American Politics

[Tiny 12]

Tiny, the Feds are restricting the release of a non-classified document horribly detrimental to Biden. Watch this video of Cruz crucifying the Deputy Director of the FBI about this issue.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ted...bribery-scheme

After this and Russiagate, I do not give a fuck what the FBI thinks about anything. They may as well be a wing of the Democratic party.

And as bad as it is for Biden, it gets worse and worse. This is what came out today. It is horribly bad. Watch the video here too: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ayments-bidens.

The Democratic douches will make fun of the sources as they always do but that is not going to work here. There is audio of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. There are bank records. If they are what the Republicans say they are, and they may not be, Biden is fucked.

And that is why you indict all or none. It is looking to me like indicting Trump was just a stunt to distract.

If you look at the New York Times website, it is what you expect. There are four stories on the cover about Trump. There is nothing on the Biden bribe story. But then there is this one little op ed piece about how Democrats do not want Biden to run in 2024. That is what the NY Times does when something stinks with a Democrat. Give themselves an out for not totally being on Team Biden.

That is why you indict everyone. The justice system should be apolitical. When you only indict Trump, the question is, "Was Trump really that bad or do you guys just not want the Biden bribe scandal on the front page?

Elvis, Please bear with me. It's going to sound like I'm off topic, but I'm not.

Democratic politicians are crafty, and self serving. John Kerry is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry. They're worth about a billion dollars. But in some years they probably didn't pay as much tax as you and I did. Why? They had the overwhelming part of their fortune invested in tax free municipal bonds.

If you look at the wealth tax proposals of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren back in 2016, when they were running for president, they didn't kick in until a persons net worth was about 3 times what each of theirs was. Why? Well, I figure they wanted to leave a margin of safety. Both must have figured their net worth would grow through the years, especially if he or she became president. You can make a mint on book deals and speaking engagements. So they wouldn't end up ever having to pay the tax.

Now look at Biden and the estate tax. Biden proposed dropping the lifetime estate and gift tax exemption to $3.5 million, and increasing the death tax to 45%. If he gets his way, he and Jill could "only" shelter $7 million together ($3.5 million each) from death tax, down from $24 million now. After that, they or their estate pay 45% of whatever's left to the government. Biden has also proposed an additional capital gains tax on the value of assets in an estate in excess of cost basis. I imagine a person could see over 60% of what he's worked for and saved over a lifetime evaporate as a result. And even if Biden doesn't get his way, the lifetime exemption is scheduled to drop from $12 million per person to $5 million on December 31, 2025.

Democrats love to talk about soaking the rich, but have conveniently allowed people to avoid the estate tax with good planning. They're pulling the wool over peoples eyes.

So, anyway, why would the Bidens want to end up with $10 million or $20 million or $30 million in their estate? Answer, they wouldn't. Undoubtedly, like John and Teresa Heinz Kerry, they would prefer that the little people and Republicans pay tax, not them or their estates. Joe and Jill have plenty of money, and they'll make plenty more before they die. Even if they didn't they'll be coddled by the Secret Service and taxpayer money. They may be looking for ways to get money out of their estates before they die. They don't need that $10 or $20 or $30 million. It's much better if that goes to their children, grandchildren and nieces and nephews.

I watched the Cruz video, also the Comer one in your post. Notwithstanding, I don't believe they'll tie the money back to Joe Biden, except perhaps for trivial items like what Hunter paid for some maintenance and improvements on Joe's house. I suspect the tapes and FD-1023 are nothing burgers. Why? One of two things happened.

1. Hunter and Jim Biden (Joe's brother) traded on Joe's name, making millions. Joe was either powerless or too stupid to stop them.

2. Joe did play a part in the family business. He helped out people who forked money over to Hunter and Jim, or gave people the impression he would. For reasons I set out above, and also because a person with presidential aspirations doesn't want to control foreign bank accounts in tax havens, Joe preferred the money go to his son and his brother and their companies.

Now I have no idea which happened. But strongly doubt that Joe Biden would be stupid enough to leave a paper trail or video recordings that would incriminate him, if it was "2" that happened.

I think the whole Burisima thing is a dead end. You may recall that Trump never paid Giuliani for his investigations into Ukraine and Burisma. Instead, Giuliani was paid by two Trump campaign contributors, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Parnas, Fruman and maybe Giuliani were looking for a way to get the Trump Administration and the State Department to pressure the Ukrainian government to do a sweetheart deal, selling U.S. LNG (liquefied natural gas) to Naftogaz, the Ukrainian national oil and gas company. They were going to make a bundle in commission off the deal.

