Joe Biden confessed to his crimes, and now we have the tapes
By: Jonathan Turley (The Hill)
A dead horse that should be brought back to life?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
August 1, 2026 -- For years, former President Joe Biden has fought to prevent the release of tapes acquired by former special counsel Robert Hur in his investigation. After those efforts collapsed this month, it became clear why Biden and his aides were so determined to keep the public from seeing the evidence.
In addition to showing Biden's mental diminution even before he was elected president, the tapes show that Biden effectively confessed to the crimes Hur would later excuse on the grounds of his mental infirmity.
Biden's interviews with his biographer, Mark Zwonitzer, conducted four years before he would be elected president, show that Biden was already having trouble remembering names and dates.
Hur was tasked with determining whether Biden had committed the same crimes that led later to charges against President Trump — retaining classified material, mishandling such material, and related crimes.
It turns out that Biden had already admitted to these alleged crimes, years before the documents were found in various offices and the garage of his home.
I wrote for years about Biden's absurd denials after files were found in offices where he was working on his book. There was also evidence that the material had been divided, distributed, and transported between different locations.
Despite all the evidence of knowledge and use of the classified materials, Biden and his aides suggested that no one had been aware of its removal and repeated transfer. In the meantime, after the raid on Mar-a-Lago to search for classified material removed by Trump, the Justice Department granted Biden and his team every possible accommodation.
Then came the searches of his home, with the pictures of files in his garage, office, and other locations. These included clearly marked classified material.
Hur then issued his report, concluding that there was evidence of the crimes, but that he would still not charge Biden as Special Counsel Jack Smith had done with Trump. The report stated that "President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen." It further stated that the clearly marked classified material was "stored in unsecure places" and posed a risk of "serious damage to America's national security."
For his part, Biden was defiant and, when confronted about the documents, insisted that "They're mine," and that other presidents had done what he did. This was the same president who condemned Trump for retaining classified information. Biden mocked Trump's defense and asked CBS 60 Minutes how "anyone could be that irresponsible."
We now know that Biden himself was that irresponsible, if not more so. Biden not only kept classified material longer and in even less secure locations, but he did nothing to protect the material even as he attacked Trump over Mar-a-Lago.
Nevertheless, Hur declared that he would not bring a single charge because Biden "would likely present himself to a jury, as he did in our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory."
The tapes show Biden struggling to give answers even before he announced his candidacy for the presidency, despite denials from key aides such as Jen Psaki and Karine Jean-Pierre. However, Hur had actual tapes showing that Biden had clear memory and knowledge of his retention of classified material. Combined with Biden's later public statements, the combination would have been deadly at trial.
In the interview, Biden read "nearly verbatim" from notebooks containing sensitive national security and foreign policy information, according to Hur. On the tapes, Biden is heard saying, "So this was, I early on, um, in '09 I just found all the classified stuff downstairs." At another point, he states, "Some of this may be classified, so be careful with it." He repeatedly mentions that some of the items in his office and home may be classified.
He even brags to his ghostwriter, in a report made on Oct. 10, 2016, that "I have extensive notes over this period of time … They didn't know I have this."
Once again, the Justice Department had already declared and defended in court the idea that such removal and retention of classified material did constitute a federal crime by a president, let alone a vice president. Where Trump acknowledged his retention of classified material and agreed to security measures that the FBI requested, Biden did not inform anyone of his classified materials and kept them in his garage long after the Mar-a-Lago raids. Meanwhile, in public, he expressed shock that any president would act as recklessly as Trump.
It is hard to see how any of that would present "a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory." It sounds more like a cynical, shrewd politician with poor ethics. It also sounds like it would have been a strong foundation for a prosecution.
For many, the tapes will reinforce the view of a two-tier legal system, long maintained by the Justice Department, whereby key Democratic figures including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were given favorable treatment while others were indicted for similar conduct.
