...for the coverup of Biden's cognitive decline? This is a serious question and not a gotcha question. I can understand no action or a cover up if we're talking about a ruling monarch or a despot/dictator who has a cadre of loyalists who make up the laws as they go. However, we're a representative republic. We should be insulated from having to suffer under the stewardship of a mentally impaired president. Honestly it's hard to blame Biden from not recusing himself because let's face it - you would be the last person to know if your brain stopped functioning correctly...

HOWEVER, his administration knew he was impaired. We know they intentionally lied to the public about Biden's mental fitness. You can argue at a minimum 2 years of mental impairment if not his entire presidential term. So...we don't have any laws that protect us from something like this? If not, why not? And if not - should we?

(10-28-2025 02:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  ...for the coverup of Biden's cognitive decline? This is a serious question and not a gotcha question. I can understand no action or a cover up if we're talking about a ruling monarch or a despot/dictator who has a cadre of loyalists who make up the laws as they go. However, we're a representative republic. We should be insulated from having to suffer under the stewardship of a mentally impaired president. Honestly it's hard to blame Biden from not recusing himself because let's face it - you would be the last person to know if your brain stopped functioning correctly...

HOWEVER, his administration knew he was impaired. We know they intentionally lied to the public about Biden's mental fitness. You can argue at a minimum 2 years of mental impairment if not his entire presidential term. So...we don't have any laws that protect us from something like this? If not, why not? And if not - should we?

I have no comment on the first section other than what would be the relevant laws that were broken in covering up Bidens decline? It was certainly a political scandal and probably hurt the eventual Harris campaign.

As to the 2nd, we have the 4th section of the 25th amendment. I would consider that a sort of involuntary removal of presidential powers. Its requirements are understandably pretty hard to implement it’s never been invoked.

I'm only a civil (mostly uncivil), real estate and corporate law guy. Other than the bare minimum to pass state bars, most of what I know about criminal law is what I gleaned during my misguided youth.

I think the issue is that it's nearly impossible to show beyond a reasonable doubt standard what people knew or what they thought they knew about a person's mental state during any point in time years ago. Even harder to prove that mental condition at some point in the past without medical records establishing it.

Unless there are expressly damning memos and emails (fat chance) , or unless people sing like a canary, it is a nearly impossible legal hurdle to overcome for a federal jury.

Juice just may mot be worth the squeeze.

Indicted for what, exactly?

Last I checked, every president we've ever had has aged while in office...so it stands to reason they've all declined mentally over their term...it's nature. So you'd need to quantify the decline and then somehow show that it broke some law.

Good luck with that. Especially with the recent SCOTUS rulings that have pretty much made the president a king for all intents and purposes.

(10-28-2025 02:32 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  ...for the coverup of Biden's cognitive decline? This is a serious question and not a gotcha question. I can understand no action or a cover up if we're talking about a ruling monarch or a despot/dictator who has a cadre of loyalists who make up the laws as they go. However, we're a representative republic. We should be insulated from having to suffer under the stewardship of a mentally impaired president. Honestly it's hard to blame Biden from not recusing himself because let's face it - you would be the last person to know if your brain stopped functioning correctly...

HOWEVER, his administration knew he was impaired. We know they intentionally lied to the public about Biden's mental fitness. You can argue at a minimum 2 years of mental impairment if not his entire presidential term. So...we don't have any laws that protect us from something like this? If not, why not? And if not - should we?

I have no comment on the first section other than what would be the relevant laws that were broken in covering up Bidens decline? It was certainly a political scandal and probably hurt the eventual Harris campaign.

As to the 2nd, we have the 4th section of the 25th amendment. I would consider that a sort of involuntary removal of presidential powers. Its requirements are understandably pretty hard to implement it’s never been invoked.

What's the outcome of a situation where a mentally impaired surgeon was allowed to operate on a patient? If people in the surgeon's practice knew the doctor was compromised, but they hid this from the patients then I think that's a criminal offense. You would think something on a much grander scale like hiding the impairment of a sitting president would be way worse.

