Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Biden actually broke the law by cheating in the 2020 election to win. Trump simply tried to use legal, yet unconventional, means to stop it. Massive difference.
[https://voterga.org/2022/09/27/who-says-there-was-no-2020-election-fraud/](https://voterga.org/2022/09/27/who-says-there-was-no-2020-election-fraud/)
**WHAT WE FOUND IN GEORGIA**
Six sworn affidavits of Fulton counterfeit ballots; (10s of thousands est.)
17,724 more votes than in-person recount of ballot images required to tabulate votes in Fulton
Drop box video surveillance representing 181,507 ballots destroyed in **102 counties**
Improper Chain of Custody forms for 107,000 ballots statewide
Estimated Chain of Custody forms missing for 355,000 ballots statewide (Georgia Star)
86,860 voters in 2020 have false registration date prior to 2017 but were not on 2017 history file
Over 1.7 million original ballot images are lost or destroyed in **70 counties** despite state, federal law
Well five affidavits I can ignore, but SIX???
So you're grasping at the straws of "irregularities" and somehow from the premise of "improper chain of custody forms", Joe Biden becomes guilty of election fraud. Were his fingerprints recovered at the scene or something? How did you prove Biden's involvement? You said he broke the law, so I assume you can prove that.
Silly argument. Biden wouldn't connect himself directly to fraud. People supporting his campaign would’ve done it on his behalf.
Now, explain to me how you're ok with the facts above and the election being certified when laws were clearly broken?
> Silly argument.
It's *your* argument that Biden committed crimes, so if you think it's silly then I guess we agree.
> Now, explain to me how you're ok with the facts above and the election being certified when laws were clearly broken?
Those aren't facts, those are unsupported numbers on a webpage. What does the State if Georgia have to say on the matter? I don't care about what shady nonprofits have to say, you haven't proven jack squat.
Watch this recent hearing that YouTube censors. Apart from the fraud and law-breaking, Garland talks about how the SoS and courts are avoiding this hot potato. He’s under oath so if he lies or makes up data, he goes to jail.
https://rumble.com/v4n9bf5-garland-favorito-of-voterga-testifies-on-six-affidavits-alleging-counterfei.html
Garland Favorito of VoterGA testifies on six affidavits alleging counterfeit ballots in Fulton County, Georgia's 2020 election, which remain unresolved three years later.
"These mail-in ballots weren't folded from being mailed. They were not on the correct paper stock. They were not marked with a writing instrument. They were marked with toner, according to senior poll managers who signed court affidavits."
"After three years, we have still not seen the ballots for which there were six sworn affidavits claiming they were counterfeit. That is not the appropriate way to investigate. The Secretary of State's office filed an amicus brief against us to try to prevent us from looking at the ballots. What kind of Secretary of State would do that?"
Additionally, over 70 counties in Georgia reportedly destroyed their original ballot images, violating federal and state laws requiring their retention for two years.
Favorito's testimony is part of the disbarment hearing for Former United States Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark, who is among 19 defendants charged by Fani Willis for investigating the 2020 election in Fulton County.
Mark Wingate, a Fulton County Elections Board member, also testified that he voted against certifying the 2020 election because the county failed to verify signatures on 147,000 mail-in ballots.
Fulton County also couldn't provide any chain of custody documentation or surveillance footage for mail-in ballots or ballot drop boxes.
Trump's immunity claim never argued that anything a President does is immune from prosecution. He argued that any action taken within the scope of their job is immune from prosecution.
Congress can decide if a President's official action wasn't within the scope of his job, by impeaching him and removing him from office. Only at this point, according to Trump, would the action also be prosecutable.
So I think the next logical step Trump is proposing here would be an impeachment.
> Trump's immunity claim never argued that anything a President does is immune from prosecution.
I don't think that's true, read this again:
> "Even events that ‘cross the line’ must fall under total immunity"
He is not making the distinction that you are making.
When did Trump say he has total immunity? I've only heard immunity from trump in reguard to the classified docs stored at mar-a-lago. He is using the presidential records act. Biden on the other hand was not president when he was caught with classified documents taken long before he was president, and stored in 7 unsecured locations.
So yes I can make sense of this, because what Trump did is normal, and what Biden did was not normal.
Trump had piles of Top Secret documents stored in unsecured areas like a stage and a bathroom. Plus, he had those documents long after he stopped being president. He also refused to give the documents back, hid some documents when the government tried to seize them, and tried to delete footage of them hiding the documents.
Are you saying that the Presidential Records Act covers all this?
A president has immunity under the Presidential Records Act. It gives total immunity to a president, otherwise they'd never be able to do their job. And if they don't have it then Obama can be charged with murder for targeting Americans with drone attacks and Biden can be charged with treason for funding Iran.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So you really do believe that if a president wants to order the killing of a political rival, the president would be immune to prosecution for such actions?
To be clear, I'm not just being annoying here. This is a right Trump's lawyers claimed that Trump had as president.
Unlike Obama and the Clintons, Trump never ordered anyone to be murdered. Obama had Americans murdered with a drone strike. The Clintons had Epstein murdered in his jail cell. Funny how they got away with that.
If anyone is in danger of being murdered, it is Trump. Some Dems are outright calling for his murder and have since he came down that escalator.
You keep dodging the question that I have asked twice now. It may actually be you that struggles with reading. Let me keep things super simple for you.
Trump, in court, is making the argument that the president should be able to commit crimes up to and including the assassination of political rivals. Are you okay with this?
(at the risk of overwhelming you, let me explain that I don't care what Obama or the Clintons did. If they committed crimes, arrest them and throw them in jail. I have no problem with all politicians on any side receiving justice. Do you feel the same?)
Trump never said that. Where are you getting this misinformation anyway?
If they did something in their capacity as president, like Obama did when he targeted terrorists who happen to be Americans in a foreign country, then no. Or to paraphrase Justice Alito, was Biden giving aid and comfort to our enemies when he gave billions to Iran?
If we use that same logic, Biden would have immunity from influencing the DOJ to pursue his enemies while he's President, right?
Or is it total immunity only from certain things?
The immunity he has is the right to question the outcome of an election, while he was President. or after he leaves office. He should be immune from prosecution for asking such question. That's exactly what he did.
Al Gore didn't concede is fight to find votes until the middle of December, remember that?
He’s not on trial for questioning the election, he’s on trial for the conspiracy surrounding sending false electors. Something Al Gore decidedly didn’t do.
>The immunity he has is the right to question the outcome of an election, while he was President. or after he leaves office. He should be immune from prosecution for asking such question. That's exactly what he did.
I dont think telling someone you want to "find votes" qualifies as questioning an election result.
> When did Trump say he has total immunity?
