1 in 50 Democrats want Donald Trump executed

[Shaul]

I know that you did and I caught your attempt at whataboutism (false equivalence) and pointed it out.

Except for those pesky charges being pressed against him for stealing them and hiding them from authorities. Nothing to see here!

You mean like the charges that were not pressed against Biden? No double standards there.

 

[SkepticThinker]

According to your assessment.

According to reality. I've seen the interviews. They have no evidence to offer. They pretend they do, like Rudy Giuliani,, but when asked directly for it, they produce nothing.

The hearings haven't even started. I am quite content to let the hearings unfold before judging. I would have no problem with the hearings coming to naught. But when a key witness such as Hunter Biden defies a subpoena that portents political fireworks to come.

Hunter Biden showed up. He was there. But the same Republicans that were crying about some of the January 6th interviews being held in private, insisted that Hunter's interview be held behind closed doors, instead of publicly, which Hunter insisted upon. In other words, he demonstrated their hypocrisy to them. Also, Jim Jordan - yes the very same dude that defied January 6th subpoenas - doesn't get to cry now when other people defy his subpoenas.

And they still have no evidence to show anybody that Joe Biden has actually done anything corrupt at all, let alone something corrupt enough to get him impeached. The guy's been in public office for like a hundred years, you'd think they'd be able to find something by now - if it exists, that is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You mean like the charges that were not pressed against Biden? No double standards there.

That's why I pointed out your false equivalence to you.

When Joe Biden realized he had classified documents, he gave them back right away. That's it. End of story.
Same goes for Mike Pence.

Trump did not. He knowingly took them. He knowingly hid them. He knowingly ignored requests to return them. He may have even shown them to other people he shouldn't have shown them to. Over and over again. Which is why Mar-a-Lago was raided. This is all documented on audio and video recordings.

There's the gigantic difference Trump supporters always, always overlook. I know I've pointed this out to you myself, on more than one occasion.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is your opinion. It is troubling that ideologues of one major political party want the execution of a putative, non-convicted leader of an opposing political party executed even before any conviction. Placing opinions above a rule of law is a threat to the foundations of the nation.

Have you even learned anything whatsoever about what Trump himself promises?

 

[Shaul]

According to reality. I've seen the interviews. They have no evidence to offer. They pretend they do, like Rudy Giuliani,, but when asked directly for it, they produce nothing.

Evidence is provided in the legal forum. Not upon your whims.

Hunter Biden showed up. He was there. But the same Republicans that were crying about some of the January 6th interviews being held in private, insisted that Hunter's interview be held behind closed doors, instead of publicly, which Hunter insisted upon. In other words, he demonstrated their hypocrisy to them. Also, Jim Jordan - yes the very same dude that defied January 6th subpoenas - doesn't get to cry now when other people defy his subpoenas.

The witness under subpoena don't get to demand how the hearing is held. That's not how it works.

And they still have no evidence to show anybody that Joe Biden has actually done anything corrupt at all, let alone something corrupt enough to get him impeached. The guy's been in public office for like a hundred years, you'd think they'd be able to find something by now - if it exists, that is.

The purpose of an inquiry is to undercover the evidence that exists, if any. Asking for the evidence before the investigation is putting things in reverse order.

 

[Shaul]

That's why I pointed out your false equivalence to you.

When Joe Biden realized he had classified documents, he gave them back right away. That's it. End of story.
Same goes for Mike Pence.

Trump did not. He knowingly took them. He knowingly hid them. He knowingly ignored requests to return them. He may have even shown them to other people he shouldn't have shown them to. Over and over again. Which is why Mar-a-Lago was raided. This is all documented on audio and video recordings.

There's the gigantic difference Trump supporters always, always overlook. I know I've pointed this out to you myself, on more than one occasion.

Nice spin. Did you study ballet?

 

[wellwisher]

That's why I pointed out your false equivalence to you.

