Columns, Politics

“How in the Hell Dare He Raise That?” Biden Faces a Question of his Own Making

Below is a slightly expanded version of my New York Post column on the report that President Joe Biden, not Special Counsel Robert Hur, raised the death of Beau Biden during his interview. The report, now confirmed by various media outlets, suggests that the President lied to the press and the public in his controversial press conference after the release of the Special Counsel’s findings.

Here is the column:

In his press conference following the Special Counsel report on his retention of classified documents, President Joe Biden lashed out at Special Counsel Robert Hur over allegations that he has such “diminished faculties” that it would be difficult to criminally charge him. One of the key and scripted moments was Biden angrily denouncing Hur for raising the death of his son. The “how dare you” moment was eagerly re-played by many in the media who piled on the next day in calling the question outrageous, callous, and unprofessional. Now, however, NBC is reporting that it was not Hur but Biden himself who raised the death of his son.

In the disastrous press conference, Biden quickly went on the attack and asked “How in the hell dare he raise that?” Frankly, when I was asked the question I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business.”

The NBC sources suggest that this was a knowingly false claim by the President and that he was the one who raised his son’s death.

If it is true, this is not something that the White House can simply correct with a few brackets rewrites.  The corrected version would read “How in the hell [could I] raise that. When I [raised] the question I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business.”

It would make referencing recent conversations with dead foreign leaders look like relative moments of clarity.

While we will have to await the spin, the report (if true) suggests that the President is either mentally diminished or openly deceptive in such moments. The latter seems most likely. Biden clearly went to the podium intending to make this attack on Hur. That means that it was likely vetted by his staff.

Moreover, the press conference was inundated by false claims from the President. He suggested that the Special Counsel did not find willful retention of material. He not only did so but repeatedly said so in the report. He claimed that he did not show classified material to third parties.  Not only did the Special Counsel say that he did, but there is a witness to that fact. He said that he kept material in locked drawers or drawers capable of being locked.  The Special Counsel showed actual pictures of ripped boxes holding such material in his garage.

Once again, it is hard to see how these false claims were made without the prior review of Biden’s staff. The President famously works off teleprompters and scripts.  The staff also did not correct the record on any of these false claims immediately after the press conference despite being demonstrably untrue.

Ironically, the White House may have to claim that the President was simply confused in a press conference called to deny such chronic confusion. It has already had to spin out of the President confusing the presidents of Egypt and Mexico in the same press conference.

Yet, in support of the diminished capacity defense, the President continues to make false claims about his son Beau, including repeated claims that Beau died in the Iraq War.  He actually died at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland from glioblastoma, the most prevalent form of brain cancer, in May 2015  — six years after he returned from Iraq.

Of course, an enabling media quickly took the lead from the White House and lashed out at Hur. Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California objected “I do think the special counsel’s gratuitous mention of Beau Biden, whatever you think of the rest, but to talk about someone’s dead son and to put that in … what is this country coming to that we’re politicizing that?”

In the media, there was outrage. MSNBC’s Jennifer Palmieri asked:

“Why was the special counsel asking him about Beau’s death, right? There is no legitimate answer for why he would do that, and in an interview that happened in October, months and months and months after the special counsel began their work. Unless they were trying to trip him up, rattle him, gain oppo, right? I mean, I think it is just that, the fundamental question of, why would you ask him about Beau’s death, raises the question about the legitimacy of the entire line of questioning,”

MSNBC host Al Sharpton joined the chorus of objections and Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian, told MSNBC it was “beyond the pale.” . Likewise, former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder was positively irate:

“[T]he larger question is, why the hell are you asking that question? What does that have to do with the retention of classified documents? I’d like to think that at best, this prosecutor was extremely naive, a rube perhaps. He’s a Republican appointee, and he’s thinking, I want to have a life beyond what I’m saying in connection with this investigation. And that might have shaded what he put in the report.”

The First Lady was reportedly used by the campaign to raise money off of the outrage, stating “I hope you can imagine how it felt to read that attack — not just as Joe’s wife, but as Beau’s mother.”

She added “[w]e should give everyone grace, and I can’t imagine someone would try to use our son’s death to score political points.” However, if these reports are true, it was the President who interjected the death of his son into the interview.

The use of the White House to spread false claims about these investigations is a highly precarious practice. It can be the thing that impeachments are made off.  Ian Sams, spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, has been especially aggressive in attacking critics of the President and spinning these reports. He was recently confronted about false claims in connection to the Hur report.

