Good reason not to turn. 
He should have picked someone like Mueller, ethical to a fault. I think Mueller crossed the line into being a bit too careful and discreet in the wording of his report. But better that than the irresponsible editorializing that this jerk-off did.
Looks like it worked … kinda.
According to the poll, conducted using Ipsos’ Knowledge Panel, 86% of Americans think Biden, 81, is too old to serve another term as president. That figure includes 59% of Americans who think both he and former President Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, are too old and 27% who think only Biden is too old.
I just wanted to give Joey_P mad props for including this caveat. This shows the best spirit of the SDMB.
Good luck finding one with an (R) behind their name.
Basically Garland:
- Didn’t need to appoint a special counsel
- Didn’t need to choose a Republican special counsel
- Didn’t need to authorize the report to be made public
- Could’ve told Hur to remove the snide comments and/or edited it himself and/or released his own summary first
I know it sounds like I am trying to suggest Garland be partisan, but in all 4 of these Garland acted unusually, playing into the hands of the GOP. The normal thing, in normal times, would be the DOJ just handles it and says Biden fully cooperated so we’re done here.
I’m not sure who I am more annoyed with: Garland, or the MSM which dutifully covered this story as though it was indisputable evidence of Biden having dementia.
Absolutely. The ‘full of stuff that helps Trump’ report is about as far from normal DOJ policy as it’s possible to come.
As for the media: they are getting ratings from the ‘Biden is too old’ story. They won’t give it up, no matter how often it’s pointed out that they are distorting the facts.
Have some of them considered what their lives will be like in a second Trump presidency–when there will be nothing and no one who will stay him from doing his dictator thing?
I’d guess they’re all relying on “it can’t happen here.” I’d cheer them experiencing FAFO, except that I’ll be experiencing it, too.
Transcripts from the interview in which, according to Hur, Biden forgot the year his son died:
Cementing that Hur is both partisan and a liar. That’s a totally normal way to respond to that question, and Biden didn’t forget - one of his lawyers jumped in with the answer. Not surprising but fucking unacceptable. Garland never should have allowed that dishonest report to be released.
The transcripts show that Hur was lying about Biden’s memory.
I’ve sat through hundreds of depositions. The answers here are normal to the point of boring. The only odd thing is the lawyers jumping in with the answers (not appropriate), but I’m not sure of the format in this case so that may very well be fine.
In fact, the very first thing said in this deposition involves poor memory by Hur. He mistakes morning for afternoon.
Mr. Hur: Thank you, DOJ. Good morning everybody. Mr. President, thank you for your time. Actually, it’s technically afternoon. Good afternoon.
And of course I’m being a lawyer like Hur and twisting normal mistakes into big ones. That’s a completely normal mistake, but pretty ironic in this case.
That is dumb how Hur focused on tiny misspoken details like that. Everyone makes small gaffes for sure.
Hur, on Biden’s recall of details about his house:
Seems like Hur didn’t think Biden’s memory was quite as bad as he portrayed it to be.
See Hur here:
Hur questions Biden’s memory in his report; during the actual testimony, Hur directly praises and compliments his memory and recall.
What a fucking liar. And what a fucking poor job of the media to actually skeptically question this liar’s intentions.
There’s going to be good clips from both sides, and neither side will know of the others.
“I did not exonerate him” will be the R side of this; just as that was held up by D’s in the Mueller report/testimony.* And it’s true, and it was stupid to use that word from a D member as that is not really Hur’s role to do and more clearly was not the case if you read the report. There’s no way Hur would agree with that so why would you use that and expect him to agree/not push back is beyond my comprehension.
Does anyone know if that question was asked first or re-asked after by a R member in a clear concise way - knowing Hur would agree? (The D member tried to talk over Hur’s answer realizing what she did so the video exchange isn’t good, but it’s still quotable to print)
*I’m not implying the contents are equal in any way, just the conclusion of “did not exonerate”.
You can imagine my shock.
My beloved SIL died of cancer in 2016 and I have to pause and think to come up with the precise year. The date is another matter, four days before Thanksgiving, so it put kind of a damper on the feast.
With my father, I always have to stop and think, “Oh yeah, he lived to see Trump win the election, but none of the aftermath…”
My parents died a month apart from each other - in January and February. I think my mom might have been January 13th, but wouldn’t bet on it. Not at all sure of the year - probably 98 or 99.
Why the hell does it matter whether you remember the exact day of someone’s death? Doesn’t mean I loved/mis them any more or less.
(I keep their obits in my wallet. If I felt the need to recall the specific date, I could pull that out.)
Like the tan suit the Repugnants are grasping at straws to find criticism.
Yeah, my mom essentially “died” on Christmas Day. Which year? I know the approximate year. But she lingered for a few months in a vegetative state until it was finally over, and I barely remember the month. People very often don’t remember specific dates.
My mother died in 2022. I really had to stop and figure that out, even though it was so recent. I couldn’t be certain of the year my father died. Mid 2010s somewhere. But I can tell you what time of day I heard about it and where I was.