So what could they provide as payback, to Trump? They came up with the Burisma conspiracy theory. (Aside: This is what Trump gets for not paying his attorneys. You get what you pay for. Giuliani became a free agent, and ended up getting Trump impeached twice.)

I don't believe for a minute that Biden really had anything to do with getting Viktor Shokin fired. Shokin was the equivalent of our attorney general, and the conspiracy theory Giuliani, Parnas and Fruman cooked up had Joe Biden getting rid of Shokin so he wouldn't investigate Burisma. This was because Hunter was being paid directors fees of $50,000 per month for years by Burisma. The truth is that Shokin was slow-walking investigations of many companies, including Burisma. He most likely was crooked and being paid off. That's why the Obama Administration, the State Department, and Europeans who were providing aid to Ukraine insisted he get axed. Biden was just delivering the message, nothing more and nothing less. He had nothing to do with the decision to give Ukraine the ultimatum, that either Shokin goes or $1 billion in aid would be withheld.

China's where people probably should be looking, not Burisma. WTF was Joe Biden doing taking Hunter with him on an official Vice Presidential visit to China, on a government jet? Hunter was doing business on the trip, setting up a Chinese private equity fund that I believe got investments from Chinese government owned enterprises. That's telegraphing to people that if you help out Hunter, you might just get some help from Joe down the line. Or at least get Joe's ear if you need to. That fits in a lot better with the "Biden Family Crime Syndicate" theory than Burisma. Now I don't see any evidence that Biden has caved to China as a result of all this. Actually the opposite. Tensions have ratcheted up. Well, I guess when you do business with a mafia family though, it doesn't always do what it says it will. It's kind of similar to what we saw with Trump and the Russians. Many Democrats believe that the Russians hacked the Clinton campaigns emails and then leaked results just before the election, to help out Trump. (Another aside, if that happened it was probably more to screw Hillary Clinton. Putin hated her ever since as Secretary of State she interfered, in his view, in the Russian election in 2011.) Anyway, if Putin did Trump a favor, then, contrary to the views of our Democratic friends here, he didn't get anything in return.

As to the FBI director, I figure he's super sensitive about grandstanding, after Comey's fuckups in 2016 and 2017, so he's going to keep his mouth shut. Yeah, he probably should say something.

I'm not sure that Ted Cruz is onto anything. But I don't know. I haven't been following this that closely. Apparently some Republicans are starting to backtrack on the recordings and FD-1023,

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/15/polit...eme/index.html

[Elvis 2008]

Of course, like Team Trump's indisputable extraordinary collusion with Russia

LOL. More about Putin? You still do not get the whole Russiagate thing was a complete lie fabricated by Hiliary Clinton and law enforcement, and I doubt you ever will.

Now you do not see the irony of your other bullshit impeachment, Ukrainegate. I cannot say I am surprised.

[Elvis 2008]

First there is the false equivalence about guilty. If the tapes are what the Republicans say they are is a declaration of guilt? You are back in douche mode.

If Repubs actually had "audio" of Joe and Hunter Biden, they'd release it. If they had video of a whistleblower repeating his claims under oath, they'd release it.

And this is double douche mode. It figures though. When you only read and listen to your left wing propaganda you do not get the facts and make a statement like this, but it does not matter. You have made an accusation and John Clayton, Mr. Covid boosted x infinity has said the same thing. Well, where are the recordings? LOL.

[Xpartan]

Putin owned Trump. That is what the Steele Dossier said. Oops, that was all bullshit.

No it was not. You know what IS bullshit? Past tense. Putin still owns Trump.

Putin is a bad guy because he invaded Ukraine. Would the war end if Putin dropped dead of a heartache? No, the war has supported among a majority of Russians because they were feeling surrounded by NATO. The people feel this is a war for survival.

What the hell do you know what Russians feel, LOL?

So what is all this Putin is evil BS really about?

Oh, that's easy. Not BS.

Let's just blow off the disgusting Steele Dossier because Putin is evil.

LOL, are you aware, that he was hired by the Republicans, right?

And let's just blow off the alleged $5 million bribe Joe Biden was given by Burisma

Just 5? Couldn't get more impressive number out of your ass?

Hell, Ukraine is so damned good that even if they gave Biden a bribe it is no big deal. But even the hint that Trump took a payout from Putin, even if it is totally false and it was, is way worse because Putin is so evil.

Not surprising. Like I've said before, every MAGA winger is a putin lover under a thin layer of exterior paint.

