Cont: The Biden Presidency (3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The big difference is that Trump was found with documents when he was NO LONGER PRESIDENT.

Biden is actually the president, or have people forgotten?
 
johnny karate said:
My prediction: The special counsel investigation uncovers no wrongdoing and is closed.

The Right Wing Propaganda Machine brays about it for a few weeks and then moves on to the next manufactured outrage. A year from now, nobody but MAGA lunatics cares.
Click to expand...
I suspect you're right up until the hilite.

I predict a congressional investigation and possibly impeachment, and it will be on full blast for the next 22 months.
 
varwoche said:
You may be right, but we don't know this.

It may be that the document removal was inadvertent and yet a crime. I'm not clear on that.
Click to expand...

If it is it falls under the laws as they were when the Mishandling took place, and is most likely a misdemeanor, Trump Mishandling would fall under Felony law that Trump signed into Law.
Karma for Trump's attacks on Hillary.
 
varwoche said:
I suspect you're right up until the hilite.

I predict a congressional investigation and possibly impeachment, and it will be on full blast for the next 22 months.
Click to expand...

Impeachment for a Misdemeanor durring the Obama administration, don't think that will happen.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I doubt the "raring to go" suspicion but it does piss me off how quick Garland was to appoint this special council compared to the still ongoing foot-dragging dealing with Trump.
Click to expand...

To add context that's easily forgotten - Law enforcement, in general, heavily skews towards Republicans and is disproportionately popular with authoritarians. Republicans raring to go when it comes to going after Democrats and being reluctant to go after Republicans is pretty much the way things are. Professionalism is the kind of thing that can limit that, but doesn't remove the driving forces.

Skeptic Ginger said:
I can only hope Garland's goal is to clear the Biden faux pas off his desk but I can't help thinking this is more of the same: bend all the way over backward in order to look apolitical. :mad:
Click to expand...

At this point, I'm becoming inclined to treat "look apolitical" as little more than an excuse. A win for the bad guys because they've cowed the good guys kind of thing.

Suddenly said:
The only reason Garland was ever in the spotlight was because Obama was trolling the GOP. Not because he was in any way desirable as a nominee.

The Democratic party thinking it was a win to put that guy in any sort of independent policy making position because the GOP was mean to him, well, yeah.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about trolling the GOP so much as putting forth an obvious compromise candidate. As for the whole "Garland's gonna go after Trump because it's personal" thing that some Democrats were pushing? Yeah, I recall it too. I, too, was mildly hopeful that such would help lead to actual decisive action - based firmly on Trump's clear guilt and violations, of course, but well, I still think that I was right not to hold my breath.

dudalb said:
Can't beleiver how people are freaking out over what Garland did.
If he had'nt GOP would be screaming it shows the Trump investigatin was politically motivated.
Hate to say it,but some people here have political blinders as bad as those the Trumpers have.
Click to expand...

Hmm? The issue being pointed at seems to largely be less the specific action than how it was done (at least until after your complaints). Garland appointed a special counsel? Fine. It's worthy of an eye-roll under the circumstances, but I'm not actually objecting. Garland picked a guy with a number of serious red flags? That's far more concerning.

Crazy Chainsaw said:
Impeachment for a Misdemeanor durring the Obama administration, don't think that will happen.
Click to expand...

Impeachment might happen, given the nature of the House Republicans. Removal is fairly certain not to happen, unless something actually serious is uncovered. If something serious is uncovered, removal would be plausible, given Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
There appears to be a difference of opinion among the talking heads. Do I know who is right or care? No, a waste of time to debate given IANAL and the counsel is already appointed.

In addition, it's for the best this gets properly evaluated. But the GOP will only adjust their talking points from whataboutism to a deep state coverup.
Click to expand...

Not that I can see. As the article further states:

Those regulations are codified beginning at 28 CFR § 600.1, which reads in relevant part: “the Attorney General . . . will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted” and the following conditions are met: “investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by . . . the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances,” and “That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”
The circumstances of a criminal investigation involving the attorney general’s boss is a textbook example of the sort of conflict of interest that gives rise to these regulations in the first place. Garland, in his statement, did not acknowledge the conflict of interest, but he did invoke the “extraordinary circumstances” language to get to the same place.
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
Do you think what Trump...not his aides, not his lawyers, but TRUMP personally did and is doing regarding the docs at Mar-a-Lago are equivalent to what we know about the documents found in Biden's garage and Penn Biden office? And if so, why?
Click to expand...