(10-28-2025 02:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  ...for the coverup of Biden's cognitive decline? This is a serious question and not a gotcha question. I can understand no action or a cover up if we're talking about a ruling monarch or a despot/dictator who has a cadre of loyalists who make up the laws as they go. However, we're a representative republic. We should be insulated from having to suffer under the stewardship of a mentally impaired president. Honestly it's hard to blame Biden from not recusing himself because let's face it - you would be the last person to know if your brain stopped functioning correctly...

HOWEVER, his administration knew he was impaired. We know they intentionally lied to the public about Biden's mental fitness. You can argue at a minimum 2 years of mental impairment if not his entire presidential term. So...we don't have any laws that protect us from something like this? If not, why not? And if not - should we?

I think both sides felt the country was better off with a cognitively impaired Biden than Kamala. Can't say they were wrong as Harris was a complete trainwreck.

(10-28-2025 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Indicted for what, exactly?

Last I checked, every president we've ever had has aged while in office...so it stands to reason they've all declined mentally over their term...it's nature. So you'd need to quantify the decline and then somehow show that it broke some law.

Good luck with that. Especially with the recent SCOTUS rulings that have pretty much made the president a king for all intents and purposes.

Understood. However, that's not what happened to Biden. It was a major cover up, and objectively he was significantly more impaired than your typical senior citizen.

(10-28-2025 02:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:32 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  ...for the coverup of Biden's cognitive decline? This is a serious question and not a gotcha question. I can understand no action or a cover up if we're talking about a ruling monarch or a despot/dictator who has a cadre of loyalists who make up the laws as they go. However, we're a representative republic. We should be insulated from having to suffer under the stewardship of a mentally impaired president. Honestly it's hard to blame Biden from not recusing himself because let's face it - you would be the last person to know if your brain stopped functioning correctly...

HOWEVER, his administration knew he was impaired. We know they intentionally lied to the public about Biden's mental fitness. You can argue at a minimum 2 years of mental impairment if not his entire presidential term. So...we don't have any laws that protect us from something like this? If not, why not? And if not - should we?

I have no comment on the first section other than what would be the relevant laws that were broken in covering up Bidens decline? It was certainly a political scandal and probably hurt the eventual Harris campaign.

As to the 2nd, we have the 4th section of the 25th amendment. I would consider that a sort of involuntary removal of presidential powers. Its requirements are understandably pretty hard to implement it’s never been invoked.

What's the outcome of a situation where a mentally impaired surgeon was allowed to operate on a patient? If people in the surgeon's practice knew the doctor was compromised, but they hid this from the patients then I think that's a criminal offense. You would think something on a much grander scale like hiding the impairment of a sitting president would be way worse.

Again, you'd need to prove someone was damaged or harmed by someone else's actions, right? And again, the president has pretty immune powers now.

The issue with establishing his decline has more to do with nullifying actions taken under incapacity or without adequate comprehension or knowledge. It could also implicate plenty of federal criminal statutes involving fraud and conspiracy just to start.

Who knew what and when is always the starting point.

(10-28-2025 02:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Indicted for what, exactly?

Last I checked, every president we've ever had has aged while in office...so it stands to reason they've all declined mentally over their term...it's nature. So you'd need to quantify the decline and then somehow show that it broke some law.

Good luck with that. Especially with the recent SCOTUS rulings that have pretty much made the president a king for all intents and purposes.

Understood. However, that's not what happened to Biden. It was a major cover up, and objectively he was significantly more impaired than your typical senior citizen.

A word of caution though. I'm guessing you're relying on the word of the House committee lead by clowns Gym Jordan and James Comer. These guys are notorious for words that never are backed up by any proof.

Lastly, you got some medical reports you'd like to introduce into evidence?

