Johnson Lies That Report Found Biden "Broke The Law"

How about that Russian company that is Mike's top campaign contributors?

https://www.newsweek.com/house-speaker-mike-johnson-donations-russia-butina-1838501

Can we scream this from the hill tops and cite our sources? Literally just call Rubepublicans Russians.
- Rolls off the tongue
They are the Party of Putin now.
- Guild Of Putin?
Ironically all perfectly legal and above-board, because there's no law against US branches of foreign companies covering the legitimate expenses of a House Speaker's campaign, like that app that tells your son if you're jerking it.
While American Ethane was run in 2018 by American John Houghtaling, 88 percent of the firm was owned by three Russian nationals—Konstantin Nikolaev, Mikhail Yuriev, and Andrey Kunatbaev.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Nikolaev
Konstantin Yuryevich Nikolaev (also transliterated as Nikolayev) (Russian: Константин Юрьевич Николаев; born March 5, 1971, in Dniepropetrovsk, Ukraine SSR) is a Russian billionaire and businessman who is a financial supporter of Maria Butina, a co-owner of the Tula Cartridge Plant that supplies very large amounts of ammunition to Russian forces during Russia-Ukraine War
According to Ilya Yashin (Russian: Илья Яшин), who is an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin and is incarcerated in Russia for his violations of laws in support of Russia during the Russia-Ukraine War, the family of Konstantin Nikolaev, defense plants in Russia, the NRA, Donald Trump, Trump's gun lobby, Steven Seagal, Maria Butina and others are supporting and financing Russia during its war in Ukraine and have effectively blocked more appropriate sanctions.
Lolz. Damn. That shit's crazy.

Splendid! According to his own beliefs he'll be tortured by satan for an infinite amount of time.

It almost makes you wish you believed in such things. ALMOST!
- It's really such an insane theory though. You get .01 through 100 years on earth, and if you screw up your one shot, you're rewarded or punished for eternity? Just nuts. I have no idea why people would feel normal telling themselves and each other this.
- I'll settle for Satan existing *(for you) if you believe in it.

New Moses is a liar, and he's repeating the mistakes of Old Moses by leading his people around in circles.

My favorite part was when someone asked "what about the santos district flip" and he starts bitching about the money spent and i said aloud "nuh uh motherfucker, you all claimed that was speech. Why didn't you speak up?"

For Mike "Tuggin-Ma" Johnson to accuse Biden of breaking the law must make his anus twitch around Trump's little dick in pleasure.

Jesus these visuals are getting out of hand, I don't want to picture that
- I don't have an army, billions of dollars, or a Supreme Court in my pocket. I can only fight evil with mockery.
  To you, I apologize for spattering your imagination. To the GOP? I'll leave that to your imagination.

Are we really sure it is a human being?

He broke the law like jaywalking is breaking the law.

But actually less dangerous than jaywalking.

If Biden is such a lawless motherfucker, the #GOP damn well better hope that SCotUS doesn't give him free reign to exile them from the country or just straight up zero them w/ this upcoming immunity decision.

To be fair, Mike Johnson is on Putin’s payroll

This is a distraction from the Intelligence committee's news.

I bet they found a backchannel between Johnson & the Kremlin.

Hey look! It's the Gingrich Administration Redux!

I mean, in fairness, the report did find that he broke the law, but the investigator declined to prosecute based on his findings. Decline to prosecute =/= found no laws were broken.

Edit for the butthurt: page 1, paragraph 2 of the report:

"Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen."

As others have said, whether they could establish mens rea in a court of law is another question. But they found evidence of willfulness.

Juries and judges are the ones who should be making those decisions though. Not a political rival.
The report found that there was insufficient evidence and therefore it wasn't worth a jury or judge's time to review the case (which is what decline to prosecute means in this situation)
- Juries and judges are the ones who should be making those decisions though.
  You realize that neither a judge nor a jury were involved with the decision to not prosecute right?
- There is sufficient evidence to say he broke the law, but there is insufficient evidence to say he did it with malicious intent. I think it's fair to say "he broke the law", you just can't say "he willfully broke the law"
If intent is an element of a crime and there isn't reliable evidence of intent, then the elements of the crime are not met.
(Compare with, say, Trump who was hiding his documents, asking his lawyers and staff to lie, and demonstrating left and right he intended to break the law.)
Lol, I love how you quote one sentence that's contradicted the very next paragraph where they explicitly state that they didn't have the evidence to prove it.
You're literally just quoting propaganda that isn't even supported by the rest of the document.
Also, I love the idea that the person who immediately turned over what they had and cooperated fully with investigators is being accused of 'willful retention' as if it wasn't just a lazy attempt at both sidesing this.
- they said they didn't think they had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
  Its not the same thing, and if you read the report there are hundreds of pages of evidence, its not like they were short on evidence.
  It seems to me the biggest factor in not charging him was actually his senility.
Ohhhh… Now do the Mueller report
Funny, aren't we innocent until proven guilty?
- so if i watch someone rob a 7-11 I cannot say "they broke the law" until they've been proven guilty?
- In specific situations, yes. I'm others, we're guilty until proven innocent. Funny how that works.
The report's author assumed that it was wilful - they didn't find anything to back up that assumption.
- There was no assuming...
  From the report page 65 Biden says: "They didn't even know I have this" In reference to notes he knows he shouldn't have still
  Then on page 77 biden says: "I didn't want to turn them in" again reference to notes he should not have retained.
  These are both from audio recordings, so there is actually plenty of evidence to suggest he willfully retained classified docs he knew he shouldn't have.
  I'm assuming you didn't read the report before making this comment.
If they can't establish Mens Rea then they didn't find that he broke the law.
Some of the evidence they uncovered is like this: Years ago, Biden mentioned document A. We found document B somewhere else years later. If we can establish A and B were the same document, then we could establish willfullness, because it means Biden moved it instead of returning it, but we are unable to prove A and B are the same.
So they had evidence of something that they thought might be a crime, but even they don't know.
The key to politics is not to speak a verifiable lie while lieing all day long through rhetotical tricks.