The use of White House staff to carry out an alleged disinformation campaign can raise alleged violations of the public trust and misuse of federal staff and resources. Such allegations have been included in past articles of impeachment and would be most serious in relation to the ongoing investigation into influence peddling by the Biden family. In the. most recent controversy, the aggressive effort of the White House Counsel’s office to shape the coverage led to a rare rebuke from the White House Correspondents Association.

The coordinated campaigns can also bootstrap earlier alleged violations into Biden’s presidency. For example, the House is pursuing allegations of corruption stemming from Biden’s time as Vice President and the period in which he was a private citizen before running in 2016. Using federal personnel like Sams to spread or repeat false claims could make such allegations “evergreen” in tying them to contemporary ‘in office” conduct.

In other words, the White House has to be careful that the effort to spin out of scandal only results in spinning into an impeachment.

 

 

231 thoughts on ““How in the Hell Dare He Raise That?” Biden Faces a Question of his Own Making”

  1. Maybe JT can use Tucker Carlson as a “trusted” source. Tucker is so pathetic that even Putin called him a useful idiot.

    1. What does that have to do with Biden being the one who brought up his son during the interview?

      1. Upstate,
        Bob is struggling. I warned him, if he didn’t start putting in the effort, I was going to have to Stop coaching him on his troll skills. I that I saw greatness in him, but he continues to disappoint in his troll output. I admit I was wrong.

        1. Iowan2,
          Dont be too hard on yourself.
          You did not have much to work with in the first place.

    3. Boring Boob, please report from the BART or NYC Subway tonight around 11pm. I look forward to your trusted analysis.

  2. While I suppose that it’s mathematically possible that no one at DOJ reviewed Hur’s final report before it was released to the public, it’s more believable that Hur’s damming comments were released intentionally rather than it simply being the “Mother of All Oversights” (at least to me anyway). The Hur report is most definitely a torpedo below the water line for Lunch Box, Truck Driver, I was raised in a black Puerto Rican neighborhood, Joe. We’ll see just how effective his handlers and the mainstream media are at damage control now.

    1. Skyraider1717,
      “We’ll see just how effective his handlers and the mainstream media are at damage control now.”
      It is going to be fun to watch!

    2. skyraider1717 rwote: “possible that no one at DOJ reviewed Hur’s final report before it was released to the public”
      I read somewhere just this morning that Garland admitted having it vetted to confirm that it met DOJ standards prior to its release. Biden has become such a liability that even his hand-picked hoodlums are turing on him.

  3. “The NBC sources suggest that this was a knowingly false claim by the President”

    Maybe it was, or maybe it’s the sources who are making a knowingly false statement. Or maybe the sources don’t know what they’re talking about.

    No way to know unless the transcript is released.

  4. It is worth remembering that much of Biden’s staff, including his inner circle, are from the Obama/ Hillary camp, neither of whom want Biden to be the nominee. Biden’s screw-ups are so obvious and blatant (the press conference, for example), it is hard to believe that they are anything but planned by a staff who wants him removed as the candidate. The real dilemma facing the Obama/ Hillary crowd is what to do about Kamala. Dumping her would prove two things: first, she was selected solely because she checked two boxes– female and black (knowing that for most voters who care about such things, actual quality was not important); and second, by dumping her, it would give the lie to the Democrats’ much trumpeted commitment to women and minorities and reveal the truth that the elected officials blow that trumpet simply to get votes from gullible, inattentive voters. I suspect they believe (probably rightfully so) that TDS will overcome any blow-back from pushing Kamala aside.

    1. I think what will happen, is the Peter Principle. Kamala will get a new job, an even better job! A SCOTUS nomination, or a professorship at Harvard, or maybe even the head of some NGO. Maybe the head of the whole, dang DNC! Whatever, she will still be incompetent.

      1. She will not be offered the DNC job. It has only one required skill set. Raise money. She failed miserably at that when she ran for President.

        The head of the DNC is one job, they will not fill using DEI

      2. Maybe kamala will be given the Ambassadorship to Jamaica job. to help diversify our foreign service dept.

    2. Honestlawyermostly,
      Well said and good analysis about the Obama/Hillary crowd.
      If it is not Biden or Harris, than who is it?
      Read recently Michelle Obama does NOT want to run.
      Bring back Hillary? Oh, that would be fun.
      Newsome? His tenure as the failed state of CA governor would provide a lot of fodder for everyone to use.