(10-28-2025 02:32 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  ...for the coverup of Biden's cognitive decline? This is a serious question and not a gotcha question. I can understand no action or a cover up if we're talking about a ruling monarch or a despot/dictator who has a cadre of loyalists who make up the laws as they go. However, we're a representative republic. We should be insulated from having to suffer under the stewardship of a mentally impaired president. Honestly it's hard to blame Biden from not recusing himself because let's face it - you would be the last person to know if your brain stopped functioning correctly...

HOWEVER, his administration knew he was impaired. We know they intentionally lied to the public about Biden's mental fitness. You can argue at a minimum 2 years of mental impairment if not his entire presidential term. So...we don't have any laws that protect us from something like this? If not, why not? And if not - should we?

I have no comment on the first section other than what would be the relevant laws that were broken in covering up Bidens decline? It was certainly a political scandal and probably hurt the eventual Harris campaign.

As to the 2nd, we have the 4th section of the 25th amendment. I would consider that a sort of involuntary removal of presidential powers. Its requirements are understandably pretty hard to implement it’s never been invoked.

That's the question. Unless they testified in Congress, what laws were broken?

If they signed things, including pardons, without him knowing, yes that's criminal. But its hard to prove.

(10-28-2025 02:46 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The issue with establishing his decline has more to do with nullifying actions taken under incapacity or without adequate comprehension or knowledge. It could also implicate plenty of federal criminal statutes involving fraud and conspiracy just to start.

Who knew what and when is always the starting point.

And intent has to be there too, right? You'd have to prove this was all done intentionally. And if so, wouldn't it be someone other than Biden who did that...if you're arguing he wasn't mentally there...so THEY would be the ones you'd indict??

This was addressed "To the attorneys here" and we heard from a bunch of pretenders and rath.

(10-28-2025 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:32 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  ...for the coverup of Biden's cognitive decline? This is a serious question and not a gotcha question. I can understand no action or a cover up if we're talking about a ruling monarch or a despot/dictator who has a cadre of loyalists who make up the laws as they go. However, we're a representative republic. We should be insulated from having to suffer under the stewardship of a mentally impaired president. Honestly it's hard to blame Biden from not recusing himself because let's face it - you would be the last person to know if your brain stopped functioning correctly...

HOWEVER, his administration knew he was impaired. We know they intentionally lied to the public about Biden's mental fitness. You can argue at a minimum 2 years of mental impairment if not his entire presidential term. So...we don't have any laws that protect us from something like this? If not, why not? And if not - should we?

I have no comment on the first section other than what would be the relevant laws that were broken in covering up Bidens decline? It was certainly a political scandal and probably hurt the eventual Harris campaign.

As to the 2nd, we have the 4th section of the 25th amendment. I would consider that a sort of involuntary removal of presidential powers. Its requirements are understandably pretty hard to implement it’s never been invoked.

That's the question. Unless they testified in Congress, what laws were broken?

If they signed things, including pardons, without him knowing, yes that's criminal. But its hard to prove.

Right...and you can't indict an "administration." It would be individuals.

(10-28-2025 02:49 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  This was addressed "To the attorneys here" and we heard from a bunch of pretenders and rath.

Federal fraud statutes generally require an intent to deceive.

As I mentioned up above, you'd need memos or other documentary evidence or someone involved turning state's evidence against other actors/co-consprators.

Tough to establish in a criminal court.

(10-28-2025 02:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:32 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  ...for the coverup of Biden's cognitive decline? This is a serious question and not a gotcha question. I can understand no action or a cover up if we're talking about a ruling monarch or a despot/dictator who has a cadre of loyalists who make up the laws as they go. However, we're a representative republic. We should be insulated from having to suffer under the stewardship of a mentally impaired president. Honestly it's hard to blame Biden from not recusing himself because let's face it - you would be the last person to know if your brain stopped functioning correctly...

