ChiGoose

Wrong, as usual. Obviously Hunter was trading on his dad’s name. There’s no reason he would get such a cushy job on his own merit. He’s a classic failson. But there’s a difference between being perceived as wielding your dad’s influence and actually doing it. I have no doubt that Hunter talked up his dad and what he could get his dad to do. But what we haven’t seen is actual hard evidence that Joe Biden actually did anything. We have the testimony of one guy saying he bribed two Biden’s. Is he telling the truth? Is Joe one of the Biden’s or is it Hunter and his uncle? Do you have any independently verified evidence that payment was made specifically to Joe Biden?

I’m willing to believe it but I need more evidence than one guy saying something. Do they have bank records of the money transfers? Any kind of independently verifiable records of the bribes? Or just some guy talking?

I think “desperate” gives them too much credit. They would have to have even the slightest grasp on reality to be desperate. It’s just so, so, so much more likely that they are either ignorant or just stupid.

GTFO with that logic and facts. We all know that Joe Biden was taking bribes because one person who nobody had ever heard of says so and we definitely don’t need to go further than that or get any other actual evidence. Also we need to do absolutely nothing and say absolutely nothing about Jared Kushner’s financial deals…

The thing that is so incredibly hard for the clickservative crowd to understand is that Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the top prosecutor specifically because the prosecutor wasn’t prosecuting corruption. Ironically, Joe Biden pressuring for the firing of Shokin made it *more likely* that Burisma would be investigated but that doesn’t fit the narrative so they just make up BS instead. They will swallow any lie so long as it supports their worldview

Because it’s generally ill-advised to release unproven claims. Why are you spending your Friday night thinking about me? 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

We'll see when the target letter is made public or Trump is actually indicted, but I remain skeptical that he'll be charged for incitement of violence. Fake electors, wire fraud, defrauding the US, etc seem much more likely.

Not necessarily. At its simplest, it's just documenting an unverified tip from someone. If you call the FBI today and tell them that you believe your mailman is the Zodiac Killer, they'll probably have to fill out the form for that, but might not necessarily end up investigating it. Without additional hard evidence or investigative report, this is no different in terms of truth at this stage as the unverified stories in the Steele Dossier. You can either believe both the Steele Dossier claims and this one, or neither. To believe one and not the other at this stage is just being partisan. That changes, of course, if they can actually *prove* some of the claims. Congress has the ability to subpoena financial records and other evidence that could be used to verify the claims. If they believe the claims are accurate, they should do that. Hunter Biden is clearly a scummy guy trading on his dad's name, but you need more than this to show that Joe Biden himself was involved.

Sure, but it won't go that way. While one might think he'd want the trial over sooner if he believed he was innocent (an acquittal before the election probably strengthens him), Trump is going to delay as much as possible to get the date moved after the election. Not sure if he'll be successful though.

I think that's correct from the government's perspective. They seem pretty well organized and shouldn't have a problem presenting their case by May (especially since it is such a slam dunk that any other defendant would have already plead out). However, the discovery process is going to be fairly onerous for Trump's team. Sure, they can get a bunch of junior lawyers on doc review, but to my knowledge, cases involving classified documents rarely go to trial within a year of the indictment. Additionally, there's going to be a lot of motion practice on how to handled the classified materials. As a defendant, Trump would normally be able to view the materials to be used against him but the government would be worried that he would be careless with them and would prefer only Trump's lawyers view it. Additionally, how are they going to handle classified info in open court? Are they going to use the silent witness rule or some other method? It's definitely possible the May date holds, I just wouldn't be surprised if it ends up getting pushed back some.

I am old enough to remember when conservatives were mad about the Steele Dossier because it was just unverified and uninvestigated rumors…

What? No. That doesn’t make any sense. An impeachment resolution by a current House actually has effects.

They literally cannot. Every two years the House is disbanded and a new House is created. It’s not a continuing body like the Senate. They cannot go back and undo the work of a previous House. Most they can do is pass a resolution saying that he shouldn’t have been impeached but it’ll just be a bunch of words.

This actually seems fairly aggressive given the case. I’m curious to see if it doesn’t get pushed back as we get closer.

Good riddance to a real POS owner. Shame he comes out of this making a ton of money.

Conservatives: Stupid liberals think everything is racist. Liberals: Maybe Supreme Court justices shouldn’t take free gifts from billionaires. Conservatives: THAT’S RACIST!!!!

The game they play is lump anything that isn’t pro-Trump in as Dems. So law enforcement enforcing the law becomes part of the Dem scheme is they enforce the law against Trump. Even if Democratic officials, the DNC etc have no part in it.

If he didn't want to get tried in DC, he shouldn't have committed crimes in DC. But his supporters are big mad that he's being held accountable for his actions. Also, if he had listened to his attorney in Florida instead of lying to him and causing him to lie to the government, he wouldn't even be facing charged in Florida. Nobody but himself to blame.

You could try reading the case documents or expert analysis (from people with actual relevant experience) but that might be a bit hard for you. If so, I guess you can just keep railing against the passage of time.

Buddy, you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. I hope you’re not listening to that Julie Kelly moron.

1. The documents case is actually the opposite of DOA. Any rational defendant would have already settled because there’s very little chance of acquittal. 2. Linear time is really triggering to you, huh?

Well this is 100% wrong but you do you, buddy

Or, and here’s the tricky part, you need actual hard evidence to prove that he knew about it. Here’s an example: let’s say that he says he didn’t know the documents were there but then when investigators look into it, they find several other documents or items dated after he left office mixed in. Or his signature or writing on the documents that can be shown to have been done after he left office. I’m sorry the law doesn’t contort to meet your expectations but I suppose if you just cry a lot maybe you can convince someone who doesn’t know any better that you’re right.

Too bad for you that he didn’t admit to taking documents intentionally and then obstruct the investigation into them.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel Charges 16 ‘False Electors’ with Election Law and Forgery Felonies Each defendant has been charged with: One count of Conspiracy to Commit Forgery, a 14-year felony, Two counts of Forgery, a 14-year felony, One count of Conspiracy to Commit Uttering and Publishing, a 14-year felony, One count of Uttering and Publishing, a 14-year felony, One count of Conspiracy to Commit Election Law Forgery, a 5-year felony, and, Two counts of Election Law Forgery, a 5-year felony.