        1. I have been saying, firmly believe, and will state until it is amply demonstrated to be false: that particular ship has sailed for the Demoncraps. If they were going to dump Biden, they needed to start months ago. IMO they have no one who is well known enough at this point (<8 months from Election Day) to motivate even left-leaning voters, who does not have more than sufficient baggage to virtually defeat themselves. Barring Trump from ballots was their last real chance of success. I think that Michelle Obama's electability was greatly exaggerated from the get-go, and as stated, she does not appear to be inclined to run. Newsom is governor of a state that is fast circling the toilet bowl, nearer the drain than the rim, largely as an attributable result of his policies. Even Shrillary seems to realize that she is permanently unelectable, although she no doubt places the blame for that on anyone and everyone except herself. Maybe they could get Mitt Romney to (partially) re-invent himself as a Demoncrap and run. Barring that, I don't see anyone that they could turn into a household word in time for November. TDS certainly will be a factor, but I am skeptical that TDS alone will ensure a large enough Demon turnout to carry the day for them, unless they can run a candidate that has at least some existing favorable image, and a modicum of credibility. And even that far less than rosy picture rests on the assumption that they can ease Biden out without much of a fight from him. If he is anywhere nearly as far down the road to a very combative form of dementia as he seems to be, that seems very unlikely to happen. Unless, of course, they slip something that stops respiration into his pablum…

          1. Grima Squeakersen,
            Well said and good analysis.
            I believe you are correct in if they would of ran with someone else months ago, they might of had a chance to build that person up and put them on a real campaign trail.
            I also think there are people within the current admin that wants or needs another admin for their jobs. Those people, especially those at the higher levels, are the ones actually calling the shots, and I would not put it past Jill being the main driver mostly out of desire for power/money or ego.
            Having spoken to my sister on more than a few times, her and the majority of her Democrat friends are not on board with this admin. Interesting, she has had a few push back on her when she voiced an anti-woke opinion, as “wrong thinking.” That is when she really opened her eyes and viewed MSM with a more critical eye. I also directed her to The Free Press.

      2. UpstateFarmer…We keep making the same mistaken presumption that purple counties and states will NOT (wink-wink-grin) *this time* (giggle-giggle) try their proven tried and true method of “keep counting until we win”, unlimited mail-in ballot harvesting ways. Meaning, in The Blues eyes, it doesn’t matter who’s at the top of the ticket, there *will be* another surge in overnight “look what we just discovered” questionable number of “found” ballots, and “what a coincidence” they’re all for the Blue candidate. Obama/Rice and the rest of Biden’s string pullers *know* this will work – because it *did work* nearly four years ago. Unless a Blue-state court chooses to actually allow and hear the evidence of the challenger(s) on the matter of ‘were these big batches of only-for-one-candidate ballots legal and legally cast?’, for example photocopied ballots in AZ and dumping ballots into unsecured, unmonitored drop-off boxes types of violations, what else can be done?

        1. JAFO,
          Ah, yes, there is that!
          I tend to keep to our elections are fair and secure.
          But as of late, I do in fact question that.

          1. I, too, believe my overwhelmingly Blue county in a Red state hold fair and transparent elections (including its generous absentee ballot policy). Yet, there has never been a single claim of more ballots cast than registered voters in any precinct in this county. If that were to ever happen, I can’t image every local media outlet here would shrug and move on, regardless of how wide the margin of victory might be. Alas, not every election across the country can claim its run with integrity, but note how many precincts don’t deny their lack of it, either. Nevertheless, my wife and I will continue to vote, once, in-person, on election day, with valid ID.

        2. Quite plausible that cheating will (again?) determine the election outcome. But in that case, what incentive would the Demons have for replacing Biden on the ticket? He is doing their bidding now. Why wouldn’t it be just as easy (or easier) to leave him on the ballot and continue the current charade. And, consequently, why are so many jabbering about possible replacement candidates as if the selection will make any difference?

    3. “It is worth remembering that much of Biden’s staff, including his inner circle, are from the Obama/ Hillary camp, neither of whom want Biden to be the nominee. ”

      Honest, I agree with you completely. The Democrat leader’s problem is they started too late. Maybe they wrongly thought his incapacity would be evident at a faster rate. That might be the only reason he is still in office.

      I didn’t expect him to be able to look like he is functioning at the present dismal level, but maybe he is getting amphetamines or other drugs right before an appearance, whereas afterward, he goes back to sleep.

  5. Biden is 207 years old and has been a gaffe machine his entire life. There’s no there there.

    I know, I know, the country desperately needs the greatest and most eloquent wordsmith in the history of the world, who pronounces Yosemite National Park as YO-SEMITE, and who knows Tim Apple personally. Tremendously tremendous.