When Joe Biden realized he had classified documents, he gave them back right away. That's it. End of story.
Same goes for Mike Pence.

Trump did not. He knowingly took them. He knowingly hid them. He knowingly ignored requests to return them. He may have even shown them to other people he shouldn't have shown them to. Over and over again. Which is why Mar-a-Lago was raided. This is all documented on audio and video recordings.

There's the gigantic difference Trump supporters always, always overlook. I know I've pointed this out to you myself, on more than one occasion.

Biden had classified documents dating back from the Obama administration, as well as his time in the Senate. This was at least eight years before Trump was president. Why didn't Trump get the eight year benefit of the doubt, too? Trump got one year and then he was raided. Biden gets a heads up and nothing happens. Trump as president could declassify anything, while Biden ddi not have that authority nor did Obama admit he did it. We did this backwards.

Trumps documents, were in a large secure safe, at his mansion in Mar-a-Lago, with his Secret Service detail, nearby. The Biden documents were found in less secure places like in his garage, in his Think Tank in Pennsylvania, and even some in China Town. It appears that the worse you handle classified data, for longer periods of time, means better breaks, but only if you are a Liberal. This is the dual standard of the swamp.

The real problem is that although what Trump did what may be considered criminal, the law is not applied the same way to everyone who did similar things; classified information. Trump is getting a much worse benefit of the doubt. The Russian Collusion Coup worked under the premise that Putin stole the election for Trump. In this case, the Swamp accusers had their time in court leading to the Mueller Investigation, with the accused guilty until proven innocent.

In the case of Trump and him accusing the swamp pf election tampering the opposite happened, with the accusers victimized, while the those who were accused of a serious crime innocent until proven guilty. Those who imposed this dual standard are the same people now accused of 2020 election tampering. We are dealing with people with a history of such behavior.

The Hunter Biden Laptop was given to the FBI a year before the 2020 election. The FBI knew it was real, as it turned out to be. But the fix was in with censorship on social media, and the swamp adding 60 swamp Intel people, signing a document to say it was Russian disinformation. That was part of 2020 election tampering. It is now proven to be a scam. Polls show if the real laptop had been in play; truth prevailed, Biden would have lost since his corruption would be center stage; like today. This is how you steal an election.

After Musk's purchase of Twitter, he showed the documented collusion between the swamp and social media that censored just the political right. This was also election tampering. If you think this was not election tampering, how about allowing team Trump to control social media in 2024 and the Democrats, play the other role ands get censored and shadow banded. It should not matter right, since this will not result in election tampering?

Biden is caught. The only reason there appears to be no proof, to the left, is the lack of coverage of the facts by swamp controlled fake news. If you only watch CNN you will not see any proof, since they are on radio silence by order of the Swamp. This conspiracy, will cause problems for these propaganda companies in the future.

What I would like to see happen is propaganda based news should be considered a campaign donation. Treated with such limitations. It is more like political gaming than journalism. While lack of due diligence and journalist malpractice; propagandists behavior, should result in a loss of press credentials. You can still have free speech, as a campaign aid or donor, but one will become vulnerable to liable and slander suits, due to lack of the extra press credentials protections. This applies to all sides. Information is food for the brain and fake news poisons the food supply. It is creating hostility and lack of critical thinking skills. Truth sets you free.

 

[fantome profane]

Evidence is provided in the legal forum. Not upon your whims.

Have you notice that outside of court Giuliani makes all these claims about having all this evidence, but inside court he does not say a word. In the legal forum he has no evidence to give. None, nota, nothing. No filings, no testimony, nothing. Not in the legal forum.

