I believe you should defer to my hours of legal study and experience.
1. Because “prosecutorial discretion” is so easily co-opted into political favoritism, it should be used very sparingly with political figures. “D’s” get the same treatment as “R’s.”
2. I’d use the same argument when it comes to the “political class” in general. I suspect 90% of the nation feels that, “If I did that, they’d lock me up and throw away the key.” It says that politicians get breaks we don’t.
3. “He’s a senile old man,” seems very weak. Sure, he is now, but he was in a better state during the years these documents were stolen. He might get off as the doddering old fool, but maybe not. There have been defendants much more deserving of compassion than him who have been convicted.
4. He was not “well meaning,” as the report claims. Biden knew 40 years ago with the Senate documents and then when he left the WH that he was not supposed to have them.
5. Giving back stolen bank money is not cause for “prosecutorial discretion.” If it comes into play at all, it’s at sentencing. By returning the documents, he merely returned the “stolen money.”
6. I still say not prosecuting the ghost writer is indicative of malfeasance. He destroyed evidence after learning of the investigation. It seems open/shut. If you prosecute him, he tells all. Thus, they protect Biden by protecting him.
Good points, all of them. I was in law enforcement for 36 years and discretion was (and is) a legitimate option both "on the street" and at the prosecutorial level. But far too often in my experience it became another refuge of scoundrels, using it as a sign of virtue when it it was in actuality a smokescreen for doing nothing--often the easy way out. When discretion is used, the reasons for doing so should be understandable to a reasonable person. In this case the special counsel essentially made a medical diagnosis in order not to indict. If President Biden was mentally incapacitated and could not comprehend legal from illegal, or right from wrong, I'd get it. Then it would be time to proceed under the 25th amendment. But who is to say at what point dementia, a progressive disease, and "old-age" become excuses for illegal acts? Absent a definitive medical diagnosis, how about judges and juries in a courtroom?
I think in the whole sordid mess that is 21st century American politics, what bothers me the most is the ease with which Democratic politicians and pundits simply lie to the point that might almost be called gaslighting. Beyond those who lie and say Biden is "exonerated" as they did with Clinton, the now deafening lie that there is nothing wrong with Biden and no reason a doddering old man should not continue to serve as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES for the next five years. It's actually crazy as if they now have gone from wanting a messiah (Obama) to now feeling the presidency can be run perfectly fine by unelected unaccountable "aids". Between this and the insanity of Trump romping to denomination I fear we are really doomed this time.
1. Being Charged. All that would have done is create arguments about intent, actual harm, etc., etc. Nothing really changes.
2. Not Charged but not exonerated. Hur did by far the most damage to Joe possible. Nobody is talking about the crime, everybody is talking about Joe's capacity to the job and the 25th. I think Joe's 'I don't remember' defense and probable arrogance just teed Hur off.
I agree sauce 4 goose should = sauce 4 gander, but Biden's mental condition is of far more concern to me than how he stored the documents, although his casual treatment of sensitive material reflects his casual attitude toward his son's 'business deals' and his enabling of them.
I say that not only does Biden's mental condition preclude his serving as President, in some states it could keep him from even voting. Think about that for a while.
Bill,
I believe you should defer to my hours of legal study and experience.
1. Because “prosecutorial discretion” is so easily co-opted into political favoritism, it should be used very sparingly with political figures. “D’s” get the same treatment as “R’s.”
2. I’d use the same argument when it comes to the “political class” in general. I suspect 90% of the nation feels that, “If I did that, they’d lock me up and throw away the key.” It says that politicians get breaks we don’t.
3. “He’s a senile old man,” seems very weak. Sure, he is now, but he was in a better state during the years these documents were stolen. He might get off as the doddering old fool, but maybe not. There have been defendants much more deserving of compassion than him who have been convicted.
4. He was not “well meaning,” as the report claims. Biden knew 40 years ago with the Senate documents and then when he left the WH that he was not supposed to have them.
5. Giving back stolen bank money is not cause for “prosecutorial discretion.” If it comes into play at all, it’s at sentencing. By returning the documents, he merely returned the “stolen money.”
6. I still say not prosecuting the ghost writer is indicative of malfeasance. He destroyed evidence after learning of the investigation. It seems open/shut. If you prosecute him, he tells all. Thus, they protect Biden by protecting him.
Good points, all of them. I was in law enforcement for 36 years and discretion was (and is) a legitimate option both "on the street" and at the prosecutorial level. But far too often in my experience it became another refuge of scoundrels, using it as a sign of virtue when it it was in actuality a smokescreen for doing nothing--often the easy way out. When discretion is used, the reasons for doing so should be understandable to a reasonable person. In this case the special counsel essentially made a medical diagnosis in order not to indict. If President Biden was mentally incapacitated and could not comprehend legal from illegal, or right from wrong, I'd get it. Then it would be time to proceed under the 25th amendment. But who is to say at what point dementia, a progressive disease, and "old-age" become excuses for illegal acts? Absent a definitive medical diagnosis, how about judges and juries in a courtroom?
I think in the whole sordid mess that is 21st century American politics, what bothers me the most is the ease with which Democratic politicians and pundits simply lie to the point that might almost be called gaslighting. Beyond those who lie and say Biden is "exonerated" as they did with Clinton, the now deafening lie that there is nothing wrong with Biden and no reason a doddering old man should not continue to serve as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES for the next five years. It's actually crazy as if they now have gone from wanting a messiah (Obama) to now feeling the presidency can be run perfectly fine by unelected unaccountable "aids". Between this and the insanity of Trump romping to denomination I fear we are really doomed this time.
What damages Joe the most?
1. Being Charged. All that would have done is create arguments about intent, actual harm, etc., etc. Nothing really changes.
2. Not Charged but not exonerated. Hur did by far the most damage to Joe possible. Nobody is talking about the crime, everybody is talking about Joe's capacity to the job and the 25th. I think Joe's 'I don't remember' defense and probable arrogance just teed Hur off.
I agree sauce 4 goose should = sauce 4 gander, but Biden's mental condition is of far more concern to me than how he stored the documents, although his casual treatment of sensitive material reflects his casual attitude toward his son's 'business deals' and his enabling of them.
I say that not only does Biden's mental condition preclude his serving as President, in some states it could keep him from even voting. Think about that for a while.
A very honest analysis.
Thanks. That is the highest of compliments.