I do not believe local government authorities can order an autopsy in the event of a naturally caused death. Certainly the Federales have no such power under the Constitution (which has become a piece of toilet paper under the Dems).

Actually, I wasn’t thinking that an autopsy would necessarily be requested either by the doctors or the family (although the family might have done so). I was thinking that governmental authorities would usually be the ones to be ordering it under circumstances such as this. Also, wasn’t it mentioned in one of the articles that someone reported that the medical examiner had not noted any blunt force injuries? Doesn’t that indicate some sort of official report and perhaps an autopsy?

In many jurisdictions, decision as to whether to autopsy or not is left up to the medical examiner or coroner, who can be elected into that office with no more qualification than an MD degree. “He got hit and crushed by a twelve-wheeler in front of witnesses with videos”, so an autopsy may be declined.

In case of a “natural” death, autopsy is rarely sought by the attending MDs, and is even more rarely consented to, or sought by the survivors, who will have to sustain the autopsy’s cost . It takes many pathologist hours to complete an autopsy, so that is not inexpensive. An autopsy is not just a gross visual exam, but the taking of tissues from all organs and all visualized abnormalities, from which to make up to several hundred sIides for microscopic exam of each.

I have not priced one lately but expect it will not be a trivial cost. Pathologists are reluctant to do them because each takes so much time, and they have so much other stuff to do.

I think that the family has said they were told by doctors that it was a stroke that caused his death. I also think the family means that the government hasn’t told them what they think caused his death. No one has mentioned whether there was an autopsy or not. At least, I have discovered no such mention – which doesn’t mean the family hasn’t made a statement somewhere about it.

You are probably right.

I’m just kicking off from all the stories, like Hunter and the girls, nukes, SotU delay, Syria, that, to me, seem like moves in a negotiation about when and how Joe goes and Kamala takes the whip in hand.

That seems unlikely to me. My guess is we’d see Biden and Harris appear and announce a sort-of co-Presidency with only mention of fatigue, no mention of cognitive decline. “The President is sharing some of his duties with the Vice President for such and such a reason…”

Then, after having us get used to seeing Ms. Harris in some staff meetings, meetings with foreign dignitaries and other things, along with interviews with Slow Joe praising her for her performance and thanking her for helping out. Then, once that all seems normal Slow Joe announces he’s delegating the bulk of the work to her.

As I wrote on the post about Cuomo, this has me rather concerned. Your comments lend credence to the distinct possibility that hidden forces are moving the chess pieces for some future scenario. Bongino has always come across as courageous and credible. I don’t think he’d risk his reputation spreading false rumors and it seems likely he continues to have contacts in the White House and Secret Service, since he was a member of the Secret Service.

The fact that folks would be playing politics in DC isn’t news, but what is disconcerting to me about this is how much power the hands behind the scenes appear to have. How quickly and all pervasive the attack on Cuomo was. Why is this news about Kamala being upset she was not informed of the airstrike seemingly everywhere? It’s odd to see typically Dem friendly outlets so quickly propagating stories that hurt Dems. There must be method to which Dems are being hurt and a motive as to why.