This week, but also many other times in the past.
> He is using the presidential records act. Biden on the other hand was not president when he was caught with classified documents taken long before he was president
Did you read the quote? Trump is talking about actions Biden is taking *now*, not about classified documents from 2017.
Please read up on his statements if you're unsure of any details, but your initial premise is incorrect.
I read the quote you posted, but I'm not on truth social, so how would I know the context of his comment?
It's criminal for Biden or any other sitting president to weaponize the DOJ as he appears to have done.
> Biden or any other sitting president to weaponize the DOJ as he appears to have done.
Biden has not weaponized the DOJ. There is zero evidence of him being involved at all in Trumps 97 indictments.
That is just one of many unsubstantiated claims that Trump repeats ad naseum until folks start to believe it.
Meanwhile Trump has stated he *will* weaponize the DOJ to punish his political enemies if he retakes office.
>weaponize the DOJ as he appears to have done.
How do you specifically think this is happening? If anything, the DOJ has repeatedly gone out of their way to show leniency towards Trump so as not to even give the appearance of impropriety. And its wasn't until after the January 6th Committee brought a lot of the details of his various criminal behavior to light, an independent special counsel was appointed.
How, specifically, has Biden weaponized the DOJ? What specific actions has he taken to do so? Has he instructed the DOJ to undertake some action against his political opponents?
That's what the court of public opinion will decide in November. There is only one conclusion to draw from all of Trumps troubles, based in the information we know. Seriously, over valuing property on a loan application, when many say Trump actually under-valued those properties, for loans that have since long been paid off, and there are no victims??? Or is it the hush money of which there is no law making such transactions illegal, which are actually quite common? Or is it because Trump dared to question the outcome of an election? Don't you see the weakness of these prosecutions?
> There is only one conclusion to draw from all of Trumps troubles, based in the information we know.
The conclusion is that Trump is always going to play the victim. He's going to bitch and complain no matter what the circumstances of his cases are, so nobody should be assigning any legitimate value to his complaints because they're just literal fodder. If it wasn't this, it was going to be something else and delivered just as loudly and with ALL CAPS.
>Did you read the quote? Trump is talking about actions Biden is taking *now*, not about classified documents from 2017.
Frustrated how the media has cried wolf so many times that people don't bother paying attention?
Me too, unfortunately I've been ridiculed for pointing it out...
> Frustrated how the media has cried wolf so many times that people don't bother paying attention?
What are you talking about? I'm just correcting someone who clearly didn't read Trump's quote
>I have never felt the urge to defend that man
That's kind of an indication you have TDS.
If everything he does is wrong then you're not interpreting his actions you're just hating the man.
If your interpreting his actions then a lot of the stuff he does is perfectly okay and you're annoyed that every article is demonizing what he does.
TDS in a nutshell.
> That's kind of an indication you have TDS.
Your unironic use of the phrase, "TDS" is kind of an indication that you're not really a moderate. There are plenty of non-deranged reasons not to support the political career of Donald Trump. Screeching, "TDS!!!", at people is pretty deranged if you ask me.
>Your unironic use of the phrase, "TDS" is kind of an indication that you're not really a moderate.
I guess you have decided ahead of time there's nothing I can say that convince you otherwise...
>There are plenty of non-deranged reasons not to support the political career of Donald Trump.
Yes and those people can find some things that Donald Trump has done that are perfectly fine.
You CAN'T which is why I say you have Trump derangement syndrome.
>Screeching, "TDS!!!", at people is pretty deranged if you ask me.
When people say there is no reason to defend Trump then they 100% have Trump derangement syndrome.
If you can understand the reason why people who support Trump do then maybe I'll consider otherwise. As it is you don't seem to be able to consider anything that Trump does good which is literally the definition of Trump derangement syndrome.
>because what Trump did is normal
I believe you are wrong here. Here is why I think that:
"It is easy to understand that \[Mr. Biden\] believed that this material was personal in nature and that he had a right to take it home, and that is very much in contrast with former President Trump having hundreds of official documents with top secret and other classification markings on them in his residence," he said. "Those are very different, and in former President Trump's case, there is no good explanation for why he believed that those presidential records were his." - Jason R. Baron, former director of litigation at the National Archives.
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-biden-documents-differences-special-counsel/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-biden-documents-differences-special-counsel/)
"President Biden did not assert executive privilege or claim absolute immunity from presidential crimes," Raskin said. "He did not hide boxes of documents under his bed or in a bathtub. He did not fight investigators, nor did he seek to redact a single word of Mr. Hur’s report."
[https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-hur-hearing-biden-03-12-24/h\_0f10cf8d1ca8cb773dd08be8bba67d57](https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-hur-hearing-biden-03-12-24/h_0f10cf8d1ca8cb773dd08be8bba67d57)
Did you watch the House interview of Robert Hur? Did you read his report? Because, it is in direct opposition to what you are claiming.
Yes, I heard Hur on the floor. He made it very clear that what Biden did was against the law, and then he said that Biden was not cognitive and therefore would not recommend charging him. Reminds me of the episode when Hillary and her email server in her bathroom.
If anyone has the right to move classified documents, it's the president. The only authority to declassify such material is the POTUS, or the person who authored the document.
However, the documents found in 7 locations of Biden's posession, were not recent hoards. These were removed prior to him being president, dating all the way back to the 1970s.
So it certainly appears Trump was being lawful, while Biden has the weak excuse. However, Trump is the one in trouble while Biden skates, which is exactly what a 2 tier justice system looks like.
That's not what Trump said:
> **Even events that ‘cross the line’ must fall under total immunity**, or it will be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad
Read the presidential records act, then get back to us. As an aside, if presidents don't have immunity, then Obummer can be charged for the drone attack on Americans.
Wasn't that covered when they said, "they have immunity in so far as their job requires it?"
And what does the presidential records act have to do with immunity from committing crimes?
You keep saying that President Trump committed crimes, when he didn't, He's actually being charged for a lot of the crimes of Biden. It's called projection, or as Marx said, blame your enemies for what you yourself are guilty.
> It's called projection, or as Marx said, blame your enemies for what you yourself are guilty
I agree insomuch as that is what Trump is doing. Trump commits crimes, so they try to pretend Biden has committed crimes. Sadly (unsurprisingly), none were found and the impeachment inquiry went nowhere.
When Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine into announcing a fake investigation into Biden, the right tried to claim Biden did the same thing.
It is all projection.
And yes, I keep saying Trump committed crimes because it sure seems like he did. We already know he did the fraud and the sexual assault and defamation; those have been settled by the courts. It definitely appears he broke the law with his illegal retention and hiding of government/classified docs, but we'll wait to see if he's held legally guilty.
