Repulicans seeking the release of the Biden tapes

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

They have the transcripts, so why not release the tapes?

The only reason I can think of is that the tapes are more damning than the edited transcripts of the tapes. We see that with Joe Biden and the generous editing of transcripts in the past.

Nixon-esque for the "most transparent administration"

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/16/biden-moves-to-block-house-from-getting-his-classified-docs-interview-tapes-00158323

Regardless, the populace should know if the POTUS is mentally compromised, especially ahead of an election. There is no reasonable reason anyone would want to remain in the dark about Biden's mental acuity.

So do no care, hence no questioning of where the note cards and lines on the teleprompter come from, accept Joe cannot read them, but that's okay...

[SunsetBengal]

It's clearly all Trump's fault...

[StoneTheCrow]

He’s sharp as a razor behind closed doors according to the people who surround him. They should release the tapes to prove it.

[hollodero]

(05-17-2024, 04:53 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: They have the transcripts, so why not release the tapes?

I don't know, but a reason I could think of is that they do not want to hand over material to folks who, somewhat understandably, have all the interest in the world to use it to make Biden look as bad as possible. It's feeding potential ammunition to the enemy. I'd be cautious about that too.

Also, I have to question how damning the tapes objectively can be, if even Mr. Hur himself had claimed how Biden seems to have a "photographic understanding and recall". I also feel a president has a certain right to not have made every conversation public in that manner, adding more somewhat unnecessaary stress to a distinclty stressful job. The time to evaluate Biden's mental acuity closer will come soon enough, eg when he debates Trump.

By that I do not claim he is actually mentally fit enough for the job. Several incidents, namely the cannibal one, are strong indications that he might not be.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-17-2024, 05:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know, but a reason I could think of is that they do not want to hand over material to folks who, somewhat understandably, have all the interest in the world to use it to make Biden look as bad as possible. It's feeding potential ammunition to the enemy. I'd be cautious about that too.

Also, I have to question how damning the tapes objectively can be, if even Mr. Hur himself had claimed how Biden seems to have a "photographic understanding and recall". I also feel a president has a certain right to not have made every conversation public in that manner, adding more somewhat unnecessaary stress to a distinclty stressful job. The time to evaluate Biden's mental acuity closer will come soon enough, eg when he debates Trump.

By that I do not claim he is actually mentally fit enough for the job. Several incidents, namely the cannibal one, are strong indications that he might not be.

Here's the thing to keep in mind. Biden the POTUS and Biden the Candidate are two separate entities. If we have a sitting President that is worried that how an actual interview sounds on tape might affect his campaign, should he really be considered for running again?

[NATI BENGALS]

I’m guessing because they know what kind of partisan political hacks they are dealing with.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-robert-hur-classified-documents-justice-department-edf67af3810ab877c7c195956b49b3a6

“The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal — to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes,” White House counsel Ed Siskel wrote in a scathing letter to House Republicans ahead of scheduled votes by the two House committees to refer Garland to the Justice Department for the contempt charges.

“Demanding such sensitive and constitutionally-protected law enforcement materials from the Executive Branch because you want to manipulate them for potential political gain is inappropriate,” Siskel added.


Did that traitor Jim Jordan ever testify about his involvement in the attempted coup? Him holding someone in contempt is about as banana republic as it can get.

[hollodero]

(05-17-2024, 05:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Here's the thing to keep in mind. Biden the POTUS and Biden the Candidate are two separate entities. If we have a sitting President that is worried that how an actual interview sounds on tape might affect his campaign, should he really be considered for running again?

Well, that is for the voters to decide. I for one would say probably not (I'd just have to vote for him regardless, but that's another problem), I'd base it more on other instances than this one, but sure. He seems old, fragile, forgetful and tells bizarre stories about cannibals, his record is rather meh, that is not exactly my dream candidate. What I can not do is fault the Biden team for not potentially damaging the Biden reelection campaign by releasing material to hostile people who would do their best to make him look as bad as possible. I also feel pretty much every other president would have made the same decision in similar circumstances. It just seems like the politically smart call to me.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-17-2024, 06:13 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: “The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal — to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes,” 

Precisely.  Only Democrats and their media are allowed to do that!