What is truly galling for some of us is that Biden knew all of this when he went public to attack Hur for suggesting that he had knowingly retained classified material and showed diminished mental faculties— even forgetting when his son Beau died. Biden savaged Hur at the time for even raising this issue, famously demanding, "How the hell dare he raise that?" Even that was a lie, because it was Biden who had raised Beau's death in the interview.
Even after the report, Biden was still denying that he had retained classified material, even though he had discussed that classified material with his ghostwriter years earlier and had admitted as much to Hur. But before the public, Biden declared, "I've seen headlines since the report was released about my willful retention of documents. This assertion is not only misleading, it's just plain wrong."
The record is now largely complete. So is the inescapable conclusion: Biden lacked clarity on most everything but his alleged crimes. His deception and culpability were established in both the Zwonitzer and Hur interviews. Biden gave Hur a virtual confession, and Hur gave him a pass.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."
Be a good human. Grossly derogatory comments, blatantly inflammatory comments, excessive trolling, mean-spirited taunting and insults, scamming, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed in compliance with the site's Terms of Service and the Code of Conduct. The moderators have the final word.
Tags
Who is online
156 visitors
Yeah, releasing the information proves an important point. But it's only going to piss off Democrats and encourage them to rally round opposition to America First.
Joe Biden's duplicity will only be useful vying for control after the Democratic Party regains power. It's not going to do much to rally Republicans around Trump.
You have a problem focusing your energy on the important things. Joe Biden is not one of them.
As determined by whom?
The people who don't want you talking about Dementia Joe. (incoming deflection from those very people)
Anybody that doesn't rely on whataboutisms as their only line of defense.
So don't use whataboutisms as your defense like you did in 4.3
So obviously not leftisits.
The folks that fell for the big lie also don't want others to talk about it
And they'll try stupid nonsense like we see in 1.1.
Joe is not on the list of approved topics.
It may be important to Democrats in the run-up to 2028. Joe Biden was THE Democratic establishment candidate. So, don't be surprised if Biden becomes a weapon used against that establishment. Some Democrats are positioning themselves to oppose Kamala Harris for a 2028 run because she is too 'establishment'.
Not every democrat is a far left radical.
Some people can't handle more than one topic. That's a problem for them to work out.
Agree. But the ones that are not are way too quiet as their party gets taken over.
Some of us are homeless Blue Dogs in a Yellow Dog world. We were NOT stronger together.
LOL! You don't know what a whataboutism is??? That's hilarious!!!
See 4.3 for an example
Turley’s article, as is his wont, is disingenuous. Repeatedly, he takes a fact from the report, adds innuendo, strips away context, and diminishes candor, ultimately contorting a veracitatiously challenged statement into a specious claim.
If anyone wants to read the ChatGPT analysis of this article:
So according to chatgpt he is doing what CNN and MSNBC have been doing (and still do) for years. Whoop di doo
But you injected your own bias into the analysis.
"analyze this article for the stasndard metrics Select the pertinent passages where Turley is being disingenuous and point them out"
You deliberately instructed ChatGPT to search for 'disingenuous statements' which ChatGPT will produce as instructed. You did not request an objective analysis.
If you notice, that is what you just did, so I can see why you wish to minimize it. Both Turley and you can lie or be factually incorrect all you want, but don't pout when someone points it out. Then you just appear churlish.
But my opinions (and biases) aren't hiding behind Artificial Intelligence as some sort of objective authority.
And if you paid attention, I've already labeled this story a 'dead horse'. I do expect certain factions within the Democratic Party will weaponize these revelations about Joe Biden to attack the Democratic Party elite. These public disclosures are more important to internal Democratic Party politics than is being acknowledged.
And CNN and MSNBC.
So?
Because I, too, can recognize when when someone is being disingenuous. I could have spent the day finding and listing all of the instances, but I had no desire to do all of that when I have trained ChatGPT to give me a consistent, factual analysis that can be backed by supporting evidence.
So if you are done smearing my methodology, why don't you try to refute, specifically, the several instances of disingenuity found in the article?
One of the most egregious examples would be the attempt to equalize the behavior of Trump to Biden.
Hahahahahaha. Go troll somewhere else.
