President Biden's first term in office

[irontaino]

More importantly, the investigation into the Biden syndicate has already done more to satisfy its premise than 8 years of baseless Trump collusion accusations.

They were so thorough, that even their star witnesses claim no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden. Guess you have access to some secret information outside of the mountain of bupkus they have.

any reluctance by Republicans to bring charges despite this suggests a greater respect for national institutions and the gravity of impeachment.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Democrats were happy to make a mockery of the impeachment process twice

Pretty sure soliciting a foreign state for dirt on a political opponent and trying to overturn an election are both impeachable offenses.

despite lacking evidence to convict their nemesis.

Be sure you don't overdose on all that copium.

[Lord Thesaurian]

They were so thorough, that even their star witnesses claim no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden. Guess you have access to some secret information outside of the mountain of bupkus they have.

I couldn’t even see where in the article you might have cherry picked that from. We already know key claims to that effect from Hunter and his lawyer in the article contradict sworn testimony and bank records cited previously.

Pretty sure soliciting a foreign state for dirt on a political opponent and trying to overturn an election are both impeachable offenses.

When was Trump convicted of either? The FBI has found no conclusive evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result. On the other point, Zelensky himself denied any such allegations, and we already know the Biden family funneled millions of dollars in payments from Ukrainian, Russian and other foreign oligarchs through various shell companies they received in exchange for political influence. This is all old news.

Be sure you don't overdose on all that copium.

It’s a bit ironic to gloat about copium while spamming news articles reporting various accusations for which Trump is yet to be convicted.

[irontaino]

I couldn’t even see where in the article you might have cherry picked that from. We already know key claims to that effect from Hunter and his lawyer in the article contradict sworn testimony and bank records cited previously.

Meanwhile. The Biden impeachment failed spectacularly because Republicans had nothing, zilch, nada. Banking on Hunter Biden's dick pics went about as well as anyone would have expected.

]QUOTE]The FBI has found no conclusive evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result. On the other point,[/QUOTE]

Doesn't contradict the claim that Trump incited a riot.

Zelensky himself denied any such allegations

The literal transcript says otherwise

and we already know the Biden family funneled millions of dollars in payments from Ukrainian, Russian and other foreign oligarchs through various shell companies they received in exchange for political influence. This is all old news.

And yet as we've seen with how pathetically the impeachment floundered, they had nothing to go after Joe with.

It’s a bit ironic to gloat about copium while spamming news articles reporting various accusations for which Trump is yet to be convicted.

Here's a question I've asked before that you've dodged: What would happen in any legal case were the defense and jury found to be openly conspiring to not even look at the evidence before acquitting?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Meanwhile. The Biden impeachment failed spectacularly because Republicans had nothing, zilch, nada. Banking on Hunter Biden's dick pics went about as well as anyone would have expected.

If you find Turley credible when he said “I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment,” then I’m not sure how you draw the above conclusion given he also said there was grounds for an impeachment inquiry. I wouldn’t equate sworn witness testimony and bank records with dick pics and I doubt he would either, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

Doesn't contradict the claim that Trump incited a riot.

Aside from the irony of any left wing complaint about political riots or the difference between a riot and a plot to overthrow the government, the claim is just that. There’s more than one testimony, including before the Jan 6 committee, that Trump and others in the Admin voiced concerns about security ahead of and during Jan 6 and pushed for the additional deployment of thousands of national guardsmen. The latter were intentionally delayed, rebuffed and restricted by local Democrats until it was too late, over concerns about optics.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/con...ns-2021-05-12/

https://cha.house.gov/2024/3/chairma...ibed-interview

Objectively, the Trump Admin was more concerned about preventing what happened than Democrats on the ground were, so it’s a bit rich for them to accuse him of orchestrating it.

The literal transcript says otherwise

If you don’t consider Zelensky credible, perhaps Turley is more convincing?

