The special counsel found that Biden extensively cooperated with investigators, in sharp contrast to evidence that Trump resisted and misled them for months.
That's a good topic for "news analysis" pieces. Instead, it's But Her Emails redux.
New piece from me:
newrepublic.com/article/1789...
I'm calling BS on the sort of news analysis that passively says the report has shined a "spotlight" on Biden's age.
The "spotlight" reflects editorial choices. The GOP use of something as "ammunition" for an attack shouldn't dictate those choices:
newrepublic.com/article/1789...
The GOP talking point that Biden isn't being prosecuted *because of* his dementia or whatever is staggeringly dishonest. The report explicitly says investigators *couldn't find sufficient evidence* to persuade a jury:
newrepublic.com/article/1789...
Given that voters are deciding which man to entrust with the presidency, the report's stark contrast between Biden/Trump handling of the powers of that office seems more relevant.
Maybe that should have been the topic of "news analysis" pieces?
newrepublic.com/article/1789...
Sally Yates would have brought the political finesse and experience needed for the AG role in a Biden Administration. Garland's struggle with DC politics and the press core has been evident. While he excels in justice, his conservative approach hinders his effectiveness.
Yes! Biden got due process just like Trump. Difference is there's a mountain of evidence of prosecute Trump and zero for Biden. This shouldn't be partisan.
Thank you for your analysis. I've followed and admired your work for a while, too.
Most of the "classified" material seems to be Biden's personal notes, especially from the period where he was pushing Obama to ignore the generals' demand for a troop surge in Afghanistan.
bsky.app/profile/soma...
Funny how when Robert Mueller found Trump may have done lots of illegal things but that he could not charge him, the most prominent news media ran withs Barr's characterization of it as 'no collusion'
But Biden not being charged leads to them characterizing this as terrible for other reasons
read the report for work today. thing that struck me is that the report largely focuses on the fact that the mens rea element is so high that DoJ wouldn’t be able to secure a conviction before a jury. There are comparisons to Reagan and what jury would’ve convicted Reagan for similar conduct? 1/2
Does it help that you're labeling it as 'Nightmare [SC] report' as opposed to some other term like 'whiny', 'cranky', or 'petulant'?
When the report's criticisms lack substance, why play up the size of the shadow with words like 'nightmare'?
I am really not a big fan of this new round of "whataboutism" to defend Biden. "I don't recall" in sworn testimony is a much better option than putting yourself in unnecessary peril and has really nothing to do with age.
The thing that really kills me about this is Trump is in a very similar situation where he was obviously more willful in his conduct with the classified docs. Like Biden admitted to having them and turned them over. Trump had to have that shit pulled by force from Mar a Lago bathrooms.
It’s not just the snarky age-related asides either. The ornate ways that Hur finds to make the simple statement that there was no evidence make it sound like there was something suspect about…the fact that there was no evidence. Like a cartoon detective saying, “It’s quiet. TOO quiet.”
You know, if Mr. Biden wanted to nip this in the bud, he could challenge Trump to live, on air mental competency tests, proceeded by a drug test. May the best rememberer win.
This demands investigations on how many billions media CEOs stand to make through fascism/new & extended tax cuts/end of democracy & regulation - & how many billions they stand to lose by 2028 if fascism cant bail them out from burst bubbles/low revenues/expired tax cuts/infinite growth collapse