Ah, the new name when you have nothing.
Where do I give credit for AI as being some kind of ultimate authority? I gave you the entire conversation. Is that what you call hiding?
Meh. It is Jonathan Turley, for christ's sakes. Distortion is his MO, and has been for years, to turn the least sensational things into fantastical claims. Credit where credit is due: Turley has a knack for developing specious argumentation. One of us on here thinks he is the bees knees and a fount of wisdom. I think he is a duplicitous charlatan. Some people on this forum think both. Lots of people think lots of things. I am sticking with ChatGPT's analysis until someone proves to me that it is factually incorrect and/or misleading.
Oh ya, ignore the facts, go to ChatGPT also known as BIG BROTHER.
I've already said this is a dead horse. And the disclosures will be more of a factor in Democratic in-fighting than Republican politics.
Why should I want to refute anything? Why should I intervene in Democratic infighting?
No, you cited a ChatGPT analysis and provided a link. Was I supposed to ignore the ground rules you set for the analysis?
I've noticed the uptick in the use of that word here by leftists when they lose arguments.
I has shown up a lot lately.
I made a similar request to Google Gemini Flash. I asked for an objective analysis. I don't know if this link will work or not:
It is not there. If you hit the ... next to the bottom row of symbols (you have to hover over the lower left portion directly after the comment) you can copy it to Google Docs, or you can hit the two rounded rectangles in the same row and that will copy the text of the response and you can then paste it where you want..
I also asked Gemini to evaluate based on:
Because that is what I mean when I say "Standard Metrics".
It returned :
Speak of the Bee's Knees...
That is absurd. Get a grip.
If you think ChatGPT got something wrong then pen a rebuttal. Your mere categorical dismissal is not persuasive.
The ground rules for analysis by any AI that I ask follow. The only reason I don't have to continuously tell ChatGPT what they are is it knows what they are. I have given it enough of a hard time over answers that felt like they were what I "wanted to hear" instead of fact that it follows reasonably well these standards:
I added the part about the comments because I wanted an addendum to the standard. So it gave the standard, and the addendum.
Once again, if you or anyone else here can pick apart these statements that are generated by me and or AI, you are welcome to try. Remember, unless one can refute the statement or the underlying characterization of theme, it is likely that AI is correct in its assertions about the Turley Argument. So far, we've got two AI chatbots that are stumping a whole bunch of keyboard warriors into deflection, distraction, and whaaaattt?. Do you want me to get a third? Cause I bet it will say the same thing.
Turley is full of shit. I know it. You know it.
So what was your purpose of posting this article?
Try this link:
Google moves things around. The option to share the conversation is in the upper right corner.
OK. So we are substatially in agreement, if I am reading the output right.
You did not constrain the output and got a bland version of "Turley's full of shit".
To Wit:
Hence my original question: "A dead horse that should be brought back to life?"
Gemini's objective analysis recognizes Turley's arguments as opinion intending to persuade rather than formal legal reporting. The irony is that Gemini resorted to highlighting what Turley is describing as a double standard:
"Federal investigators who conducted the formal inquiry concluded that while the handling of the documents was improper, the evidence did not warrant criminal prosecution under federal law."
This is like James Comey's characterization of Hillary Clinton's handling of secret material as careless but not criminal.
No. It is stating that the evidence at hand does not add up to a guilty verdict in a court of law.
The problem here is that you accept Turley's framing of events as criminal intent, when the reason that the cases were not prosecuted was the lack of evidence to prove criminal intent.
Beating a dead horse? Surely.
You know that assertion cannot be made because the case was never adjudicated. Robert Hur unilaterally decided the case without a court. Robert Hur decided what verdict a jury would deliver without allowing a jury to decide. Robert Hur had access to these tapes where Biden flatly stated he knew there were classified documents in his possession and where those classified documents were located.
What is new is public disclosure of the contents of the taped interviews. So, now the public can form opinions about Robert Hur's handling of the case and about Joe Biden's guilt or innocence. Joe Biden's admissions, in his own voice, removes all doubts. Why did Robert Hur refuse to indict? There's certainly a perception of a double standard.
