Special council on Joe Biden's documents case concludes that the standing President of the United States of America was indeed in possession of documents; taken wilfully and illegally kept. Council also is also concluded that Biden was in possession of diminished faculties, which, in the reports opinion, has been in evidence since 2017 (this is part of the reasoning for no charges being brought). Who could have known, I hear you all exclaim, as pearls are clutched, briefly. I know it makes no difference to anything, because Democrats do not care if their candidate has 'dimished faculties', and, obviously, you guys are happy for the leader of the free world to be in such a state. But people, and not just Republicans and Maga Loons, have been saying this since before the 2019 election, so people cannot say they were not aware of the issue. But, like I say, if no one cares, good luck to him. No prosecution of course. He is standing President and, even if he wasn't, he is in such a poor mental state that he probably wouldn't be forced to face a trial anyway. No wonder the world is on the brink of WW3. Not fit for trial, but fit to lead the Democrat Party and be their President. You get what you vote for, I guess.
It’s of marginal significance in the sense of moving a dial that’s already fixed but naturally Republicans will make hay with it, as Democrats would do if roles were reversed. I agree it’s politically damaging, though Republicans will hope not too damaging as if causes Biden to withdrawn from re-election almost any normal candidate would absolutely thrash Trump. Funny that Hur accepted other witnesses naturally could not remember events or facts because of the passage of time, and even teed up Biden’s own interview (which happened in the midst of the Hamas attack on Israel) by accepting that was likely, yet still stretched to reach his conclusions. Still, Biden could have interfered with the investigation, forced it to end or told Garland not to appoint a special counsel. They could have appointed a politically friendly special counsel rather than the Trump appointee they deliberately chose. And he could have used executive privilege to redact any or all of that report. And he could have refused to sit for an interview at all, just like Trump did with Mueller. The fact he didn’t do any of those things says a lot about the man. Doesn’t seem to count for much though. Anyway, I’m worried now about Rishi Sunak’s mental faculties. How many time did he answer that he couldn’t recall something at the Covid inquiry?
I hope this pushes Biden to stand down sooner rather than later. I don't believe Trump or Biden are mentally fit to serve now, let alone in 4 years time. I do believe Biden is a good man but he's simply too old now imho.
I think that lauding the man, for not doing the only things that would have made him look even worse than this report actually did, is a bold strategy. So personally, I find what you say unconvincing. A better parallel than Sunak, who I have never defended, would have been Biden’s DOJ or Biden’s FBI, etc. who are equally impaired when it comes to memory. Though Biden did give a clue as to why he may have been mistaken for someone with diminished faculties. When asked about not remembering the answers to certain questions, he even seemed to suggest he had lied to the special council, implying that the lapse of memory was more a case of feeling that he should not have been asked the questions, almost as if he is above laws he breached when not President. So a few things to take from this. He wilfull and illegally took and retained documents; he has been showing indications of diminished faculties since 2017; and he will not face charges, as Trump has, after he has finished his term as President. And his defenders see it only as an inconvenience, exasperated by politics. As for your comment on alternatives to Biden, I suspect that Dems are only running him because they do not agree with your assertion that any normal candidate would beat Trump. In fact, I think that comment is even less convincing than suggesting he’s the better man, because he didn’t commit reputational suicide by giving himself too easy a ride on the investigation.
Yes, he wilfully and illegal took documents just like Mike Pence. At least one thing Biden's definitely not done is come out and slammed Hur's report for being election interference. That alone makes him a refreshing change from Trump. Biden won't face charges, as Trump has, because there's night and day between the alleged behaviour. Trump's actions were far more egregious and involved far more sensitive information in far greater quantities.
Biden accusing the DOJ of electioneering for Trump would, I am sure even you would agree if distanced from the current circumstances, be a matter of great hilarity, inviting direct comparison with the way Trump is being treated. There is night and day between them. Trump obtained the documents as President and was making the case, through legal claims, that he had a right to retain the documents, which, in the meantime, were being held in a NARA approved secure location (they requested extra security, and Trump provided it) with camera monitoring. Whereas, Joe Biden wilfully and illegally removed documents and held them in a number of insecure locations for so long that he had forgotten what he had done with them, even though they they were openly sitting in his garage, an office cupboard, holiday home, etc.. Every element of that is a more egregious breach of law than Trump is accused of. Yes. There is light and day between them. Biden is being judged not on his obtaining and keeping of the documents, both illegal, but on his cooperation after admitting to having them, and only then in light of the fact that, his DOJ (yes, there is a letter in which Biden is mentioned as directing them to investigate Trump) was going hard after Trump. What else could he do? Making a virtue out of damage limitation is something you seem keen to do, but, as mentioned before, it is not a very convincing strategy. And citing Mike Pence? Ha. If he was a political enemy of Biden’s, they would have raided his house too. You know it as well as I do. If it wasn’t for the fact that he could be used to defend Biden, he would be going through the same poop as Trump.
