U.S. Presidential Primaries 2024!

[Ivanhoe]

 

[Ivanhoe]

 

[Ivanhoe]

 

[Ivanhoe]

The Congresscritters who have actually read the FBI document are pretty unequivocal. But hey, anything goes for Team Blue!

 

[Ivanhoe]

 

[Josh]

2 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

The Congresscritters who have actually read the FBI document are pretty unequivocal. But hey, anything goes for Team Blue!

 

The Congress critters that read the report include some perfectly willing to impeach Biden anyway. You'll excuse me if I don't take Boebart seriously; I wouldn't parade around statements by AOC to try to convince you of anything because she's not credible.

We'll see what the FBI investigation turns up on Biden - presumably the GOP House will launch its own separate investigation, given their mistrust of the FBI. That said, we already *know* what an investigation of Trump turned up, and it seems pretty clear he's guilty.

Edited June 12 by Josh

[Ivanhoe]

If you watch the video by Viva Frei and Robert Barnes, it seems pretty clear he's completely innocent.

 

[Josh]

10 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

If you watch the video by Viva Frei and Robert Barnes, it seems pretty clear he's completely innocent.

 

Is there a text version? Failing that, which one of the Fox News vids are you referring to? I’d never make you Wade through MSNBC videos* so I don’t think it fair I need to watch bullshit Fox News content for you to make your point.
 

EDIT: not that I would ever watch MSNBC either.

Edited June 13 by Josh

[Ivanhoe]

What makes you think the Viva Frei vid is from Fox News?

 

[DKTanker]

8 hours ago, Josh said:

Is there a text version? Failing that, which one of the Fox News vids are you referring to? I’d never make you Wade through MSNBC videos* so I don’t think it fair I need to watch bullshit Fox News content for you to make your point.
 

EDIT: not that I would ever watch MSNBC either.

Frei and Barnes are not associated with FN.  David Frei is a Canadian lawyer and Robert Barnes has his own LA based law firm.  
I've cued up the video where Barnes makes his case.  In a nutshell, Article 2 of the US constitution.  In short, no subordinate or subordinate agency of the executive branch is supreme to the constitutional executive, POTUS.  Therefore, POTUS is not bound by any rule or regulation created by an executive agency or employee.  He also references a 2012 case in which a federal judge upheld former President Bill Clinton's unquestionable right to his presidential papers and possessions of which the national archives was demanding the return.  Apparently that's the only case law on the matter and it was never appealed.

 

[Ivanhoe]

https://news4sanantonio.com/news/nation-world/tennessee-lawmaker-files-articles-of-impeachment-against-president-joe-biden-politics-republican-democrat-andy-ogles-hunter-biden

 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. (WZTV) — Tennessee U.S. Representative Andy Ogles has submitted Articles of Impeachment against President Joe Biden for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Rep. Ogles (R-TN-05) alleges President Biden has "weaponized" his time in office, including his time as Vice President "to shield the business and influence peddling schemes of his family from congressional oversight and public accountability."

 

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/493/text?s=3&r=5&q={"search"%3A["articles+of+impeachment"]}

 

If a majority of the evidence is obtained and published, I wonder if obstruction charges could be laid against the Dems who voted to impeach Trump for having his minions try to investigate Biden's pay-for-play with Burisma?

 

 

[Josh]

3 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Frei and Barnes are not associated with FN.  David Frei is a Canadian lawyer and Robert Barnes has his own LA based law firm.  
I've cued up the video where Barnes makes his case.  In a nutshell, Article 2 of the US constitution.  In short, no subordinate or subordinate agency of the executive branch is supreme to the constitutional executive, POTUS.  Therefore, POTUS is not bound by any rule or regulation created by an executive agency or employee.  He also references a 2012 case in which a federal judge upheld former President Bill Clinton's unquestionable right to his presidential papers and possessions of which the national archives was demanding the return.  Apparently that's the only case law on the matter and it was never appealed.

 

So the legal argument is that the classification laws can't be applied to the president? I could see a case for that at the SCOTUS, but there are a half dozen other charges that would still apply even if those were voided. If you obstruct an investigation, it actually doesn't matter if you were actually guilty of anything else.

[DKTanker]

1 minute ago, Josh said:

So the legal argument is that the classification laws can't be applied to the president? I could see a case for that at the SCOTUS, but there are a half dozen other charges that would still apply even if those were voided. If you obstruct an investigation, it actually doesn't matter if you were actually guilty of anything else.

The point being there could be no legitimate investigation therefore there can be no obstruction of justice.

