During Sunday’s episode of This Week on ABC, host Jonathan Karl and legal expert Preet Bharara struggled to understand the reason why special counsel Robert Hur suggested that President Biden was too mentally challenged to stand trial for mishandling classified documents. Republican legal expert Sarah Isgur was called in to shed some light on the issue, but it was alarming how two supposedly intelligent individuals could not grasp the concept.
The introductions made by Karl were biased, as always, with Bharara being described as a “former U.S. attorney” without mentioning that he was appointed by former President Obama and served for eight years.
No mention was made that he donated to the presidential campaigns of John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. On the other hand, Isgur was introduced as a former spokesperson for the Justice Department during the Trump administration and a current senior editor at The Dispatch, a publication formed in opposition to Trump.
The clear implication is that the panel is made up of a Republican and a nonpartisan, despite Bharara’s clear history of supporting Democratic candidates.
When asked by Karl if Hur made the “right call,” Bharara took the opportunity to bash the special counsel’s statement, claiming that the “vast majority of legal experts” agreed with him. He specifically criticized the mention of Biden’s memory in regards to the date of his son’s death, calling it “gratuitous” and “superfluous.”
Bharara then complained about the current political landscape where a sitting president getting charged for several crimes is seen as a “political boon” for him, while Biden being exonerated is a “political nightmare.” He concluded by stating that something is “upside down.”
Notice the bias by omission by Pierre Thomas, as if the Democrats are nonpartisans on Trump matters:
"Joining us now are former [OBAMA-appointed] U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, and former TRUMP Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur." pic.twitter.com/PxWqK6657n
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) December 26, 2023
Isgur calmly explained why Hur mentioned Biden’s mental capacity in his report. According to her, the mention of his mental state was important because the justice manual states that it’s not enough to prove someone retained national security information, the prosecutor must also believe that they can secure a conviction from a jury.
By including information about Biden’s memory, Hur was trying to show why a jury would not convict him, even if the evidence showed that he willfully retained classified documents. Karl then questioned Isgur about the possibility of the transcript of Biden’s interviews with Hur being made public, to which she replied that the chances are “pretty high.”
Karl then asked Bharara if Vice President Kamala Harris should have criticized Hur for being political. As expected, Bharara avoided giving a direct answer by saying “I’m not going to judge her.” It’s clear that both he and Karl were following Democratic talking points, as their arguments aligned perfectly.
It’s concerning that even supposedly intelligent journalists like Karl and legal experts like Bharara couldn’t understand the simple explanation given by Isgur. Then again, they’re drowning in willful ignorance over Biden’s mental state.
It just goes to show the lengths that liberal Democrats will go to protect their own, even if it means ignoring logic and common sense. As Isgur aptly put it, “something is upside down” in the current political landscape where facts and evidence take a backseat to party loyalty.
So He cant be charged on documents case?? & to run Oval Office