 

[metis]

I have seen a statement (tweet) by Trump reading "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!" and one where is asked, "“How many times do I have to be exonerated before they stop?” but I have not seen a statement he made where he said Mueller exonerated him. Those are different things. If you have a citation where Trump said that Mueller himself exonerated him, provide it. If not, stop regurgitating straw men.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims Mueller exonerated him

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump falsely claimed exoneration from Robert Mueller on Wednesday even as the former special counsel told Congress he offered no such vindication.

apnews.com

also:
His statement on Wednesday contradicted Trump’s claims that Mueller’s report awarded him “total exoneration” and also William Barr’s bald assertion last month that Mueller’s decision was not based on justice department policy... -- Robert Mueller breaks silence to insist he did not exonerate Trump

Special counsel Robert Mueller, speaking publicly for the first time Wednesday since the start of the Russian investigation in 2017, reiterated that if the evidence collected throughout the 22-month-long probe cleared President Donald Trump from any criminal wrongdoing, he would have stated.

But he didn't.-- Mueller Reiterates He Would Have Said if Trump Was Exonerated—But He Didn't


I asked you before where you get your news from and yet you haven't responded. Why not provide that now as I provided what I had previously posted.

 

[We Never Know]

Biden had classified documents dating back from the Obama administration, as well as his time in the Senate. This was at least eight years before Trump was president. Why didn't Trump get the eight year benefit of the doubt, too? Trump got one year and then he was raided. Biden gets a heads up and nothing happens. Trump as president could declassify anything, while Biden ddi not have that authority nor did Obama admit he did it. We did this backwards.

Trumps documents, were in a large secure safe, at his mansion in Mar-a-Lago, with his Secret Service detail, nearby. The Biden documents were found in less secure places like in his garage, in his Think Tank in Pennsylvania, and even some in China Town. It appears that the worse you handle classified data, for longer periods of time, means better breaks, but only if you are a Liberal. This is the dual standard of the swamp.

The real problem is that although what Trump did what may be considered criminal, the law is not applied the same way to everyone who did similar things; classified information. Trump is getting a much worse benefit of the doubt. The Russian Collusion Coup worked under the premise that Putin stole the election for Trump. In this case, the Swamp accusers had their time in court leading to the Mueller Investigation, with the accused guilty until proven innocent.

In the case of Trump and him accusing the swamp pf election tampering the opposite happened, with the accusers victimized, while the those who were accused of a serious crime innocent until proven guilty. Those who imposed this dual standard are the same people now accused of 2020 election tampering. We are dealing with people with a history of such behavior.

The Hunter Biden Laptop was given to the FBI a year before the 2020 election. The FBI knew it was real, as it turned out to be. But the fix was in with censorship on social media, and the swamp adding 60 swamp Intel people, signing a document to say it was Russian disinformation. That was part of 2020 election tampering. It is now proven to be a scam. Polls show if the real laptop had been in play; truth prevailed, Biden would have lost since his corruption would be center stage; like today. This is how you steal an election.

After Musk's purchase of Twitter, he showed the documented collusion between the swamp and social media that censored just the political right. This was also election tampering. If you think this was not election tampering, how about allowing team Trump to control social media in 2024 and the Democrats, play the other role ands get censored and shadow banded. It should not matter right, since this will not result in election tampering?

Biden is caught. The only reason there appears to be no proof, to the left, is the lack of coverage of the facts by swamp controlled fake news. If you only watch CNN you will not see any proof, since they are on radio silence by order of the Swamp. This conspiracy, will cause problems for these propaganda companies in the future.

What I would like to see happen is propaganda based news should be considered a campaign donation. Treated with such limitations. It is more like political gaming than journalism. While lack of due diligence and journalist malpractice; propagandists behavior, should result in a loss of press credentials. You can still have free speech, as a campaign aid or donor, but one will become vulnerable to liable and slander suits, due to lack of the extra press credentials protections. This applies to all sides. Information is food for the brain and fake news poisons the food supply. It is creating hostility and lack of critical thinking skills. Truth sets you free.

"Trumps documents, were in a large secure safe, at his mansion in Mar-a-Lago"

Can you support that?

"Former President Donald J. Trump stored classified documents not only in a storage room, but also in a shower, an office, a bedroom and a ballroom, according to the indictment unsealed on Friday."

