Biden's Fingerprints
-
-
So, on one hand, President Biden in a mentally incompetent person, and on the other hand, he is smart enough to do these complicated conspiracy plans.
-
And I notice you didn't address the issue.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
So, on one hand, President Biden in a mentally incompetent person, and on the other hand, he is smart enough to do these complicated conspiracy plans.
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
So, on one hand, President Biden in a mentally incompetent person, and on the other hand, he is smart enough to do these complicated conspiracy plans.
You really think Biden is driving this bus?
-
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
So, on one hand, President Biden in a mentally incompetent person, and on the other hand, he is smart enough to do these complicated conspiracy plans.
You really think Biden is driving this bus?
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
So, on one hand, President Biden in a mentally incompetent person, and on the other hand, he is smart enough to do these complicated conspiracy plans.
You really think Biden is driving this bus?
I dont and I have said that before. But I do think that he has handlers that keep him inside the guardrails. President Trump has no such thing and the chances of him going outside the guardrails are many times a higher chance if he is president.
(And many of his close associates have pretty much said the same thing)
-
@Jolly said in Biden's Fingerprints:
And I notice you didn't address the issue.
I dont really know enough about the legal right and wrong and what exactly are the Department of Justice outlines when it comes to looking at/investigating things. Maybe something like a former President is something that would be within their scope. :woman-shrugging:
-
I can't find Kelly's tweets at the moment.
Last weekend she tweeted that the NARA had, in its possession many boxes of documents. Among them were classified papers.
At the insistence of the DOJ, these documents were moved to Mar-a-Lago without Trumps approval or knowledge of the contents of the boxes. Then, guess what: "We found classified documents."
This information was redacted by (alleged) Special Counsel Smith, and unreacted by order of the judge. It's almost as though they were hiding it.
-
@Jolly said in Biden's Fingerprints:
And I notice you didn't address the issue.
I dont really know enough about the legal right and wrong and what exactly are the Department of Justice outlines when it comes to looking at/investigating things. Maybe something like a former President is something that would be within their scope. :woman-shrugging:
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
a former President is something that would be within their scope.
Absolutely.
How about a former Vice-President?
Or a Senator?
-
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
a former President is something that would be within their scope.
Absolutely.
How about a former Vice-President?
Or a Senator?
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
a former President is something that would be within their scope.
Absolutely.
How about a former Vice-President?
Or a Senator?
I dont disagree, but I think it is a false argument to excuse bad behavior just because "someone else did it and nothing happened to them"
-
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
a former President is something that would be within their scope.
Absolutely.
How about a former Vice-President?
Or a Senator?
I dont disagree, but I think it is a false argument to excuse bad behavior just because "someone else did it and nothing happened to them"
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
I think it is a false argument to excuse bad behavior just because "someone else did it and nothing happened to them"
Andy McCarthy made the same point a long time ago. Bad behavior by X is not a reason to justify bad behavior by Y.
But...when bad behavior by X goes unpunished AT THE SAME TIME that Y's behavior is being prosecuted, that tells you something. And, if true, Y's alleged bad behavior can be attributed to bad behavior by X, that tells you even more.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
I think it is a false argument to excuse bad behavior just because "someone else did it and nothing happened to them"
Andy McCarthy made the same point a long time ago. Bad behavior by X is not a reason to justify bad behavior by Y.
But...when bad behavior by X goes unpunished AT THE SAME TIME that Y's behavior is being prosecuted, that tells you something. And, if true, Y's alleged bad behavior can be attributed to bad behavior by X, that tells you even more.
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
I think it is a false argument to excuse bad behavior just because "someone else did it and nothing happened to them"
Andy McCarthy made the same point a long time ago. Bad behavior by X is not a reason to justify bad behavior by Y.
But...when bad behavior by X goes unpunished AT THE SAME TIME that Y's behavior is being prosecuted, that tells you something. And, if true, Y's alleged bad behavior can be attributed to bad behavior by X, that tells you even more.
Again, I dont disagree.
I dont think your last sentence will be prove true. Hasnt President Trump arguement with the classified information that he has not denied taking/having it, but that he was entitled to it because he declassified it? Why would he say that if someone "planted" it at his house?
-
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
I think it is a false argument to excuse bad behavior just because "someone else did it and nothing happened to them"
Andy McCarthy made the same point a long time ago. Bad behavior by X is not a reason to justify bad behavior by Y.
But...when bad behavior by X goes unpunished AT THE SAME TIME that Y's behavior is being prosecuted, that tells you something. And, if true, Y's alleged bad behavior can be attributed to bad behavior by X, that tells you even more.
Again, I dont disagree.
I dont think your last sentence will be prove true. Hasnt President Trump arguement with the classified information that he has not denied taking/having it, but that he was entitled to it because he declassified it? Why would he say that if someone "planted" it at his house?
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
Hasnt President Trump arguement with the classified information that he has not denied taking/having it, but that he was entitled to it because he declassified it?
He's said a lot of things, because Trump. What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court. If Kelly's reporting is accurate, based on the unredacted testimony/transcripts, it tends to poison the tree.
Why would he say that if someone "planted" it at his house?
See my comment above.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:
Hasnt President Trump arguement with the classified information that he has not denied taking/having it, but that he was entitled to it because he declassified it?
He's said a lot of things, because Trump. What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court. If Kelly's reporting is accurate, based on the unredacted testimony/transcripts, it tends to poison the tree.
Why would he say that if someone "planted" it at his house?
See my comment above.
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court.
Really?
Is that how you judge every one, or you only apply that to Trump?
Is that now you want the court to treat everyone, or only apply that to Trump? -
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court.
Really?
Is that how you judge every one, or you only apply that to Trump?
Is that now you want the court to treat everyone, or only apply that to Trump?@Axtremus said in Biden's Fingerprints:
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court.
Really?
Yeah, really. Because this is a trial, not a press conference. If he didn't say it under oath, it's irrelevant in the trial.
Unless I missed that that's part of his testimony.
Is that how you judge every one, or you only apply that to Trump?
Every. Single. One.
Is that now you want the court to treat everyone, or only apply that to Trump?
I'm sure that very fine people on both sides can agree to that.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court.
Really?
Is that how you judge every one, or you only apply that to Trump?
Is that now you want the court to treat everyone, or only apply that to Trump?@Axtremus said in Biden's Fingerprints:
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court.
Really?
Is that how you judge every one, or you only apply that to Trump?
Is that now you want the court to treat everyone, or only apply that to Trump?Tell me about your court experience.
-
@Axtremus said in Biden's Fingerprints:
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court.
Really?
Yeah, really. Because this is a trial, not a press conference. If he didn't say it under oath, it's irrelevant in the trial.
Unless I missed that that's part of his testimony.
Is that how you judge every one, or you only apply that to Trump?
Every. Single. One.
Is that now you want the court to treat everyone, or only apply that to Trump?
I'm sure that very fine people on both sides can agree to that.
@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:
If he didn't say it under oath, it's irrelevant in the trial.
See 18 U.S. Code § 3501 - Admissibility of confessions
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501"Confessions" in this context include "any self-incriminating statement made or given orally or in writing." There is no requirement that these be made under oath.
-
Put Trump aside and think this through:
A person committed a crime and blabbed about it to his friends and/or on social media.
You want to say the court/jury cannot consider any of that blabbing because he was not under oath while blabbing to his friends and/or social media?