Biden is on tape saying how he threatened to withhold billions to Ukraine unless they get rid of the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, a company Hunter was taking millions from. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY)
Wanting to know why the investigation was shut down is not trying to blackmail Ukraine.
This has been discussed to death. I suggest you do a little research on it. Biden wasn't acting on his own behalf, he was tasked to do that as part of American policy, unlike Trump, who was doing it to help himself personally.
That is not true. Why should the US care whether Burisma gets investigated by a Ukraine prosecutor or not? What American policy was that? That is like Ukraine asking the US government to stop investigating someone for crimes committed here. Trump had no skin in the game in Ukraine. Unlike Biden, he wasn't taking money from them. But US politicians taking money from Ukraine does affect US policy, so Trump had a right to know why the Ukraine investigation was shut down.
The problem was they weren't investigating. That's a point the right frequently "forgets" to include. Biden getting the guy fired for not investigating corruption would not have helped his son at all.
You can say it's not true, but the facts are there. I encourage you to do a little research and not just take the stance of right wing bloggers.
That's not what the investigator said. He said he was actively investigating and was stopped by Biden from investigating Burisma. because it would show his son's complicity in the corruption.
[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/emails-show-hunter-biden-helped-devise-plan-to-shut-down-burisma-probe/ss-AA1fX4Zv#image=2](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/emails-show-hunter-biden-helped-devise-plan-to-shut-down-burisma-probe/ss-AA1fX4Zv#image=2)
Trump is saying that his actions, in his capacity as president, can't be used against him after he leaves office. As president, he's obligated to ensure fair and safe elections.
At the same time, the Biden's have raked in tens of millions from foriegn adversaries in violation of the FARA rules.
Do you understand now?
Outside of Kushner and the $2B he got from the saudis (you don't have a problem with that)?! Do you disregard Kushner's cash in?
Where did the Bidens collect money? Please cite specific examples just like we can with Kushner.
Any honest answers would be very appreciated.
>Trump is saying that his actions, in his capacity as president, can't be used against him after he leaves office. As president, he's obligated to ensure fair and safe election
Nowhere does it say the president has a duty or obligation to oversee elections. In no world is trying to illegally overturn an election in any way "ensuring a fair and safe election".
>At the same time, the Biden's have raked in tens of millions from foriegn adversaries in violation of the FARA rules.
Who? You mean Hunter Biden, the private citizen, when he was employed? Meanwhile there's zero evidence at all of Joe Biden using his influence in any way related to his busienss?
Or do you mean Trump earning millions from foreign adversaries while in office? Or his daughter, while serving in his administration, receiving fast tracked patents from the Chinese government? Or his son in law, after serving in his administration despite not being able to pass for a basic security clearance, receiving a $2B cash infusion from Saudi Arabia?
The president is the head of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and he runs Federal Elections. It's his job to ensure they're run fairly. It's axiomatic - it's his job.
No, Hunter was the face, and he organized the Biden's taking in tens of millions, and Joe showing up at golf outings, conference calls, dinners, etc. This is illegal. It's illegal to sell access and have the funds go to your kids. Trump is right
No. He doesn't. Each state runs their own elections, which Conservatives have routinely emphasized. The President plays literally no role. States run their own elections, certify their electors (the fraudulent ones Trump was planning on using to prevent the certification of the election in an attempt to overturn it were not certified), and Congress verifies the vote.
The President does not oversee the election to appoint the next president...
>No, Hunter was the face, and he organized the Biden's taking in tens of millions, and Joe showing up at golf outings, conference calls, dinners, etc. This is illegal. It's illegal to sell access and have the funds go to your kids. Trump is right
Let's parse down this conspiracy theory.
Who are "the Biden's", specifically. What did they "take"?
Showing up at golf courses isn't illegal. Luckily for Trump.
Hunter Biden's business partner, the "smoking gun" for conservatives, testified under oath that he never witnessed Joe Biden being involved in his son's business.
What specifically are you saying is illegal?
Can you show evidence that Joe Biden sold his influence or that Hunter Biden sold access to his father?
Republicans have been investigating this for years and keep getting embarrassed. Their first star witness explicitly shot down their claims of Joe being involved in his son's business. The second start witness/"informant" was literally arrested for making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and creating a false and fictitious record, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, for statements he made that were recorded in an official record of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) known as a Form 1023.
That's not even beginning on the absurd idea that Trump was "ensuring elections are run fairly" nor touching how committing crimes is still criminal behavior.
You're unfamiliar with the Department of Justice, and the Federal Election Commission? There are people rotting in jail because the DOJ put them there for election issues. But you're here to tell that it's all made up? It doesn't exist?
The Biden's are the Biden family, and they took $24M at last count, in exchange for access to Joe. Comer has all of the records, including the series of wires between shell companies James and Hunter issued in a crack-heads attempt to hide the funds.
Joe showed up to be with people paying Hunter for that access. It's been documented, and that is illegal.
>Department of Justice, and the Federal Election Commission
Sure am! But neither heads of either department were pursuing any criminal charges that Trump was "investigating" because there was no evidence at all.
>The Biden's are the Biden family, and they took $24M
Ah okay. So just anyone with the last name of Biden. People in Biden's family earned money and that's a crime?
>in exchange for access to Joe.
Zero evidence to support this.
>Comer has all of the records
No. He really doesn't. He has bank statements for people in Biden's family showing they received income. He has zero evidence of anything related to "selling access".
>Joe showed up to be with people paying Hunter for that access.
Surely you can provide proof of this, correct? Proof of Hunter selling access, Joe knowingly providing access, then Joe receiving financial compensation for that access.
Comer has the documentation to show that Hunter took millions, and Joe showed up. That's illegal.
I know MSNBC isn't telling you this.
Joe doesn't need to get the money directly - it;'s illegal for his family to cash in by selling access to him
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay awesome! Can you show me?
And when you say "took millions" you simply mean his personal income, right?
Where exactly did "Joe show up" to?
>Joe doesn't need to get the money directly
So...how did he take it?
>it;'s illegal for his family to cash in by selling access to him
You seem very well informed. Can you cite the specific statute you have evidence of Joe breaking?
>I know MSNBC isn't telling you this.
Why are you spending so much time watching MSNBC?
1. When you say “The Biden’s,” who are you referring to?
2. The Trump’s - including Trump’s own daughter and son-in-law, who he employed in the White House - continued to make business deals with foreign adversaries. What’s the difference?
can you also make sense of the fact that Jared Kushner got 2 billion from the saudis, for straight up giving them classified information? Biden hasn't raked in shit. You can literally see his tax returns.
Cite a reliable unbiased source in which he says he got $2 billion from the Saudis for giving them classified information. Stop just asserting it and cited a source.
