ChiGoose

No, I try to find the actual facts. To believe that this was actually Joe Biden doing it on behalf of his son, you have to ignore that he was doing it on orders from the President, that our allies were all in support and that even the GOP witness said that Shokin was good for Burisma. “Archer’s congressional testimony mostly supported this claim. He claimed that he was told by others in Burisma’s D.C. office “that the firing of Shokin was bad for Burisma because he was under control.” So what’s more likely: 1. Hunter and Joe Biden tricked the entire western world into supporting firing Shokin so they could make money and then everybody decided to lie about it afterwards because… reasons?; or: 2. Occam’s Razor: Biden acted to enact US policy at the behest of the President and our allies.

I honestly have a hard time understanding why anyone still believes this is evidence that Biden was trying to help Hunter. All of the public evidence goes against it and firing Shokin meant it was *more* likely that Burisma would face investigations. It’s just willful ignorance at this point.

Isn’t the House investigating this? They can subpoena Biden’s financial records. They even have a very recent SCOTUS decision that gives them ammo to do so.

I think you may be misunderstanding the main reason why the plea deal fell apart. It is not uncommon for plea deals to have a non-prosecution clause that says the person pleading cannot be charged from crimes covered by the plea deal as long as they abide by the deal’s terms. Here, we would expect that to cover tax crimes and the gun crime. But for some reason, Hunter’s attorneys thought it covered *all* crimes, including potential FARA violations. The government clearly did not feel that was correct. The FARA investigation was ongoing and they didn’t think it should be covered in the non-prosecution agreement for tax and gun crimes. If the government was trying to give Hunter a sweetheart deal, they wouldn’t have objected to his attorney’s interpretation of the non-prosecution clause. They could have wrapped up all of Hunter’s potential crimes in this plea deal and called it a day.

The fact that so many of them are *still* listening to that Julie Kelly idiot tells you that they don’t care about facts. They just want someone to pat them on the head and tell them how smart they are while they are getting everything wrong.

Seems like the opposite to me. Most cases never go to trial, they either plead out or are dropped. Special counsels are very rare. Up until it was clear this was going to trial, this played out pretty much how it would if any of us were the target.* The Feds investigate, the US Attorney indicts, the parties negotiated, and a plea was reached. The situation changes when it is going to trial. Because Weiss cannot charge outside of Delaware, he needed Special Counsel powers. Because he’s taking the son of the president to trial, he probably should have Special Counsel independence. Also, since the investigation was so far along that it almost ended in a plea, it wouldn’t make much sense to bring in a whole new team, which would likely cause significant delays. It would also mean that Biden’s appointee Garland would be handpicking the Special Counsel which I doubt MAGA people would be very happy about. *The only difference really is that Biden didn’t replace the US Attorney when he came into office. Normally, all of the US Attorneys resign when a new president comes in. But since Trump’s appointee Weiss was investigating Biden’s son, it would have been inappropriate (though well within Biden’s authority) to replace him with a hand picked US Attorney.

I think it’s just the collapse of the plea deal. Without the plea deal, you’re headed to trial against the son of the President. Aside from the jurisdictional issues I mentioned before, elevating Weiss to Special Counsel gives him a level of independence he doesn’t have as a US Attorney. If the DoJ is going to prosecute the President’s kid, having as much independence as possible from main Justice is a good idea. That wasn’t necessary when he was just going to plead out, but it’s the right thing to do now that they are moving to a trial.

Part of the plea deal was that Hunter waived his right of venue. They could settle the tax and gun charges in Delaware. With the plea deal blown up, the crimes will have to be prosecuted in the venues in which they occurred. As the US Attorney for the District of Delaware, Weiss can only charge in Delaware. He needs Special Counsel status to charge Hunter outside of Delaware. I believe he has already filed a motion to withdraw the information filed in Delaware so that he can file indictments for the same crimes in other jurisdictions.

Yeah, I suppose my hopes were too high. When the Sotomayor story came out, I had hoped that maybe conservatives would then care about potential corruption. But I guess they’re just fine with it.

So far, there is no wire fraud charge. I’m just guessing there might be in the future based on what we know. Trump has a PAC he set up to challenge the 2020 election and received tens of millions of dollars in donations. He seems to have been using that money for other things including paying for his personal attorneys. If he was using the money for things other than what the PAC’s stated purpose was, that would mean that he was inducing people to give him money under fraudulent pretenses. This is what Steve Bannon and the “Build the Wall PAC” people got in trouble for. From what we can tell, the Special Counsel has been asking witnesses about the PAC, so it’s on Smith’s radar. So I guess the questions are: was Trump a careful steward of other people’s money? If not, is there enough evidence to prove he wasn’t?

