“Original Sin” book release - Biden’s decline cover up

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Westside said:

Do you think bidens DOJ did that before prosecuting a misdemeanor charge of trespassing into a felony? Or do you think they deliberately let some people sit in prison for three years without any trial?

No. I think @leh-nerd skin-erdmakes a good point point about prosecutor overreach and the unusual amount of resources and time the DOJ put into January 6th.  The thought that a person's political views didn't impact the decisions of judges and jurors when determining guilt or sentencing of the J6 perpetrators is comical to me.  There were a lot of bullcrap right wing conspiracies being floated out there too that these people were all just poor victims of a corrupt judicial system.  The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.  Most voters weren't naive to the political motivations at play either when casting their vote.  I don't think a blanket pardon or commute of over 1500 people federally charged for J6 was appropriate either.  One person should not have that much power.

 

I guess my question to the Biden defenders on here is do you think it was appropriate for Biden to give his son "unconditional pardon" before he left office even though he said he wouldn't?  If so, why?

Edited 7 hours ago by Doc Brown

[K D]

7 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Everyone knew.  Even someone with half a brain could see he was slowly slipping cognitively since 1973.

Media be like 

[SydneyBillsFan]

8 hours ago, stevestojan said:

Oh ***** yeah. I remember as a kid my sisters had this doll called Teddy Ruxpin. It “talked” by way of a cassette tape in its back. That thing was orders of magnitude more coherent than Joe at the debate. 
 

And please don’t refer to them as my teammates. Maybe we’re in the same conference, maybe. But we don’t share a locker room. 

 

Didn't share the same locker room you say? You lot shared the same jockstrap FFS.

 

Lefty historical revisionism.

[JDHillFan]

5 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

 

The question was always "Is he competent to serve as president."

And the answer, to everyone outside of you and your “reliable” mainstream media, was a resounding NO. How you could have turned your Trump disdain into “Biden is mentally fit for the presidency” is nothing short of delusional. 
 

Previously in this thread:

15 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Just call bs when you hear it. Don't cover up for him. 

It’s a shame you didn’t consider this before you went all in on “mentally fit”. 
 

One further question - since the “reliable” mainstream media, by their own admission, sh*t the bed so badly on this (on purpose of course) doesn’t that make them unreliable?

[BillsFanNC]

7 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

I met with a colleague today who I respect very much on a personal and professional level. But she has had a terminal case of TDS for a while.

 

I learned that Trump has advanced dementia and is so far along that he probably will need to be committed to a nursing home before the mid-terms. 

 

Joe Biden, however, is fit as a fiddle and would be doing fine this term... 

 

 

 

You work with Finding?

[BillsFanNC]

Who first brought up Biden's cognitive decline?

 

Democrats. In 2018.

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

Bullstojan: BDS! Just move past it.

 

 

[Big Blitz]

 

[4th&long]

An 81 year old man might need a wheelchair, shocking. An 81 year old man is slipping mentally? No, say it ain't so! Everyone could see he was losing it. I think the degree to which he was losing it became clear in the debate. His close circle, whoever threat was, did a good job of hiding it. 

 

This is why people don't trust either party, 43%of people are independent. You can't trust the dems and the republicians are being exposed for who they are right now. 

 

I'm not sure I completely agree with blaming the media, if Boehner handlers didn't let the media near him how we're they going to know the full extent that he lost it? I blame Jill and hunter for pushing him to run again. 

[JDHillFan]

49 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

In terms of self-awareness, Stelter is a media version of Redhawk/Roundy. 

[4th&long]

14 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

This isn’t about Biden. 
 

It’s about the media.  
 

We are driving final nails in coffins. 

So you don't believe what they say UNTIL they write a book or post something you agree with? Then it's credible? I would say you are smarter than this but you are Maga so I doubt it. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Do you think Trump went through each case, considered each charge, reviewed the evidence available, and consulted with his staff to issue the pardons on a single case basis?

