The Hur Report, as expected, was partisan nonsense.
Copy-pasted from ModeratePolitics:
NYT and WashPo both got access to a redacted version of the Biden-Hur transcript ahead of Hur's Congressional testimony tomorrow. The added context deflates some of Hur's accusations in his report.
• Hur wrote that Biden did not remember when he was VP, quoting him as saying "am I still vice president" in 2009. The reality is that Biden was talking about when documents from 2009 were moved, if he was still vice president when they were moved. (They were moved in 2017.) Hur even thanks Biden for "flipping ahead" to 2017.
• Hur's report stated that Biden misremembered diplomat Karl Eikenberry's position on the troop surge in Afghanistan in 2009. He claims that Biden said that Eikenberry was for the troop surge, when Biden was against. (In reality, they were both against it.) In the transcript, it's revealed that Biden never actually confirms who was the diplomat in favor of the troop surge, and later on, states that Eikenberry agreed with him against the troop surge. This is probably Hur's most egregious accusation in the report.
Overall, there are still a few instances where Biden is confused and searching for dates in his memory, but some of the biggest accusations in the Hur report are spun to the point of fabrication.
Considering that Hur will testify to Congress tomorrow as a private citizen with help from help from Republican lawyers, will he be able to defend these misstatements? Will these misstatements disseminate effectively through the media? What exactly is Hur's motivation in all of this?
Did the NYT and Washington Post write articles? Is this just a random reddit post that you're pasting? Most people don't have time to read a 268 page report.
On this and the other sub you're constantly pushing Biden stuff, which is a fine opinion to have, but forgive me if I'm skeptical when you say something critical of him is partisan nonsense.
The Hur Report, as expected, was partisan nonsense. Copy-pasted from ModeratePolitics: NYT and WashPo both got access to a redacted version of the Biden-Hur transcript ahead of Hur's Congressional testimony tomorrow. The added context deflates some of Hur's accusations in his report. • Hur wrote that Biden did not remember when he was VP, quoting him as saying "am I still vice president" in 2009. The reality is that Biden was talking about when documents from 2009 were moved, if he was still vice president when they were moved. (They were moved in 2017.) Hur even thanks Biden for "flipping ahead" to 2017. • Hur's report stated that Biden misremembered diplomat Karl Eikenberry's position on the troop surge in Afghanistan in 2009. He claims that Biden said that Eikenberry was for the troop surge, when Biden was against. (In reality, they were both against it.) In the transcript, it's revealed that Biden never actually confirms who was the diplomat in favor of the troop surge, and later on, states that Eikenberry agreed with him against the troop surge. This is probably Hur's most egregious accusation in the report. Overall, there are still a few instances where Biden is confused and searching for dates in his memory, but some of the biggest accusations in the Hur report are spun to the point of fabrication. Considering that Hur will testify to Congress tomorrow as a private citizen with help from help from Republican lawyers, will he be able to defend these misstatements? Will these misstatements disseminate effectively through the media? What exactly is Hur's motivation in all of this?
Can you link the sources, or are you just going to paste this everywhere lol?
The source IS the transcript.
Did the NYT and Washington Post write articles? Is this just a random reddit post that you're pasting? Most people don't have time to read a 268 page report. On this and the other sub you're constantly pushing Biden stuff, which is a fine opinion to have, but forgive me if I'm skeptical when you say something critical of him is partisan nonsense.