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-17-2024, 06:55 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Precisely.  Only Democrats and their media are allowed to do that!

? You’ll have to be more specific. Are you referencing the call Trump was impeached for where he tried to blackmail Ukraine so he could rig an election?

Or are you referencing the call Trump made to the Georgia Secretary of State where he tied to get Raffensperger to help him rig an election?

[Luvnit2]

It is hard to understand all things being equal. The SC interview is not classified. What gives Biden the right to use executive privilege?

Just one more example of the bias we have to sit through as conservatives.

Our choice is to win in November. Otherwise, Democracy as we know it is over.

[HarleyDog]

(05-17-2024, 06:13 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m guessing because they know what kind of partisan political hacks they are dealing with.

Do you think they will say Biden wanted people's heads on a pike? Oh my, that would be awful if untrue.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-17-2024, 08:42 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Do you think they will say Biden wanted people's heads on a pike? Oh my, that would be awful if untrue.

Is that why he's fighting the transcripts of his interview from becoming public?

[JustWinBaby]

(05-17-2024, 07:24 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: ? You’ll have to be more specific. Are you referencing the call Trump was impeached for where he tried to blackmail Ukraine so he could rig an election?

Or are you referencing the call Trump made to the Georgia Secretary of State where he tied to get Raffensperger to help him rig an election?

Thank you for asking.

I was referencing the Jan 6 hearing in which Democrats and their media cherry-picked and took events out of context, in which the Democrats hired a television producer to put on the hearings.

You know, the same people that lost their shit when footage was released to Fox News to cherry pick and take out of context to paint a different picture.

Or, you know, just pick coverage of any Trump [or Republican] event on any left-leaning organization. And I think Trump is a loser, but I call it like I see it.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-17-2024, 10:45 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Thank you for asking.

I was referencing the Jan 6 hearing in which Democrats and their media cherry-picked and took events out of context, in which the Democrats hired a television producer to put on the hearings.

You know, the same people that lost their shit when footage was released to Fox News to cherry pick and take out of context to paint a different picture.

Or, you know, just pick coverage of any Trump [or Republican] event on any left-leaning organization. And I think Trump is a loser, but I call it like I see it.

So you’re talking more about like when they showed video of the guy who has been working with Trump for decades who leading up to Jan 6 said f*** the voting let’s get right to the violence. You know, that guy Trump pardoned? https://youtu.be/QGZ_fRRkb2M?si=HVNzGUU3mc0V3Wqc

In order to get me to agree you would have to come up with a more apples to apples comparison of audio being subpoenaed and released, after the fact a full transcript of the interview was provided, against the wishes of a Republican who was getting questioned by the DOJ while also talking to their own advisors/lawyers.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-17-2024, 05:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know, but a reason I could think of is that they do not want to hand over material to folks who, somewhat understandably, have all the interest in the world to use it to make Biden look as bad as possible. It's feeding potential ammunition to the enemy. I'd be cautious about that too.

Also, I have to question how damning the tapes objectively can be, if even Mr. Hur himself had claimed how Biden seems to have a "photographic understanding and recall". I also feel a president has a certain right to not have made every conversation public in that manner, adding more somewhat unnecessaary stress to a distinclty stressful job. The time to evaluate Biden's mental acuity closer will come soon enough, eg when he debates Trump.

By that I do not claim he is actually mentally fit enough for the job. Several incidents, namely the cannibal one, are strong indications that he might not be.

I agree the tape could be damning if edited and cherry picked, as is done on both sides. The left is more adept at repeating  snippets and leading the the mob by the nose via said tactic. The right uses other methods, but we'll leave that alone for now to keep things on track.