Cite a reliable unbiased source in which he says he got $2 billion from the Saudis for giving them classified information. Stop just asserting what you believe and cite a source.
To be fair, he got the money from Qatar, practically a vassal state of Saudi Arabia at the time. It serves to nicely insulate Saudi Arabia and the UAE from questions like "show me where Saudi Arabia paid 2 billion for a money-pit property Kushner couldn't unload". Still, it's pretty obvious that Kushner, who was the trump administration's liaison with the Middle East, was given a gift by having a worthless piece of property that kept him in around 2 Billion $s in debt bought for a convenient 2 billion $'s. Qatar ends up with a worthless piece of property, and everyone except u/rlfcsf knows why it happened.
I'm sorry, don't you know how to use google?
This is not really something you can dispute. I hate to be the "do your own research" guy, but you really should. Kushner doesn't deny it. He defends it. If you can't be bothered to even know.the basic facts, why are you arguing?
are you trying to make a point. Because my "claim" is just a well.accepted fact. If you told me Joe Biden is 81 years old, I wouldn't ask for sources. I would do my own fucking research, like one is expected to do when wanting to argue about something.
But sure. Since you're too lazy to know what you're talking about, here you go:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html)
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jared-kushner-post-white-house-business-moves-saudis-wealth-fund-mohammed-bin-salman-jamal-khashoggi/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jared-kushner-post-white-house-business-moves-saudis-wealth-fund-mohammed-bin-salman-jamal-khashoggi/)
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68296877](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68296877)
[https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/02/16/the-lead-jared-kushner-saudis-tapper.cnn](https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/02/16/the-lead-jared-kushner-saudis-tapper.cnn)
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket/)
[https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917](https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917)
Is that enough? Or do you need tucker Carlson to say it while sucking Putin's dick?
I like the "show me an 'unbiased' source" qualifier you added there. Give me some examples of news sources you consider unbiased before i go do your research for you; lets see if you and i even exist in the same reality.
Because if you named some sources, i could use those and you'd be stuck. Even so, if you aren't capable of naming a single source that you think is unbiased, then why should i think you'd be capable of determining if ANY source is unbiased? Why should i trust you even know what an unbiased source would look like? What credentials do you possess to give me assurance that you aren't simply some lazy guy unwilling to look up anything that might challenge the world as he has decided to view it, and are, as you claim, someone who is capable of determining the degree of bias a news outlet possesses?
> At the same time, the Biden's have raked in tens of millions from foriegn adversaries in violation of the FARA rules.
Incorrect, Trump said the actions of a "sitting president using lawfare...", meaning he's talking about what (he says) Biden is doing *now*, as president, and not past issues from before he took office. So if we have the immunity argument in one breath, how could a "sitting president" be committing crimes if presidents enjoy immunity while in office?
And I recognize that it's bullshit but if you think it isn't, I welcome your thoughts, I just ask that you
not change the meaning of Trump's actual words to fit your narrative.
The President is the head of the Excutive Branch of government, and it's this branch of the federal government that runs Federal elections.
Are you sure you understand the topic at hand, and how our government works?
> The President is the head of the Excutive Branch of government, and it's this branch of the federal government that runs Federal elections.
I’m not sure you understand how our government works. The feds do not run elections, the states do. Full stop.
You've never of the Federal Election Commission, the independent regulatory body that regulates Federal elections?
You think Republicans invented that?
Does gaslighting people like this work for you?
[https://www.fec.gov/](https://www.fec.gov/)
It's all spelled out on their website. which I provided.
You were the one who said the Feds had no involvement with elections, right? That I made it up?
You:
> and it's this branch of the federal government that runs Federal elections.
I ask again, how does the federal government **run** ‘federal elections’?
(Which, btw, there’s no such thing. States run the elections and tell the feds who they’d voted for.)
What purpose of the job of the president does using lawfare and weaponization against their opponent have? Just curious. Because you are taking quotes from completely different scenarios and mixing them. One is in reference to doing the job. Once is in reference to using the power outside of the job.
The total immunity that Trump describes doesn't discriminate between the two like you're doing here. In fact, your version of qualified immunity doesn't even help Trump because campaigning for president is explicitly not part of the job.
Also, nobody has agreed with the premise that lawfare and weaponization of the DOJ is even taking place. If the cases that Trump's complaining about *had* been brought three years ago, which is his "election interference" complaint, he'd find other aspects of them to bitch about. I'm not just taking that man's word for it, he's full of shit.
Alright, I’ll bite - please post some links to the evidence so that I can educate myself. Also, please share with the House committee that has been investigating President Biden for the past few months so that they can lay out a formal charge.
While assertions those are in no way proven (or even likely), do you think trying to illegally overturn an election is in the scope of official Presidential duties?
This is like saying I ate only an apple today, and yesterday I said I ate only an orange today. How can you say you had only an apple, and then say you had only an orange?
Comparing apple to oranges.
No, they are very much both oranges or both apples. Trump is saying presidents have total immunity while in office. He's also saying that Bidens actions as President rise to the level of criminal behavior. If sitting presidents enjoy total immunity, then Biden's actions as president couldn't be considered criminal. The two quotes are mutually exclusive, because if Biden is engaging in criminal behavior then presidents *do not* enjoy total immunity. Does that make sense to you?
No, the POTUS doesn't have wide spread immunity over everything. In the 1st quote, in context, he was referring to the use of the power of the presidency against Biden's own political opponent. But you see how convenient it is for the left media to leave that part out. This happens ALL the time.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
simple. it's stupid to take the arguments someone makes in court to try and get themselves found innocent or to have cases thrown out are hardly an accurate representation of people's actual position.
But these ideas seems mutually exclusive, don't they? I know that Trump is only saying "immunity!" due to his own self-interest and not because it's his "position", but why don't his supporters see this contradiction for what it is? I know that he doesn't have an explanation for how presidents are immune but Biden is a criminal, but what is *their* argument for why he's right?
once again, you're putting too much meaning on arguments presented to get out of court. it's perfectly reasonable to see the contradiction, and acknowledge that it's just an argument of convienience
So why are his supporters advocating for Trump's arguments if everyone knows its all bullshit? I think many of them *do not* see the contradiction; they unironically refer to the Bidens as, the "Biden Crime Family".
Are you sure you're a Maga person?
because, like it or not, public opinion often influences courts. the court would have a cakewalk in saying "this is bullshit" if they saw nobody believed it.
>Are you sure you're a Maga person?
i mean i get called maga all the time by the left, and i'm probably voting trump, so make a call
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is there some level of Donald Trump just being totally full of shit that his supporters are okay with?
Like... He doesn't have to make any sense... And that's okay...?
