An overwhelming number of people seem to think that either intention or whether you were charged are relevant to the question here: https://lemmy.ml/comment/8298237
what? youre talking about the joemygod(dot)com article?
its pretty biased and if you read the pdf you can search for Zwonitzer: you can find tons of examples of biden bragging about having the classified material. So its pretty well-established that joe had the info and knew he had the info. so he broke the law.
So really the question should be “if you are alleged to have been speeding, but some people are reporting that there is no evidence that you were speeding and some others are saying that source is biased - did you break the law?”
An overwhelming number of people seem to think that either intention or whether you were charged are relevant to the question here:
https://lemmy.ml/comment/8298237
If a law requires then intent then of course intent is relevant.
That’s a different question entirely
how so?
Because the second paragraph of the article says it could not be established that anyone was speeding at all?
what? youre talking about the joemygod(dot)com article?
its pretty biased and if you read the pdf you can search for
Zwonitzer:you can find tons of examples of biden bragging about having the classified material. So its pretty well-established that joe had the info and knew he had the info. so he broke the law.So really the question should be “if you are alleged to have been speeding, but some people are reporting that there is no evidence that you were speeding and some others are saying that source is biased - did you break the law?”
So youre suggesting that if someone says I wasn’t speeding we should disregard the audio tape of me bragging about speeding?
I’m saying exactly what I said in my previous comment