I agree  every conversation Joe Biden has should not be made public, but this was taxpayer funded, and the reason why he was not charged for decades of possession of documents he did no have access to, should not have had possession of (again for decades), mishandled (again for decades), and stored in multiple unsecured locations. If this interview is the reason he is given a pass for all of that, then I would argue the tapes should be released.

Heck, I would think Joe would want them released as the left touts his mental acumen and boundless energy that they cannot even keep up with.

I know you are not arguing specifically that he is fit, or unfit. I think there have been enough incidents that the public should have a more candid view of the the man who could be the president for a second term.

[Belsnickel]

(05-18-2024, 10:37 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I agree the tape could be damning if edited and cherry picked, as is done on both sides. The left is more adept at repeating  snippets and leading the the mob by the nose via said tactic. The right uses other methods, but we'll leave that alone for now to keep things on track.

Sorry, had to stop there. Had a hard time breathing because of how funny this was. This tactic pretty much describes what the modern day GOP does, day in and day out, and their followers latch onto it. Hell, the discussion about the voter registration EO is based on them doing exactly that and riling up the base. Trump and the media that supports him use this as their bread and butter and the MAGA crowds scarf it up and regurgitate it. Half the threads posted in this forum are based on that (and by one individual). The house has been especially guilty of this in the past two years, which is why there is zero reason to believe they are making the request in good faith and every reason to not pass it off to them.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-18-2024, 10:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote:

Sorry, had to stop there. Had a hard time breathing because of how funny this was. This tactic pretty much describes what the modern day GOP does, day in and day out, and their followers latch onto it. Hell, the discussion about the voter registration EO is based on them doing exactly that and riling up the base. Trump and the media that supports him use this as their bread and butter and the MAGA crowds scarf it up and regurgitate it. Half the threads posted in this forum are based on that (and by one individual). The house has been especially guilty of this in the past two years, which is why there is zero reason to believe they are making the request in good faith and every reason to not pass it off to them.

A discussion for another day.

[hollodero]

(05-18-2024, 10:37 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I agree the tape could be damning if edited and cherry picked, as is done on both sides. The left is more adept at repeating  snippets and leading the the mob by the nose via said tactic. The right uses other methods, but we'll leave that alone for now to keep things on track.

Yeah let's do that.

(05-18-2024, 10:37 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I agree  every conversation Joe Biden has should not be made public, but this was taxpayer funded, and the reason why he was not charged for decades of possession of documents he did no have access to, should not have had possession of (again for decades), mishandled (again for decades), and stored in multiple unsecured locations. If this interview is the reason he is given a pass for all of that, then I would argue the tapes should be released.

First off, I'd say taxpayer-funded is not a particularly strong argument. Every investigation is, that does not mean every interrogation should be made public. if that were an established rule, politicians would be extra careful what to say and their answers to investigators probably would more resemble a campaign speech. That can only hamper the actual investigations.
Also, I would argue that the public's need to know is more than sufficiently satisfied already. You have the transcripts, Hur's report, he answered questions in Congress. There's no real mystery about why Biden was not charged. Mainly, it's because there's no proof of bad intentions, he did nothing nefarious with the documents and probably had them accidentally, he informed the authorities himself, cooperated fully, gave the documents back and in return got treated like people usually get treated in such instances.

(05-18-2024, 10:37 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Heck, I would think Joe would want them released as the left touts his mental acumen and boundless energy that they cannot even keep up with.

Yeah well... they're probably lying about that.

(05-18-2024, 10:37 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I know you are not arguing specifically that he is fit, or unfit. I think there have been enough incidents that the public should have a more candid view of the the man who could be the president for a second term.

I don't think his conversations with Mr. Hur are a necessity to do that. I also was not aware that I am unspecific about his fitness for the job. I would (and indeed do) argue you run two probably quite un-fit candidates.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-18-2024, 12:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: First off, I'd say taxpayer-funded is not a particularly strong argument. Every investigation is, that does not mean every interrogation should be made public. if that were an established rule, politicians would be extra careful what to say and their answers to investigators probably would more resemble a campaign speech. That can only hamper the actual investigations.
Also, I would argue that the public's need to know is more than sufficiently satisfied already. You have the transcripts, Hur's report, he answered questions in Congress. There's no real mystery about why Biden was not charged. Mainly, it's because there's no proof of bad intentions, he did nothing nefarious with the documents and probably had them accidentally, he informed the authorities himself, cooperated fully, gave the documents back and in return got treated like people usually get treated in such instances.



