Joseph Biden should be tried for treason.

[Morley Drury]

Newsflash-- Trump is a criminal. The fact that he is being charged with crimes doesn't mean Biden had a damn thing to do with it. Again, I have provided example after example of Trump openly and unapologetically trying to pressure his AG --- so much so that his AG said Trump is making it difficult for him to do his job. (Not once did I hear you guys express concern that Trump was weaponizing the DOJ.) You can't provide me with similar examples of BIden trying to pressure his AG because that is not how Biden behaves. That is not how decent people who understand the separation of powers behave. Biden understands his constitutional role and that the DOJ works for the county -- not the president. The old rule that most every MAGA accusation is a confession rings true here. Because Trump blatantly tried to weaponize his DOJ, you try to project that onto Biden.

And now you're going to pretend 1/6 was merely "dissent?" Attacking police officers was "dissent?" Taking a dump in the Capitol was "dissent?" Stealing government property was "dissent?" Battering through barricaded doors was "dissent?"

Nothing ever happens to the other side? Hunter BIden and Sen. Mendendez would like a word.

What crimes has he committed? (crickets chirping...).

If you want to see weaponizing...you do recall that Bill Clinton fired every single US Attorney, don't you?

Biden doesn't "behave," he sits in a puddle of drool, eating oatmeal and watching Matlock re-runs. I should have been more descriptive and said that I was talking about Jill B, or whomever is running this administration. It certainly isn't Biden, who last we checked, was rummaging in the trunk of his corvette looking for the nuclear codes.

Oh, and if you think the DOJ doesn't work for the President, you're even dumber than usual.

 

[aimeedee]

What crimes has he committed? (crickets chirping...).

If you want to see weaponizing...you do recall that Bill Clinton fired every single US Attorney, don't you?

Biden doesn't "behave," he sits in a puddle of drool, eating oatmeal and watching Matlock re-runs. I should have been more descriptive and said that I was talking about Jill B, or whomever is running this administration. It certainly isn't Biden, who last we checked, was rummaging in the trunk of his corvette looking for the nuclear codes.

Oh, and if you think the DOJ doesn't work for the President, you're even dumber than usual.

What crimes? Falsifying business records, refusing to return classified documents, tampering with evidence, solicitation of a violation of an oath by a public officer. There are 88 counts -- take your pick.



This echoes his earlier statements as the President-Elect when introducing his nomination to the Attorney General back in January 2021: "I want to be clear to those who lead this department who you will serve: You won't work for me. You are not the president's or the vice president's lawyer."

There are no laws establishing a formal boundary between the president and the Department of Justice. But the DOJ has internal policies, and some experts emphasize its culture of 'independence.'

Does the president have control over the Department of Justice?

How much power does the U.S. president actually have over the Department of Justice?

scrippsnews.com

 

[SouthbayTrojan91]

No big deal.

 

[SouthbayTrojan91]

 

[Morley Drury]

What crimes? Falsifying business records, refusing to return classified documents, tampering with evidence, solicitation of a violation of an oath by a public officer. There are 88 counts -- take your pick.



This echoes his earlier statements as the President-Elect when introducing his nomination to the Attorney General back in January 2021: "I want to be clear to those who lead this department who you will serve: You won't work for me. You are not the president's or the vice president's lawyer."

There are no laws establishing a formal boundary between the president and the Department of Justice. But the DOJ has internal policies, and some experts emphasize its culture of 'independence.'

Does the president have control over the Department of Justice?

How much power does the U.S. president actually have over the Department of Justice?

scrippsnews.com

Falsified records? I hadn't heard that one. There was a claim that he exaggerated his assets on a loan app--a loan that was paid back, the bank said it did its own appraisals, and it wasn't clear that his valuations were wrong. You proved my point with that one.

Having classified docs? You're more bothered by having then in a building secured by Secret Service, than in some boxes in a garage next to a corvette? Odd priorities, but even that case was a pissing contest between bureaucrats at the Archives Office and an ex-president. Nothing to see there.

There is no such thing as "independence" at DOJ. They serve at the pleasure of the President, they enforce the president's directives...you're new to this stuff, aren't you? A president either puts a buffoon at AG--Janet Reno--or his most trusted buddy--Eric Holder, John Mitchell, or even his brother (RFK).