What the **** does Trump have to do with it?

The thread is about Biden, it was Biden who screwed up here - what Trump did or didn't do is irrelevant.

Tu quoque much?

Skeptic Ginger said:
The other option is to do a better job marketing a positive image of Biden.
Click to expand...

Like they did with Hillary?

Biden won for one reason only - he wasn't Trump.

With trump not likely to be the Republican candidate, the Dems might just need more than not being the other guy.

Bob001 said:
Biden has accomplished a lot, and if inflation continues to decline while unemployment remains low he could be in a strong position in 2024.
Click to expand...

Yeah, his rating had been on a good upwards trend recently, with the closest to positive numbers he's ever had.

I imagine that will do a u-turn pretty imminently.

Bob001 said:
I, too, think he's too old for a second term. But he might still be the strongest candidate against Trump, who, let's face it, will be the Repub nominee if he wants to be. Could Harris beat Trump? Mayor Pete? State governors that most of the country doesn't even know? Why would they be better than Biden?
Click to expand...

If they can talk without putting at least one foot in their mouth, they'd be ahead on points.

Harris wouldn't win no matter what, and it looks to me like the best hope for the Dems is for Trump to split the Republican vote.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There appears to be a difference of opinion among the talking heads. Do I know who is right or care? No, a waste of time to debate given IANAL and the counsel is already appointed.

In addition, it's for the best this gets properly evaluated. But the GOP will only adjust their talking points from whataboutism to a deep state coverup.
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Not that I can see. As the article further states:
Click to expand...

What do you mean, "not that [you] can see"? I'm not saying who's right, I'm saying what was said this morning.

I don't see the value in this debate.
Click to expand...

I mean that I don't see how "There appears to be a difference of opinion among the talking heads," about why Garland appointed a special counsel because it states he must in the quote I provided. Did I misunderstand what your point was? That's what I understood it to be.
 
Stacyhs said:
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
This thread has changed from being a tired thread about a tired old man to comedy gold.

I'm picking the Dumbocrats are continuing to sit on their thumbs instead of urgently finding a credible candidate for 2024, which by my reckoning, is next year.

Tic, tick, tick...
Click to expand...

Do you think what Trump...not his aides, not his lawyers, but TRUMP personally did and is doing regarding the docs at Mar-a-Lago are equivalent to what we know about the documents found in Biden's garage and Penn Biden office? And if so, why?
Click to expand...

The Atheist said:
What the **** does Trump have to do with it?

The thread is about Biden, it was Biden who screwed up here - what Trump did or didn't do is irrelevant.

Tu quoque much?
Click to expand...

My goodness. Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I asked a civil question. And it was civil... unless you can point out to me exactly where it wasn't?

Oh, and you might want to look up what "Tu quoque" is, because my post isn't an example of one.
 
varwoche said:
I suspect you're right up until the hilite.

I predict a congressional investigation and possibly impeachment, and it will be on full blast for the next 22 months.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But if there is no there there, eventually the general public will lose interest. Ginned-up right wing outrages are playing to increasingly smaller audiences.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
My prediction: The special counsel investigation uncovers no wrongdoing and is closed.

The Right Wing Propaganda Machine brays about it for a few weeks and then moves on to the next manufactured outrage.

A year from now, nobody but MAGA lunatics cares.
Click to expand...

That is what I think.
I still think Garland had no choice but to appont a special investigation , though for the sake of creditbility.
 
johnny karate said:
For the record, I didn't cite a "talking head". I cited a well-known and respected lawyer who is an expert on legal matters pertaining to national security.
Click to expand...
I did:
SG said:
According to one of the talking heads on MSNBC or NPR (my morning news fest is always blurred) the statute does not require a special counsel unless a crime is suspected first. No crime is suspected here.
Click to expand...
It would have been "... a well-known and respected lawyer who is an expert on legal matters..." because that's who the talking heads are that are interviewed on the news clips I listen to.

And Stacy cited the law.

This go-round is a waste of thread space. I made a brief attempt to find the sound bite I heard so I could cite it but gave up, too time consuming. The special counsel was appointed, mandated or not.

I am not challenging anyone or the cited law. I merely posted what a talking head lawyer said on the news.
 
Only because I just saw it again, and there's a bit more here about an investigation that had already been ongoing out of the Chicago DoJ office (I think that's the office they said):


Harry Litman
Harry P. Litman (born c. 1958)[1] is an American lawyer, law professor and political commentator. He is a former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant
Click to expand...


Joyce Vance agreed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom