daz28

So The Chinese Communist Party was doling out the big bucks to Joe Biden(40k), with the idea that in 5 or 6 years, IF he wins the election, that he will do something favorably for China? Is that really plausible? Only $40k to a guy who has millions, and had to know it had risk?? China not knowing if his old ass would even be alive, no less WIN the election. It's not plausible AT ALL. Seems like a few of you fell for the political theater though. Can anyone think of anything Joe has done to help China? Wouldn't he have reversed the tariffs? This is why the sane people here keep asking, "what crime?", while the rest are sitting there pointing at what they think is a fire.

If you cast a net 1000 times and get nothing, why not throw it again. This is an illegal lawfare fishing expedition against a US citizen. If this was Jared, you'd all be losing your minds. The top Republicans on the House Judiciary and Oversight and Accountability committees, Jim Jordan of Ohio and James Comer of Kentucky, respectively, said they do not know why the CIA intervened but said it aligns with other Biden administration efforts to thwart the probe of the president’s son that were exposed by two IRS whistleblowers.

Fox asking those tough questions, like will you be asking Putin for cash? Alina: er uh, we're trying to find those loopholes right now. But TDS. LOL

Maybe he will figure out that name calling isn't so much fun when he's not the only one doing it.

As for the Texas crisis at the border: Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, a George W. Bush appointee, seemed skeptical, quoting a 2012 Supreme Court ruling against Arizona that puts the power to admit or remove migrants with the federal government. "It seems to me this statute washes that away," Richman said. Judge Andrew Oldham, a Donald Trump appointee, asked about states' powers on immigration. "Is there anything a state can just do because they think it's a good matter for the people of Texas outside of what Congress has allowed them to do?" asked Oldham. The court, considered to be the most ideologically conservative in the appellate system, is still mulling a decision.

Either way the jury was dumb. Luckily most criminals are dumb, or they'd be smart enough to leave 'exonerating evidence' behind every time. That wasn't me, I don't have a mustache!

Do you even research anything: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. Now ask yourself what did the 14th Amendment do: It gave slaves full citizenship.

Good thing he understands that nuances and dog whistles don't exist since trump arrived, or he'd understand what we're getting at here.

What world are these clowns, trying to blame Biden for trumps tax cuts for the rich, living in? Then they double down on their stupidity talking about the child tax credit. #alternativefactsworld "For years, President Biden has vowed no tax increase on individuals earning less than $400,000," Sen. Steve Daines, R-MT, said during a Senate Finance Committee hearing where Yellen was testifying. "And now President Biden is choosing to let the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expire and increase the corporate tax rate forcing American families and workers to bear the cost of these 'woke' policies," Daines said, referencing clean energy policies under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Provisions of the TCJA — a landmark tax law proposed by the Trump administration and passed by Congress in 2017— that are set to expire in 2025 include the child tax credit. That credit allows taxpayers to reduce their tax bill by up to $2,000 per qualifying child, with an income threshold of up to $400,000 per family. An additional "other dependent credit" offers a tax credit of $500 to people with less than $400,000 in income who have qualified dependents who are ineligible for the child tax credit. "Would you agree that if the TCJA child tax credit provisions are not extended, this would also result in a tax hike for Americans making under $400,000?" Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Id., the committee's ranking member, asked Yellen. Republicans, so called party of family values, do not support needy families The Child allowance payments are the biggest help in decades – but Republicans just see ‘welfare assistance’ Last Thursday, 39 million American parents began receiving a monthly child allowance ($300 per child under six, and $250 per child from six through 17). It’s the biggest helping hand to American families in more than 85 years. They need it. Even before the pandemic, child poverty had reached post-war records. Even non-poor families were in trouble, burdened with deepening debt and missed payments. Most were living paycheck to paycheck – so if they lost a job, they and their kids could be plunged into poverty. But every single Republican in both the House and Senate voted against the measure. After I posted a tweet reminding people of this indisputable fact, Republican senator Mike Lee of Utah responded Friday with a perfectly bizarre tweet: “If you’re one of the 39 million households receiving their first Child Tax Credit payment today, don’t forget that every single Democrat voted against making it larger.”

