Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[Luvnit2]

Democrats cry no evidence, then when a Patriot goes under oath. testifies he has direct evidence with meetings one on one with Joe, text messages and more they claim no evidence.

Some say no denial Hunter was influence peddling and violated FARA (Manafort went to jail for same offense), but Biden DOJ ignores Hunter's criminal activity. Why didn't the DOJ arrest Hunter and get him to flip against the bigger target Joe Biden. Simple, they are Democrats and not named Trump.

Joe Biden is guilty and thankfully Independents now know it. They saw him lie in a debate, they saw 51 supposed trusted former intelligence officers lie and say Hunter's laptop may be Russian disinformation knowing it was Hunter's laptop.

The same Democrats in this forum applauding Trump's indictments are defending Biden as 100% innocent. Trump has been indicted and is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. The difference is Biden and his son escaped charges for FARA and RICCO charges for their actions as the DOJ ran interference to ensure Joe was safe.

[Luvnit2]

Will Biden's Ghostwriter spread some light on timeline and classified documents Biden showed him? Hur and Biden's AG Garland made a decision to not press charges. But, a Trump win could me issues for Biden after the election.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-judiciary-subpoenas-biden-ghostwriter-amid-classified-records-investigation

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has subpoenaed Mark Zwonitzer, the ghostwriter of President Biden’s memoir amid the panel’s oversight probe of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into Biden’s retention of classified records.

Fox News Digital reviewed the subpoena, which demands Zwonitzer turn over all documents and communications with Biden or his staff related to his ghostwriting work on his memoirs "Promise Me, Dad" and "Promises to Keep," including emails, call logs and more.

The subpoena also compels Zwonitzer to turn over all contracts and agreements related to his work, along with audio recordings of interviews and conversations with Joe Biden and transcripts of those conversations and interviews.

The president has claimed that he did not share classified information with Zwonitzer, but Hur’s report, released last month, states that Biden would "read from his notebooks nearly verbatim, sometimes for an hour or more at a time," and "at least three times President Biden read classified notes from national security meetings" to Zwonitzer "nearly verbatim."

"Despite President Biden’s unequivocal contradiction of these material facts, Special Counsel Hur’s report contains references to ‘audio recordings’ and ‘transcripts’ of your multiple conversations with President Biden ‘related to [your] ghostwriting work of Biden’s memoirs,’" Jordan wrote in the subpoena’s cover letter, obtained by Fox News Digita

[Dill]

(03-22-2024, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's OK when we do it.  

Ok when "we" spontaneously protest police murder. Yes.

Not ok when "you" storm the Capitol to overturn a valid election,
directed to the spot and sent into action by an autocrat who wants to remain in power.

Thinking that's a double standard is just confusion about standards

--i.e., about which standards maintain a liberal democracy and which don't.

(03-22-2024, 01:54 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Maybe not the same motivation but maybe the same mindset.
2 wrongs don't make a right.
See how easy that is to condemn both.

Yo MB! I quite agree that protestors who rioted were wrong. 

And I'm not lumping those rioters in with Trump supporters who did not break the law on Jan. 6.

But I think NOT the same mindset, and not the same danger to democracy.

The BLM protests were spontaneous and mostly peaceful and concerned to right what most agree was a real wrong.
Biden didn't call them together with a Big Lie and send them to attack a police station for his personal gain,
then watch while ignoring aides and Rachel Maddow telling him to call it off.
And Facebook memes not withstanding, he condemned any and all who turned to violence.

The Capitol protesters were organized as part of plan to steal an election,
and set into action by a then still-sitting president, who still praises their
actions and promises to free the "patriot hostages" if elected.

So when I post an image of the Capitol riot, the claim is not "you" riot and "we" don't.
But that evidence of Trump wrongdoing is a matter of public record--visual and documentary.

I'm disputing the claim/assumption that evidence of Biden wrong doing is "overwhelming"
or on the same footing as  evidence of Trump wrong doing. The Biden "evidence" is rehearsed in the Luvnit posts before this one.

Stewy got it right:  there continues to be this attitude of "it's coming", which has been going on for over two years and at the end of the road, every time, it's just been Hunter Biden standing there looking like a douche. There has been no EVIDENCE, in this multi-year hunt for corruption that the POTUS had any dealings in his sons dirty deeds. No evidence. Zero. None.

[SunsetBengal]

Hmm, Leftists want to double down on the same messaging being rejected by people they are counting on for votes. What a strange course of action..

Seems to me more denying the evidence, as illustrated by Liz Cheney deliberately not producing possibly exculpatory evidence of the phone call between Trump staff and the DC Mayor inquiring about extra National Guard support. Not unlike pretending that an actual Biden family associate has given sworn testimony that he was to speak in "code" to allow for plausible deniability in the influence peddling case. The Democratic party seems to be built upon a house of cards that is about to get a lofting breeze that causes it to fall.

[*pally*]

(03-22-2024, 02:42 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Democrats cry no evidence, then when a Patriot goes under oath. testifies he has direct evidence with meetings one on one with Joe, text messages and more they claim no evidence.