[John Clayton]

Okay so I see you have this whole "deep state" conspiracy theory going. You aren't a "Libertarian" but are cut from the same cloth as the MAGA cult. Your bromance with Chris makes perfect sense. With that I rest my case where you're concerned, while I still recommend the fresh air and sunshine.

Just today, I was explaining to my foreign born wife about the derivation of "tinfoil hat".

[PVMonger]

Tiny, the Feds are restricting the release of a non-classified document horribly detrimental to Biden. Watch this video of Cruz crucifying the Deputy Director of the FBI about this issue.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ted...bribery-scheme

After this and Russiagate, I do not give a fuck what the FBI thinks about anything. They may as well be a wing of the Democratic party.

And as bad as it is for Biden, it gets worse and worse. This is what came out today. It is horribly bad. Watch the video here too: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ayments-bidens.

The Democratic douches will make fun of the sources as they always do but that is not going to work here. There is audio of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. There are bank records. If they are what the Republicans say they are, and they may not be, Biden is fucked.

And that is why you indict all or none. It is looking to me like indicting Trump was just a stunt to distract.

If you look at the New York Times website, it is what you expect. There are four stories on the cover about Trump. There is nothing on the Biden bribe story. But then there is this one little op ed piece about how Democrats do not want Biden to run in 2024. That is what the NY Times does when something stinks with a Democrat. Give themselves an out for not totally being on Team Biden.

That is why you indict everyone. The justice system should be apolitical. When you only indict Trump, the question is, "Was Trump really that bad or do you guys just not want the Biden bribe scandal on the front page?

You said "The Democratic douches will make fun of the sources as they always do but that is not going to work here. There is audio of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. There are bank records. If they are what the Republicans say they are, and they may not be, Biden is fucked. ".

This is an interesting thought, considering that you have personally said that "guilty" needs to be something a trial decides. Evidently you believe that "guilty" is only reserved for Democrats and the one-term, twice-impeached, adjudicated-sexual-assaulter, former-guy is "innocent". But we all knew that anyway.

Your rants about the FBI and the DOJ are getting old. Almost as old as "Chinese thermostats changed votes in the 2020 election" or "Jewish space lasers cause forest fires" or "There's a pedophile ring operating out of the basement of a basementless pizza parlor building in DC" or any of the other thousands of ridiculous conspiracytheories that most Repubs believe.

If Repubs actually had "audio" of Joe and Hunter Biden, they'd release it. If they had video of a whistleblower repeating his claims under oath, they'd release it. And you know they would. What they have is nothing. Comer even said that he had no direct evidence linking Joe Biden to any crime. What he said was, basically, "Hey, we've got theories but no evidence and what you need to do is trust us that we're going to come up with evidence before Hell freezes over. " Sounds sorta like Guiliani when he was asked about the 2020 election being stolen.

This whole thing is eerily parallel to the one-term, twice-impeached, adjudicated-sexual-assaulter, former-guy's first impeachment trial. Repubs wanted first hand evidence but wouldn't allow anybody to testify who had first hand evidence. And then, at the end, they said "Hey, the President is not guilty because the other side didn't provide any first hand evidence. " A real "Catch 22", right?.

Democrats actually want the one-term, twice-impeached, adjudicated-sexual-assaulter, former-guy run in 2024. Repubs are scared spitless that he actually will.

[Paulie97]

Trump is guilty of stupidity. Like I said, you don't fuck with the deep state...

Okay so I see you have this whole "deep state" conspiracy theory going. You aren't a "Libertarian" but are cut from the same cloth as the MAGA cult. Your bromance with Chris makes perfect sense. With that I rest my case where you're concerned, while I still recommend the fresh air and sunshine.

[EihTooms]

All revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The House has as much power over the economy as the President. While it's difficult to define periods of "major economic expansion and historic job gains", recessions are easy to spot. Here's a list of all recessions since the Great Depression and the party that controlled the House.

1937 Democratic Party
1945 Democratic Party
1949 Democratic Party
1953 Republican Party. The recession started in July, 1953, and Democrats controlled the House for the four years prior to January, 1953.
1958 Democrats
1960 Democrats
1969 Democrats
1973 Democrats
1980 Democrats
1981 Democrats
1990 Democrats
2001 Republican Party
2008 Democrats
2020 Democrats

This is a spurious relationship. If you do not stop continually presenting your spurious relationship between the party of the president and recessions and GDP growth, I'll trot out mine again showing the huge number of young Americans who died in foreign wars under the rule of bloodthirsty Democratic Presidents. Like the one with Russia that Trump tried to avert, and that you, Xpartan and Paulie want to start. (Sarcasm alert)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_...tes_Congresses

Neither any Great Depression, Great Recession or Massive Jobs Destruction nor any Great Recovery, Great Expansion or Historic Jobs Gain occurred because the House made some quirky or meaningful move contrary to what the POTUS ran on, proposed, lobbied for, directed, guided or could have vetoed. The House waits for guidance from the POTUS. The direction of the economy is in the hands of the POTUS as the direction of a ship is in the hands of the Captain. And no major historical result came about, good or bad, because of the ship's crew mutiny and insistence we reverse course.