Grifter in chief, who is only doing it for America, and doesn't need to collect his presidential salary: The fundraiser for a joint committee called “Trump 47” is to be held on April 6, according to an invitation obtained by HuffPost, with a “chairman” level donation set at $814,600 per person, and a “host” level at $250,000. A Tuesday filing with the Federal Election Commission states that Trump 47 raises money for the Trump campaign, as well as Save America, the Republican National Committee and 40 state-level Republican committees. The invitation does not state how much of each donation would go to each entity, and the Trump campaign did not respond to a HuffPost query. However, a supplementary document obtained by The Associated Press states that of each donation, the first $6,600 will go to the Trump campaign, the next $5,000 to Save America and the rest to the RNC and the various state parties. Top Trump aide Chris LaCivita earlier this month told the AP that no RNC money would be spent on Trump’s legal fees. That allocation could result in many tens of millions of dollars of donor money being diverted to an entity that has primarily paid Trump’s bills for his criminal prosecutions, his civil fraud case in New York and the defamation case brought against him by E. Jeanne Carroll. Trump’s current fundraising operation sends 90 cents of each dollar it raises to his campaign, and gives 10 cents to Save America. The new formula for Trump 47 potentially could send far more money to Save America — which, because it’s regulated as a different kind of committee from Trump 47, can effectively be used as Trump’s personal slush fund. Trump last year spent $54.2 million in political contributions — most of it from his army of small dollar donors, many of them retirees — to pay his lawyers, according to a HuffPost analysis of FEC filings.

During Wednesday's hearing on Hunter Biden, Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, dismissed suggestions that Republicans such as Kushner have been subjected to foreign influence while in office. Jordan said that Kushner had a positive impact on diplomacy, including being one of the "key officials" involved in the Abraham Accords Act—a diplomatic agreement between Israel and the Arab countries which was brokered by Trump in September 2020. "But of course the Democrats don't want to admit that," Jordan added. In response, Raskin then said he has a motion, and that he would like the committee to move to subpoena Kushner to "compel testimony related to the $2 billion collected from Saudi Arabia after his service within the White House." In response, Jordan moved to table the motion. Comer told the hearing that the "motion to table is not debatable...as many as are in favor of tabling, signify by saying 'Aye.'" Comer then took a vote on tabling the motion to subpoena Kushner. Comer ruled that the "Ayes" won and Raskin's motion was rejected. Yeah, Jared's AA act, for peace in Israel, is working out about as good as trump's agreement with the Taliban, but don't let that stop the genius Gym Jordan from bringing it up as an accomplishment. LOL

I'll agree about the stupid jury part you said earlier too, but it's the best system we have. Imagine being dumb enough to wear your own unique shoes to commit a crime, but being smart enough to drop an undersized glove, you happened to find on the way, makes you innocent.

t wasn’t so long ago that the once-fearsome lawyer Roy Cohn and his infamous career seemed destined to be no more than a colorful footnote to history. Cohn was a gaudy character, for sure — a hustler, a fixer, and an amoral hypocrite of incredible drive — whose life as a closeted man ended in tragic comeuppance when he died of AIDS in 1986, insisting to the last that he couldn’t possibly be dying of that gay disease. I can see the comparison. They certainly NAILED the "amoral hypocrite" part. Wonder what other parts they got right? I can see how that would make a person extremely angry all the time.

All I heard was babbling and accusations of lying. Did he in fact show any facts to prove his case? Doesn't matter right, as long as it's "interesting". Also interesting: Over on Fox News, for example, host Dana Perino commented on Wednesday, “It just feels like they keep doing the same hearing over and over again, and people are starting to wonder — at some point, do you fish or cut bait?” Earlier this month, right-wing commentator Tomi Lahren suggested on the network it was time to move on, saying it was “falling flat with a lot of viewers and voters.” Several Democrats have pronounced the inquiry dead, including Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who noted at a hearing Wednesday that “Fox News isn’t even carrying this today.” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) was forced to confront an awkward truth on Newsmax about the impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, as the proceedings continue to lose support from right-wing media figures. “Is impeachment the next step? Are you going to hold a vote on the House floor?” host Rob Finnerty asked the House Republican Wednesday morning. “Unless you get Democratic votes, this is going to be real tough,” he added. “So, it kind of seems like you’re chasing your tail at this point because this is not going to go anywhere.”