[Josh]

40 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

https://news4sanantonio.com/news/nation-world/tennessee-lawmaker-files-articles-of-impeachment-against-president-joe-biden-politics-republican-democrat-andy-ogles-hunter-biden

 

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/493/text?s=3&r=5&q={"search"%3A["articles+of+impeachment"]}

 

If a majority of the evidence is obtained and published, I wonder if obstruction charges could be laid against the Dems who voted to impeach Trump for having his minions try to investigate Biden's pay-for-play with Burisma?

 

 

How does impeachment, a purely political act, impede an investigation?

[Josh]

6 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

The point being there could be no legitimate investigation therefore there can be no obstruction of justice.

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect interfering with an investigation, regardless of how it was started, still is a violation of the law. If the police illegally search your house for no reason, you will still be charged if you attempt to block said investigation, even if later it is proven the police had no right to be there in the first place.

I'm also not convinced by the video; it quoted one line as allowing total control of the executive branch - by that metric, Trump could fire the entire FBI, or indeed the DoD. It is hard to imagine that would be an interpretation of even a strict constitutional reading or in any way be what the founding members intended - absolute king like power over a branch of government - but again I'm not a lawyer. Presumably if this is relevant to the case, Trump's lawyers (when he finds some) will use that as a defense.

Edited June 13 by Josh

[DKTanker]

40 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

If a majority of the evidence is obtained and published, I wonder if obstruction charges could be laid against the Dems who voted to impeach Trump for having his minions try to investigate Biden's pay-for-play with Burisma?

It has to go much deeper, or higher up, than then vice president Biden.  It was Obama that sent Biden to Ukraine to help solidify the coup in 2014.  It was Obama that gave ultimate approval for Biden to withhold funds unless Shokin was removed.  I think there are a lot of moving parts with Joe Biden perhaps playing the role of patsy.

[rmgill]

11 minutes ago, Josh said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect interfering with an investigation, regardless of how it was started, still is a violation of the law.

If the investigation is not lawful. Then even obstructing it is not illegal. This is basic concepts. If the cops can demand to search your home without a warrant, you don’t permit them to do so and they have no legal authority, how can you be charged with obstructing an illegal act? 
 

You DO understand that investigations have to be predicated on a legal basis right?

Do you love the idea of a police state where investigations can be brought for what ever reason? 

11 minutes ago, Josh said:

 

If the police illegally search your house for no reason, you will still be charged if you attempt to block said investigation, even if later it is proven the police had no right to be there in the first place.

They can charge you, but its not based in legal authority. Fruit of the forbidden tree. 

 

11 minutes ago, Josh said:

I'm also not convinced by the video; it quoted one line as allowing total control of the executive branch - by that metric, Trump could fire the entire FBI, or indeed the DoD. It is hard to imagine that would be an interpretation of even a strict constitutional reading or in any way be what the founding members intended - absolute king like power over a branch of government - but again I'm not a lawyer. Presumably if this is relevant to the case, Trump's lawyers (when he finds some) will use that as a defense.

Its an aspect of how you can’t pass rules that apply to your boss as he approves or disapproves what you do. 

[Murph]

15 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

It has to go much deeper, or higher up, than then vice president Biden.  It was Obama that sent Biden to Ukraine to help solidify the coup in 2014.  It was Obama that gave ultimate approval for Biden to withhold funds unless Shokin was removed.  I think there are a lot of moving parts with Joe Biden perhaps playing the role of patsy.

That and Joe is pretty stupid for the most part, not as blatantly stupid as Harris, but not nearly as evil as Obama.   Obama is just letting Uncle Joe take the fall.  A useful idiot for the Obamas.  

[DKTanker]

1 minute ago, Josh said:

I'm also not convinced by the video; it quoted one line as allowing total control of the executive branch - by that metric, Trump could fire the entire FBI, or indeed the DoD. It is hard to imagine that would be an interpretation of even strict constitutional reading or in any way be what the founding members intended - absolute king like power over a branch of government - but I'm not a lawyer. Presumably if this is relevant to the case, Trump's lawyers (when he finds some) will use that as a defense.

Reagan fired 11,000 Air Traffic Controllers, Trump or any other president for that matter, can fire anybody in the executive they want.  Going back 160 years, Andrew Johnson was impeached and found not guilty for firing his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton.  Congress had previously passed a law, over Johnson's veto, that prohibited the president from firing executive officers.  Not only did the senate not find him guilt, the Supreme Court found that law, the Tenure in Office Act, unconstitutional.

