"if it was 2013 - when did I stop being Vice President?"

It would be so nice if the people supporting Trump here would be the first to suffer pain under his fascist regime.

Seems like a really good time to buy this.

And it was gratuitous, inappropriate, unprofessional and politically motivated.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/09/biden-documents-hur-memory-lethal/

Hur made the right choice in concluding that criminal charges are not warranted and in distinguishing Biden’s treatment of classified material from that of former president Donald Trump.
The same cannot be said of Hur’s depiction of what he presented as Biden’s enfeebled cognitive condition, “a well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” The report’s extensive discussions of that issue were not merely gratuitous — they constituted an egregious transgression of prosecutorial boundaries.

This portrayal of Biden as a doddering old man is inconsistent with what I hear from those who have frequent interactions with him. But assuming its accuracy, the details go far beyond what is appropriate to explain the decision to decline prosecution, and far beyond Hur’s brief. If, as Hur concludes, “the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt,” why does it matter how a jury would assess Biden’s state of mind at a hypothetical trial?

Hur has a stellar résumé and a fine reputation. It’s understandable that Garland, in seeking a special counsel, wanted someone who wouldn’t be perceived as a Biden partisan. But Hur isn’t just a run-of-the-mill Republican — he served as top deputy to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein before becoming U.S. attorney for Maryland. As the Biden special counsel, he chose for his own top deputy another former Trump U.S. attorney, Marc Krickbaum.

So, it is no surprise that Democrats are crying foul that the report they produced offers such ammunition to Biden opponents. It arrives in the midst of the presidential campaign, a contest in which the question of Biden’s age and cognitive fitness is a central issue.
Prosecutors are supposed to remain above the partisan fray, not embroiled in it. Sometimes such spillover is inevitable. But a responsible prosecutor would have taken care to avoid what Hur has done, which is to let his report become a potent — perhaps even lethal — weapon in the coming campaign.

No, it wasn’t part of his job. His job was to determine in Biden should be prosecuted for his handling of classified documents. His commentary on Biden’s memory was completely unwarranted, unprofessional and politically motivated.

Yes, it really was outside the bounds. It was highly unethical, unduly and unfairly disparaging, and prejudicial. I suspect that because Hur couldn’t find evidence of a crime, he decided he’d do a hit job instead by peppering the report with pejoratives.

But I really blame Garland for this—as I said prior, I don’t understand why he would have greenlit the publication of this when it goes against DOJ’s rules. You don’t assassinate a target of an investigation by editorializing your report with your personal opinions. A prosecutor deals with facts and evidence pertinent to the case. Period. Whatever Hur thought of Biden’s current mental fitness has no bearing on whether Biden committed a crime or not when he left the Senate and the vice-presidency.

Hur interviewed not only Biden over several hours, but over a hundred witnesses as well. And found he cannot sustain a case because there is no evidence of a crime! That’s it. That’s all that should have been on a declination report. Instead, we ended up with a 300+-page document larded with malice and innuendo, interspersed with paragraphs conceding there is no bloody evidence of a crime or intent! WTH. If this isn’t political hackery, I don’t know what is.

Exactly, he pulled a Comey. Surprised he didn't wait til September/October, or even a week before the election.

Someone who doesn’t have a basic knowledge of history and geography and lacks an understanding of our international obligations should never be given the power of the White House. Trump didn’t know the UK was a nuclear power and didn’t know where Sweden is located.

www.nytimes.com/2024/02/11/us/politics/trump-nato.html

Favoring Foes Over Friends, Trump Threatens to Upend International Order
Former President Donald J. Trump suggested that he would incite Russia to attack “delinquent” U.S. allies, foreshadowing potentially far-reaching changes in the world order if he wins the White House again.

Soon after former President Donald J. Trump took office, his staff explained how NATO’s mutual defense obligations worked.

“You mean, if Russia attacked Lithuania, we would go to war with Russia?” he responded. “That’s crazy.”

Mr. Trump has never believed in the fundamental one-for-all-and-all-for-one concept of the Atlantic alliance. Indeed, he spent much of his four-year presidency undermining it while strong-arming members into keeping their commitments to spend more on their own militaries with the threat that he would not come to their aid otherwise.

But he took it to a whole new level over the weekend, declaring at a rally in South Carolina that not only would he not defend European countries he deemed to be in arrears from an attack by Russia, he would go so far as to “encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” against them. Never before has a president of the United States — even a former one aspiring to reclaim the office — suggested that he would incite an enemy to attack American allies.



“The credibility of NATO rests on the credibility of the man that occupies the Oval Office, since it’s the decisions taken there that in a critical situation will be decisive,” said Carl Bildt, a former prime minister of Sweden, which is completing its accession to NATO as the 32nd member.

“This applies to what could be crisis management in a minor engagement of some sort to the ultimate issue of the nuclear deterrent,” he said. “If Putin threatened nuclear strikes against Poland, would Trump say that he doesn’t care?”

Mr. Trump’s fixation on being paid by allies extends beyond Europe. At one point he assailed the mutual defense treaty with Japan that has been in force since 1951 and at other points he prepared to order United States troops out of South Korea. During an interview in 2021 shortly after leaving office, he made clear if he returned to power that he would demand South Korea pay billions of dollars to keep American troops there. (In fact, South Korea pays $1 billion a year and spent $9.7 billion expanding Camp Humphreys for American forces; Mr. Trump said he wants $5 billion a year.)

National security veterans of both parties said that thinking misunderstands the value of the alliances for the United States. It is a benefit to Americans, they say, to have overseas bases in places like Germany and South Korea that enable quick responses to crises around the world. It also deters adventurism by outcast states like North Korea. “America’s commitment to its allies is not altruism or charity, but serves a vital national interest,” Mr. Lute said.

The uncertainty that would result from Mr. Trump’s lack of commitment would lead to volatility unseen in years.

“The only saving grace,” Mr. Bildt said, “is that he will probably be so unreliable and unpredictable that even the Kremlin would be somewhat uncertain. But they would know that they have a fair chance of playing him politically in any crisis.”

Right? Issues of mental decline aside, he was too stupid to be president in the first place. 

Exactly. I will take an aging president over a stupid one any day. But someone who defends Trump’s idea to study the injection of bleach will never see Trump’s sheer stupidity.