"Good thing Hur resigned from the DOJ the day before this hearing.His days there would be numbered anyway for misrepresenting the truth in his own investigation report."Why" is always the 64 Thousand Dollar question. It was so unnecessary and so counter-productive to his career. What in the world was he thinking and why did he think he was going to get away with it?He told a bald-faced lie and got caught, IMMEDIATELY!Now he has no credibility and no job.#9 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-03-13 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1"

I read Hurs report but I haven't yet read the transcript. The thing that has me puzzled here, is that folks can't seem to make up their minds whether they want to hang their hat on Hurs' "exoneration" as evidence that Biden did nothing wrong or say Hur has "no credibility" because he criticized Biden's memory. Which is it? Hur either has credibility or he doesn't.

#39 "Hur acknowledges that his investigation failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard required for the US government to establish accusation of blame. Lacking that threshold then there is a presumption of innocence, ergo there is no accusation of blame to exonerate Biden from."

You might want to stay in your own lane, wherever that is, as it is clear that YOU have no idea how the US Justice system works.

An investigator needs to find only "probable cause" to continue an investigation. Probable cause means, "more likely than not", so about 51%. This is enough for an arrest (but investigators often wait for a prosecutors approval before making an arrest)
A prosecutor needs to find "reasonable probability of conviction" to pursue charges via indictment or information.
A jury needs to find "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict a person.

Three very different standards of proof required to advance to the next step.

If a prosecutor determines there is not reasonable probability of conviction, and declines to file criminal charges, this is not an exoneration or finding of innocence. In fact, if more evidence were to surface, prosecutors could bring charges in the future.

Just to be clear, my post above was about criminal investigastions in general, not specific to Biden and not suggesting that prosecutors will find more evidence. It is clear that their investigation is complete, and new evidence is unlikely.

So now I have most of the transcript, at least the first day (Ill get to the rest tonight.) I want to make it clear that any perceived criticisms of Biden are my own analysis of the facts, and not in any way support for Trump. I haven't studied Trumps Classified Docs case in detail because his guilt appears to be a foregone conclusion, which makes it less interesting to me, and I don't see the point of making it a comparison.

I don't think you can draw conclusions from just reading the Biden interview transcript without first reading the investigative report, and I did. The "evidence" is detailed in the report of the investigation, most of which was completed prior to Biden's interview. The transcript of the interview includes very little of the evidence, which consisted of interviews with Biden staffers and descriptions of collected evidence.

As to the investigative report, I would have preferred to see each FBI Agent's investigative report rather than Hurs summation, because Hur's report was lacking and not put together like an investigation at all. The interview lacked important context that would have been apparent with audio or video. The interview itself was REALLY wierd, because Prosecutors do not normally do investigative interviews. Law Enforcement (FBI or police) do interviews WITHOUT Prosecutors present. This is because being present makes them witnesses, then they would be barred from the courtroom during the trial. I've heard Media Outlets call the interview a deposition, and Prosecutors do depositions, but they are always sworn (so they stand alone as evidence instead of just an interview) and President Biden was not sworn in. Also, normally the subject of a case is not deposed. So the whole process was really odd. Hur is a terrible investigative interviewer. His language was very imprecise, he allowed the President to give answers in very imprecise language without clarification. That would not work well with a witness on the stand either, so it leaves me wondering how much trial experience he has. I haven't counted the questions he asked, but not very many, it seems, because he allowed President Biden to go into lengthy personal monologues that had nothing to do with the question. I imagine it would be difficult to interrupt POTUS to insist that he answer the question and move on to the next one. A little bit of a power dynamic there.

So I will catch up later or tommorrow with further comment after I read the rest of the transcript.