> the media stands behind the fact he's cognitively sound when he obviously isn't.
I am going to ignore the rest of your post and use this specific aspect to highlight something. Joe Biden has had a stutter his entire life. Stutters take an extensive and persistent amount of work to overcome. They are likely to return during times of increased stress, decreased sleep, or when one ages. There is zero evidence that Biden has experienced any kind of mental decline. All the evidence that people point to of him stumbling over his words, calling someone by the wrong title, or whatever other examples you have are almost certainly just symptoms and coping mechanisms used by someone with a stutter.
Stuttering is an unfortunate condition, but it has to do with pronouncing words and problems speaking fluently. I've never heard a stutterer say the sorts of things Biden says.
Which is why I pointed out not just symptoms, but also coping mechanisms. It isn't uncommon for stutters to try to say a word or have a word come to mind and know they can't get it out. That will lead to them searching for a replacement word. This type of self editing is incredibly difficult to do smoothly, especially when you have a camera on you any time you are out in public. It can easily result in the type of fumbling you see from Biden that doesn't come across as stuttering.
The Hunter Biden story was such an embarrassingly obvious piece of kompromat that it would have irresponsible to run with it just because the Trump campaign tried to push it out there. The reason why several major media outlets ignored the story is that they didn't want to play ball this time. They have written about this. They don't have an obligation to present strategically-crafted stories as if it were real news.
Do you think Trump is throwing pardons around just for shits and giggles? This is the first time ever that a US president has been using pardons as get-out-of-jail-free cards for his friends and allies. And he's throwing them around because he has a habit of associating himself with criminals who commit crimes (on his behalf) and therefore need pardons.
Trump wants to pardon his family, Giuliani, and potentially even himself. Which would not make the slightest bit of sense unless they had committed serious crimes. And if you argue that he wants to use the pardons to prevent those pesky democrats from setting him up, I want you to imagine a scenario where Biden was doing the exact same thing.
Biden and Harris will be scrutinized in much the same way presidents and their VPs have been traditionally. Trump is an anomaly.
> Do you think Trump is throwing pardons around just for shits and giggles? This is the first time ever that a US president has been using pardons as get-out-of-jail-free cards for his friends and allies. And he's throwing them around because he has a habit of associating himself with criminals who commit crimes (on his behalf) and therefore need pardons.
Roger Clinton, Susan McDougal and Mark Rich say hi.
Oh, and Obama pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the conviction of 1,927 people. Trump so far? 45. [0]
Roger Clinton was pardoned for a 1985 conviction after having served his sentence. The pardon removed the conviction from his record, but the punishment had already taken place.
Similarly, McDougal had finished serving her sentences after conviction by the time she was pardoned.
Rich did get pardoned before standing trial, but that was because he fled the country in 1983 when he learned there would be charges. So this is a case of a pardon preventing trial and punishment.
> Do you think Trump is throwing pardons around just for shits and giggles?
Well he gave Flynn a pardon because Flynn was railroaded by Sullivan. I doubt you understand this case, because Flynn's original attorney had a conflict of interest with the prosecutor. Powell, via discovery, found text messages of FBI agents trying to find something, anything, to entrap Flynn with. They went after his family, his kids!
When all this came to light, the prosecutors said they would dismiss. Sullivan said they couldn't. In an unprecedented move, Sullivan assigned an americus (friend of the court) to see if they could prosecute Flynn for perjury because he plead guilty when he was really innocent.
Let that sink in. Sullivan wanted Flynn prosecuted for perjury BECAUSE HE PLEAD GUILTY WHEN HE WAS ACTUALLY INNOCENT. It's in the brief, which I don't think you've read. This is the definition of a Kafka trap.
If you go to the Hacker News story about the FL researcher who was just arrested at gunpoint, there was a thread about Aaron Swartz and plea deals.
>Our plea bargain system is so lopsided that 97% of criminal charges end with a guilty plea without a trial. Even if she is 90% sure of winning at trial, unless she has a million dollars lying around and a deathwish, it STILL isn't worth it to fight the system. - https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=btilly
I have heard a large number of people express the same opinion and statistics but have noticed the they are quiet when it comes to Flynn.
I think if people have committed crimes, then they need to be prosecuted but also that it is better for 10 guilty to go free than 1 innocent to be sentenced.
I think what has happened to Carter Page and the sentencing guidelines for Kevin Clinesmith are a joke. As the sibling comment said
>Let's make distrusting the intelligence agencies cool again.
Quick reminder that Flynn participated in a kidnapping plot against the US government's interest on behalf of Turkey who was paying him to be an unregistered foreign agent.
This literally didn't happen. His whole "cleansing" statement was cringy, yes. But he never told them to drink, inject or enema bleach. There was one person who did, for whatever reasons ... and really we should have let that problem solve itself.
You're right. It was about injecting "disinfectant". The lying media keeps saying "bleach" when he was actually talking about bringing stuff like Lysol into the body.