    Did Biden have classified documents? Yes? When he’s out of office, he should face the same penalties as anyone else who held such documents.

    Did Pence have classified documents? Yes? The same.

    Did the Orange Dumbbell have boxes and boxes and boxes and boxes of documents, in which plenty were classified, that were shuttled from one overvalued/devalued property to another in order to ensure that Kid Rock would really really like him? Yes? Well I’m guessing everyone here agrees that he should face similar penalties, yes?

      3. Neither you nor I know what Biden or Pence may have raised as a defense, -had it not been for what they saw Trump go through. If nothing else, Trump’s treatment was a warning for all.

        1. , Trump’s treatment was a warning for all.,

          Warning for all Conservative Republicans.

          It is clear, Clinton’s wife, and now Joe, hording classified information is accepted and encourged. Making right hand turns at a red light will get a Republican a night in jail.

          Regardless, Jack Smith is now holding the bag, at worst, an obstruction of Justice . Never charged Clinton or, Pence, and now Biden with espionage. That is a VERY long list of law breakers walking free.

  6. JT says … “However, if these reports are true, it was the President who interjected the death of his son into the interview.”

    However, if these reports are true. Give me a break. What else can we make up?
    JT is great at believing the worst of the worst about something he doesn’t like, then when more information comes out, JT slinks into his cave and pretends he never heard of such a thing.

    I thought lawyers were supposed to stick with identifiable facts? Not the JT blog, what feels good today, and if proven wrong tomorrow, be just like trump, pretend you never heard of such a thing.

    Get a life, “if these reports are true”

    1. Turley’s MO is always whip it up and if it doesn’t work out, ignore it, distract, dismiss, and move on.

  7. It’s hardly a secret that Biden & Trump regularly lie to the American public. Turley quotes MSNBC hosts, but NBC is the one who broke this story.

    CNN, the Washington Post & other mainstream media routinely fact check false claims from Biden & Trump. Yesterday, Trump said violent crime is at an all-time high in New York city. That’s fake news. Last year, NYC’s murder rate was down 83% from 1990. The number of robberies last year was down 86% from 1990. The list of Biden & Trump’s false claims is long & lengthy.

    Yesterday, Hunter Biden’s Special Counsel Weiss charged an FBI informant with lying to the FBI & creating false records about bribery payments to Joe Biden. Turley depicted this FBI informant as “a trusted FBI informant” in this op-ed last year:

    “Where’s the money?” That laughing quip from President Joe Biden was his surprising reaction to the disclosure that a trusted FBI informant had conveyed an alleged bribe worth millions, paid to Joe Biden by a Ukrainian businessman. “
    -Turley, The Hill, October 21, 2023

    Turley’s “trusted FBI informant” was arrested yesterday for lying about that bribe worth millions paid to Biden by a Ukrainian businessman. Turley has yet to admit the credibility of his “trusted FBI informant” is now in tatters & is instead posting about the credibility of Biden & Fani Willis. Time to fess up, Professor.

      1. If you truly believe the Business Insider article is supporting evidence for Turley’s trusted FBI informant’s claim of millions of dollars in bribery payments from a Ukrainian businessman, than let’s see how that plays out when Turley’s trusted FBI informant goes to trial for lying to the FBI & creating false records about that.

        1. Excuse me, but what exactly is the ‘Business Inside’ the Biden Family ??? – I’d like to get a $2.7 million vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware as well.

    2. Turley depicted this FBI informant as “a trusted FBI informant” in this op-ed last year:

      NO, Professor Turely REPORTED the FBI’s rating of this PAID informant as Highly reliable. Reporting says the FBI paid him over $1100,000 dollars for the infomation he provided the FBI. The information was reliable, earning him the Respect of the FBI,.
      But has we have been expericing The FBI has devolved into the Gang that Can’t Shoot Straight. The FBI did not do the bare minumum and coroborate the information the paid informant provided. That is extremely basic police work the FBI could not be bothered with. No one will be fired for the incompetence.
      But if the FBI makes a claim about Trump you believe the FBI

      1. iowan2: –and yet FBI’s own Kevin Clinesmith, who LIED to the FISA Court in order to get a surveillance warrant on Trump’s foreign policy advisor Carter Page, Clinesmith,– got “probation.”

          1. UpstateFarmer: was thinking of you/your family this a.m (and a good friend in Astoria). You’ve had lots of messy weather, but at least your Wifi signal not lost? Stay warm.