And yet as we've seen with how pathetically the impeachment floundered, they had nothing to go after Joe with.

If you say so. What it does establish is that any concerns that may have been communicated in either direction about the Bidens, corruption and Ukraine were valid, even if Zelensky hadn’t refuted claims of coercion. If anything, it’s more suspicious in hindsight that Democrats were so determined to punish the Trump Admin for looking into the matter.

Here's a question I've asked before that you've dodged: What would happen in any legal case were the defense and jury found to be openly conspiring to not even look at the evidence before acquitting?

The same thing I said last time: The impeachment effort was itself completely compromised and partisan. Meaning there’s scant evidence to begin with behind your rhetorical question. You don’t have to believe me. Jonathan Turley testified as much before Congress:

I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

There is no higher constitutional structure than the impeachment of a sitting president and, for that reason, an impeachment must have a wide foundation in order to be successful. The Ukraine controversy has not offered such a foundation and would easily collapse in a Senate trial.

As I said, it’s silly to attack Republicans for their reluctance to file impeachment articles just because the Democrats were comfortable going all in with little more than rhetoric. Neither do the Republicans enjoy the institutional dominance Democrats have to control the narrative throughout the proceedings, so if anything, they would need to come armed with far more conclusive evidence under the circumstances to succeed in spite of that dominance.

This close to the election, it doesn’t make much political sense either, given Democrat efforts to get rid of Trump before then have mostly failed and backfired, and it would be unwise to repeat the same mistake by impeaching/martyring Biden this year. Thanks to the House investigation, we can be reasonably certain the Bidens sell Joe’s influence abroad in sketchy countries with his blessing and have done so for years, and we know he has lied about it the whole time. That’s a success in my book. The people will decide whether it’s presidential behavior at the ballot box.

[irontaino]

If you find Turley credible when he said “I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment,” then I’m not sure how you draw the above conclusion given he also said there was grounds for an impeachment inquiry.

Sure, he mentioned grounds for an inquiry, and said inquiry turned up nothing, as he also mentioned...your point?

I wouldn’t equate sworn witness testimony and bank records with dick pics and I doubt he would either, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

They had nothing else to go with.

Aside from the irony of any left wing complaint about political riots or the difference between a riot and a plot to overthrow the government, the claim is just that. There’s more than one testimony, including before the Jan 6 committee, that Trump and others in the Admin voiced concerns about security ahead of and during Jan 6 and pushed for the additional deployment of thousands of national guardsmen. The latter were intentionally delayed, rebuffed and restricted by local Democrats until it was too late, over concerns about optics.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/con...ns-2021-05-12/

https://cha.house.gov/2024/3/chairma...ibed-interview

Objectively, the Trump Admin was more concerned about preventing what happened than Democrats on the ground were, so it’s a bit rich for them to accuse him of orchestrating it.

From the Reuters Article:

Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."

As we can see, it had less to do with securing the Capitol Building and more to do with protecting his goons.

If you don’t consider Zelensky credible, perhaps Turley is more convincing?

So I guess we're just discounting first hand documentation now?

If you say so. What it does establish is that any concerns that may have been communicated in either direction about the Bidens, corruption and Ukraine were valid, even if Zelensky hadn’t refuted claims of coercion. If anything, it’s more suspicious in hindsight that Democrats were so determined to punish the Trump Admin for looking into the matter.

More cope.

The same thing I said last time: The impeachment effort was itself completely compromised and partisan. Meaning there’s scant evidence to begin with behind your rhetorical question. You don’t have to believe me. Jonathan Turley testified as much before Congress:

Between the transcript of the Zelensky call and Trump's efforts before J6 to overturn the election, including the Georgia call to "find more votes" there was ample evidence to impeach Trump. The few Republicans who aren't invertebrates saw this the 2nd time around.