[Ivanhoe]

3 hours ago, DKTanker said:

It has to go much deeper, or higher up, than then vice president Biden.  It was Obama that sent Biden to Ukraine to help solidify the coup in 2014.  It was Obama that gave ultimate approval for Biden to withhold funds unless Shokin was removed.  I think there are a lot of moving parts with Joe Biden perhaps playing the role of patsy.

If the Big Guy gets a 10% cut on most transactions (and influence peddling is definitely a transactional business), hard to imagine Barry taking less than 20%, given his ginormous ego.

Since Obama more or less inherited the Clinton talent roster, I have to assume Bill and Hillary got their cuts, along with the various second stringers. I am envisioning someone making it rain with Swiss Benjamins.

 

 

 

[rmgill]

The Clintons had their scam out in the open. Remember the Clinton Foundation? Staff of 6 each, an office tower, all the right stuff. Donations TO the foundation, not from.  Not like what Ted had going when Jane was running the Turner Foundation 2 doors away from my office in the late 90s

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/corruption-case-against-the-bidens-is-on-the-verge-of-exploding.php

Quote

 

On Tuesday, RedState reported that, according to a “national security source” who spoke on the condition of anonymity, Zlochevsky “is believed to be an asset of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) by the United States intelligence community.”

The source told RedState that the intelligence community has “a high degree of confidence in their assessment of Zlochevsky as SVR.” Moreover, the source said this “is not a new assessment” and “the intelligence community under Obama knew this, and Obama was briefed on it.”

This all makes perfect sense. In March 2016, Burisma and Zlochevsky were under investigation by Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. In a clip we’ve probably all seen at least a hundred times by now, Biden boasted at a January 2018 Council on Foreign Relations event, that in the spring of 2016, he threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine unless then-President Petro Poroshenko fired Shokin in the next six hours.

“I said, ‘you’re not getting the billion’ … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b****, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

There was no evidence that Shokin was corrupt. There were, however, plenty of reasons why Burisma and Zlochevsky would want him fired.

The Examiner also reported that Zlochevsky referred to Joe Biden in his conversation with the informant by a familiar nickname: “the big guy.” 

Assuming these claims are true, it remains to be seen if Zlochevsky would be willing to turn the recordings over to the Republicans in Congress.

 

.

Quote

But there are many ways to skin a cat. HOC Chairman James Comer (R-KY) has already pieced together the money trails from Chinese and Romanian nationals to nine members of the Biden family, including a grandchild. As Comer explained in a formal press conference last month, the funds were transferred via a network of up to 20 shell corporations set up by Hunter Biden and his associates.

.

Quote

Comer has said that, so far, his committee has only investigated the money flows from one bank. He indicated they have yet to examine the records from ten or eleven more banks. As I see it, it’s only a matter of time before Comer’s team pieces together the payments originating from Ukrainian banks.

 

[Skywalkre]

On 6/9/2023 at 3:12 AM, Josh said:

This is why Trump is guaranteed to win the nomination…because the entire GOP establishment, even his competitors , never stopped papering over his bullshit and rewriting history to make all of his failings somehow the media or democrats fault.

I saw a piece on 538 after the indictment that looked at every R candidate's response to the indictment (if they had made one).  Sadly a majority of them came out in direct support and defense of Trump.  Haley later, kind of, changed her stance after she did the amazing thing of reading the indictment.  Maybe she should have done that before making her original statement?  Just like that I'm done with her.

Only three candidates either indirectly or directly went after Trump - Pence, Christie, and Hutchinson.  The first two I don't care for and have no shot, anyways.  I'll admit I know nothing of Hutchinson but I'll definitely go take a look now.

Still a sad, sad day that the party rallies around Trump in this instance...

[DB]

I do believe that it was noted at the time of the earliest attempts to wage a court-based attack on trump that those doing it were risking opening the flood-gates and legitimising this type of attack for all parties. The pressure on Biden's less salubrious business activities will only increase, and when his term as president ends and the Democrats move on to their next Messiah, his protections will be reduced.

At this point, it'sa given that a sitting president will be attacked using the courts for any real or imagined fault. What person with any qualities whatsoever is likely to invite that kind of future?

It's only going to be those who are either idiotic empty shells, or those with the narcissism and hubris to believe that they will be untouchable, and I'm sure you all want that kind of person in charge.

[Ivanhoe]

3 hours ago, DB said:

It's only going to be those who are either idiotic empty shells, or those with the narcissism and hubris to believe that they will be untouchable, and I'm sure you all want that kind of person in charge.

There is a 3rd option, someone who wishes to make drinking cups from the skulls of his enemies. The US hasn't gone full Pinochet yet, but given bad enough economics, crime, etc., it is not impossible.