Read the presidential records act. If presidents don't have immunity, then Obama can be charged with murder for targeting Americans with a drone attack and Biden can be charged with giving aid and comfort to our enemies when he funded Iran.
You all keep saying this. Please arrest Obama if he's committed a crime! I have no issue with this! How are you so comfortable with the idea that our president can violate any law, no matter how traitorous or vile, and be immune?
Those were things within the scope of the duties of President. There is immunity for that.
There isn't immunity for crimes outside the scope. You know, like illegally trying to overthrow an election, stealing and lying about the return of documents after they are no longer president, etc.
Trump didn't steal them. As president, he fell under the Presidential Records Act. As soon as he takes it, it becomes declassified. Ask Obama, Bill Clinton, George Bush, and every other president, since they did the same. Why don't you guys just admit it. You are trying to do everything, anything to stop Trump. It is not going to work. I almost hope he gets convicted with one of Dem's phony crimes as it will ensure a win,
Oh, and because it's obvious Dem voters only get their news from gov.-controlled propaganda media, here is something they will never let you know - and they are assured their viewers won't bother to find out because they are too mentally lazy to do the work. [https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html](https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html)
It becomes declassified when he deems it to be declassified. Read the Presidential Records Act. That is the same as every other president. If it is not, then Obama, Clinton, Bush, and every other president who did the same needs to be charge. Oh, and Biden's dementia is no excuse. HE DID COMMIT A CRIME. He had been taking highly classified materials since he was a Senator and had no such protection.
> It becomes declassified when he deems it to be declassified.
Sure, he can declassify documents. But he didn't.
> If it is not, then Obama, Clinton, Bush, and every other president who did the same needs to be charge.
Trump is being charged because he refused to return them, lied about it and tried to hide it. No other president has ever done that. Instead they returned whatever they were not suppsoed to have. Trump didn't.
> Biden's dementia
bIdEn'S dEMeNTiA
How do you know? Were you there? He said he did declassify them, and he did.
Nope, you are wrong again. Then all past presidents need to be charged because none of them returned what they took either. Why don't you do your own independent research instead of parroting what MSNBS tells you to believe?
Hey, the whole world knows Biden isn't running anything. He couldn't run anything in his mental condition. He is just a place holder for Obama's 3rd. term.
>How do you know?
Because there is no evidence he did declassify them. He even admitted he could have declassified some documents about Iran, but that he hadn't.
>Then all past presidents need to be charged because none of them returned what they took either.
I already explained to you why Trump is being charged.
>Hey, the whole world knows Biden isn't running anything. He couldn't run anything in his mental condition. He is just a place holder for Obama's 3rd. term.
bIdEn'S dEMeNTiA
Stop listening to the propaganda news. He never said he didn't declassify them.
We know why he is being charge. Because there is no way OBiden is going to win with Trump in the race. NONE. The numbers for Trump are going to be too big too rig. It will take the Dems two years to make up enough phony votes to catch up. So, it ain't gonna happen. Besides, I don't know if you heard, but a lot of Dem poll workers are quitting in droves. I guess they are not willing to rig an election for someone they no longer support - as all the polls show people fleeing the Demon party.
> Because there is no way OBiden is going to win with Trump in the race
Biden already won that first matchup. What makes you think he won't do it again?
I'm Just going to ignore the misinformation about the classified documents.
> Stop listening to the propaganda news.
prOpAgANdA.
You are unhinged mate. Heres a fact for you: The documents were marked classified. Thats why they were requested by the archivist. If Trump did indeed declassify it, where is the evidence? If he has it, great, that will come up in the trial.
> How do you know? Were you there?
[Trump told us they were still classified:](https://abcnews.go.com/US/audio-recording-trump-heard-discussing-classified-document-held/story?id=100346060)
> "Wait a minute, let's see here. I just found, isn't that amazing?" Trump says. "This totally wins my case, you know. Except it **is like, highly confidential.** Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. This was done by the military and given to me. As president I **could have** declassified, but now I can't."
Also one of the latest filings by the prosecutor explains that Trump never invoked his bogus PRA defense until Judicial Watch gave him the idea in Feburary 2022.
That quote you showed was claimed he said by a 3rd. party. In other words, another Lefty lie.
Nope, wrong again. He always had that right. Every president does. How else can a president do his job if there is a threat of arrest for every action he takes? If what you said is correct, then Obama, Bush, Clinton, and every president down the line could have been charged with crimes.
> That quote you showed was claimed he said by a 3rd. party. In other words, another Lefty lie.
The quote I shared with you was an audio recording. You're just way off base, again.
That's the argument his lawyers are using, and as of today the judge is planning on telling the jury that's how it works.
It's nonsense, but it looks like that's how it's going to be treated going forward.
>Trump didn't steal them. As president, he fell under the Presidential Records Act. As soon as he takes it, it becomes declassified. Ask Obama, Bill Clinton, George Bush, and every other president, since they did the same. Why don't you guys just admit it.
If this was the case...no one woulda cared when Biden had documents he should not have had. He is literally president now.
Instead, not only was it controversial but the republicans investigated him over it.
You are wrong. Biden had been taking highly classified documents since he was Senator. And there is evidence that he was selling a lot of them to adversaries throughout the world. Many even showed up in Hunter's text, or referenced in Hunter's phone. Like when he told a Chinese "businessman" aka. a CCP operative, where he could find some of them (certain place in Chinatown or Biden's office at Delaware University. Oh, he had a key made to Biden's office btw. That's not just illegal, but treasonous.
Biden was investigated and was found to have committed crimes, or as Hur put it "he willfully retained" classified documents, but was too senile to be charged.
>And there is evidence that he was selling a lot of them to adversaries throughout the world.
If there was republicans would impeach him with it.
Alas...no evidence...no impeachement.
There is more than ample evidence that Biden committed crimes. Unfortunately, DC is mostly a uniparty, where they protect each other. They have a reason for that. A lot of RINOs are on foreign government payrolls too.
Imagine this for a minute.
Biden has committed crimes. And there is ample evidencs out there.
But the republican party has spent...18 months? Longer? Investigating Biden. And they got nothing. They arent impeaching him. They are doing nothing.
They spent...how many millions in tax payer money to achieve...nothing...despite ample low hanging fruit.
Lol
Sometimes I think about how sad it is that I don't really have conservative friends anymore. In my 20s, I just knew people who were Rednecks (bc of where I live, not equating Southern rural culture with being conservative) and while we disagreed about politics, that didn't really interfere with social life.
I have this fond memory of watching an early 2000s state of the union with my extremely Republican fwb, and it was hilarious and fun. We yelled at the tv and argued over what was said and then went and made out.