HOWEVER, his administration knew he was impaired. We know they intentionally lied to the public about Biden's mental fitness. You can argue at a minimum 2 years of mental impairment if not his entire presidential term. So...we don't have any laws that protect us from something like this? If not, why not? And if not - should we?

I have no comment on the first section other than what would be the relevant laws that were broken in covering up Bidens decline? It was certainly a political scandal and probably hurt the eventual Harris campaign.

As to the 2nd, we have the 4th section of the 25th amendment. I would consider that a sort of involuntary removal of presidential powers. Its requirements are understandably pretty hard to implement it’s never been invoked.

That's the question. Unless they testified in Congress, what laws were broken?

If they signed things, including pardons, without him knowing, yes that's criminal. But its hard to prove.

Right...and you can't indict an "administration." It would be individuals.

Well you have to have specific people, specific acts and relatively specific times.

(10-28-2025 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:32 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  ...for the coverup of Biden's cognitive decline? This is a serious question and not a gotcha question. I can understand no action or a cover up if we're talking about a ruling monarch or a despot/dictator who has a cadre of loyalists who make up the laws as they go. However, we're a representative republic. We should be insulated from having to suffer under the stewardship of a mentally impaired president. Honestly it's hard to blame Biden from not recusing himself because let's face it - you would be the last person to know if your brain stopped functioning correctly...

HOWEVER, his administration knew he was impaired. We know they intentionally lied to the public about Biden's mental fitness. You can argue at a minimum 2 years of mental impairment if not his entire presidential term. So...we don't have any laws that protect us from something like this? If not, why not? And if not - should we?

I have no comment on the first section other than what would be the relevant laws that were broken in covering up Bidens decline? It was certainly a political scandal and probably hurt the eventual Harris campaign.

As to the 2nd, we have the 4th section of the 25th amendment. I would consider that a sort of involuntary removal of presidential powers. Its requirements are understandably pretty hard to implement it’s never been invoked.

That's the question. Unless they testified in Congress, what laws were broken?

If they signed things, including pardons, without him knowing, yes that's criminal. But its hard to prove.

Right...and you can't indict an "administration." It would be individuals.

Well you have to have specific people, specific acts and relatively specific times.

This is what sucks about this whole situation. With our eyes alone, we saw how Biden was kept away from the press, the press was required to submit questions in advance and they practically rehearsed how the press conferences would go...looking very much like a coverup of Biden's mental state.

Based on what we've seen and the fact that there seems to be no recourse legally to hold those who covered up for Biden's decline accountable sends a strong message that it's okay to deceive the public like this and to have a shadow president making the real decisions.

The problem isn’t the decline. The problem is taking advantage of the decline to do things the president wouldn’t have allowed if aware. Since Joe is a veggie, he doesn’t know what he did or didn’t agree with.

We have had more than one president depart while still in office. Reagan was out of it his last year, but nobody picked up his pen and issued a record number of pardons, for example.

(10-28-2025 03:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 02:32 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  I have no comment on the first section other than what would be the relevant laws that were broken in covering up Bidens decline? It was certainly a political scandal and probably hurt the eventual Harris campaign.

As to the 2nd, we have the 4th section of the 25th amendment. I would consider that a sort of involuntary removal of presidential powers. Its requirements are understandably pretty hard to implement it’s never been invoked.

That's the question. Unless they testified in Congress, what laws were broken?

If they signed things, including pardons, without him knowing, yes that's criminal. But its hard to prove.

Right...and you can't indict an "administration." It would be individuals.

Well you have to have specific people, specific acts and relatively specific times.

This is what sucks about this whole situation. With our eyes alone, we saw how Biden was kept away from the press, the press was required to submit questions in advance and they practically rehearsed how the press conferences would go...looking very much like a coverup of Biden's mental state.

Based on what we've seen and the fact that there seems to be no recourse legally to hold those who covered up for Biden's decline accountable sends a strong message that it's okay to deceive the public like this and to have a shadow president making the real decisions.

Curious, are you old enough to remember the end of Reagan's presidency?