Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(93,300 posts)
10. why isn't the WH or the Biden campaign saying this?
Wed Feb 21, 2024, 11:53 PM
Feb 2024

...are we supposed to be angry that he didn't charge Hunter with anything Burisma, and instead charged the person who made the accusations?

And why should ANYONE care about someone's tax charges that isn't a part of government or candidate for any office?

The WH isn't attacking Weiss because there's nothing in that which helps their campaign in any way.

Imagine the WH starting some kind of 'get Weiss' effort right now. Most people will correctly look at SC's declining action against the Bidens on Burisma stemming from his investigation of same as a postitve thing.

I mean, you have all sorts of folks today touting that arrest as vindication of the Bidens, and an indictment of Comer, Grassley and the rest.

But there are some who think that turning on the SC who made that important decision is some sort of benefit. Not in this election, it isn't.

So what's it actually for? What's all of the diverting from the collapse of the entire congressional MAGA republican case against the Bidens to tear down the person who actually made that happen meant to achieve?

This is a pattern.

Biden's AG appoints an SC on his own volition who quickens and deepens the Trump probes into two historic indictments, and critics can't let one success from his efforts be spoken of without obscuring it in some conjecture about how they think the investigation should have run - without a shred of insight into the actual probe.

Garland appoints a republican clearly opposed to Joe Biden who, nonetheless refuses to bring charges against him, and he's ripped apart for daring to appoint someone from the opposite party as countless other SC appointments have done; exonerations be damned.

Who benefits from focusing on the clear anti-Biden nonsense in the report to the exclusion of any discussion of that exoneration? It's not the Biden campaign, who took the win and moved on.

Now this nonsense bandied about as if it's serving something other than axes grinding. It's not serving the Bidens, or the president's campaign. It just isn't.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Everyone is talking about...»Reply #10