This isn't hard.

 

[aimeedee]

Falsified records? I hadn't heard that one. There was a claim that he exaggerated his assets on a loan app--a loan that was paid back, the bank said it did its own appraisals, and it wasn't clear that his valuations were wrong. You proved my point with that one.

Having classified docs? You're more bothered by having then in a building secured by Secret Service, than in some boxes in a garage next to a corvette? Odd priorities, but even that case was a pissing contest between bureaucrats at the Archives Office and an ex-president. Nothing to see there.

There is no such thing as "independence" at DOJ. They serve at the pleasure of the President, they enforce the president's directives...you're new to this stuff, aren't you? A president either puts a buffoon at AG--Janet Reno--or his most trusted buddy--Eric Holder, John Mitchell, or even his brother (RFK).

This isn't hard.

LOL! You accuse me of not knowing anything and you don't even know the felonies with which Trump is charged?

The falsified records charge pertains to his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.

And I didn't say "having" classified docs. I said refusing to return classified docs. You know damn well what I said, yet you chose to switch it because you know the contrast between Trump and everyone else is the fact that Trump refused to cooperate when given ample opportunity. And it now looks like he even conspired to destroy security footage concerning the documents.

Yes, AGs are appointed. But their job is to uphold the law, not to do the president's bidding. The AG is to advise the POTUS on what is or is not legal. It is one of the main reasons Trump's attempts to overturn the election failed -- because they refused to lie when Trump ordered the DOJ to "just say the election was corrupt" and because they threatened mass resignations if he replaced the acting AG with an election stealing co-conspirator Clark. (See once again, you Trumpers assume that just because other corrupt MAGAs are willing to do Trump's bidding, that that is how the DOJ works. It isn't. The DOJ is filled with professionals who respect and uphold the law, regardless of what the POTUS wants. They are the thin line between a democracy and an authoritarian state.)

No, this isn't hard, but your skull is.

 

[Morley Drury]

LOL! You accuse me of not knowing anything and you don't even know the felonies with which Trump is charged?

The falsified records charge pertains to his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.

And I didn't say "having" classified docs. I said refusing to return classified docs. You know damn well what I said, yet you chose to switch it because you know the contrast between Trump and everyone else is the fact that Trump refused to cooperate when given ample opportunity. And it now looks like he even conspired to destroy security footage concerning the documents.

Yes, AGs are appointed. But their job is to uphold the law, not to do the president's bidding. The AG is to advise the POTUS on what is or is not legal. It is one of the main reasons Trump's attempts to overturn the election failed -- because they refused to lie when Trump ordered the DOJ to "just say the election was corrupt" and because they threatened mass resignations if he replaced the acting AG with an election stealing co-conspirator Clark. (See once again, you Trumpers assume that just because other corrupt MAGAs are willing to do Trump's bidding, that that is how the DOJ works. It isn't. The DOJ is filled with professionals who respect and uphold the law, regardless of what the POTUS wants. They are the thin line between a democracy and an authoritarian state.)

No, this isn't hard, but your skull is.

How is paying hush money a crime? Yeah, I didn't think so.

If you prefer your semantics, OK. It still remains a pissing contest between some bureaucrats who are butt hurt at having to ask nicely. There was no harm having the docs secured by the Secret Service at Mar-a-Lago, while the spat was being sorted out, and having them in a file cabinet someplace. So wrong again.

Your silliest comments are those regarding AGs. It's pretty rare for an AG to be "independent," as they are in your fantasies. RFK was never going to challenge his brother, often a campaign manager is appointed there, or a true idiot, like Janet Reno, who was controlled by Hillary's old boss, Webb Hubbell. You may want to read up on this stuff.

You pretend to worry about an "authoritarian" state, but you don't really. You aren't bothered by lefty judges voting to keep a political opponent of their president off the ballot, as is done in Russia, or attempts to bankrupt an opponent with nonsense court attacks, or a lefty Judge ordering Trump not to campaign, because for some reason he absolutely, positively has to sit in a kangaroo court. THAT is what an authoritarian state looks like.