Turley is stating an opinion. The Hill published Turley's article as an opinion. Because Robert Hur refused to adjudicate Biden's handling of classified documents in a court of law, opinion is the only thing everyone has.
Your opinion carries no more weight than Jonathan Turley's opinion. You are not stating facts, you are using an opinion to persuade just as Turley is doing.
For Republicans it's a dead horse. For Democrats opposed to Kamala Harris running again it's leverage to be discussed in back rooms.
Joe Biden is not an issue anymore, other than for people who want to distract scrutiny off Trump and his total corruption.
Spamming it everywhere doesn't make it fact.
Except for the new left opposition to the Democratic Party elites and established party politics. Joe Biden has provided evidence of corrupt Democratic Party management. The issue will become important within the Democratic Party for the 2028 Presidential election. That's going to influence grass roots donations, too. The Democratic Party has been experiencing a money squeeze over the last few elections and the Joe Biden story may exacerbate that problem.
Joe Biden is a dead issue for Republicans. Turley whipping that dead horse won't rally the Republican base.
Context again?
Specious doesn't begin to describe Turley, but I challenge anyone to try to write for a living. It isn't easy.
Yeah, and trump was vindicated when the DOJ didn't prosecute him because he got elected President. /S
Prosecutors make judgement calls all the time when deciding whether or not to charge, what to charge with, what the evidence will bear... and yes they are all opinions. Everyone's opinion is not necessarily equal, and just because one has an opinion does not mean that their opinion is correct.
Prove that any of my/chatGPT's statements where factually incorrect or misleading.
Go ahead. Make my day.
Your public link clearly shows you attempting to introduce bias into the analysis. ChatGPT will tell you what you instruct it to tell you.
What is misleading about your ChatGPT analysis is the introduction of arbitrary metrics to direct the course of the analysis. In the parlance of legalese, you asked a leading question as if ChatGPT were a hostile witness. That's another tool used by prosecutors with grand juries to get an indictment they want. Why couldn't Robert Hur do that?
My public link shows my criterion for getting to facts and discarding specious argumentation.
Here are my Criteria for analysis of an article:
State:
-
Also State:
In other words, I am not merely asking whether every isolated sentence is technically true. I am asking whether the article gives the reader an honest and proportionate understanding of the underlying facts.
Those are not leading questions, they are analytical questions designed to lead to a better understanding of the shit that Turley is pulling. I read the article and decided there were far too many instances of bull-shittery for me to deal with and that is why the prompt was made as it was. I also prompted Gemini (whom I don't usually use) without using those terms and GOT THE SAME RESULT.
Just for shits and grins, I prompted Copilot with this: Analyze this article in terms of factuality, veracity, candor, and give an overall estimation of its truthfulness.
Here is what Copilot returned:
Here are some exerpts form that transcript:
And
Then I listed the criteria for analysis above as a prompt. It Returned this
The overview was:
So out of three different LLMs they all said basically the same thing. Turley lies with half-truths.
Context always
That's right. It doesn't change the needle one bit. It confirms what most of the MAGA faithful already knew and for those on the left it is irrelevant.
I don't see the new left accepting that these disclosures are irrelevant. It's leverage for the new left. There's already growing opposition to Kamala Harris (and Gavin Newsom) for being too establishment. The new left will want concessions.
While it may be a dangerous analogy, the new left will negotiate the same way Yasser Arafat and the PLO negotiated.
and possibly racist?
The PLO was a race? That would come close to pointing a finger at Israel for racially motivated violence.
How many Israeli's do you know?
I have several in the family and they would respectfully suggest that Hamas, the PLO and most Palestinians aren't human at all.
That may not be scientifically true but the context on the ground is "strained".
The DNA of the Holy Land: What genetics reveals about Israelis and Palestinians
Don't know precisely. I do and have known a number of practicing Jews that travel(ed) to Israel quite often. But I don't know if they were Israelis. One of my former supervisors was a practicing Jew that relocated to Israel to manage water desalination. I have also met a few ultra-radical Zionists that were pretty obnoxious.