Note. It is the security of the documents that is the issue. The DOJ, however, has made the processes the issue. Biden is safe, because he cooperated after committing the crime, where as Trump did not commit a crime, but did not do as he was told, because he believed he had the right to posses the documents, under the Presidential records act, and based on Clinton and Obama retaining documents after their terms. Trump securely holding the documents and allowing NARA access to them, according to some, is a far more serious issue than top secret documents lying around, unguarded, in your garage. With those priorities, there can be little doubt why the world is closer to another global war than any time since the Cold War.
You don’t know any of that. Trump’s alleged ‘belief’ that he had a right to those documents was not backed up by any due diligence on his part, merely his sense of entitlement. Keeping the documents in his bathroom isn’t holding them ‘securely.’ The bit about a global war may be true, but Trump’s belligerence towards China, encouragement of Israel, war planning against Iran and appeasement of Russia didn’t help. It’s not the strike you believe it is.
It was backed up by his understanding of the Presidential Records Act and precedents set by previous Presidents (see Clinton's sock drawer). As for the bathroom, many of the 'documents' were personal effects of a harmless nature, like gifts from other world leaders, or, I understand, magazines with personal messages on. Of all the more than 1000 documents, only, IIRC, around 80 are of any great concern. There is no indication that these ites were not secure. Unlike Biden's documents, which were illegally obtained and left in the garage that opened onto the drive. The famous picture of documents lying around was set up and taken by a DOJ investigator, and there was no indication that that is how they were found. It had the desired affect of making simple minded people think that though. The rest of what you say is speculation and Democrat spin, the truth of which will be decided in court. Trump's policy was to put Iran in its place (which he seemed quite successful in doing), and whilst the Ayatola was threatening the Anihilation of Israel, perhaps allowing Israel to suggest reercussions for such threats being made seemed reasonable. Trump has no use for war. Being on talking terms with dangerous dictators can have its uses. His approach to Putin and China certainly seemed to be effective, especially when you compare it to the poop show that followed him.
If he wants to prove he was trying to save american democracy with his actions this is the perfect place to do it, get all the evidence he has in court and let a jury decide. I think he should push for it to be televised also as that way he can get all the evidence he has out in front of the american public. If I was him and I had all the evidence to prove the election was rigged it seems the most logical thing to do to prove his claims.
Lol. The credibility of your argument dies immediately as you expect us to believe Trump understood (or even now understands) the Presidential Records Act, when his public pronouncements on it in his stump speeches or press conferences have proven he very much doesn't. Lawyers of all political persuasions have said so as well, so it's not just a Jack Smith / DOJ thing. The bloke doesn't have a clue. He knows what he wants it say, sure, but not what it actually says. Similar really to the constitution in that respect. As always this is an example of him doing something in accordance with a niche view that a President has absolute executive authority to do whatever he likes. Then when challenged he tries to obfuscate, dodge, delay and hires lawyers to construct dubious legal defences for him after the fact as he's done literally all of his professional life. There's a reason he doesn't retain good quality lawyers - of which there are many Republican sympathetic ones who would normally fall over themselves to represent a former President from their party - and even the rubbish ones run away having gone mad after a while. It serves a purpose though as a good chunk of Americans just gobble it down. Anyway, as you say, the truth should be decided in court and Trump should welcome that. It won't be though. The judge is set on holding off the trial indefinitely.