            1. Lin,
              Why, thank you for thinking of me and my family! How kind!
              Yeah, we got about a foot of snow and a lot of wind. Only slowed the WiFi signal a little. 😉
              Just tossed a few more logs on the fire and a hot cup of tea!

      2. Iowan2,
        Well said.
        It is only when it is in the best interest of the BCF that the FBI is professional and conducts themselves in a professional way.
        AKA, when it comes to the BCF, they look more and more like the Keystone Kopps.

      3. Not same anonymous but easily verifiable re: Turley’s statement.

        https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4268127-wheres-the-money-biden-demanded-the-house-oversight-committee-just-found-some/

        … and by the way, as a general rule, Turley is not a reporter. He doesn’t “report.” As evidence, the above article refers to him as an “opinion contributor.” You are aware of the difference, I presume.

        By way of comparison, FBI offered Steele $1MM to prove dossier claims. That he got paid (if that is indeed true) means nothing.

        1. So to be a “reporter” do you get a govt issued badge and decoder ring? If you relay facts on public, you can say you are “reporting”
          80% of “news” is one media, quoting from another media. A story often starts with AAA news is reporting that BBB News is reporting ******. AAA has not confirmed these facts
          Turley is using the words of the FBI characterizing the paid source was considered highly reliable by the FBI.
          Your pedantry is getting very pedantic

  9. The House will not start the Biden impeachment until after the DNC confirms him to be POTUS.
    If they indict earlier, there is a greater probability that they will replace him at convention.

    While Giggly and Denise will probably cry foul, the reality is that the DNC itself is rigging the primary in favor of Biden, and they control who gets to run on their ticket. Democrats are disenfranchising their voters… their party chooses the candidate. Now were have we seen that?
    (cough cough .. China, Iran, choose your dictator club members…)

    Note that history is being kind to Trump. While Trump is Trump and routinely eats size 12 shoe leather… his actions show that he actually did a good job.
    In Putin’s interview, he was being honest. One of Trump’s strengths is that he is not predictable and knows how to use it to his advantage.

    Biden is predictable. Anything he does is most likely the wrong choice. He’s like a broken clock. (Right only twice a day)

    -G

  10. The transcript and audio recording of the interview should both be released.

    If Hur testifies before Congress, he should be asked specifically how significant his view of Biden’s cognitive incompetence was in his decision that a jury would not convict beyond a reasonable doubt. There were a number of other evidentiary concerns he highlighted in his report. Were these significant enough to preclude charging regardless of Biden’s senescence? If they were, then why mention Biden’s diminished capacity? If they were not, then describing Biden’s mental incapacity was essential.

  11. Where has Garland been? Isn’t it odd that Hur allowed Boden to get off for his obvious crimes (at least they are obvious if you are charging Trump for basically the same things) by throwing in the whole “he is too old, too weak and too ‘likeable” to be indicted” bit, which sort of covers his tail? Could it be that Hur figured that he would let Biden off of the crimes, cover himself with the Biden is brain dead excuse while expecting Garland to redact the damaging parts of the report? The odd thing is that Garland didn’t redact the report? Why didn’t the most political AG in our lifetime cover for his boss? And where has he been the last two weeks?

    1. HullBobby,
      I and several others have also asked that question: Where is Garland, and why did he let this report out, without redacting those key words, sentences?
      Did Garland even read it?
      Or did he and just let it be published as is?

      1. I believe the statute says that if Garland wants to change anything in the report, he would have to go before Congress to get approval to make those changes. Thus the “Independent Counsel” stays independent. Show us the transcripts of the interview . . . we know Pedo Joe is lying again.

        1. Changving it may need transparency. But releasing the Report is entirely the call of AG.
          Garland could have classified the report and issued his summary, quoting directly from the Report.

          It would be skeezy, but on brand for Garland.

          The decision to not charge for possession of classified documents is already skeezy. Garlands reputation will never be reconstituted.

          This does sink Smiths case. It is impossible to go after an Ex-President, and let a person that has no declassification power, go without charges. Yes the SC is charged with making a recomendation for indictment, or a declination WITH explanation.

  12. Turley is always jumping the shark when it comes to protecting Trump, now it’s just funny to see how far he jumps.

      1. Agreed, If you go back through the years you find plenty, plenty of times JT jumps on some accusation,,

        Big disappointment Bob

        Find just one time Turley defended Trump. When NOT defending the rule of law and the Constitution.
        This is always were the TDS suffer their own idiocy. Turley, like Dirschowicz Defend the Constitution, That defending the Constitution sweeps up the actions of President Trump, is a hint to sentient people that maybe, President Trump is actually nothing more than an effective politician. That the DA’s and special counsels going after President Trump are the true bad actors.