Does that satisfy your 'big hands' challenge?
Not really, whatever that means.
You do know that Jews and Israelis are not automatically the same and it has nothing to do with "practicing" the religion, right?
Nothing Turley writes is worth reading.
He found his new home in the MAGAverse where they feed the Turtling Turley some poo nuggets every time he pops his head out of Trumps ass to spin reality in the sycophant's favor.
"I've got a Turley head poking out!"
[✘]
Interesting that many on the left have been screaming about Trumps mental decline. It will be interesting to see if it will bite them in the ass if Trump is not charged (assuming he has done something worth charging him for)due to his "mental infirmity".
They've been trying to charge him for years. 10 years of investigating and the best they could come up with is a "falsifying business records" charge that was long past its statute of limitations. Everything else has turned up nothing (cue the endless whining from the left). Even the impeachments were for "obstructing" and not for what the democrats were supposedly looking into.
Jan 6th, Jan 6th, Jan 6th
It's the inevitable deflection. An article about, well, anything and the "but Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!" whining will commence with very little back up.
Will you guys please stop boring everyone to death.
You can always leave.
According to whom?
This was the same president who condemned Trump for retaining classified information. Biden mocked Trump's defense and asked CBS 60 Minutes how "anyone could be that irresponsible."
That Biden was allowed to skate for doing exactly what Trump did ruined any chance of a legitimate prosecution of Trump for that.
Also, those tapes show Biden was never mentally fit to be President and the collusion between the media and the democratic party was as shameful as any act in recent history.
Don' t you just love the hypocrisy of the Democrats and their mindless mob.
Not only did the media ignore his mental unfitness but the propagated the lie that he was sharp as a tack.
So you are condemning Biden for supposedly doing the same thing you've defended Trump for doing? Pot meet kettle.......
Whataboutism?
Show what they have done what you claimed.
Be mindful of what the difference in what Trump and Biden was and was not allowed to do.
Yes, look it up
This puts it to a timeframe when he was a Senator and unauthorized to hold them in the first place. So, he stole classified material. But then again, we already knew that and Democrats covered for him.
Hypocrisy of the Democrats and the left on full display.
So did trump, he had them stored next to the shitter.... Your point?
Um, Biden couldn't have committed any crimes because trump said presidents have the power to do whatever they want... Sorry!
Exactly. Apparently, a Republican President can break the law with impunity because, as Republican President Richard Nixon once said, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal". But when it's a Democratic President, apparently anything they do is illegal because it doesn't align with the wishes of some lobotomized bigoted white dick face conservative Christian 'silent majority'.
All those investigations that turned up ZERO and you still hopelessly claim he "broke the law".
It is futile to pretend that the Trump administration has complied with the law. It shows profound ignorance and/or dishonesty to imply this is true.
ChatGPT summary per
Blah, blah.
Actual results - ZERO.
Not to mention the article is about Dementia Joe and you all deflected to Trump (as usual).
I asked chatgpt to review the article and tell me where trump is mentioned.
Here is the answer:
But somehow the left here on NT know what he said, what he is thinking and what he will do. With an accuracy of 0%.
Trump, Trump, trumpity, Trump, Trump, more Trump deflect to trump and make everything about Trump, pathetic 1 note song on repeat.
When the Republican Party allowed Trump to be its leader after he tried to overthrow the government they guaranteed he will be talked about negatively every day until he dies.
As usual, you offer no rebuttal, just denial of the obvious.
I have no obligation to. And what am I submitting a rebuttal to? Your opinion? Your use of AI? Sorry, there's no requirement for that.
Correct, you are not required to rebut an argument. But when you merely dismiss facts or make lame excuses, that shows that you have no argument. When you complain while refusing to offer a rational, fact-based rebuttal, you reveal that your position is driven by emotion/partisanship rather than objective reasoning.
Failure to offer a rebuttal illustrates the weakness of your position. But you are not obliged to rebut.