I agree with what you say. But the reality of the US courts is that he may end up with a judge who dictates what evidence he is allowed to give, and the jury may (almost certainly) be biased against him by dint of the geographical location of the court. DC, I believe, is 95% Democrat. Which means he may have to rely on the supremes for blind justice. But don't be confused by Trump asking for the law to recognise his immunity (or not); that is just to establish if the case is necessary. I mean, if he is correct in thinking there is no case against him, because the law says there is not, why on Earth would he not accept it, in order to have the elections judged by a partisan court. He really would be the idiot his enemies describe if he ignored that option. But fear not! If, as seems likely, his appeal is not successful, he has already stated that the course of action, you describe above, is exactly what he intends to do. I don't think that will be the last we hear about Jan 6 though. What Bauser and Pelosi did on that day, leaving the Capitol unguarded (potentially deliberately to create the situation we ended up with), and the murder of Asleigh Babet, should not go without proper investigation. It may all be very innocent, but given the J6 committee chose to ignore those issues, and were very selective with its witnesses, it seems fair to expect a broader investigation that will not be coned down by partisan judges, and left to the mercies of people who wouldn't pee on Trump if he was on fire.
Fair comment. I am not defending Trump, other than to point out when people are talking rubbish about him. But he has a right to state his case, and I have a right to point out the difference between how he is treated by Biden's DOJ, compared to Biden's blatantly illegal actions.
Donald Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies who pay too little Remarks by former president and presumptive 2024 Republican nominee described as ‘unhinged’ by the White House https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...a-to-attack-nato-countries-who-dont-pay-bills
I don’t understand, because Trump ushered in an era of World peace the like of which we have never seen. Peace that only ended when demented Joe Biden made Ukraine invade Russia.
The way things are going, it looks like the next president of the USA is going to have to take decisions that could mean life or death for tens of thousands of people. The thought that the next president of the USA is going to be a man who, 20 years ago was obviously extremely capable, likeable and smart but who is now senile, and a man who, 20 years ago was obviously a complete and utter sh1t but is now beginning to show signs of the onset of senility is chilling
It’s not likely that even a completely senile Biden would be making unusual decisions. He is the figurehead of a strong team with a plan. Trump is more likely to make rash decisions, for example demand that the whole of the Artic is drilled for oil this time or all business regulations are abandoned, but even he will be constrained by the State. However, you do wonder where the Democrats’ succession plan is. They could explode the whole ‘too old?’ debate by replacing Biden with a younger candidate, leaving Trump exposed to mumble about whether he is standing against Nikki Haley or Nancy Pelosi. The Dems have a JFK of a candidate in former soldier Pete Buttigieg, young, clearly brilliant, Harvard and Oxford educated, speaks languages, plays musical instruments. A genuinely talented individual, so much so it makes you sick. Handsome too and only 42. But then he is a gay man who has adopted children. Maybe the Dems don’t believe he could survive against the bigotry that would be unleashed.
Tell me you don't know NATO is a defensive pact without telling me you don't know NATO is a defensive pact.
Gavin Newsom would be another option for 2024. In fact Newsom/Buttigieg could be a strong, relatively youthful ticket (or do the Dems have to have a BAME and/or woman candidate?)
Newsom's got a lot of "baggage". The State's has a population 'exodus' (the ever growing amount of bureaucracy and the eye-watering housing costs are the main drivers), law-enforcement has given up on 'minor' crimes (most notably shoplifting) and the municipal parks have become shanty towns for the homeless.
A very good military career, a bible-thumper and from his generally good stewardship of Transportation (aside from the recent rail crashes) where he has first hand of the US infrastructure crisis (he's also used it as a powerbase to win a 'lot' of friends in the urban Black, generally socially conservative, wing of the Democrats)...
Is there a problem if they do? But it is a bit like Labour who love to virtue signal, but they never quite have the balls for it. conservatives, on the other hand, have women and ‘BAME’ leaders almost as a matter of course, without any virtue signalling, and have provided every non-white or non-male PM without having to worry about whether it’s the right thing or not. Their next two most popular leaders are are both minority women, and both accused of being white supremacists! Trumps challengers were pretty damn diverse too, with his only remaining opponent being an Indian Asian Woman. Every one of the pretenders to Biden’s nomination is white. Obama was acceptable to Dems. Light skinned, white-raised from by his extended, affluent white-American family. I wonder if they could accept someone who was not so well appointed? I believe they are the most racially conscious party, and cannot keep it out of their thinking. Michelle Obama? She’s is far more culturally ‘black’, as Americans (particularly Democrats, would think. She is on the Dem’s message, and she would carry some of Barack’s popularity with her, surely, but would it be enough to get over Democrat racial ‘awareness’? Their Electioneering games will only get them so far. They know things may be closer than last time. And they know that former First Ladies are no guarantee. I think a Trump win would be interesting, just from the angle of seeing the establishment react to it. Right now, I cannot see them letting him take power. I suspect that we will see a genuine insurrection, or simply a coup, if they cannot manage the election enough to prevent Trump winning. I expect there would be no complaints from their hard core supporters.