[EihTooms]

Okay, where?

In Loony Rudy Giuliani's hair dye dripping head.

[EihTooms]

Tiny, the Feds are restricting the release of a non-classified document horribly detrimental to Biden. Watch this video of Cruz crucifying the Deputy Director of the FBI about this issue.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ted...bribery-scheme

After this and Russiagate, I do not give a fuck what the FBI thinks about anything. They may as well be a wing of the Democratic party.

And as bad as it is for Biden, it gets worse and worse. This is what came out today. It is horribly bad. Watch the video here too: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ayments-bidens.

The Democratic douches will make fun of the sources as they always do but that is not going to work here. There is audio of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. There are bank records. If they are what the Republicans say they are, and they may not be, Biden is fucked.

And that is why you indict all or none. It is looking to me like indicting Trump was just a stunt to distract.

If you look at the New York Times website, it is what you expect. There are four stories on the cover about Trump. There is nothing on the Biden bribe story. But then there is this one little op ed piece about how Democrats do not want Biden to run in 2024. That is what the NY Times does when something stinks with a Democrat. Give themselves an out for not totally being on Team Biden.

That is why you indict everyone. The justice system should be apolitical. When you only indict Trump, the question is, "Was Trump really that bad or do you guys just not want the Biden bribe scandal on the front page?

Is that the "evidence" that nobody in the Repub Party can find and the "witness" that has either died, evaporated into thin air or never existed?

Really, after your great victory in the Mueller "Russiagate" investigation you should be basking in the glory of victory that the Florida Grand Jury found no evidence of Trump wearing his wife's panties. You know, "Pantiesgate"!

Of course, like Team Trump's indisputable extraordinary collusion with Russia, there is no law against Trump wearing his wife's panties and the Florida Grand Jury wasn't really looking for evidence of it.

But that shouldn't put a damper on your celebration over Trump not being "convicted" of wearing his wife's panties. Since that one flukey Electoral College award despite losing the vote by millions in 2016, you, Trump and the Repub Party could use a resounding victory to celebrate. Don't squander this rare opportunity by messin' with Joe. You know that never turns out well for your side.

[John Clayton]

...There is audio of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. There are bank records...

Okay, where?

[EihTooms]

Sorry, I should have written "after the great depression" of 1929. The Republican Party controlled the House then.

What, no list of which party controlled the House during all the Great Recoveries from the Great Repub Depressions and Great Repyb Recessions?

The Party of the POTUS is the common denominator of all of the Great Depressions, Great Recessions and Massive Job Losses vs all of the Great Recoveries, Great Expansions and Historic Jobs Creation since the late 1920's.

Yes, the House holds the purse strings but the POTUS proposes the budget, guides and directs it, proposes and guides significant economic legislation, runs for office on those issues, lobbies for the proposals he or she wants them to loosen or tighten the purse strings on and can veto whatever has not gotten the minimum required veto-proof majority support in the Senate. The POTUS has immeasurably more input and control over the direction of the economy than either the House or the Senate. And it is most certainly in the POTUS' hands to respond to gathering clouds of looming potential economic disaster. Or not. Nobody looks to or waits for the House to see and act on it first without the POTUS recognizing and directing the need for it. Sure, a House or Senate move can improve or lessen the results the POTUS' proposals intended. But not so much as to totally reverse them.

BTW, you do recall I am talking about Great Depressions, Great Recessions, Massive Job Losses, Skyrocketing Unemployment Rates and the like, right? Not just every piddling -1 or -2 percent in GDP Growth for a couple of quarters and a momentary uptick in the unemployment rate to oh, 7% or so, right? Those latter are the ones than can reasonably be written off as business cycle results. But not every Great Recession vs every Great Expansion for almost the past 100 years.

[Paulie97]

Like the one with Russia that Trump tried to avert, and that you, Xpartan and Paulie want to start.