    2. Fishstick,
      Funny to see your lack of reading comprehension is so great, you completely missed this article had nothing to do with Trump. It was all about Biden, how Biden is the one who brought up his son’s death during the interview, and then the really, really bad spin from the WH.
      Trump is not mentioned once in this article.

      1. With Turley, job one is to protect Trump. Deflect off Trump and bring up anything that will make the MAGA world happy.

        1. When Turley decided to go from a Lawyer to a political hack, he jumped into Trump’s swamp. Turley name will be in history with lawyers that enabled Trump.

        2. Fishstick, your TDS is showing again.
          The good professor is not protecting Trump.
          The good professor is pointing out the corruption, the wokeness, the cancel culture, the censorship, the weaponization, that has gripped the Democrat party, various government institutions and the Biden admin.
          All us normal people see it.
          Life long Democrats like Bill Maher, Elon Musk, James Carville, the good professor and even my sister see it.
          But you are blinded by your mindless hyper-emotional TDS rage.
          Get real professional help for your mental illness. Seriously.

          1. Calling yourself “normal” thanks for todays laugh and joke. Your projection is outrageous.

      2. That is one thing that makes me believe Fishy and Anon and some of the others are paid shills. They are seldom on point, and pretty much just regurgitate the same smears over and over, no matter the topic. But what really convinces me is Nietzsche and Brandon Straka’s walkaway movement. Nietsche said, “When you stare into the Deplorables, the Deplorables stare into you.” Or something like that. The shills here, it looks like some of them have been here for several years, and that they have pretty much been spewing the same smears all along. If they were NOT shills, I think that you would have seen some evolving in their position over time. That is what happens with the walkaway movement. Some liberal/progressive “I always voted Democrat” type person, went to a Trump rally, and discovered Deplorables were actually nice, reasonable people. Or, they listened to Candace Owens or Dave Rubin, and once they did that, once they strayed the least bit from the Leftist Echo Chamber, it was downhill from there for them. They started picking up on Reality, and then they walked away from the Democrats. Here, with these shills, there has been no evolution, and there will not be, because they are paid shills. Odds are, they do not believe half the crap they are spewing themselves. I mean, for example, who doesn’t know Biden is senile-demented? Its frigging obvious. What lawyer worth his or her salt, doesn’t look at the E Jean story and notice the holes in it. Or for that matter, the Christine Ford silliness about the two front doors, and I can’t fly, unless it is 17 hours to New Zealand to go surfing farce – sniffle sniffle for effect.

        I think there are decent, real-life Democrats who read this website, and they do not speak up, out of a sense of loyalty to their party. If they were to speak, they would still disagree about many things, but if they have been around here, reading articles for several years, they would not result to the constant smears, and constant lies, and constant dissemblings, because they would have seen some of the responses here, and the Deplorables would have stared back into them.

  13. Biden is a phukstik and Obama is a criminal and coward. Serve them up in the People’s Court.

  14. Excellent article. Reassuring to see the truth told. Nonetheless, rest assured that nothing will ever come of it. Narrative is King. And the media are merely the courtiers garnering favor.

  15. I sometimes wonder if some in his staff are tired of the antics and the disabilities and are only hanging around till the end, however it might come about. Collecting their paychecks, lining up the book and post-office pundit deals, and not really caring to vet what he says.

  16. DOJ, FBI, IRS, etc are 100% corrupt for Democrats….so nothing will happen…no matter HOW BAD Bidens and Democrats Crimes are!

    Sen Menendez is a serial criminal…whose wife MURDERED a MAN while DRUNK…NOTHING!

  17. Never underestimate the gullibility of the American people, said impresario P.T. Barnum. But this level of bunkum might be overestimating our gullibility.

  18. All the faux outrage over Hur saying Biden would look to a jury like an old man with memory problems is just to distract from the fact that the evidence dhows Biden is guilty as hell and this was the excuse Hur and Garland came up with to not prosecute.

    As for the rest, Biden has lied throughout his whole career, from plagiarizing Neil Kinnock to stories about his childhood, long before his current dementia. Lying is his single most defining trait.

    1. Lying is the stock in trade for politicians in general and dem prog/left appeasers specifically. We all know this so why do we pussy-foot around it. Just how many Americans would actually be surprised by this?

Comments are closed.