But what, you'll badger me? You'll throw another tantrum?
I and others have told you time and again, present facts.
Now, how about we get back on the topic of the article.
“…when you merely dismiss facts or make lame excuses, that shows that you have no argument.”
The seemingly contagious ‘jim jordanesque’ sycophantic line of ‘reasoning’…
Everyone can see that I presented facts and can see how you just ignored them and deflected - as is usual.
You are not fooling anyone.
Now the goalposts have moved to the Trump administration? What does legal filings against Noem, Bondi, Burgum, and any number of Federal agencies have to do with the double standard over retention of secret material? What is that list supposed to do about Joe Biden's admissions of wrongdoing? Does that list exonerate Biden somehow?
I agree that Jonathan Turley's use of the term 'confession' is hyperbolic. But the fact remains that Joe Biden admitted to wrongdoing on tape. From Biden's remarks that have been published, it is clear that Biden knew what he possessed and the sensitivity of what he possessed. And Biden allowed his ghostwriter to access that sensitive material with a simple warning.
I responded to @6.1.1.
Old news and pales by comparison to what is taking place right now.
Biden is gone. He cooperated in the return of the materials. Case closed.
You "presented" what AI told you. Not a single bit of it backed up with fact.
Now, how about we get back on the topic of the article.
Au contraire. The tapes came out on July 27th and the responses are not just about the returning of the materials.
I am sure you want the big lie on Biden being incapacitated and his minions and the media lying about it but many don't want it closed.
Again you just deny. Everytime facts are present you claim they are not facts. You did not even look at the link that provides substantial detail behind every item noted.
As usual, you have nothing other than a feeble 'nuh-uh'.
Read the content in the link I provided:
That content did not come from AI, the AI merely summarized it for presentation.
You are beating a dead horse as yet another deflection from the constant damage Trump is doing to this nation.
Cool story. Now, how about we get back on the topic of the article.
You are ignoring the article to try and deflect to Trump. The big lie is still being denied and this new revelation supports that.
If you don't want to talk about the article you could always ignore it instead of trying to derail it.
Not every article has to be about Trump.
You said it in 1.1.8
Now you are just asking for too much.
You know, for them, it does.
You brought up the Trump investigations @6.1.1 and I rebutted your bullshit claim.
You have no rebuttal. I expected that.
Blatant disregard for reality is why your commentary falls under the heading "phantasmagorical"
Cool story.
Good for you. You learned a new word!!!
Every time the lies that progressives slung for years get exposed, the progressive choir sings their favorite tune:
But Trump But Trump But Trump...
My wife has a dance tune popular in the Philippines stuck in her head for days.
I can just about imagine leftists that have Trump on the mind 24/7 for the past 10 years.
Life must be miserable for them.
Good...
If I was going to be obsessed with anyone it sure would not be Trump.
At least they are not alone in their sickness.
As if defending the scum bag day and night isn't being "obsessed". That is just too funny.
This whole article comments section shows how much they have him on their minds. Almost every thread has one of them bringing him up in one form or another.
It often makes me wonder if they read the article at all. They just have a rotating Trump complaint and when it comes up, they write about it
We both know they didn't. They saw the subject was anything but Trump and they jumped right in with their supidity.
I've seen the same nonsense posted over and over again. Like the idiocy 6.1.2. Posting books nobody is going to read (I seriously doubt the poster did) over and over again to say nothing.
And don't contradict them or prove them wrong. We see what happens then.
I was expecting maybe an article about Bill Clinton confessing to banging Monica but I guess an old moronic rehashing of Biden will serve as their distraction from THE CURRENT FUCKING PRESIDENT who started ANOTHER unprovoked endless war in the middle east which might be why he's on a lot of people's minds of late. Perhaps if some would pull their fucking heads out of his ass long enough to see what's happening in America, they might be worried too. But as it is, apparently there are some so rammed in there that they're unaware they have officially become a Trump colon polyp. I really can't imagine what worthless lives they must live to actually aspire to be a Trump colon polyp, but these are indeed strange times.
No, there are no buts about it.