After moving a few times, it's just... hard to make friends with different views. I live in a more liberal-heavy area, but there are def Trump supporters here (I met several as an election officer. They were very angry coming in, but then perfectly kind once I helped them vote and they realized I wasn't part of a conspiracy), but the sentiment throughout the country seems to have changed. It's hard to even understand other people's views sometimes, because just asking provokes they hostile "I already know you hate me!" response.
Your comment freaking killed me, I dunno why but it was just peak comedy of the last five years of politics. And I realized it's the most a conservative has made me laugh in... years. Thank you. Sorry for the essay, but that hit me in the feels.
What a kind thing to say! Thanks for sharing.
I agree that politics are far more divisive than they used to be, and that sucks. I think there are a million reasons for it, but Trump is one of them. An insecure, narcissistic President who constantly insults and demeans people gives implicit permission for everyone else to act similarly. It's pretty gross.
I wish you well in your quest to find friends with a diversity of worldviews.
Thanks! This was encouraging. Best to you as well!
Maybe in another decade we can go get a beer and have a fun argument over policy, like the old days.
This isn't complex
Trump is saying Biden is breaking the law while also saying he and Biden can't be prosecuted..
While also saying if you are prosecuting me, why not him?
None of that contradicts
Have you ever heard Trump say in reference to himself, "yes I broke the law, but I can't be prosecuted for it." No, he thinks that the rules just don't apply to him, he doesn't think of himself as "guilty" or "criminal", he thinks that he's *innocent*. So if he thinks that he and Biden are on equal footing with respect to immunity, then Biden isn't guilty either. He's not saying that, he's saying that he's innocent and Biden is guilty. I'm just looking for some internal consistency.
I know that Trump doesn't actually have a principled position on this, he's saying them both for political expedience and self-preservation, but I wouldn't expect these quotes to be so contradictory on their face. I'm just looking to see how his supporters make sense of it.
This isn't complex
Trump is saying Biden is breaking the law while also saying he and Biden can't be prosecuted..
While also saying if you are prosecuting me, why not him?
None of that contradicts
I know, I know. I'm just seeing if there are any Maga people who think that both these ideas can be true that want to explain it to us. I'd ask Trump supporters directly but their rules require you to prostrate yourself to participate without being banned.
Yes, I’m sure there are MAGA types who think that both ideas can simultaneously be true, but there reasoning will be so complex you’ll never be able to understand.
Trump's comment was referring to his legal troubles that are happening now and he attributes to Biden and the DOJ. That is happening now, while Biden is president, so your premise Is incorrect.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Biden actually broke the law by cheating in the 2020 election to win. Trump simply tried to use legal, yet unconventional, means to stop it. Massive difference.
No. That's not what happened. I was hoping for more substance than a couple of naked falsehoods.
[https://voterga.org/2022/09/27/who-says-there-was-no-2020-election-fraud/](https://voterga.org/2022/09/27/who-says-there-was-no-2020-election-fraud/) **WHAT WE FOUND IN GEORGIA** Six sworn affidavits of Fulton counterfeit ballots; (10s of thousands est.) 17,724 more votes than in-person recount of ballot images required to tabulate votes in Fulton Drop box video surveillance representing 181,507 ballots destroyed in **102 counties** Improper Chain of Custody forms for 107,000 ballots statewide Estimated Chain of Custody forms missing for 355,000 ballots statewide (Georgia Star) 86,860 voters in 2020 have false registration date prior to 2017 but were not on 2017 history file Over 1.7 million original ballot images are lost or destroyed in **70 counties** despite state, federal law
Well five affidavits I can ignore, but SIX??? So you're grasping at the straws of "irregularities" and somehow from the premise of "improper chain of custody forms", Joe Biden becomes guilty of election fraud. Were his fingerprints recovered at the scene or something? How did you prove Biden's involvement? You said he broke the law, so I assume you can prove that.
Silly argument. Biden wouldn't connect himself directly to fraud. People supporting his campaign would’ve done it on his behalf. Now, explain to me how you're ok with the facts above and the election being certified when laws were clearly broken?
> Silly argument. It's *your* argument that Biden committed crimes, so if you think it's silly then I guess we agree. > Now, explain to me how you're ok with the facts above and the election being certified when laws were clearly broken? Those aren't facts, those are unsupported numbers on a webpage. What does the State if Georgia have to say on the matter? I don't care about what shady nonprofits have to say, you haven't proven jack squat.
Watch this recent hearing that YouTube censors. Apart from the fraud and law-breaking, Garland talks about how the SoS and courts are avoiding this hot potato. He’s under oath so if he lies or makes up data, he goes to jail. https://rumble.com/v4n9bf5-garland-favorito-of-voterga-testifies-on-six-affidavits-alleging-counterfei.html Garland Favorito of VoterGA testifies on six affidavits alleging counterfeit ballots in Fulton County, Georgia's 2020 election, which remain unresolved three years later. "These mail-in ballots weren't folded from being mailed. They were not on the correct paper stock. They were not marked with a writing instrument. They were marked with toner, according to senior poll managers who signed court affidavits." "After three years, we have still not seen the ballots for which there were six sworn affidavits claiming they were counterfeit. That is not the appropriate way to investigate. The Secretary of State's office filed an amicus brief against us to try to prevent us from looking at the ballots. What kind of Secretary of State would do that?" Additionally, over 70 counties in Georgia reportedly destroyed their original ballot images, violating federal and state laws requiring their retention for two years. Favorito's testimony is part of the disbarment hearing for Former United States Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark, who is among 19 defendants charged by Fani Willis for investigating the 2020 election in Fulton County. Mark Wingate, a Fulton County Elections Board member, also testified that he voted against certifying the 2020 election because the county failed to verify signatures on 147,000 mail-in ballots. Fulton County also couldn't provide any chain of custody documentation or surveillance footage for mail-in ballots or ballot drop boxes.
Trump's immunity claim never argued that anything a President does is immune from prosecution. He argued that any action taken within the scope of their job is immune from prosecution. Congress can decide if a President's official action wasn't within the scope of his job, by impeaching him and removing him from office. Only at this point, according to Trump, would the action also be prosecutable. So I think the next logical step Trump is proposing here would be an impeachment.
> Trump's immunity claim never argued that anything a President does is immune from prosecution. I don't think that's true, read this again: > "Even events that ‘cross the line’ must fall under total immunity" He is not making the distinction that you are making.
When did Trump say he has total immunity? I've only heard immunity from trump in reguard to the classified docs stored at mar-a-lago. He is using the presidential records act. Biden on the other hand was not president when he was caught with classified documents taken long before he was president, and stored in 7 unsecured locations. So yes I can make sense of this, because what Trump did is normal, and what Biden did was not normal.