As I said, it’s silly to attack Republicans for their reluctance to file impeachment articles just because the Democrats were comfortable going all in with little more than rhetoric. Neither do the Republicans enjoy the institutional dominance Democrats have to control the narrative throughout the proceedings, so if anything, they would need to come armed with far more conclusive evidence under the circumstances to succeed in spite of that dominance.

Of which they already had nothing.

This close to the election, it doesn’t make much political sense either, given Democrat efforts to get rid of Trump before then have mostly failed and backfired, and it would be unwise to repeat the same mistake by impeaching/martyring Biden this year. Thanks to the House investigation, we can be reasonably certain the Bidens sell Joe’s influence abroad in sketchy countries with his blessing and have done so for years, and we know he has lied about it the whole time. That’s a success in my book. The people will decide whether it’s presidential behavior at the ballot box.

More cope.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Sure, he mentioned grounds for an inquiry, and said inquiry turned up nothing, as he also mentioned...your point?

It doesn’t make sense to base your assertion that there’s nothing to the investigation into Biden family corruption on Turley’s assessment when that isn’t what he said. Nor is it reasonable to appeal to his credibility on one hand while arguing against the same standard in Trump’s case.

I have previously stated that, while I believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted, I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment.

My knowledge, of course, is confined to what has been made public, but I wanted to note a few of those allegations at the outset that collectively warrant a formal inquiry. The record currently contains witness and written evidence that the President (1) has lied about key facts in these foreign dealings, (2) was the focus of a multimillion-dollar influence peddling scheme, and (3) may have benefitted from this corruption through millions of dollars sent to his family as well as more direct possible benefits.

Bank records and sworn testimony have proven the first two points, and established the third as highly likely. Turley affirmed these points as credible even at the time months ago, but still did not believe they were sufficient grounds for impeachment.

As we can see, it had less to do with securing the Capitol Building and more to do with protecting his goons.

A rather pointless deflection, since Trump’s role in the process was to provide broad approval in advance of any requests for additional security on the ground, and his concerns about security were echoed by others in the Administration, including DoD. Local Democrats rejected the offer from the White House directly, then pointed fingers when the situation spiraled out of control.

Between the transcript of the Zelensky call and Trump's efforts before J6 to overturn the election, including the Georgia call to "find more votes" there was ample evidence to impeach Trump. The few Republicans who aren't invertebrates saw this the 2nd time around.

Talk about cope.

[irontaino]

Talk about cope.

Why yes, I do talk about cope. When you use phrases like "that's a success in my book" about an impeachment inquiry that went literally nowhere, that is some grade A copium.

[Roma_Victrix]

Say what you want about Biden, as well as Trump, but at least neither of them have had literal brain worms eating part of their brain and dying there, per an admission by independent candidate for president Robert F. Kennedy. Jr. LOL.

RFK Jr. claims a doctor told him a worm ate part of his brain, reports New York Times; The claim comes from a 2012 deposition during divorce proceedings. (source: Politico)

The brain worm must have died from food poisoning, malnutrition, or starvation, take your pick.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Imo RFK will hurt Trump alot more than Biden. Coupled with the fact Biden is the incumbent and Trump doesn’t do well with “independent” voters, it’s gonna be a shoe in for Joe in November. Neither party cares about fiscal responsibility or entitlement reform anymore and the main difference between Biden and Trump will be whether or not mass migration is allowed to continue unabated.

At this point Biden has copied alot of Trump’s domestic protectionist policies anyway, and his foreign policy has been one limp-wristed humiliation after another that actually feeds into Trump’s isolationist narratives and the wind down of American globalism. The era of peace through strength is dead and buried. So I don’t expect much of a difference between Trump refraining from getting involved abroad versus Biden trying to and failing miserably.

