Article JB was just suffering from a cold (fashions in debate)

[Magical Realist]

Nothing immoral about a man constrained by his government position to change or modify his political goals. Surely you have a deeper understanding of morality than that. You know, like not sexually assaulting 24 women? Like not leading the birther movement to get Obama disqualified from office. Like not sleeping with a porn star when your own wife was pregnant? Like not making fun of a NYT disabled reporter during a campaign rally. Like not calling Haiti and El Salvador and all the nations in Africa "shit-hole countries". Like not making a huge business profit off of your position as president. Like not running a huge money-making scam operation called Trump University that defrauded students of 25 million. Like not suggesting on national TV that people ingest bleach to kill the Covid virus. Like not lying about the results of an election you lost and then treasonously inciting an insurrection against the U.S. Capitol by your own followers. And then like just not lying nearly every time you open your trap. You know, little things like that. lol

[Syne]

No proof of the sexual assault, Obama refused to release his long form birth certificate for three years, no proof of affair with porn star. Making fun of disabled reporter has been roundly debunked (not that you'd ever accept any debunking of anything). Calling shit holes shit holes, oh noes. Why do you think people have been fleeing those countries? You'd have to show that already profitable businesses were more so directly because he was president, which hasn't been done. "Ingest bleach" is another lie that has been debunked (but we know how easily you fall for them). Hillary's been saying her election was stolen for years before Trump ever did. SCOTUS recently ruled that the Jan 6th protestors didn't obstruct justice, and none have been charged with actual insurrection. Same charges they're trying to apply to Trump.

But thanks for the continuing rundown of your TDS symptoms.

[Magical Realist]

SCOTUS recently ruled that the Jan 6th protestors didn't obstruct justice, and none have been charged with actual insurrection. Same charges they're trying to apply to Trump.

So people aren't really guilty of crimes until they are charged with them? Wow! I'm sure that will come as great comfort to murderers and rapists and bank robbers and kidnappers.

The January 6th Trump-led revolt was insurrection plain and simple, legally defined as follows:

"Insurrection: Defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2383, insurrection refers to any act of rising against the authority of the state or its laws. Legally, it's the violent uprising against governmental authority. This includes taking up arms or otherwise actively opposing the government's power and lawful authority."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKbnzsS0FBU

[Yazata]

This is the New York Times even having to admit that JB wasn't at peak performance... Even MSM couldn't come to JB's aid this time, either voluntarily or by threat. Which seems to send the message that they want to force the DP to replace him via allowing his fragility to be bared to the world.

The New York Times has turned itself into a propaganda organ, effectively becoming the voice of the democratic party. As such, it tells us something when the NYT editorial board calls for Biden to be replaced atop the democratic ticket. They would never have said that if an important faction within the party wasn't saying it too. (I believe that a lot of big party donors are saying no more campaign checks unless somebody more electable heads up the ticket.)

Today (Sunday June 30) Biden met with his family at Camp David. I kind of figured that Biden was preparing to step down as 2024 Presidential candidate. But apparently anything but. Talk is that Biden wants to stay in the race and that both his wife Jill and his son Hunter were very determined that he does. They are the two voices he listens to with most influence over him. (Jill loves being a power behind the throne telling her increasingly addled husband what policy positions to take, while Hunter counts on dad for his influence, wealth... and for staying out of jail.)

The problem for the democrats who want to replace him is that it will be very hard to do it if he doesn't want to go. They rigged the primary calendar to favor Joe, and kept all challengers (like JFK Jr) off the ballot. (Putin couldn't have subverted democracy and silenced the people's voice any better.) So almost all of the convention delegates will be Biden delegates pledged (and legally required in many cases) to vote for Joe on the first convention ballot. That will assure him the nomination. What was designed to be Joe's coronation as party candidate now might deliver up a result many party grandees suddenly fear. (Hey, you guys did it to yourselves...)

And once he's annoited the party's Presidential candidate, I don't know if there's any official mechanism for the party to remove him between the convention and the election. Whatever they do, it would be a huge battle between his White House faction (and its "deep state" backers) and a loose alliance of insurgent factions seeking to remove him, all loyal to their own replacement candidates. I'd expect Kamala to support Biden (since she skates in on his coattails as VP if he wins, which puts her in position to move up if he doesn't make through four years). Does Gavin Newsom really want to split the democratic party like that, right before a crucial election? (He'll head back to California, I think, and wait for 2028.) Who else do the democrats have with the clout within the party to do it, without handing the November election to Trump?

[Syne]

Yeah, unless he's willing steps down, like LBJ did, there seems little the party can do. If it were a close primary, like between Hillary and Bernie, the super delegates (which in the Democrat party basically exist to ensure the anointed becomes the nominee, regardless of primary votes) could basically decide the outcome. But since there were hardly any challengers, all the regular delegates are already committed. And the window is fast approaching to get candidates on the general election ballots in some states, which is why the DNC planned to have delegates vote by phone earlier than the convention.

Most other contenders don't poll any better against Trump. Michelle Obama might bring some black votes back into the fold, but are the hopes of putting race behind us were dashed by Barack, who would think Michelle would do any better for race or gender relations?

---

SCOTUS recently ruled that the Jan 6th protestors didn't obstruct justice, and none have been charged with actual insurrection. Same charges they're trying to apply to Trump.

So people aren't really guilty of crimes until they are charged with them? Wow! I'm sure that will come as great comfort to murderers and rapists and bank robbers and kidnappers.