Interesting question. If Trump won, would people on here support Democrats sending their own alternative electors? -I wonder if that case against Trump will be left to fester, so that Dems can suddenly say ‘We never said he was guilty, we only wanted to test its legality!’ Or would people support an attempt to prevent him simply by applying executive privilege? - I suspect that presidential immunity will also make a big come back, in that case. I can say that I would have no problem with them doing either, provided they have a valid legal framework for doing so, and it can be challenged. But there have been precedents set in the last few years that also suggest that it wouldn’t be unreasonable to hold them to their own standards. Which I would also support.
Neither Hilary or her running mate came from a minority group, so you don’t have to go far back in that respect. Newsom is a bit more controversial and there would be lots about his record and lifestyle to throw at him. What I don’t know is which one would do best in debate with the Orange One.
I think you're at risk of daydreaming a bit here. The alternative elector thing Trump tried to force Pence to exploit has been largely closed by a change in the law. As has the ability of individual reps and senators to object and hold up the electoral count process in Congress. And I don't understand how Biden would 'deny [Trump] simply by applying executive privilege' or even what that really means in practice. For avoidance of doubt though I'd answer both your questions with a no. If Trump wins, he wins.
Excellent. it will be interesting to see if you maintain that view, should the Democrats be reluctant to hand power over to him, which I do not assume they will do, given their current attempts to even stop him running. Perhaps some emergency power or other? Interesting, again, that you mention the law change, suggesting that Trump did have a legal precedent at the time he acted.
Which efforts to stop him running? I know Trump and the GOP want to keep screaming that the opposite is true but Biden's chosen opponent would be Trump 100 times out of 100. The Colorado case, which looks set to fail anyway, has been brought solely by Republicans. No other case seeks to stop him running. His supporters have after all pointed out numerous times he could run from prison and pardon himself, so it's all good, surely? And no, he had no legal precedent. It was simply the case that the lawmakers for the original electoral count law in 1887 never envisaged the actual President, VP or their predecessor congressmen being the problem and didn't feel that was a scenario worth considering. No matter, any uncertainty has been cleared up now. Plus it means an outgoing Biden administration couldn't block a winning Trump one from vital transition funding for weeks... like Trump did.
They didn't necessarily envisage the official opposition maintaining power over the institutions either. But they did leave the President free to do what he saw fit to protect the country. If he thought there was a problem with an election, in which so many indicators (bell weather constituancies, total votes cast to a standing President, etc.) put the result in question, then it was his duty to ensure all was well. I know you don't like or agree with it, but a large proportion of US citizens had their own doubts. You are confident your side is in the right, I am less confident, and I would have liked to see them disprove Trump's concerns in a timely fashion. But I think you are in a pretty lonely position if you do not believe Trump is a target of lawfare to nobble the election. Even yhe media are perfectly open that ghat is the intention. Kid yourself, but don't expect anyone else to believe a word of it. The hype and BS overshadows the actualcase against Trump. If he goes down, it will not be for the more salacious accusations against him. And you are still going on about Republicans against Trump! The most damning witnesses against Biden are Democrats. So what? Do you think those few republicans represent Republicans as a whole?
$300 million in damages and disqualification from holding any office/directorship in a NY business for 3 years in the New York case. That's almost $390 million in damages now, between the E. Jean Carroll and New York cases.
Damages were actually higher at $355 million, which puts him at around $440 million in damages between the two cases. Trump's sons are both liable for $4 million each (separate from the $355 million Trump is liable for) and shifty CFO Weisselberg is liable for another $1 million.
The financial penalty does seem a bit excessive imho. If the fraud was so serious why wasn't his NY business licences removed completely (i.e. the so called business death sentence)? I fully expect that fine to be reduced substantially on appeal, although, as I understand it, Trump has to provide the full amount within 30 days of appealling or a bond. Unfortunately, I think this will be seen by the Trump supporters as more evidence of political persecution by the courts and galvanize his support even more.