In any event, domestic issues usually take precedence. So it will come down to how angry people are at Biden for importing millions of illegals and exacerbating inflation, versus orange man bad. Normally, Trump should have a better shot than he does, leading Biden on these top voter issues by 10-20 points. That’s why Democrats have invested everything they have to come up with a way to ban him from running again for the last 8 years. But I think they’ve already been successful enough in that regard to blunt any edge he might have. Despite voters having a 20-point net negative job approval of Biden, and despite 2/3 Americans saying the economy is doing poorly and getting worse, I don’t see Trump overcoming his demographic and reputational handicaps with the status quo voters that tend to decide elections.

[irontaino]

Say what you want about Biden, as well as Trump, but at least neither of them have had literal brain worms eating part of their brain and dying there, per an admission by independent candidate for president Robert F. Kennedy. Jr. LOL.

RFK Jr. claims a doctor told him a worm ate part of his brain, reports New York Times; The claim comes from a 2012 deposition during divorce proceedings. (source: Politico)

The brain worm must have died from food poisoning, malnutrition, or starvation, take your pick.

An excuse for a Futurama reference? Don't mind if I do...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[alhoon]

https://www.270towin.com/2024-presid...lection-polls/

?!?!?
I thought Biden was doing better in the past month. While the number of polls there is small, it is a bad picture for Biden.

[Roma_Victrix]

An excuse for a Futurama reference? Don't mind if I do...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

LOL. Such a slick and quick reference. Nice work!

Imo RFK will hurt Trump alot more than Biden. Coupled with the fact Biden is the incumbent and Trump doesn’t do well with “independent” voters, it’s gonna be a shoe in for Joe in November. Neither party cares about fiscal responsibility or entitlement reform anymore and the main difference between Biden and Trump will be whether or not mass migration is allowed to continue unabated.

Trump literally had Republican allies in Congress kill the latest bipartisan bill about immigration and border security, because Trump thought its passage would make Biden look good and more appealing to conservative leaning Independents, Republicans, and right-of-center Blue Dog Dems. "Trump killed a ‘slam dunk border bill:’ Manchin" (Source: News Nation). This move to kill a bill drafted by a fellow Republican doesn't really make many Republicans look all that serious or actually concerned about the border crossings being a real crisis.

Border security is a major issue, but it's not really going to affect the election like reproductive rights will. Reestablishing or defending existing abortion rights will be on the ballot in New York, Maryland, Florida, and Arizona (where they've already gathered enough signatures), and potentially several other states such as Montana and Nevada. Republican candidate for Senate Larry Hogan might even be in trouble in Maryland because of it, despite his reputation as a former governor and appeal to non-Republicans in that blueish state. Arizona is a hugely important swing state and it being a ballot issue there is going to churn out Dem leaning voters. Florida even couples its reproductive rights ballot with a marijuana one, much like reddish Ohio which recently passed ballots for ensuring abortion rights and decriminalization of marijuana.

https://www.270towin.com/2024-presid...lection-polls/

?!?!?
I thought Biden was doing better in the past month. While the number of polls there is small, it is a bad picture for Biden.

Polls are useful in some cases, but they've been useless inaccurate garbage for national races in the USA for at least the past two general election cycles involving the presidency. That's because they only gauge how older rural people still possessing landline phones feel about any given issue, weighted heavily in that direction rather than serving as a realistic sample of the general population. Most young adults and middle aged people who own a cell phone don't pick up calls from random numbers that are not already saved contacts. This is due to the gargantuan amount of spam calls, scammers, and robo calls they would get as a result of picking up the phone for strangers. I literally delete at least one spam/scam text message a day on my cell phone, before promptly blocking the number that sent it.