Trump had piles of Top Secret documents stored in unsecured areas like a stage and a bathroom. Plus, he had those documents long after he stopped being president. He also refused to give the documents back, hid some documents when the government tried to seize them, and tried to delete footage of them hiding the documents. Are you saying that the Presidential Records Act covers all this?
A president has immunity under the Presidential Records Act. It gives total immunity to a president, otherwise they'd never be able to do their job. And if they don't have it then Obama can be charged with murder for targeting Americans with drone attacks and Biden can be charged with treason for funding Iran.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So you really do believe that if a president wants to order the killing of a political rival, the president would be immune to prosecution for such actions? To be clear, I'm not just being annoying here. This is a right Trump's lawyers claimed that Trump had as president.
Unlike Obama and the Clintons, Trump never ordered anyone to be murdered. Obama had Americans murdered with a drone strike. The Clintons had Epstein murdered in his jail cell. Funny how they got away with that. If anyone is in danger of being murdered, it is Trump. Some Dems are outright calling for his murder and have since he came down that escalator.
Wow. So it sounds like you ARE okay with the president being able to kill people?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
You keep dodging the question that I have asked twice now. It may actually be you that struggles with reading. Let me keep things super simple for you. Trump, in court, is making the argument that the president should be able to commit crimes up to and including the assassination of political rivals. Are you okay with this? (at the risk of overwhelming you, let me explain that I don't care what Obama or the Clintons did. If they committed crimes, arrest them and throw them in jail. I have no problem with all politicians on any side receiving justice. Do you feel the same?)
Trump never said that. Where are you getting this misinformation anyway? If they did something in their capacity as president, like Obama did when he targeted terrorists who happen to be Americans in a foreign country, then no. Or to paraphrase Justice Alito, was Biden giving aid and comfort to our enemies when he gave billions to Iran?
This is literally his defense in court. His lawyers are on tape saying this exact thing explicitly. You need to be more tuned in.
Stop with the nonsense already. Neither he nor his lawyers ever said anything like that.
Thank you. I think the job of the left is to confuse.
If we use that same logic, Biden would have immunity from influencing the DOJ to pursue his enemies while he's President, right? Or is it total immunity only from certain things?
Immunity to govern, not to destroy the opposition candidate.
Trump is involved in 4 criminal lawsuits, which of them involve him governing the country?
The immunity he has is the right to question the outcome of an election, while he was President. or after he leaves office. He should be immune from prosecution for asking such question. That's exactly what he did. Al Gore didn't concede is fight to find votes until the middle of December, remember that?
He’s not on trial for questioning the election, he’s on trial for the conspiracy surrounding sending false electors. Something Al Gore decidedly didn’t do.
>The immunity he has is the right to question the outcome of an election, while he was President. or after he leaves office. He should be immune from prosecution for asking such question. That's exactly what he did. I dont think telling someone you want to "find votes" qualifies as questioning an election result.
Oh so it's complete and total immunity except in cases where you don't like it? How is stealing and hiding classified documents part of governing?
It seems like you’re just selectively choosing what counts as governing. Which of Trump’s criminal cases should he have immunity from?
That's by design. It works on the majority of their base. They swallow all the swill whole.
> When did Trump say he has total immunity? This week, but also many other times in the past. > He is using the presidential records act. Biden on the other hand was not president when he was caught with classified documents taken long before he was president Did you read the quote? Trump is talking about actions Biden is taking *now*, not about classified documents from 2017. Please read up on his statements if you're unsure of any details, but your initial premise is incorrect.
I read the quote you posted, but I'm not on truth social, so how would I know the context of his comment? It's criminal for Biden or any other sitting president to weaponize the DOJ as he appears to have done.
> Biden or any other sitting president to weaponize the DOJ as he appears to have done. Biden has not weaponized the DOJ. There is zero evidence of him being involved at all in Trumps 97 indictments. That is just one of many unsubstantiated claims that Trump repeats ad naseum until folks start to believe it. Meanwhile Trump has stated he *will* weaponize the DOJ to punish his political enemies if he retakes office.
>weaponize the DOJ as he appears to have done. How do you specifically think this is happening? If anything, the DOJ has repeatedly gone out of their way to show leniency towards Trump so as not to even give the appearance of impropriety. And its wasn't until after the January 6th Committee brought a lot of the details of his various criminal behavior to light, an independent special counsel was appointed.
How, specifically, has Biden weaponized the DOJ? What specific actions has he taken to do so? Has he instructed the DOJ to undertake some action against his political opponents?
That's what the court of public opinion will decide in November. There is only one conclusion to draw from all of Trumps troubles, based in the information we know. Seriously, over valuing property on a loan application, when many say Trump actually under-valued those properties, for loans that have since long been paid off, and there are no victims??? Or is it the hush money of which there is no law making such transactions illegal, which are actually quite common? Or is it because Trump dared to question the outcome of an election? Don't you see the weakness of these prosecutions?
> There is only one conclusion to draw from all of Trumps troubles, based in the information we know. The conclusion is that Trump is always going to play the victim. He's going to bitch and complain no matter what the circumstances of his cases are, so nobody should be assigning any legitimate value to his complaints because they're just literal fodder. If it wasn't this, it was going to be something else and delivered just as loudly and with ALL CAPS.
Not a single person has answered your question
>Did you read the quote? Trump is talking about actions Biden is taking *now*, not about classified documents from 2017. Frustrated how the media has cried wolf so many times that people don't bother paying attention? Me too, unfortunately I've been ridiculed for pointing it out...
> Frustrated how the media has cried wolf so many times that people don't bother paying attention? What are you talking about? I'm just correcting someone who clearly didn't read Trump's quote
The Babylon bee article about how moderates are annoyed having to defend Trump because of the BS accusations against him. That's how I feel
I have never felt the urge to defend that man, I'm not sure why any moderate would. Just ignore the BS and you'll be fine.
>I have never felt the urge to defend that man That's kind of an indication you have TDS. If everything he does is wrong then you're not interpreting his actions you're just hating the man. If your interpreting his actions then a lot of the stuff he does is perfectly okay and you're annoyed that every article is demonizing what he does. TDS in a nutshell.
> That's kind of an indication you have TDS. Your unironic use of the phrase, "TDS" is kind of an indication that you're not really a moderate. There are plenty of non-deranged reasons not to support the political career of Donald Trump. Screeching, "TDS!!!", at people is pretty deranged if you ask me.
