his report and was relying on a clearly-faulty memory of his interview with Biden.  

An obvious sign of old age memory loss, and perhaps even dementia.

[Red Five 40,666]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Given the transcript pretty clearly demonstrates that Hur misrepresented the details around the conversation concerning Beau's death,

How did that conversation go in the transcript?

[DixonHur 11,228]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't think he gives a shit. He's auditioning for AG or even a SCOTUS pick if Trump gets re-elected. 

Do you really think the right would allow that considering he didn't recommend prosecution of Biden?

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

How did that conversation go in the transcript?

They transcribe everything during a deposition. There was kind of a sidebar/colloquy at least where the date of death came up. 

[wildcat09 29,260]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

How did that conversation go in the transcript?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/12/biden-hur-transcript-classified-documents/

Quote

President Biden was in the early stages of his interview with special counsel Robert Hur when the topic of Beau Biden came up — initially with Biden raising it and later as Biden was attempting to get his chronological bearings and wondered aloud when, exactly, it was that his son died.

“What month did Beau die? Oh God, May 30,” he said, naming the correct day, according to a transcript of the exchange reviewed by The Washington Post.

Two others in the room chimed in with the year, and Biden questioned, “Was it 2015 when he died?”

Not long after the exchange, Hur suggested they consider taking a brief break.

“No,” Biden responded, before launching into a long explanation of Beau’s death and its impact on him deciding not to run for president in 2016. “Let me just keep going to get it done.”

This was presented by Hur as "he did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died." 

[Brisketexan 104,629]

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Barry Corbin's best performance.  

 

[wildcat09 29,260]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Do you really think the right would allow that considering he didn't recommend prosecution of Biden?

I think he thought they'd reward him for taking advantage of an opportunity to carry out a political smear. He clearly misjudged though, because he didn't realize that Republican officials are all actual nutjobs and aren't just playing pretend anymore. 

[Red Five 40,666]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/12/biden-hur-transcript-classified-documents/

This was presented by Hur as "he did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died." 

Oh. Yeah that's really shitty. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,547]

Hur is a goddamn liar.

[Js1 85,114]

21 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Oh. Yeah that's really shitty. 

He's a massive piece of shit.  

Quote

“Just allow me to say for a moment, I am so terribly, terribly sorry for your loss,” Hur said after Biden first raised the death of his son.

He wasn't sorry.  He went from "I am so terribly sorry" to "HA BIDEN COULDN'T EVEN REMEMBER DETAILS OF HIS SONS DEATH HRRRRRR SENILE AND CONFUSED"