Smith has brought charges and they do not include incitement. That doesn’t preclude him from bringing more charges though. I still think there’s a decent chance he charges wire fraud but I would be surprised by an incitement charge because it’d be so much harder to prove than the charges he’s already brought.

Would you be ok with a liberal Justice getting the same gifts from rich liberals?

Seems unlikely to me. The Constitution sets the requirements for president and I personally don’t think the charges Trump is currently facing rise to the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause. Maybe if he ends up being charged with incitement to insurrection but I remain unconvinced that Jack Smith will bring that charge. Also, there’s a really weird and unsettled debate as to whether the President is an “officer of the United States.” So it’s not sure that clause can apply to the president at all.

The world's dumbest and most pathetic person is checking in. Frankly, I don't understand why this site allows people to tag people they have blocked. There's no good faith reason for this. But, I think anyone who has come across this moron understands that's he's severely mentally ill and in need of help that nobody will provide because there's no way that anyone who actually knows him could want to spend any time with him....

Nah. Seems like they’re only indicting people who they have evidence committed crimes.

Ok, well that's not happening now. Would you prefer the government force personal responsibility on people?

Not necessarily. I don't know you and I'm not going to make assumptions about your beliefs. Studies have been done on why people seek elective abortions and the results seem to be fairly consistent. Here is what one such study found: (participants could choose multiple reasons) 40% - Not financially prepared 36% - Not the right time 31% - Partner related reasons 29% - Need to focus on other children 20% - Interferes with future opportunities 19% - Not emotionally or mentally prepared 12% - Health related reasons 12% - Want a better life for the baby than she can provide 7% - Not independent or mature enough for a baby 5% - Influence from family or friends 4% - Don't want a baby Given that list, robust financial support for pregnant mothers combined with easy access to contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies would go a long way to reducing abortions without jeopardizing anyone's health. Since a large number seem to be concerned about finances and opportunities, ensuring financial support and career protection (mandated leave, childcare, etc) would probably help raise the birthrate by helping people who would want more kids but aren't sure they can afford to have them.

True, but addressing the root cause of abortion should be the focus of those looking to reduce or eliminate elective abortions. However, they absolutely refuse to do so and even oppose policies that would address them.

Sure, but you would have to be pretty clear and unambiguous in the language. The problem with heartbeat bills and "life of the mother" as the exceptions is that non-viable pregnancies (that can be dangerous to continue) can still have a heartbeat. Also, mothers can sustain permanent damage that is short of life threatening. The problem is that the people writing these laws aren't experts in medicine and seem to not want to listen to people who are. Which is part of why I would prefer to focus on the root causes of abortion to prevent putting people in the position to begin with.

The beginning of this thread cites several examples of people being denied care until their life is in danger because of these laws. Prior to the laws, the patient and doctor could decide to terminate the non-viable pregnancy. Now the government gets a say and they end up having to wait until the woman is sick enough to treat. Are you saying those are just fake news? Made up?

This is blatantly false.

Nah, the problem is that the GOP is pushing a very unpopular position on the issue, and instead of moderating, is doubling down on it, even to the extent of trying to override the will of the people. The frustrating thing about the abortion issue is that if the GOP wanted to look at root causes (i.e. why people have abortions), they could push for policies to address those issues and the Dems would by and large support those policies. But the GOP opposes addressing the root causes of abortion and instead pushes unpopular laws that harm people. It makes it hard to believe that curbing abortions is really their goal.

So if you or someone you know wants a baby and has been pregnant for 6+ months, only to find the pregnancy is not viable and the doctors recommend termination as the safest option, you think the government should intervene and force them to carry to term even if it makes them ill, results in infertility, or even risks their life?

Because right wingers like to pretend that the word “abortion” means elective abortion when that’s clearly not the case. The treatment for miscarriages and non-viable pregnancies is abortion. So banning third trimester abortions means telling people who want a baby but whose pregnancies are not viable that they have to deliver even if it risks their health and future fertility. The reason liberal oppose those laws is because those laws are stupid as hell and they trust the individuals to navigate that situation without the interference of the government.

The whole third trimester abortions line is such a crock of BS. Bad faith actors like to pretend that the country is rife with people who are pregnant for 8 months without knowing whether or not they want a kid. Third trimester abortions are people who want a kid, probably have a room made and name picked out, but then end up getting devastating news that their pregnancy isn’t viable.