...actually don't know how this works, I won't rek you with the "pretending not to know things" quip.

US attorneys are nominated by presidents AFTER they pass a screen from the state's two senators, which in Hur's case are both liberal Democrats. Saying Hur is "Trump's man" would be like saying U.Va. hoops is "Tony's team" after Mike Krasdfasfpoldfalalsfasdy got to filter the group of players from which Tony could choose to create his roster.

Further, it was Merrick Garland who handpicked Hur to investigate his nominal boss, Joe Biden, which is the only fact relevant to this particular investigation. So, if Hur is anybody's "man", then he's Merrick's man. You are, of course, pretending not to know this fact.

All of that is irrelevant, though, because you are simply employing a fallacious appeal to authority in citing the Hur excerpt (while ignoring the rest of his report and Hillary Clinton, of course). It doesn't matter that Hur said something, nor does it matter that you claim Hur is an expert (which, by the way, he is not with respect to the Trump case where he knows no more than you or I do).

What matter are facts. And the facts are that Joe Biden intentionally took and retained classified documents to which he had no legal right (in contrast to Trump), maintained those documents in an unsecured location for years (also in contrast to Trump) and illegally disseminated the information to at least one person we know of (his ghostwriter -- although obviously Biden's compromised foreign agent crackhead son had complete access to them as well) who then destroyed evidence of such possession and dissemination upon learning of the "investigation" (also in contrast to Trump). And, also in contrast to the Trump case, none of these facts are in dispute.

[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 03/19/2024 3:54PM]