The January 6th Trump-led revolt was insurrection plain and simple, legally defined as follows:

"Insurrection: Defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2383, insurrection refers to any act of rising against the authority of the state or its laws. Legally, it's the violent uprising against governmental authority. This includes taking up arms or otherwise actively opposing the government's power and lawful authority."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKbnzsS0FBU

That's literally the legal definition of "guilt." That you are charged and found guilty in court. Hence innocent until proven guilty. I know the know-nothing left wishes it were otherwise, but tough. There's also the simple fact that there's no legal basis to charge anyone with insurrection, which is why the DOJ tried to overly-broaden the scope of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. It was a politically motivated ploy, and it failed.

Since you demonstrate not understanding basic law, no one's going to take you seriously on what TDS leftists think qualifies as insurrection.
And the fact that the Biden DOJ couldn't muster any actual insurrection charges tells you all you need to know. There's not even any plans to bring any down the road.

But you keep wishing and hoping.

[Magical Realist]

That's literally the legal definition of "guilt." That you are charged and found guilty in court. Hence innocent until proven guilty

You're an idiot. Then we should be able to reduce the crime rate to zero by simply never charging anyone of a crime. All those criminals out there getting off scott free. Crime only real once it is proven in court.

Tell me. If you witnessed a store clerk getting shot in the head in his store, would you say a crime has been committed or not? Likewise, if you witnessed thousands of raging hillbillies rushing the Capitol bldg and breaking windows and assaulting police and chanting "Hang Pence!", would you say a crime was being committed or not? What crime would you say was committed? Sure looks like insurrection doesn't it? Yep..

And the fact that the Biden DOJ couldn't muster any actual insurrection charges tells you all you need to know. There's not even any plans to bring any down the road.

They're certainly charging them with something. Insurrection is what it was. Everybody saw it on TV. You can't change history just to excuse Trump. Not even the Trump appointed Supreme Court can do that.


"More than two years after rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, prosecutors have now charged more than 1,000 people in relation to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.

These hundreds of people encompass "the most wide-ranging investigation" in the history of the Justice Department. NPR has been tracking every case related to the attack as they move through the court system, from the initial arrest to sentencing.

How much work has this been for the federal government?
The investigation has been a massive undertaking, both in its scope and cost. Every U.S. Attorney's office has been involved, as well as every FBI field office. As part of the $1.7 trillion government spending package passed in December, $2.6 billion was allocated to the U.S. Attorneys, in part to support the Jan. 6 prosecutions."

[Yazata]

General Mike Flynn posted this handy chart on X:

My prediction (only moderate confidence) is Biden refuses to stand down, is nominated and becomes the nominee. (And Trump wins in November.)

There's still a real possibility that Biden does stand down though, releasing all his convention delegates to back whoever they wish, in which case the democratic convention becomes a real battle with lots of people suddenly jumping in and lots of competing factions. Promises (and threats) will be made and all sorts of wheeling and dealing would ensue. (They used to call it "smoke filled rooms" back when democrats still smoked cigarettes.)

[Image: GRVsbSFasAEh7es?format=jpg&name=medium]

[Syne]

Just saw today that Michelle Obama doesn't fair any better in the polls against Trump than any of the other names suggested so far.

---

That's literally the legal definition of "guilt." That you are charged and found guilty in court. Hence innocent until proven guilty

You're an idiot. Then we should be able to reduce the crime rate to zero by simply never charging anyone of a crime. All those criminals out there getting off scott free. Crime only real once it is proven in court.

Sure, if you're moronic enough to assume the presumption of innocent means you don't even try to find the guilty. But the presumption of innocence does mean that we don't lynch people simply because the mob (leftists like you) think someone's guilty. If you really want to resort to mob justice, I don't think a gay would fair too well.

Tell me. If you witnessed a store clerk getting shot in the head in his store, would you say a crime has been committed or not? Likewise, if you witnessed thousands of raging hillbillies rushing the Capitol bldg and breaking windows and assaulting police and chanting "Hang Pence!", would you say a crime was being committed or not? What crime would you say was committed? Sure looks like insurrection doesn't it?  Yep..

Trespassing and vandalism, sure. Insurrection, nope. Otherwise, why wouldn't Biden's DOJ bring that charge? Or do you think there's some conspiracy in the Biden DOJ to let them off the hook, while many have already spent years in prison?

And the fact that the Biden DOJ couldn't muster any actual insurrection charges tells you all you need to know. There's not even any plans to bring any down the road.

They're certainly charging them with something. Insurrection is what it was. Everybody saw it on TV. You can't change history just to excuse Trump. Not even the Trump appointed Supreme Court can do that.

You're a moron who has no clue what you're talking about. Again, no charges of insurrection have been made.

"More than two years after rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, prosecutors have now charged more than 1,000 people in relation to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.

These hundreds of people encompass "the most wide-ranging investigation" in the history of the Justice Department. NPR has been tracking every case related to the attack as they move through the court system, from the initial arrest to sentencing.

How much work has this been for the federal government?
The investigation has been a massive undertaking, both in its scope and cost. Every U.S. Attorney's office has been involved, as well as every FBI field office. As part of the $1.7 trillion government spending package passed in December, $2.6 billion was allocated to the U.S. Attorneys, in part to support the Jan. 6 prosecutions."

It's been a partisan political witch hunt, especially when compared to completely ignored leftist protestors trying to break into SCOTUS, setting a federal courthouse on fire, with people inside, etc..

[Yazata]

A skit from Saturday Night Live that's actually good...

If Biden's not going to run... who will? If you thought the terror was over, it's just beginning!

https://x.com/DustieDahl/status/1807742874533998786

[Syne]

Yep, every option is total crap. None of them beat Trump in the polls.