What do you think about the report saying Biden's mental capacity precludes a trial?! Poll

[1miseryindex]

Special counsel report on Biden details 'no memory' of certain facts: John Yoo | Fox News Video

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo breaks down the special counsel report into President Biden's handling of misclassified documents on 'The Story.'

www.foxnews.com

What do you think about the report saying Biden's mental capacity precludes a trial?!!

 

[JoeB131]

That a Republican Hack was unable to make a case and threw in a few cheap shots that had nothing to do with his case.

 

[citygator]

Right wing nut failed to make a case and used the write up as his fantasy diary.

 

[marvin martian]

That a Republican Hack was unable to make a case and threw in a few cheap shots that had nothing to do with his case.

Right wing nut failed to make a case and used the write up as his fantasy diary.

Do you dipshits know Hur was appointed by your boy Merrick Garland?

LOL

 

[1miseryindex]

Do you dipshits know Hur was appointed by your boy Merrick Garland?

LOL

A true R would never, ever let a dimrat get away with something a R (Trump) is getting the book thrown at him for.

I say fire 95% of all govt workers... I wonder if there are ANY conservatives at all working for the govt!

 

[citygator]

Do you dipshits know Hur was appointed by your boy Merrick Garland?

LOL

He was appointed by Trump and is a die hard republican. Garland called him in to keep the investigation unimpeachable. The guy lost all his integrity in that report. Lawyers are mocking him all throughout the country.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you dipshits know Hur was appointed by your boy Merrick Garland?

LOL

Ken Starr was appointed by Janet Reno, but that didn't stop him from acting like a partisan hack, either.

The problem with independent counsels in general, is that they often feel a need to throw shade on people even if the facts don't support it.

Lawrence Walsh spent 5 years investigating Iran Contra, really got nowhere near proving Reagan committed a crime, and then subtly insinuated Reagan was senile, which is why he didn't charge him. Unable to sustain convictions against North and Poindexter, he went after Cap Weinburger, who was the only sane guy in the room when someone thought exchanging hostages for weapons was a good idea.

Ken Starr... what can be said about this douchebag that hasn't been said already. Unable to prove Clinton did anything wrong in Whitewater (where he lost money), or with the Travel Office Firings, or the FBI files, or Vince Foster's suicide, he put all his efforts into proving that Clinton and Lewinsky were lying about a consensual relationship.

Patrick Fitzgerald - spent several years investigating who leaked Valerie Plames name, until they realized the leak was an anti-war circle jerk between her Husband, Armitage, and Novak. Not satisfied with that, he prosecuted Scooter Libby for not remembering a conversation the same way Tim Russert did.

Now we can add Mr. Hur, who really couldn't prove any malice on Biden's part, and tried to handle it by insulting the man personally.

 

[1miseryindex]

Ken Starr was appointed by Janet Reno, but that didn't stop him from acting like a partisan hack, either.

Show where he LIED, though

thought so...

 

[JoeB131]

Show where he LIED, though

thought so...

Starr Report - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At the time it was released, the report was criticized for making accusations about exactly what Clinton did.[9] The report claimed "the details are crucial to an informed evaluation of the testimony, the credibility of witnesses, and the reliability of other evidence. Many of the details reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit. This is unfortunate, but it is essential."[9] Because Starr's office allegedly leaked portions to press about sexual details that were mentioned in his report, he was criticized for using the scandal as a political maneuver[10][11] and was charged for violating legal ethics by presenting information irrelevant to an investigation as evidence of legal wrongdoing.[10][11] Also, it is unclear whether Starr had the legal authority to ask Clinton questions about his sexual relationship with Lewinsky, as the OIC was convened solely to investigate Whitewater and Paula Jones' claim that Clinton sexually harassed her. Questioning about a sexual relationship void of assault appears to be both irrelevant under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) as a whole and under Rule 413, which allows questioning about separate allegations of sexual assault (which was never asserted about Lewinsky's relationship with Clinton).[12]


In January 2020, while testifying as a defense lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump during his Senate impeachment trial, Starr himself would retract some of the allegations he made in the report.[13] Slate journalist Jeremy Stahl pointed out that as he was urging the Senate not to remove Trump as president, Starr contradicted various arguments he used in 1998 to justify Clinton's impeachment.[13] In defending Trump, Starr also claimed he was wrong to have called for impeachment against Clinton for abuse of executive privilege and efforts to obstruct Congress and also stated that the House Judiciary Committee was right in 1998 to have rejected one of the planks for impeachment he had advocated for.[13] He also invoked a 1999 Hofstra Law Review article by Yale law professor Akhil Amar, who argued that the Clinton impeachment proved just how impeachment and removal causes "grave disruption" to a national election.[13]

 

[1miseryindex]

, he was criticized for using the scandal as a political maneuver[10][11]

When you start to crticize the dims for being political... and that is about ALL they are.. Politics is their "god"

Then I will listen to you

Until then

 

[JoeB131]

When you start to crticize the dims for being political... and that is about ALL they are.. Politics is their "god"

Then I will listen to you

Until then

Are you a moron?

Ken Starr isn't supposed to be "political". His purpose was to investigate Whitewater, (which was unnecessary, because Robert Fisk already cleared the Clintons of wrongdoing.

Instead of just admitting that, he went about charging everyone around the clintons with crimes hoping to get one of them to implicate them.

And when that didn't work, he shoehorned himself into the Paula Jones Civil Case by illegally wiretapping Lewinsky.

 

[1miseryindex]

Are you a moron?

Ken Starr isn't supposed to be "political".

When you start to crticize the dims for being political... and that is about ALL they are.. Politics is their "god"

Then I will listen to you

Until then

 

[whitehall]

It's not just a "report", it's a finding by a special counsel empowered by the federal government. We need to accept it and move on to the 25th Amendment.

 

[Kilroy2]

The choices are not even close to legal standards

A court can only determine mental competence if a professional medical specialist provides the correct diagnosis. Both sides may use their own specialist who must examine the person. Usually this person will be the person primary doctor.

It is then presented to the court and both sides will make an argument to the court

The judge will make a judgment based on the merits of the presentation of evidence and arguments. The case will depend on what the prosecution and defense is seeking. What the law says can be done. Also is the Evidence conclusive and strong enough to allow a court to essentially take away someone's freedom.

Then it will go thru the appeals process if one has the money where the court evidence will be reviewed and can be overturned.

IF Biden is to be examined, then Trump must be examined is the correct answer.

 

[progressive hunter]

Right wing nut failed to make a case and used the write up as his fantasy diary.

you know what they say,,,

if you cant refute the message, attack the messenger,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The choices are not even close to legal standards

A court can only determine mental competence if a professional medical specialist provides the correct diagnosis. Both sides may use their own specialist who must examine the person. Usually this person will be the person primary doctor.

It is then presented to the court and both sides will make an argument to the court

The judge will make a judgment based on the merits of the presentation of evidence and arguments. The case will depend on what the prosecution and defense is seeking. What the law says can be done. Also is the Evidence conclusive and strong enough to allow a court to essentially take away someone's freedom.

Then it will go thru the appeals process if one has the money where the court evidence will be reviewed and can be overturned.

in this case it doesnt even go that far,,

the prosecutor decided to not file charges because of what he thinks,,

it will never get to a courtroom in front of a judge for the process youre describing to be done,,

 

[Kilroy2]

in this case it doesnt even go that far,,

the prosecutor decided to not file charges because of what he thinks,,

it will never get to a courtroom in front of a judge for the process youre describing to be done,,

What he thinks is based on the evidence and whether there is a good chance of winning. That why if the prosecution does not have a case then the person is set free even if they believe he is guilty. It has to be proven.

Cases are determined on the evidence and a competent prosecutor know when to fold those cards

Prosecutors are elected and some are appointed.

Prosecuting cases and losing a majority of cases will result in the person losing his or her job

Cases can be appealed and if the prosecution gets a lot of prosecution cased overturned it does reflect on his ability to be a prosecutor

 

[JoeB131]

When you start to crticize the dims for being political... and that is about ALL they are.. Politics is their "god"

Then I will listen to you

Until then

I think I would have to overcome your learning disabilities first.

 

[Harry Dresden]

A true R would never, ever let a dimrat get away with something a R (Trump) is getting the book thrown at him for.

I say fire 95% of all govt workers... I wonder if there are ANY conservatives at all working for the govt!

when i was still working in the PO there were lots of them.....trump may have pissed them off.....

 

[citygator]

you know what they say,,,

if you cant refute the message, attack the messenger,,

That is exactly what the prosecutor did. He couldn't prosecute the case so he attacked the person he was investigating personally through lies. Ultimately he said there was no case against Biden.