Yeah well... they're probably lying about that.



I don't think his conversations with Mr. Hur are a necessity to do that. I also was not aware that I am unspecific about his fitness for the job. I would (and indeed do) argue you run two probably quite un-fit candidates.

I agree taxpayer funded is not a good stance alone, but with the other items, it adds weight IMO. 

If I am not mistaken, once transcripts are released without seeking executive privilege, then the video/audio tapes become fair game, or was the case with Nixon. I agree Biden likely did not have bad intentions, but do not believe DJT had them either. I imagine he had them just to say he had them to placate his ego and look like a big man. That said, they were in a secure location, held for a much shorter time frame, and documents he was allowed to have. The last three did not apply of Joe Biden's documents. I can understand why the line for some maybe be "well Biden cooperated the best," I do not see how those last three points are so easily overlooked. Especially when you consider his son was an addict in the pocket of foreign adversaries and had access to all of the locations where the documents were stored.

The Hunter bit is not all against Joe, just an example of how easily the documents may have been accessed and exposed.

I agree both candidates are terrible, but DJT holds too much sway with the right to be replaced, and Joe's handlers enjoy their current puppet, so he isn't going anywhere either.  I am always curious as to who is writing his cue cards and loading up the teleprompter...

[hollodero]

(05-18-2024, 12:48 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I agree taxpayer funded is not a good stance alone, but with the other items, it adds weight IMO. 

If I am not mistaken, once transcripts are released without seeking executive privilege, then the video/audio tapes become fair game, or was the case with Nixon. I agree Biden likely did not have bad intentions, but do not believe DJT had them either. I imagine he had them just to say he had them to placate his ego and look like a big man.

Well, imho that's already bad enough.
As for the tapes being fair game, I don't know that. Imho Republicans are free to litigate if they feel they have a case.

(05-18-2024, 12:48 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: That said, they were in a secure location, held for a much shorter time frame, and documents he was allowed to have

I don't think his Mar-a-Lago bathroom qualifies as secure, but whatever. Mainly I don't know why you think he was allowed to have them. That's what Trump says, it's not true, he had no business having them. It is alleged he showed them around to brag. But most importantly imho, contrary to Biden he did not cooperate, he repeatedly denied having the documents and hence lied to investigators, he played untouchable hardball and got his response. And even if many try to declare Biden to have done the exact same thing as Trump did, I don't see it that way. The two cases are not all similar.

(05-18-2024, 12:48 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: The last three did not apply of Joe Biden's documents. I can understand why the line for some maybe be "well Biden cooperated the best," I do not see how those last three points are so easily overlooked. Especially when you consider his son was an addict in the pocket of foreign adversaries and had access to all of the locations where the documents were stored.

The Hunter bit is not all against Joe, just an example of how easily the documents may have been accessed and exposed.

I think the Hunter example might be a stretch, but overall I will not disagree. It sure was less than ideal that Biden had classified documents stored in his garage and I'd prefer a president who does not commit such an oversight. I'm not exactly defending Biden when saying that the Trump instance is just considerably worse and more nefarious in my book.

(05-18-2024, 12:48 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I agree both candidates are terrible, but DJT holds too much sway with the right to be replaced, and Joe's handlers enjoy their current puppet, so he isn't going anywhere either.  I am always curious as to who is writing his cue cards and loading up the teleprompter...

Yeah well, I don't know about that, aside from the fact that like every president he has his speechwriters writing stuff for him. If Biden listens to other people, I would not necessarily consider that a bad thing really. He still has to answer for his deeds and actions nonetheless.