Where Documents Were Found at Mar-a-Lago (Published 2023)

These diagrams show the rooms at Donald J. Trump’s residence where prosecutors say he kept sensitive government documents.

www.nytimes.com

 

[wellwisher]

According to reality. I've seen the interviews. They have no evidence to offer. They pretend they do, like Rudy Giuliani,, but when asked directly for it, they produce nothing.

Hunter Biden showed up. He was there. But the same Republicans that were crying about some of the January 6th interviews being held in private, insisted that Hunter's interview be held behind closed doors, instead of publicly, which Hunter insisted upon. In other words, he demonstrated their hypocrisy to them. Also, Jim Jordan - yes the very same dude that defied January 6th subpoenas - doesn't get to cry now when other people defy his subpoenas.

And they still have no evidence to show anybody that Joe Biden has actually done anything corrupt at all, let alone something corrupt enough to get him impeached. The guy's been in public office for like a hundred years, you'd think they'd be able to find something by now - if it exists, that is.

Could you explain the 20 shell companies? Say hypothetically, you were an honest Joe, and someone on your staff who cares about your political future, finds out about your son and your family's 20 shell companies. These companies produce nothing. This can make you look bad politically even if 100% innocent; by family association. Wouldn't you talk to your son, and have him stop or learn to approach his business, in a way, that better insulates you and is more legitimate with taxes?

As VP Joe Biden took Hunter of Air Force 2 to many places, that had Hunter Biden business partners. Even the Obama State Department was concerned about the optics. So even if Joe was honest, he should have known about his son's suspicious use of government resources and shell companies to avoid taxes from his overseas adventured.

But this behavior was left going, even after the IRS saw red flags. The real problem was a feeling of being above the law and untouchable. The fix was in for Hunter; let the statute of limitations run out. It was one honest judge that interrupted the fix. Many of the Biden henchman and hench women will need to testify with the circumstantial evidence a way to dig and compare facts to facts

 

[metis]

I don't know the details but they have opened formal hearings on impeachment against Biden. That indicates they have some evidence of some kind against President Biden. It also presumes they will present a case in open.

No, that's not what they said. The word they used was "inquiry", and they admitted they had nothing solid at this time.

Again, it begs the question of where do you get your news from, which you still haven't answered?

 

[metis]

But when a key witness such as Hunter Biden defies a subpoena that portents political fireworks to come.

Did you whine when Jim Jordan and several other Pubs also ignored the January 6th Committee's subpoenas?

 

[We Never Know]

I don't know the details but they have opened formal hearings on impeachment against Biden. That indicates they have some evidence of some kind against President Biden. It also presumes they will present a case in open.

Let me help you out.


"WASHINGTON, Dec 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to formally authorize its ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, as Republicans unite behind the effort even though they have yet to find evidence of wrongdoing by the Democrat."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-republicans-ready-vote-formalize-biden-impeachment-inquiry-2023-12-13/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20Dec%2013%20(Reuters),of%20wrongdoing%20by%20the%20Democrat.

 

[We Never Know]

According to your assessment. The hearings haven't even started. I am quite content to let the hearings unfold before judging. I would have no problem with the hearings coming to naught. But when a key witness such as Hunter Biden defies a subpoena that portents political fireworks to come.

"But when a key witness such as Hunter Biden defies a subpoena that portents political fireworks to come"

It should have been legal fireworks instead of political fireworks.

"Failure to respond to a subpoena is punishable as contempt by either the court or agency issuing the subpoena"

What are the penalties if you ignore a subpoena, or don’t comply? | Office of the Chancellor

chancellor.berkeley.edu

 

[wellwisher]

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims Mueller exonerated him

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump falsely claimed exoneration from Robert Mueller on Wednesday even as the former special counsel told Congress he offered no such vindication.

apnews.com

also:
His statement on Wednesday contradicted Trump’s claims that Mueller’s report awarded him “total exoneration” and also William Barr’s bald assertion last month that Mueller’s decision was not based on justice department policy... -- Robert Mueller breaks silence to insist he did not exonerate Trump

Special counsel Robert Mueller, speaking publicly for the first time Wednesday since the start of the Russian investigation in 2017, reiterated that if the evidence collected throughout the 22-month-long probe cleared President Donald Trump from any criminal wrongdoing, he would have stated.

