Depends on what the bots did.
This is actually a response to the following in the Russia thread:
"Why is Biden not facing charges? Returned them?"
Here are a couple snips from the Hur report:
>>>[F]or the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence
does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecution of Mr.
Biden is also unwarranted based on our consideration of the aggravating and
mitigating factors set forth in the Department of Justice's Principles of Federal
Prosecution. For these reasons, we decline prosecution of Mr. Biden. . . .
Mr. Biden's memory was significantly limited, both during his
recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office
in 2023.
And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the
government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely
convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting
willfully-that is, with intent to break the law-as the statute requires.<<<
By itself, cooperation is normally a factor the helps a defendant make a plea deal or a lighter sentence if convicted, but Hur states that jurors might conclude that Biden's cooperation was evidence of an innocent mistake.
The Hur report evaluated many factors so the snips above are not the whole story. Nevertheless, the main issue seems to be that Hur didn't think the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden acted with intent to break the law.
Intent can be difficult to prove because there is no way know with absolute certainty what a person was thinking. The jury needs to infer the mental state from the evidence.
This will not be a popular opinion, but if it was up to me I would have recommended charges, based at least in part on the following:
>>>In a recorded conversation with his ghostwriter in February 2017, about a month after he left office, Mr. Biden said, while referencing his 2009 Thanksgiving memo, that he had "
just found all the classified stuff downstairs."<<<
That's strong evidence he knew he had classified documents.
DOJ policy does not permit a sitting president to be indicted. If Hur had recommended prosecution, there's a high probability that Biden could have cut a plea deal to avoid prison after he left office, (perhaps) similar to General Petraeus, Deutch, and Berger
>>>"The plea agreement and corresponding statement of facts, both signed by the defendant [Petraeus], indicate that he will plead guilty to the one-count criminal Information."
As Carrie notes, "former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and former CIA Director John Deutsch [sic, Deutch] pleaded guilty to similar offenses in the past."<<<
Note: I'm speaking broad brush here, the specific laws involved in the prior plea deals probably wouldn't apply to Biden, but I strongly suspect Biden would have been able to cut a plea deal after leaving office.
For what it's worth, Trump nuked a plea deal by obstructing the government. He chose to take his chances with a jury.