Did a little research on Karen's profile pic, and it comes from this article: The Senate, on an 85-0 vote, passes a bill that would outlaw the Communist Party. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), but opposed by President Eisenhower, Attorney General Herbert Brownell and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. A partial explanation for Humphrey's role might be that Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) had spent the previous four years attacking Democrats as soft on communism. But the Minnesota Democrat was also aware that there was genuine concern about Communist subversion in the U.S., and he didn't want to cede the issue to Republicans. Among Humphrey's co-sponsors were Sens. John Kennedy (D-MA), Paul Douglas (D-IL) and Wayne Morse (D-OR), all liberals. It appears that maybe he is indeed a liberal, or at least supports the liberal position on anti-communism. Kind of strange that the 'deep state' opposed it.

The first one is from Dictionary.com. The second is from Oxford languages. Next!

This is from 4 months ago. No corroboration. It has 150 views on YouTube(151 now) with 0 comments. The guy may as well be saying Santa Claus is real.

Do you know what it's called when you're not doing what you implore others to do? Hypocrisy. It's like I'm the hypocrisy whisperer.

Stop ignoring me!

If this was the barriers set up outside the Capital on Jan 6th, here's how we'd be handling the situation: At a weekend rally in Ohio, his first as the presumed Republican Party presidential nominee, Trump stood onstage, his hand raised in salute to the brim of his red MAGA hat, as a recorded chorus of prisoners in jail for their roles in the Jan. 6 attack sang the national anthem. An announcer asked the crowd to please rise “for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages.” And people did, and sang along. “They were unbelievable patriots,” Trump said as the recording ended. Having previously vowed to pardon the rioters, he promised to help them “the first day we get into office.” Initially relegated to a fringe theory on the edges of the Republican Party, the revisionist history of Jan. 6, which Trump amplified during the early days of the GOP primary campaign to rouse his most devoted voters, remains a rally centerpiece even as he must appeal more broadly to a general election audience. In heaping praise on the rioters, Trump is shifting blame for his own role in the run-up to the bloody mob siege and asking voters to absolve hundreds of them — and himself — over the deadliest attack on a seat of American power in 200 years.

Is this a prelude to building Hitl...I mean trump's 'Pacific Wall'? Is Rommel available?

Wrong: The term’s appearance in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution—the Compact Clause—derives from the Articles of Confederation, which provided as follows: No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the united states in congress assembled can be consulted. A provision substantively identical to this text (except for the omission of the reference to Indians) was added to the draft of the Constitution. That draft provision demanded that no state shall, without [the] Consent [of Congress] engage in any War, unless it shall be actually invaded by Enemies, or the Danger of Invasion be so imminent as not to admit of a Delay, until the Legislature of the United States can be consulted I GUARANTEE you this is a loser in court.

They must have been allowed in, because they just let them walk right in. Sound like a familiar stupid argument that you like to use? I'm having trouble differentiating between your ever-changing definitions of mostly peaceful protest and invasion.

Pence kept LOTS of detailed notes, because he wasn't a dummy like the guys sending texts and emails. Can't wait to see them.

Have you ever heard of statute of limitations? New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation Wednesday that extends the statute of limitations for certain cases of rape and other sex crimes. He was joined at the signing by actresses who have been active in the Time’s Up movement, which aims to combat sexual harassment. They included Julianne Moore, Mira Sorvino, Amber Tamblyn and Michelle Hurd. Under the new law, the statute of limitations for reporting second-degree rape increases to 20 years and third-degree rape increases to 10 years. Previously, both were five years. -This was in 2019 Are you still sure about this, "The reason why this wasn't a criminal case is because it would have failed"? Your last silly argument, "The reason why this wasn't a criminal case is because it would have failed", will not even be addressed beyond this, because it'a maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Lastly, let's put this whole thing to bed. Thanks to you having me do a little more research: Under New York Penal Law article 130, rape is defined as a non:consensual sexual intercourse with another person. Non:consensual sexual intercourse requires penetration of the victim’s anus, *****, or mouth by a penis, or any foreign object, without consent. So if he had of used his sharpie instead of his finger, it would have been rape, but ok I'll let you guys split that hair.