But he didn't.-- Mueller Reiterates He Would Have Said if Trump Was Exonerated—But He Didn't


I asked you before where you get your news from and yet you haven't responded. Why not provide that now as I provided what I had previously posted.

One big problem with the Mueller investigation was, it did not fully explore the fake dossier used to help drive the Russian collusion charge that in the end was nothing but swamp fake news. The fake dossier was bought by the Clinton campaign and DNC, using a Russian Source and a British agent. That was Russian and foreign collision conspired in an attempt to overthrow a sitting president. That was the reason given for a soft coup disguised as a presidential crime.

Mueller and his team did not investigate the Clinton source. The Mueller Investigation would have never happened, if the Clinton scam had not be supported and then reinforced by the swamp and fake news. That was the elephant in the room. The key to the origins was not addressed. The fix was in. Notice the swamp then went on radio silence, having gotten away with a major crime. Trump was free of that coup, but still not out of the woods, since other conspiracies were planned; fake impeachment 1 and the Biden Ukraine coverup.

All those Russian Collusion Coup conspirators should be in jail, since that was way worse than simply entering the Capital on Jan. The latter lasted a few hours; crime of passion, while the Clinton fake dossier and collusion conspiracy lasted years; planned and conspired. Trump is going make this even, plus 10%. Biden is the first domino and then the stack starts. Then Trump wins to given another push.

The Democrats made the mistake of showing their injustice system tactics, openly and arrogantly, by singling out and going after a former President. Now Trump has new tools he can use. This situation remains me of how the Democrats had change how Supreme Court Justices would be picked; simple majority. This arrogantly assumed Hilary Clinton was going to win and she and the swamp could control everything. When Trump won, he used the Supreme Court change that was set by the Democrats. Now this bites the Democrats. The same can now happen in the legal and injustice system; thanks Dems. The arrogance of being above the law, once again will be the downfall.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evidence is provided in the legal forum. Not upon your whims.

Huh? I'm saying we've all seen a great deal of the evidence already.

The witness under subpoena don't get to demand how the hearing is held. That's not how it works.

Tell that to Jim Jordan. Hunter is just putting the Republicans hypocrisy on display for them.

The purpose of an inquiry is to undercover the evidence that exists, if any. Asking for the evidence before the investigation is putting things in reverse order.

No evidence exists to date.

Notice how before the Democrats started the inquiry on Trump, they already had some evidence indicating that he'd committed crimes? And they could like, name some potential crimes he's committed? These Republicans can't even name a crime they think Biden may have committed at this point. They've got bupkis. And now they've embarked upon a fishing expedition.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did you whine when Jim Jordan and several other Pubs also ignored the January 6th Committee's subpoenas?

He totally ignored my point about it.

 

[metis]

One big problem with the Mueller investigation was, it did not fully explore the fake dossier used to help drive the Russian collusion charge that in the end was nothing but swamp fake news. The fake dossier was bought by the Clinton campaign and DNC, using a Russian Source and a British agent.

This has been explained to you before and yet you post this same trash over and over again.

AGAIN: the Steele Dossier was hearsay as Steele stated he could not verify the two sources [Dutch & Russian] as being accurate. Obama was made aware of its contents but refused to go public with it because it was not verified plus the 2016 election was close.

Here, maybe read this first, even though I posted it for you before: Steele dossier - Wikipedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nice spin. Did you study ballet?

I'll take your total lack of a rebuttal or response to any point I made as your concession of those points.

All you've got is a lame one-liner to offer, apparently.