Some say no denial Hunter was influence peddling and violated FARA (Manafort went to jail for same offense), but Biden DOJ ignores Hunter's criminal activity. Why didn't the DOJ arrest Hunter and get him to flip against the bigger target Joe Biden. Simple, they are Democrats and not named Trump.

Joe Biden is guilty and thankfully Independents now know it. They saw him lie in a debate, they saw 51 supposed trusted former intelligence officers lie and say Hunter's laptop may be Russian disinformation knowing it was Hunter's laptop.

The same Democrats in this forum applauding Trump's indictments are defending Biden as 100% innocent. Trump has been indicted and is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. The difference is Biden and his son escaped charges for FARA and RICCO charges for their actions as the DOJ ran interference to ensure Joe was safe.

If Bobulinski has evidence of texts, then why in the world would the Republicans on the Committee reject the Democrats request to see the phone which he claimed to have with him.

You may think he is guilt…good for you…but since you decided he was guilty before the hearings began please forgive the rest of us for wanting to see actual evidence and not conjecture.

And we know they don’t have any evidence of any crime that Joe committed because THEY HAVEN’T IMPEACHED HIM!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-22-2024, 05:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Ok when "we" spontaneously protest police murder. Yes.

Oh, I witnessed many first hand, something you cannot claim (you certainly never have), and there was nothing "spontaneous" about them.  Also, plenty such protests occurred after lawful shootings by LEO's.  But you knew that already.

Quote:Not ok when "you" storm the Capitol to overturn a valid election,
directed to the spot and sent into action by an autocrat who wants to remain in power.

No, that was certainly not OK, either.

Quote:Thinking that's a double standard is just confusion about standards

--i.e., about which standards maintain a liberal democracy and which don't.

Confusion to be sure.  Confusing what is, and is not, a terrorist.  What is, and is not, a lawful police shooting.  Whole lotta confusion going on.

[GMDino]

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1771180915126919652?s=20

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-22-2024, 01:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They sure do, Gary.

I’m having a hard time fining the Biden flags in that picture? Why is that?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-22-2024, 07:56 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m having a hard time fining the Biden flags in that picture? Why is that?

You got me, dude.  Those are definitely GOP voters in that photo.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-22-2024, 07:56 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m having a hard time fining the Biden flags in that picture? Why is that?

Is there really a difference?  I mean you and I both pay for the damages, either way.

[*pally*]

(03-22-2024, 07:00 PM)GMDino Wrote:

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1771180915126919652?s=20

So Comer believes the President of the United States has committed crimes so serious that he should be prosecuted but not so serious that he should lose his job...yeah I understand exactly.  Now they can blame the DOJ for not prosecuting and claim it's political.

[hollodero]

(03-22-2024, 07:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You got me, dude.  Those are definitely GOP voters in that photo.

Eh, I mean, they quite certainly are not that. But I'd find it a tough sell to claim these guys are as fanatical about Biden or the democrats as the Capitol stormers are about Trump. Which is what makes me doubt the validity of this comparison.

[*Nately120*]

(03-22-2024, 07:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You got me, dude.  Those are definitely GOP voters in that photo.

For all we know they all voted for Trump and then a massive communist dump turned their votes into votes for Biden.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-22-2024, 11:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: Eh, I mean, they quite certainly are not that. But I'd find it a tough sell to claim these guys are as fanatical about Biden or the democrats as the Capitol stormers are about Trump. Which is what makes makes me doubt the validity of this comparison.

Well that's good. Somebody gets it.

[GMDino]

So lost in the "whose rioters were worse...the ones protesting a murder or the ones who wanted their guy to illegally stay President" is the fact that a Biden impeachment will not be "soon".  In fact it's not going to happen at all.  And this because the gop has produced zero to connect anything Hunter did to President Biden.

And I know Luvnit will come and "just ask" if the NEXT special witness will be the one to fill in the made up gaps the republican party has tried to create a story from, but even Comer is giving up.

[Dill]

(03-23-2024, 01:30 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Well that's good. Somebody gets it.

A lot of people get it. 

l'd wager that over half of the people who "don't get it" really do as well. 

But acknowledging this one false equivalence would risk recognizing a chain of other false equivalences as well,
a whole system of them.

[Dill]

(03-23-2024, 08:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: So lost in the "whose rioters were worse...the ones protesting a murder or the ones who wanted their guy to illegally stay President" is the fact that a Biden impeachment will not be "soon".  In fact it's not going to happen at all.  And this because the gop has produced zero to connect anything Hunter did to President Biden.
And I know Luvnit will come and "just ask" if the NEXT special witness will be the one to fill in the made up gaps the republican party has tried to create a story from, but even Comer is giving up.

I don't think there is a disconnect. 

We are discussing two different versions of reality, one based on "alternative facts" and one not.

That there is a Biden "impeachment" at all is just another attempt to create a set of alternative facts
which equate Biden and a former president who not only profited from office but attempted a coup--
the ONLY president EVER to do that.

