Biden Sinks Own Ship; Trump Says, "Hold my beer."

Cause for despair.

A PERSONAL PREAMBLE

Readers of this Substack know that I have been unsparing in my criticism of President Biden and whomever is controlling him. I expect that to continue because I remain convinced that he is a real and present danger to our nation. But, as I often have told many, I am not a Republican, nor am I a die-hard Trump supporter. I strive to back up everything I write with facts and sound analysis. That often leads me to harsh criticisms of Biden. Although I have never expressly endorsed any candidate, my writing no doubt leaves little doubt that I prefer most of President Trump’s policies and achievements far more that any attributable to President Biden. But objectivity and honesty require me to be critical of Trump’s statements and actions just as I am of Biden’s, lest I become just another partisan advocate for a particular man. I am not that; I am an advocate for policies, not particular people. 

It is that philosophy that causes me to write now that both apparent presidential candidates have given me reason in recent days to conclude that they are not fit to be President. Read on to see why.

FIRST, BIDEN AND HIS ALLIES IN THE PRESS AND THEIR RESPONSE TO THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR’S REPORT

By now most readers are familiar with the reports about Special Prosecutor Robert Hur’s Report and his conclusion that “Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.” Hur’s Report also concludes that President Biden had retained and disclosed highly classified information, including “implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods.” (pp.1, 133; 228).

But while protecting Biden from prosecution, Hur put a torpedo below the Biden campaign’s waterline with this:

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him - by then a former president well into his eighties - of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.” (pp. 6, 219).

As most readers also know, Hur recommended that Biden not be prosecuted. In an unusual step, his Report anticipated several defenses Biden “might” raise, or things that “could have been.” Because of this speculation, Hur concluded that the Government therefor might not be able to convince a jury that Biden acted with the requisite intent, despite the evidence that he “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials.”  

Just scant hours after the release of the Report, Biden called a hasty press conference.  Most readers have seen it or at least key excerpts, so I will not belabor the obvious.  Suffice it to say that the press conference was something that could have come out of the Babylon Bee. In an appearance intended to rebut the Special Counsel’s findings that, if accepted, lead to conclusion that Biden is intellectually unfit even to continue to serve as President, Biden labored mightily to prove that the Special Prosecutor was right. To counter Hur’s finding that he was “sympathetic and well meaning,” Biden exuded visible anger while attacking members of the media, and compounded that display with blatant falsehoods. To rebut the notion that he had a poor memory, he displayed how he well remembered the time when the President of Mexico was unwilling to allow any traffic through his border with Gaza.

Little more needs to be said about it.

SOME MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA PERSIST IN A DISHONEST DEFENSE

In the hours following Biden’s press conference, Biden’s allies in the media and elsewhere eschewed any serious effort to analyze the substance of Hur’s Report. Instead, they launched what appeared to be a coordinated attack against the Report and Hur personally. Like all perceived adversaries of the President, Hur must be destroyed. One of the recurring themes was that his finding about Biden’s age and memory failures was “gratuitous.” The “gratuitous” label was so ubiquitous that it obviously was part of a well-coordinated Democrat response. Because this was just a “gratuitous attack,” the argument goes, it shows that Hur is biased and just wants to smear the President. So, the Report must be disregarded and not allowed to influence voters.  

The contemptable Joe Scarboro’s screed was typical, labelling it as “gratuitous and bad faith.” Other Biden toadies chimed in with things such as, “This is ageism snuck into a report clearing the person of any wrongdoing.” The always-dependable Joy Reid chimed in, characterizing the comments about Biden’s age as “superfluous” and a “political diatribe.”

Readers should regard anyone making these arguments as either ignorant or willfully dishonest. Or you can always embrace the power and applicability of “and.” The truth is that Hur was required to include these observations about Biden’s demeanor and forgetfulness if he was going to recommend non-prosecution.

Here is why this part of the Report was not gratuitous: DOJ’s comprehensive “Justice Manual” sets out the policies and practices to be followed by federal prosecutors. It grants prosecutors in criminal cases considerable latitude in deciding to recommend whether to initiate or decline prosecution if there is “probable cause to believe that a person has committed a federal offense.” (Art. 9-27.200, et seq.). Given the Report’s conclusion on the first page that there was “evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” no one has or can plausibly argue that there was not “probable cause to believe that he had committed a federal offense.”

But when the decision is not to prosecute, a federal prosecutor must explain the reason for the decision or recommendation. Article 9-27.270 of the Justice Manual provides:  

“Whenever an attorney for the government declines to commence or recommend federal prosecution, he/she should ensure that his/her decision and the reasons therefore are communicated to the investigating agency involved and to any other interested agency, and are also reflected in the office files to ensure an adequate record of disposition of matters that are brought to the attention of the government attorney for possible criminal prosecution, but that do not result in federal prosecution.” 

The Report makes clear that the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute included Hur’s belief that Biden might be regarded by a jury as “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Those comments therefore were not gratuitous or superfluous. Rather, they were essential to support Hur’s recommendation not to prosecute.