Absolutely not, and spoiler alert: incoming whataboutism!  Read at you own risk!  
 

I do not think he reviewed each case, and will state definitive that it’s very rare for a President to review the case associate with pardons in any great detail. I think there are political pardons, favors for friends and favors of friends of friends.  I think that’s the way it works, just about always, so it seems silly to spend much time debating that point. 
 

For that matter, I have not reviewed each and every case, or any and all cases.  I review the review on an iPad and try to apply my sense of fairness to what I know.  
 

There were crimes committed on 1/6, and to summarize my thoughts (shared somewhere in this forum on 1/6) was that the people who broke the law on that day did not represent my views, and you would not catch me anywhere near that type of event.  Joe Biden was elected president, he became my president after the election, and I was ready to move on.  However, there is a gaping chasm between some of these knuckleheads that assaulted law enforcement and created chaos and a person trespassing in whatever form the DOJ chose to prosecute.  
 

Here’s a summary of why I think fair minded people can reject the 

notion that every prosecution and very outcome was fair, reasonable  and free from political animus: 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/28/politics/supreme-court-limits-obstruction-charges-against-january-6-rioters/index.html

To be blunt, I think I’m in the mainstream here.  Many prosecutions were fine and suitably harsh, those individuals should not have been pardoned by President Trump.  Some were overzealous prosecutions politically motivated, and politically motivated resolution seems to be the most likely outcome.

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 hours ago, Homelander said:

 

The classic "I'm all for accountability but" routine where suddenly prosecuting people who stormed the Capitol, beat cops with flagpoles, and tried to stop an election is seen as “overreach.” 

 

Funny how you're worried about "overreach," but I bet you didn’t flinch when Trump handed $30 million to Ashli Babbitt’s family - someone who was killed while storming the Capitol. Actions have consequences, but I guess they only count when it’s not your side breaking the law.

 

I think the first time you worried about law enforcement officials being in danger, or assaulted and beaten was when there was a political reason to do so. I think your posting history reveals, in fact, that you support an assault on a police officer so long as certain conditions are present. 
 

I supported the police officer who shot Ashli Babbit, you moron.  I tried to put myself in his shoes, understand on whatever level the type of emotion, fear and adrenaline he was feeling as some lunatics were smashing through a glass barrier in attempt to gain access to a restricted area with officers on the other side with guns drawn.   My general rule of thumb is as follows:

 

1. The officer’s job is to go home at night;

2. The officer has no idea the intent of the other party, or what weapons they may/may not have;

3.  Facts leading up to the incident influence the outcome;

4. It’s extremely unlikely, and very rare, for an officer to want to shoot anyone in the chest and end their life;

 

Still, you fools crowed about the outcome of civil cases like E Jane Carroll, completely oblivious to the things that impact the outcome of civil suits. Now, you don’t like the outcome.   Venue matters.   Emotion matters.  What’s reasonable behavior is judged looking backwards and considering outcome.  The relative likelihood of a positive or negative outcome is considered.  
 

When all is said and done, an unarmed female was dispatched without a warning shot fired, and during a time when multiple political figures talking about how things like warning shots, restraint and leg shots should be the default.  The officer has at least one incident of reckless behavior in leaving a loaded firearm in a bathroom, and it’s impossible to know what else may be in his personnel record.  
 

My assumption is that the concern was political sentiment would influence the outcome, and whatever they decided to pay resulted in a preferable outcome to taking a chance pursuing that a jury might return an award of $0, or $100,000,000.  Autopsy photos/report of a 30-something year old female dead on a table alone could swing people toward an award, rationalizing that the shooting was not criminal but perhaps excessive force was used.  
 

Beyond that, it’s just the way things go. 

[B-Man]

 

 

                                   

 

 

.

[JFKjr]

49 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

An 81 year old man might need a wheelchair, shocking. An 81 year old man is slipping mentally? No, say it ain't so! Everyone could see he was losing it.

 

Yeah we all remember you admitting that in 2024.