The only polling you should trust is exit polling for elections, and given the amount of Nikki Haley primary voters across various states who explicitly said they were not voting for Trump in the general election, it doesn't seem like Biden should be the one who is overly concerned about his prospects. Biden along with the DNC have an enormous cash advantage from donors at the moment, while Trump is using his Super PAC (and potentially the RNC) as a piggy bank to pay for his legal expenses as he defends himself in multiple court cases. While it is grotesque and we need campaign finance reform, it's just a current reality that money rules and speaks louder than anything else in American politics, especially in driving desired voters to the polls or undesired voters away from the polls via targeted advertising. "Trump’s super PAC has helped foot his legal bills. That might end soon." (Source: Politico)

To me it seems bizarre that such ads work on anyone, that an advertisement on TV could literally sway your vote, but the statistics on the matter support this assumption with each and every election cycle. It's also a reminder that most people of average intelligence aren't that intelligent, or don't have time to understand politics beyond soundbites they hear on TV or in casual conversations in their echo chamber social circles.

[Coughdrop addict]

Another big issue is that the Republican party appears to be tearing itself apart with jokers like MTG sucking up all the air in the room and Trump raiding the RNC to pay his bills with no thought to what the down ballot Republicans are going to do. When a party's entire ethos is based around greed, it becomes inevitable that it eats itself as it only attracts the greedy, and the greedy by definition do not share. Trump didn't exactly cause it all by himself, but he is the culmination of the Republican party's shifting focus over the past 30 years.

Around Clinton's impeachment the party shifted towards one goal: power and influence for the party alone at any cost. To Hell with the good of the country.

Then sometime during Obama's term the party shifted towards the next logical step: power and influence for the clique alone at any cost. To Hell with the good of the party. This allowed Trump to divide and conquer and take over the party for himself.

Which led to where the party is now. It's all about power and influence for the individual alone at any cost. To Hell with anything and anyone else.

The Republican party is no longer a unified party seeking to implement national policy, it's a collection of power-hungry misfits who all want power and influence for themselves. A 'party' like that cannot function because a critical mass of its members are more concerned with their individual position and power than the wellbeing of the party as a whole.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Trump literally had Republican allies in Congress kill the latest bipartisan bill about immigration and border security, because Trump thought its passage would make Biden look good and more appealing to conservative leaning Independents, Republicans, and right-of-center Blue Dog Dems. "Trump killed a ‘slam dunk border bill:’ Manchin" (Source: News Nation). This move to kill a bill drafted by a fellow Republican doesn't really make many Republicans look all that serious or actually concerned about the border crossings being a real crisis.

Have you read the bill? It was mostly about funding the military, Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, which was the primary impetus for bipartisan support from Senators who were eager to rush funding to Ukraine and Israel. The sections that did address “border security” in fact increased funding for sanctuary cities and would have legalized entry quotas of up to thousands of illegal immigrants per day, expanded amnesty, legal representation, work authorization and other protections for illegal immigrants. That’s why anyone who prioritizes reducing illegal immigration and deporting illegal immigrants opposed the bill. Democrats called it a “border security bill” because voters back Trump on the issue by double digits, and they wanted to flip the script. It hasn’t worked so far.

https://twitter.com/SpeakerJohnson/s...33708193091928


Besides, Operation Lonestar has already disproven Biden’s claim that he needs new legislation to secure the border. His Administration simply refuses to take necessary steps. In fact they have dedicated more effort to stopping Texas from doing the job they refuse to.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/08/us-news/migrants-move-westward-after-texas-tougher-border-controls/

Border security is a major issue, but it's not really going to affect the election like reproductive rights will.

Every tracker I’ve seen indicates the economy and immigration are top issues for voters, whereas abortion is among the lowest priorities. People who care most about immigration and the economy overwhelmingly cite the need to stop illegal immigration and reduce inflation as their top concerns, and the Biden Admin is directly responsible for worsening both. Among the minority for whom abortion is most important, 20-30% said it was because they want to limit abortion. Despite media coverage, the issue is heavily partisan, and only a third of voters say they will only support a candidate who shares their views on abortion. The issue may help Democratic turnout, but it’s unlikely to swing any votes.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://newrepublic.com/article/1815...election-theft

A history of Republican cheating and election theft with the help of oligarchs and hostile foreign powers, and how they plan to cheat this time (it involves passing laws that allow them to simply throw out votes from Democratic-leaning districts, sneaking their agents into jobs as poll workers to throw out votes from those who are not obvious Republicans, and outright intimidation and violence).

