The Special Counsel Robert Hur report has been grossly mischaracterized
by the press. The report finds that the evidence of a knowing, willful violation of the criminal laws is wanting. Indeed, the report, on page
6, notes that there are “innocent explanations” that Hur “cannot refute.” That is but one of myriad examples we outline in great detail
below of the report repeatedly finding a lack of proof. And those
findings mean, in DOJ-speak, there is simply no case. Unrefuted innocent explanations is the sine qua non of not just a case that does not meet
the standard for criminal prosecution – it means innocence. Or as former Attorney General Bill Barr and his former boss would have put it, a
total vindication (but here, for real).

But even without the prompting of a misleading “summary” by Barr, the
press has gotten the lede wrong. This may be because of a poorly worded (we’re being charitable) thesis sentence on page 1 of Hur’s executive summary. Hur writes at the outset: “Our investigation uncovered evidence
that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified
materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.” You
have to wait for the later statements that what the report actually says
is there is insufficient evidence of criminality, innocent explanations
for the conduct, and affirmative evidence that Biden did not willfully
withhold classified documents. Put another way, that same sentence about
“our investigation uncovered evidence” could equally apply to Mike
Pence, who had classified documents at his home, which is similarly some “evidence” of a crime, but also plainly insufficient to remotely
establish criminality.

...

https://www.justsecurity.org/92090/the-real-robert-hur-report-versus-what-you-read-in-the-news/

I miss Calimero and Durham.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)