Joe Biden lies exposed.Karine Jean-Pierre last week lies again also.

[Dill]

(09-17-2023, 03:04 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: You’re warping my post. I’m not “just focused on the smoke.” I’m of the belief if there’s that much smoke from so many sources, there’s probably fire somewhere. I thought the same about the Russia collusion, until a 2 year investigation turned up dry. In this case, it turns out there WAS fire there. Hence, if even the Q-Anon-tards knew about the “smoke” which turned out to be NOT just smoke, you can bet the entire Biden clan knew. Apparently the fact that I was mocking Q-Anon’s typical conspiracy theories went over your head.to do that in a constitutional republic.

Our metrics are so different. 

By my standards, a two-year investigation which ends in over two-dozen convictions and almost as many expulsions from the U.S. is not one which "turned up dry." I'm genuinely baffled you claim that.

And in contrast to that investigation, which brought evidence to convict and convicted, and whose investigators did not tease us daily with "proof tomorrow," you say that Biden investigation has revealed "fire"? If that were the case, then why do House leaders want to start an impeachment process TO GET EVIDENCE rather than, as in the usual legal manner, to start the process AFTER they have it?

Because people, especially on the right, will conclude smoke from so many sources must mean fire, that's an incentive for right wing politicians to produce "smoke from so many sources." Inhaling that smoke is not a convincing way to "mock" Qanon conspiracy theories.

(09-17-2023, 03:04 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: The same congress that made everything he wanted to do nearly impossible for 4 straight years? The executive branch is 1/3 of the government. They do not have control over congress. Executive orders are about as close to that as possible, and they can be undone on day 1 of the next presidency. You’re acting like he’s going to come in and tyrannize the country. It’s literally impossible to do that in a constitutional republic. 

I'm not complaining about the resort to executive orders in principle. Obama had to do that too, when the GOP refused to govern.

It is not impossible for Trump to TRY and tyrannize the country. He does not understand rule of law. He directly and vindictively punishes whistleblowers. He chooses advisors not because they tell him what he needs to know, but because they validate what he wants to hear and do. If they don't, they are out and he'll pick someone more pliable. And he will choose more carefully if he gets back in office. No Mattis or Kelly or Bolton to restrain him. Qanon Flynn will be back. That construction of compliant advisors is a characteristic of authoritarian governance. It sets a tone of personal rule (as opposed to rule of law) from the top down. The vindictive punishment of whistleblowers and their family members does that as well.

You speak of Biden "weaponizing" the DoJ on nothing but Fox evidence. Trump's DoJ was ready to resign because he demanded illegal actions, because he was destroying their autonomy from the WH--the autonomy they need to remain impartial and legitimate. He wanted to use the DoJ to invalidate the election.

So he's already proven he will break the law to steal elections. He doesn't know how the law works and certainly doesn't understand rule of law, and he's promised revenge if gets back in office, and will consider pardoning those who destroyed the Capitol.


The worry not so much he could become a functioning dictator, but that he could "break" democracy by rendering government dysfunctional at both federal and state levels. He would paralyze those institutions upon which national security depends. It's not just him. Trump would have control of a regime party ready to implement his disruption.You're aware of the Heritage plan for 2025, right?  https://apnews.com/article/election-2024-conservatives-trump-heritage-857eb794e505f1c6710eb03fd5b58981

The knock on Constitutional Republics since ancient times is that they do become tyrannies, usually by falling into disorder to the point that citizens value a "strong" demagogic leader over rule of law. That's why Franklin famously responded to a woman who asked him what the Constitutional convention had produced--"A republic, madame, if you can keep it." As he and Madison and the rest knew, the Constitutional experiment was uncertain; its continuance would depend upon voters understanding what was at stake in keeping their government, generation after generation. The current generation did a poor job of recognizing Trump's danger last time around. 

(09-17-2023, 03:04 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: We don’t need to know “what favors” there are. He wrote to Zhao “no more favors.” What do you think he was talking about? Free ice cream? The fact that you think it’s OK and that it doesn’t imply anything, is just sad.

Unless I know what the "favors" are, and whether there actually were favors, then he is talking about nothing prosecutable. "That message must have been about something ladies and gentlemen of the jury! The defense rests."

(09-17-2023, 03:04 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: Last: Hunter may not have wanted him to know. Joe may not have wanted to know. Doesn’t change the fact that knew. The Biden camp knew fully well that Hunter is an election liability, likely the biggest one. In order to get elected and handle the mudslinging that would come with said liability, that HAD to know exactly what he was up to. It’s just not reasonable to think Joe Biden didn’t know that his son, who has struggled with working and addiction his entire life, all of a sudden became a millionaire. Even someone as oblivious and senile as Joe Biden. It’s a certainty that he kept up with Hunter, he’s a liability and the Biden camp, out of self interest, had to have a short leash on him. Like I said, you just refuse to listen to reason on this. Do you hate Trump that much? Put away your TDS for like… 5 seconds and try to look at this from a neutral perspective.

Well it's not yet a "fact" that he knew anything beyond something general--his son had dealings with China. Wasn't getting money from them while Joe was in office.  The money HB got from Burisma so far looks perfectly legal. You can't impeach Biden on that, whether he knew or didn't. And the accusation advanced by your friends in the House is not that Joe "kept up" with Hunter, but that he worked with and profited from his business. That's why this is supposed to be "the greatest financial scandal in U.S. history." Since the business so far looks legal, they can't move on Joe unless they find some smoking gun of the sort I suggested above--money routed into his bank accounts, messages demanding the big guy get his cut, etc. Short of that, this is just Benghazi with more fishing expeditions to come.

I don't see how Joe could keep a "short leash" on someone like HB. The "certainty" there is only yours and Comer's and MTG's. Stop attributing my insistence on proper, legal evidentiary protocols to TDS. Those protocols are one of bars between a constitutional republic and tyranny.