With how much Republicans will cheat, can any wins of theirs ever be seen as legitimate? And should they "win" in November, would they hesitate at all to turn the country over to Putin?

[Lord Thesaurian]

I knew this opinion piece written by a lefty talk show host was gonna be bad, but my goodness. And here I could have sworn Democrats were saying just a couple years ago that election denial/questioning the validity of elections is a high crime worthy of impeachment or worse.

[Coughdrop addict]

I see you can not refute one fact from the article.

-Republicans have a long history of cheating to win elections, including committing outright treason.

-In 2020 the American people decided on Biden and Trump fomented a coup and conspired to illegally remain in office.

-Since then all Republican efforts to find fraud only turned up fraud committed by Republicans.

-Trump has claimed he has no duty to support the Constitution, called for the termination of the Constitution, and stated he must be fully above all laws to be President.

Of course you already knew all of this and think that you're being clever by acting as if you're not aware. Or maybe you just don't care because like the rest of your party you wish the United States to become Russia.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I see you can not refute one fact from the article.

It’s a rant alleging Republicans steal elections and will continue to steal them indefinitely. There aren’t many facts to speak of.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

- It’s true that the release of private notes nearly 20 years ago contained evidence the Nixon campaign tried to reach out to the South Vietnamese to stall peace talks. What’s speculative is the idea this outreach was acted upon (unlikely) and therefore cost LBJ the election.
- It’s true Reagan’s campaign manager tried to reach out to the Iranians about delaying the hostage release until after the election. What’s speculative is the idea this outreach was acted upon (unlikely) and therefore cost Carter the election. Not only have former Carter Admin officials admitted there is no proof of any agreement, but the same also insist that Carter’s efforts, not Reagan’s, ultimately freed the hostages.
- The comparison to the Manafort case hurts the argument further, since he was never even charged with attempting to collude with the Russians to swing the election, and there’s no indication his actions could have affected the outcome. The charges that did relate to sketchy foreign relationships were focused on consulting work he did for the Ukrainians predating his work for the Trump campaign, which as we know, is totally fine when the Bidens do it.
- The rest of the nonsense about rigging votes by removing inactive voters is just that. I too could speculate about why state Democrats are so opposed to removing inactive or dead voters from the voter registry, but I digress.

Like I said, it’s not as if I expected better from a guy who still unironically claims Hillary and Gore were robbed, but his premise lacks all self awareness. As late as the end of Trump’s term, over half of Americans still believed he colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary - despite Mueller’s conclusion he could find no such evidence.

Imagine if people from 2016-17 could read the Durham Report from last year. Imagine if they had known from the start actual evidence showed not only was there insufficient grounds for a full federal investigation into the matter, but that the investigation itself was based on bogus uncorroborated claims produced for opposition research by the DNC/the Clinton campaign, and on confirmation bias federal investigators had to pursue the investigation regardless.

Maybe he would have been a two term president. Maybe not. But it’s pretty stupid to invent a connected history of alleged election theft by Republicans, given the DNC and Clinton campaign were quietly fined by the Federal Election Commission for their role in fabricating the premise.

-In 2020 the American people decided on Biden and Trump fomented a coup and conspired to illegally remain in office.

If that’s true I encourage you to hand your evidence over to the FBI.

-Since then all Republican efforts to find fraud only turned up fraud committed by Republicans.

I’d ask for a source, but given your first I’m not sure it’s worth it.

-Trump has claimed he has no duty to support the Constitution, called for the termination of the Constitution, and stated he must be fully above all laws to be President.

I guess we should be grateful he saved all his most dastardly plots for a second term.

[alhoon]

I guess we should be grateful he saved all his most dastardly plots for a second term.

He didn't save them.
They were foiled.
There is a difference.