So, if you read or hear someone arguing that these supposedly gratuitous comments show that Hur is biased against Biden, judge their veracity by applying the legal maxim, “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”  

TRUMP: HOLD MY BEER WHILE I ATTACK A SOLDIER’S DEPLOYMENT

On Saturday and a campaign rally in South Carolina, Trump demonstrated his unfitness for the office of the Presidency. When I woke up this Sunday morning, the day after the rally, I saw that Trump had launched one of his signature attacks against anyone whom he thinks does not support him 100%.  

In a campaign rally in Conway, South Carolina, Trump actually mocked the service and even the overseas deployment of a U.S. soldier.

AP Photo/Meg Kinnard

Nikki Haley’s husband, Michael, is a major in the South Carolina National Guard. After mentioning that Michael had accompanied his wife on a visit to Mar-a-Lago, Trump spewed this:  

Where’s her husband? He’s away! He’s away! What happened to her husband? WHAT HAPPENED TO HER HUSBAND? WHERE IS HE? [shouting] He’s gone. He knew. He knew.

My father was deployed in World War II, shortly after I was born. I was deployed in Vietnam when my first son was born. My son has at least eleven combat deployments beginning in 2004, causing him to miss numerous Christmases, birthdays, anniversaries, and other family events. I therefore feel qualified to give former President Trump the answer to his questions, with no apologies for the vehemence of my feelings about his conduct.

Major Haley is in Africa, Mr. Trump. He deployed last June with his unit in support of the United States of America. He has been in friggin’ Africa, away from his family, for going on eight months now. Like countless members of the military, he is missing birthdays, holidays, and the ordinary family events with his wife, son and daughter, that most of us take for granted. Try it sometime, Mr. Trump.

For me, this brought back memories of when then-candidate Trump attacked the parents of an American Muslim soldier who had been killed in action in Iraq. I remember that well because it cemented my vote for another candidate in the 2016 presidential primary. I don’t care if they criticized you, Mr. Trump.  I don’t care if they spoke against you at the Democrat National Convention. You don’t criticize a Gold Star Family. Period.

What on earth motivates Trump to say such things? Whom does he think this will persuade to vote for him? Does he think that by making fun of a soldier’s deployment in the service of this country, he will boost the flagging enlistment and retention rates of the military services? How does he think our soldiers deployed in dangerous places like Syria, Iraq and Africa will react? What will be the effect on their morale?

If any cabinet officer or other member of any administration made such a mockery of a soldier’s deployment, he or she probably would be – as least should be – fired immediately. Should a would-be Commander-in-Chief somehow be held to a lower standard?

But Mr. Trump’s attacks on a soldier doing his duty on an overseas deployment, like his attack on a Gold Star Family, are not only unwise, but they are also immoral. They are especially unacceptable when coming from a man who aspires to be Commander-in-Chief again.

While trying to wrap my mind around the mentality of anyone who would make such an attack on a deployed solider, I was hit with another story of Trump’s undisciplined lack of judgment.

TRUMP ENCOURAGES RUSSIAN AGGRESSION

At the same South Carolina campaign rally, as difficult as it may be to believe, Trump affirmatively gave Russia encouragement if it is considering whether to attack one of our NATO allies. Because that would obligate us to honor our treaty and go to war with Russia, it is almost beyond belief. But draw your own conclusions. I will provide the context and exactly what he said.

Trump’s statements came while he was describing how he had jaw-boned the Europeans into a greater sharing of the cost of their defense by increasing the amount they paid to NATO. In that context, here are his exact words:

“I came in, I made a speech, and I said ‘You gotta pay up’ They asked me that question. One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got a thing you gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills! And the money came flowing in.”

“I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want” !!!??? 

I always admired the way Trump used his bully pulpit to motivate the Europeans to pay more of their commitment to NATO. And I recognize that in South Carolina he was recounting how he pressured them to pay more of their fair share toward their own defense. Contrary to some headlines and the heading on the above video, he was talking about what he did do, not what he would do in the future. But that is not much of a defense in my book. Nevertheless, I mention it out as part of the context. But just as I have been critical of Biden’s implicit invitation to Putin to make a “little” invasion of Ukraine, if I am to maintain any credibility for objectivity, I have a duty to point out that spouting such ill-considered rhetoric encourages Putin in his aggression by casting doubt on Trump’s commitment to our defense of the NATO alliance.

Both of these incidents, just minutes apart, reveal Trump’s lack of discipline and his inability to refrain from ill-considered and even immoral attacks. They fall in the category of what West Point’s disciplinary system would call a “gross lack of judgment” especially when made by any would-be Commander-in-Chief. To my mind, unless Trump makes a quick and sincere apology, they show his lack of fitness for the office to which he aspires.

AND … ?

I add that it pains me to write that last sentence. Not because I am a die-hard Trump fan, but because the alternative of a crooked and senile Joe Biden governing with the more Marxist policies is so dangerous for the Country. We are in a dangerous time, and Trump has just ratcheted the risk up a notch.

As much as I try to be an optimist, I despair for our beloved Country.