 

[aimeedee]

How is paying hush money a crime? Yeah, I didn't think so.

If you prefer your semantics, OK. It still remains a pissing contest between some bureaucrats who are butt hurt at having to ask nicely. There was no harm having the docs secured by the Secret Service at Mar-a-Lago, while the spat was being sorted out, and having them in a file cabinet someplace. So wrong again.

Your silliest comments are those regarding AGs. It's pretty rare for an AG to be "independent," as they are in your fantasies. RFK was never going to challenge his brother, often a campaign manager is appointed there, or a true idiot, like Janet Reno, who was controlled by Hillary's old boss, Webb Hubbell. You may want to read up on this stuff.

You pretend to worry about an "authoritarian" state, but you don't really. You aren't bothered by lefty judges voting to keep a political opponent of their president off the ballot, as is done in Russia, or attempts to bankrupt an opponent with nonsense court attacks, or a lefty Judge ordering Trump not to campaign, because for some reason he absolutely, positively has to sit in a kangaroo court. THAT is what an authoritarian state looks like.

Pay attention, professor, I said falsifying business records pertains to the hush money trial. Kind of like a perjury charge would pertain to getting a BJ in the Oval Office.

Who are you to determine whether or not there was "harm" in a malignant narcissist keeping highly classified documents in his bathroom? You don't know what the documents entailed or who saw them. Have you seen the kind of characters parading in and out that place? FFS even Kid Rock was wondering if it was OK for him to be seeing what he was seeing. Trump allegedy shared classified information about nuclear submarines with an Australian businessman. Donald Trump would do anything for someone that flatters him or pays him. That is how our adversaries see him -- an easily flattered dupe. There was no "spat" -- there was, at best, obstinance on the part of Trump and it appears that there was outright attempt to deceive and hide materials.

You can blather on and on about what RKF would have done or what Reno would have done but the bottom line is, their job is to uphold the law. And that is why Trump was not successful in his attempt to steal the election. I know that baffles you because you think like a MAGA, but the DOJ works for US.

It was one of the most conservative judges in the country who brought the lawsuit to have Trump removed from the ballot, and I would support that just like I would support anyone not qualified being removed from the ballot. If Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for president, I would expect him to be kept off the ballot. Upholding the constitution is not "authoritarian." I'm sorry you have so little regard for the law that you consider them "nonsense court attacks." Donald Trump has no problem suing other people. He is quite fluent in it. I'm so old I can remember when conservatives used to believe in accountability.

 

[AvengingDiscoGodfather]

Says very few people in America. You demonstrate an absolute appalling lack of insight to what's happening in America to the majority of people. I know.....as long as you and yours are "okay", then move on, nothing to worry about.

I feel the pain at the grocery store specifically. Cereal is insane. I have kids, and yes I indulge them on things like Cocoa Pebbles or Trix, but a normal box is $6.00. Even chips for snacks. A regular sized bag of Doritos is $7.00 and a family sized one is $10! Any 12 pack of soda is $7.99 on sale. This is not inflation but profitflation and should be a focus of Washington - either this, the same, or the next administration.

 

[Pudly76]

How is paying hush money a crime? Yeah, I didn't think so.

If you prefer your semantics, OK. It still remains a pissing contest between some bureaucrats who are butt hurt at having to ask nicely. There was no harm having the docs secured by the Secret Service at Mar-a-Lago, while the spat was being sorted out, and having them in a file cabinet someplace. So wrong again.

Your silliest comments are those regarding AGs. It's pretty rare for an AG to be "independent," as they are in your fantasies. RFK was never going to challenge his brother, often a campaign manager is appointed there, or a true idiot, like Janet Reno, who was controlled by Hillary's old boss, Webb Hubbell. You may want to read up on this stuff.

You pretend to worry about an "authoritarian" state, but you don't really. You aren't bothered by lefty judges voting to keep a political opponent of their president off the ballot, as is done in Russia, or attempts to bankrupt an opponent with nonsense court attacks, or a lefty Judge ordering Trump not to campaign, because for some reason he absolutely, positively has to sit in a kangaroo court. THAT is what an authoritarian state looks like.

Why are they so worried about the “Crossfire Hurricane” docs?