The impeachment will not be "soon," as you say, because of the vast difference in
quantity and type of evidence when comparing the attempt to impeach Biden to the Trump impeachments.
Even a Fox News commentator has mocked the "high threshold for humiliation" exhibited by the
impeachment caucus as ridiculous fail follows ridiculous fail. (A good obituary of the Biden impeachment in this link:
https://time.com/6767653/biden-impeachment-fbi-informant-russia/)

The nature of legal arguments in each case is instructive as well, with Dershowitz et al. shrinking and diluting presidential
legal accountability in Trump's case of documented violations, while striving to include conjecture and hearsay as
legal ground in Biden's. No witness in the Trump impeachments was discovered to be working for foreign intel agencies. 
Though some were vindictively fired by Trump for putting the Constitution above him. Now people want Trump back as president. 
Because the economy is just so bad. 

We have this problem as a nation because millions of voters now accept the repetition of ungrounded claims
as legal fact, and when those ungrounded claims produce no result, they become proof of "two-tier system of justice,"
fueling the distrust of government orchestrated by Trump and minions which makes his return to power possible. 

And those voters have set character aside as a factor in choosing who should represent the US to the world and to new generations of voters.

Reducing the attempt to overturn a valid election to mere rioting, and then proving "both sides do it" (though, as Nati pointed
out, one side conspicuously lacked Biden flags) is part of the effort to maintain the alternative reality of false equivalences
between a movement which will trash democracy to get an autocrat back into power and those who defend rule of law.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-22-2024, 11:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: Eh, I mean, they quite certainly are not that. But I'd find it a tough sell to claim these guys are as fanatical about Biden or the democrats as the Capitol stormers are about Trump. Which is what makes me doubt the validity of this comparison.

I wasn't at the Capitol, I was at several BLM protests, and no, they were not all because of the George Floyd murder.  Several of them were protests over completely lawful, and necessary, shootings involving law enforcement.  Fanatical is absolutely a word I'd use for those people.  Also, the comparison is that both sides have engaged in political violence and no, it is not, as asserted by our resident word twisters, a discussion about which side is worse.  The answer is both sides suck.  Also, it is 100% a fact that Dem politicians excused, and in some cases encouraged the political violence.   So no, there is no moral high ground to be claimed here.

Lastly, it is completely acceptable, and rational to find all of these incidents awful and unacceptable.  But, you'll notice several people here are not doing that.

[StoneTheCrow]

(03-23-2024, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, it is 100% a fact that Dem politicians excused, and in some cases encouraged the political violence.   

You just unlocked a memory.

https://abcnews4.com/amp/news/nation-world/kamala-harris-backed-bail-fund-helped-incarcerated-man-now-charged-with-murder-go-free

[hollodero]

(03-23-2024, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wasn't at the Capitol, I was at several BLM protests, and no, they were not all because of the George Floyd murder.  Several of them were protests over completely lawful, and necessary, shootings involving law enforcement.  Fanatical is absolutely a word I'd use for those people.

That might be understandable enough, call them fanatical, but the issue I have with it is that they are not fanatical about Democrats specifically. You, imho, can not count them as firmly in their side's camp as you have to put the Capitol stormers into Trump's camp. The BLM protesters, fanatic and violent or not, would not listen to any democrat as devoutly as all the Capitol folks would have listened to Trump. I'd even argue most of them merely see democrats as the lesser evil of the two alternatives around, that this is the whole basis of any real party affiliation. Which imho is why a BLM protest does not look like a democrat party event, unlike the Capitol storm that quite visibly was 100% in Trump's name.

(03-23-2024, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, the comparison is that both sides have engaged in political violence and no, it is not, as asserted by our resident word twisters, a discussion about which side is worse.  The answer is both sides suck.  Also, it is 100% a fact that Dem politicians excused, and in some cases encouraged the political violence.   So no, there is no moral high ground to be claimed here.

I can't go with "both sides suck", not that I want to disagree in principle, as the only viable answer, for one because in any comparison like that, it sure inherently matters to me if the equivalency is fair or who is actually worse. And when it comes to that, imho it's not that black and white, there's still different variations of grey. I most certainly don't call all democrats blameless, but the most influential liberal politicians did not endorse violence, most certainly the presidential candidate did not. While the other candidate, the one that dominates his party, "loves" the capitol rioters, calls them incredible patriots and whatnot. And as long as there's no important democrat (not just some isolated backbencher) calling a stone-throwing, car-burning BLM rioter something akin to that, I feel the comparison falls flat already. And that's not even considering the whole coup aspect.

(03-23-2024, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lastly, it is completely acceptable, and rational to find all of these incidents awful and unacceptable.  But, you'll notice several people here are not doing that.

Oh sure, and I would agree that there's a lot of downplaying around that seems uncalled for, indeed on both sides. But that can not be the basis to declare democrats equally at fault for BLM riots as Trump is for the Capitol storm. That, to me, is just as much of an unreasonable simplification as claiming one side is totally spotless would be.