It’s crucial to note that our bias scale is calibrated to the political >spectrum of the United States, which may not align with the >political landscapes of other nations.
From their methodology page.
They aren't rating for any and all bias. They are rating for political bias within the context of the US political landscape.
She keeps telling us that we should vote for her because of her record as a prosecutor and Attorney General so apparently what she did in those roles is what she thinks is important.
They are being tried in military tribunals so the Defense Secretary is in the position that the Attorney General would be in if it were in civilian courts. He didn't, and can't, override the court. He overrode the military prosecutors who initially agreed to the plea deal and withdrew the deal before it went to court.
From the standpoint of how seriously the assassination attempt should be taken I agree that it doesn't matter whether he was hit by a bullet or shrapnel. Either way a presidential candidate was shot at and people around him were injured or killed. The article is definitely problematic.
The testimony probably isn't problematic though. From an investigatory standpoint getting as much detail as possible correct is important. The results of the investigation will be used to identify where security failed and attempt to improve security in the future. Getting the details right may prevent or lessen the severity of another assassination attempt.
He can't be Harris's VP. Two people from the same state can run on the same ticket but electors for the electorial college can't vote for two people from the same state as the elector. That means that no elector from California could vote for a Harris/Newsom ticket. Democrats cannot win in the electorial college without California.
TV tropes has a few categories that cover this. They don't limit the disorders to autism in most of the categories but the examples are more autism than anything else.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DiagnosedByTheAudience
I doubt he'll do anything much different before the election. Harris is going to try to run, at least in part, on the current administration's record so Biden actions will be constrained by the fear of hurting her campaign.
No elector may vote for 2 people from the elector's state. If the ticket is Harris Newsom then no elector from California can vote for that ticket. Dem's cannot win in the electoral college without California.
Until and unless someone steps up to challenge her and we know who is willing to throw their hat in the ring we can't really support a specific candidate. All we have is speculation and who I'd like. Blind loyalty and immediately falling in line obscures the true picture for how much support she has and makes it less likely that a challenger will step forward. We need a real conversation about Harris's candidacy and to know if anyone will challenge her for the nomination. Elizabeth Warren is who I want with Bernie as my second choice but I don't see either of them as a real possibility because of their age. Let's see if someone closer to them is willing to fight for the nomination before falling in line.
So what you're saying is that you already knew she was a problematic and unpopular choice but you are going to accuse anyone who voices that of supporting baby rape because you think any attempt to find a better candidate helps Trump. I think forcing a bad choice without any level of discussion helps Trump but I still don't think you support baby rape.
The President appoints people to the USPS Board of Governors for a term of 7 years. That board selects the Postmaster General.