I wonder…

 

[Morley Drury]

Pay attention, professor, I said falsifying business records pertains to the hush money trial. Kind of like a perjury charge would pertain to getting a BJ in the Oval Office.

Who are you to determine whether or not there was "harm" in a malignant narcissist keeping highly classified documents in his bathroom? You don't know what the documents entailed or who saw them. Have you seen the kind of characters parading in and out that place? FFS even Kid Rock was wondering if it was OK for him to be seeing what he was seeing. Trump allegedy shared classified information about nuclear submarines with an Australian businessman. Donald Trump would do anything for someone that flatters him or pays him. That is how our adversaries see him -- an easily flattered dupe. There was no "spat" -- there was, at best, obstinance on the part of Trump and it appears that there was outright attempt to deceive and hide materials.

You can blather on and on about what RKF would have done or what Reno would have done but the bottom line is, their job is to uphold the law. And that is why Trump was not successful in his attempt to steal the election. I know that baffles you because you think like a MAGA, but the DOJ works for US.

It was one of the most conservative judges in the country who brought the lawsuit to have Trump removed from the ballot, and I would support that just like I would support anyone not qualified being removed from the ballot. If Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for president, I would expect him to be kept off the ballot. Upholding the constitution is not "authoritarian." I'm sorry you have so little regard for the law that you consider them "nonsense court attacks." Donald Trump has no problem suing other people. He is quite fluent in it. I'm so old I can remember when conservatives used to believe in accountability.

Which page in the Constitution calls for keeping a political opponent off the ballot merely because you don't like him?

Arnold's case is clear, so it's your usual silly example. And no, DOJ works for the President, or at least the AG did...except back in Trump's presidency, it worked for the deep state. The FBI needs to be massively reformed.

It's cute that you think RFK would prosecute his brother.

 

[aimeedee]

Which page in the Constitution calls for keeping a political opponent off the ballot merely because you don't like him?

Arnold's case is clear, so it's your usual silly example. And no, DOJ works for the President, or at least the AG did...except back in Trump's presidency, it worked for the deep state. The FBI needs to be massively reformed.

It's cute that you think RFK would prosecute his brother.

I'm sorry -- was there a lawsuit to keep Trump off the ballot "merely because I don't like him?"

3. Adopted in the wake of the Civil War, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a qualification for holding public office in the United States. It bars from office any person who swore an “oath … to support the Constitution of the United States” as a federal or state officer and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or [gave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” unless Congress “remove such disability” by a two-thirds vote. U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 3. 4. Like other constitutional qualifications based on age, citizenship, and residency, Section 3 is enforceable through civil suits in state court to challenge a candidate’s eligibility to hold public office, including the Office of the President. Neither Section 3’s text nor precedent require a criminal conviction for “insurrection” or any other offense for a person to be adjudged 2 disqualified, as leading constitutional scholars have confirmed.1 Rather, Section 3 “operates independently of any … criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation”; it applies “directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution.” Luttig & Tribe, supra note 1.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Anderson-v-Griswold_Verified-Petition_2023.09.06_01.pdf

So, it is your belief that the role of the DOJ is to do the bidding of the POTUS, without regard to the law? And the fact that the DOJ did not carry out Trump's unlawful demands means they are part of the "Deep State." Bwaaaahhhhaaaa! Nope, nothing authoritarian at all about having the entire federal justice system carrying out the whims of one giant man-baby! Man, you MAGAs sure do have a screwed up view of system of government. No wonder you're always so angry and confused.

 

[SouthbayTrojan91]

Which page in the Constitution calls for keeping a political opponent off the ballot merely because you don't like him?

Arnold's case is clear, so it's your usual silly example. And no, DOJ works for the President, or at least the AG did...except back in Trump's presidency, it worked for the deep state. The FBI needs to be massively reformed.

It's cute that you think RFK would prosecute his brother.

You realize you are trying to discuss with an insane person?

 

[aimeedee]

You realize you are trying to discuss with an insane person?

Funny how he can't even keep up his end with an "insane" person.

 

[Morley Drury]

You realize you are trying to discuss with an insane person?

Yes, I know. Like pulling wings off a butterfly. Not much news from the portal, so killing some time.