Little Vlad started it by invading Ukraine. In fact he'd been arguing for ages through various spurious historical arguments that Ukraine has no right to exist. He wanted to rebuild empire and made his move. Trump is irrelevant as he's a career criminal and traitor that likewise was a tool of Russia. The American people wisely removed him from office. The same and even most Republican lawmakers support Ukraine's right to defend itself while favoring weapon's support. But like I told you, you need to get out of your computer chair, give up chasing your tail in repetitive, and all too predictable competing talking points and get some fresh air and sunlight. The ancient Greeks ages ago had the recipe for good health.

I myself am on track for retirement in October. Thanks in advance for any congratulations. For the first five years I'll be seeing many different countries, and they'll be no bickering in online forums. Zero.

[Elvis 2008]

I'm a Libertarian Elvis. I don't like prosecuting or putting people in jail unless they really deserve it.

Trump is guilty of stupidity. Like I said, you don't fuck with the deep state even if you are an ex president. In our system, when you hide documents from and make false statements to the Feds, and they find out about it, they will fuck you over. That's what Trump did, that Hillary, Pence and Biden did not.

Tiny, the Feds are restricting the release of a non-classified document horribly detrimental to Biden. Watch this video of Cruz crucifying the Deputy Director of the FBI about this issue.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ted...bribery-scheme

After this and Russiagate, I do not give a fuck what the FBI thinks about anything. They may as well be a wing of the Democratic party.

And as bad as it is for Biden, it gets worse and worse. This is what came out today. It is horribly bad. Watch the video here too: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ayments-bidens.

The Democratic douches will make fun of the sources as they always do but that is not going to work here. There is audio of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. There are bank records. If they are what the Republicans say they are, and they may not be, Biden is fucked.

And that is why you indict all or none. It is looking to me like indicting Trump was just a stunt to distract.

If you look at the New York Times website, it is what you expect. There are four stories on the cover about Trump. There is nothing on the Biden bribe story. But then there is this one little op ed piece about how Democrats do not want Biden to run in 2024. That is what the NY Times does when something stinks with a Democrat. Give themselves an out for not totally being on Team Biden.

That is why you indict everyone. The justice system should be apolitical. When you only indict Trump, the question is, "Was Trump really that bad or do you guys just not want the Biden bribe scandal on the front page?

[Elvis 2008]

Since everybody has an opinion on the recent indictment of the former guy, let's take a vote.

The vote has three parts. The first part is for you to state your political leanings. The second part is your opinion of the former guy's guilt or innocence of the charges against him The third part is actually in three parts also. If Hilary, Obama or Biden had been indicted with the same charges that the Feds indicted the former guy with, would your opinion be that they were guilty or innocent.

Yes, I realize that "guilt" or "innocence" is what is decided during a trial. This is about your opinion.

Ill go first. 1. I am a Democrat; 2. My opinion is that the former guy is guilty of some or all of the charges; 3 a. Hilary: She would be guilty; 3 b. Obama: he would be guilty; 3 c. Biden: he would be guilty.

Wow PVM! Sometimes you post stuff like this and I am speechless. Maybe there is hope for you yet. Since I voted in 2008 for Obama and actually like the concept of "free" junior colleges and the public option for health care, I am an independent with Republican leanings but vehemently anti deep state.

I would vote to indict all of them or none of them especially given the timing. If you indict, there are negotiations. At this point, prosecutors can cut a deal and maybe you can get the accused to pay a fine if the law was broken and no one was hurt. That actually is probably what SHOULD happen if no one was hurt by the mishandling of classified documents.

Now when it comes to innocence or guilt it gets tricky. "A trial jury is supposed to serve only as a "fact finder": that is, to evaluate the veracity of witnesses and the strength of evidence presented at trial, then apply the law to that evidence in order to reach a verdict. The jury isn't supposed to decide what the law isor what it should be. ".

That is what lawyers want us to do. They make all the judgment calls and want us to follow them like sheep and expect us to be okay with it. That is bullshit.

There is a reality lawyers do not want us to know: "In its strictest sense, jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. Because the Not Guilty verdict cannot be overturned, and because the jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, the law is said to be nullified in that particular case. ".

I am guided by morals not laws, and I am not putting someone in jail for breaking the law when the average American breaks like three laws a day. Jail should be for people who harmed others. So I do not give a fuck how the law reads. What I want to know is if there was actual harm done.

As of now, there is no evidence of any harm so I am not going to find ANY of them guilty even though as of now, I think they all broke the law. If there is evidence that says there was harm, I would change my mind and found those who caused actual harm guilty.

And if you ever want to not sit on a jury, you just say, "I know what jury nullification is, and I believe in it. " LOL.