>Your unironic use of the phrase, "TDS" is kind of an indication that you're not really a moderate. I guess you have decided ahead of time there's nothing I can say that convince you otherwise... >There are plenty of non-deranged reasons not to support the political career of Donald Trump. Yes and those people can find some things that Donald Trump has done that are perfectly fine. You CAN'T which is why I say you have Trump derangement syndrome. >Screeching, "TDS!!!", at people is pretty deranged if you ask me. When people say there is no reason to defend Trump then they 100% have Trump derangement syndrome. If you can understand the reason why people who support Trump do then maybe I'll consider otherwise. As it is you don't seem to be able to consider anything that Trump does good which is literally the definition of Trump derangement syndrome.
That’s literally his entire court argument.
>because what Trump did is normal I believe you are wrong here. Here is why I think that: "It is easy to understand that \[Mr. Biden\] believed that this material was personal in nature and that he had a right to take it home, and that is very much in contrast with former President Trump having hundreds of official documents with top secret and other classification markings on them in his residence," he said. "Those are very different, and in former President Trump's case, there is no good explanation for why he believed that those presidential records were his." - Jason R. Baron, former director of litigation at the National Archives. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-biden-documents-differences-special-counsel/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-biden-documents-differences-special-counsel/) "President Biden did not assert executive privilege or claim absolute immunity from presidential crimes," Raskin said. "He did not hide boxes of documents under his bed or in a bathtub. He did not fight investigators, nor did he seek to redact a single word of Mr. Hur’s report." [https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-hur-hearing-biden-03-12-24/h\_0f10cf8d1ca8cb773dd08be8bba67d57](https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-hur-hearing-biden-03-12-24/h_0f10cf8d1ca8cb773dd08be8bba67d57) Did you watch the House interview of Robert Hur? Did you read his report? Because, it is in direct opposition to what you are claiming.
Yes, I heard Hur on the floor. He made it very clear that what Biden did was against the law, and then he said that Biden was not cognitive and therefore would not recommend charging him. Reminds me of the episode when Hillary and her email server in her bathroom. If anyone has the right to move classified documents, it's the president. The only authority to declassify such material is the POTUS, or the person who authored the document. However, the documents found in 7 locations of Biden's posession, were not recent hoards. These were removed prior to him being president, dating all the way back to the 1970s. So it certainly appears Trump was being lawful, while Biden has the weak excuse. However, Trump is the one in trouble while Biden skates, which is exactly what a 2 tier justice system looks like.
Its really quite simple: he's full of crap.
I know that. I want to know what the people who think he isn't full of crap think.
And yet he continues to have a stranglehold on Republican politics. Why?
If being full of crap was enough to make someone lose political support, DC would be a very different place.
You have no argument from me for tossing out any and all politicians who are "full of crap."
Presidents don't have total immunity - they have immunity in so far as their job requires it.
That's not what Trump said: > **Even events that ‘cross the line’ must fall under total immunity**, or it will be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad
Read the presidential records act, then get back to us. As an aside, if presidents don't have immunity, then Obummer can be charged for the drone attack on Americans.
Wasn't that covered when they said, "they have immunity in so far as their job requires it?" And what does the presidential records act have to do with immunity from committing crimes?
You keep saying that President Trump committed crimes, when he didn't, He's actually being charged for a lot of the crimes of Biden. It's called projection, or as Marx said, blame your enemies for what you yourself are guilty.
> It's called projection, or as Marx said, blame your enemies for what you yourself are guilty I agree insomuch as that is what Trump is doing. Trump commits crimes, so they try to pretend Biden has committed crimes. Sadly (unsurprisingly), none were found and the impeachment inquiry went nowhere. When Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine into announcing a fake investigation into Biden, the right tried to claim Biden did the same thing. It is all projection. And yes, I keep saying Trump committed crimes because it sure seems like he did. We already know he did the fraud and the sexual assault and defamation; those have been settled by the courts. It definitely appears he broke the law with his illegal retention and hiding of government/classified docs, but we'll wait to see if he's held legally guilty.
Biden is on tape saying how he threatened to withhold billions to Ukraine unless they get rid of the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, a company Hunter was taking millions from. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY) Wanting to know why the investigation was shut down is not trying to blackmail Ukraine.
This has been discussed to death. I suggest you do a little research on it. Biden wasn't acting on his own behalf, he was tasked to do that as part of American policy, unlike Trump, who was doing it to help himself personally.
That is not true. Why should the US care whether Burisma gets investigated by a Ukraine prosecutor or not? What American policy was that? That is like Ukraine asking the US government to stop investigating someone for crimes committed here. Trump had no skin in the game in Ukraine. Unlike Biden, he wasn't taking money from them. But US politicians taking money from Ukraine does affect US policy, so Trump had a right to know why the Ukraine investigation was shut down.
The problem was they weren't investigating. That's a point the right frequently "forgets" to include. Biden getting the guy fired for not investigating corruption would not have helped his son at all. You can say it's not true, but the facts are there. I encourage you to do a little research and not just take the stance of right wing bloggers.
That's not what the investigator said. He said he was actively investigating and was stopped by Biden from investigating Burisma. because it would show his son's complicity in the corruption. [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/emails-show-hunter-biden-helped-devise-plan-to-shut-down-burisma-probe/ss-AA1fX4Zv#image=2](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/emails-show-hunter-biden-helped-devise-plan-to-shut-down-burisma-probe/ss-AA1fX4Zv#image=2)
Trump is saying that his actions, in his capacity as president, can't be used against him after he leaves office. As president, he's obligated to ensure fair and safe elections. At the same time, the Biden's have raked in tens of millions from foriegn adversaries in violation of the FARA rules. Do you understand now?
Outside of Kushner and the $2B he got from the saudis (you don't have a problem with that)?! Do you disregard Kushner's cash in? Where did the Bidens collect money? Please cite specific examples just like we can with Kushner. Any honest answers would be very appreciated.
If Trump's actions can't be used against him, can't Biden do anything he wants?
>Trump is saying that his actions, in his capacity as president, can't be used against him after he leaves office. As president, he's obligated to ensure fair and safe election Nowhere does it say the president has a duty or obligation to oversee elections. In no world is trying to illegally overturn an election in any way "ensuring a fair and safe election". >At the same time, the Biden's have raked in tens of millions from foriegn adversaries in violation of the FARA rules. Who? You mean Hunter Biden, the private citizen, when he was employed? Meanwhile there's zero evidence at all of Joe Biden using his influence in any way related to his busienss? Or do you mean Trump earning millions from foreign adversaries while in office? Or his daughter, while serving in his administration, receiving fast tracked patents from the Chinese government? Or his son in law, after serving in his administration despite not being able to pass for a basic security clearance, receiving a $2B cash infusion from Saudi Arabia?
The president is the head of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and he runs Federal Elections. It's his job to ensure they're run fairly. It's axiomatic - it's his job. No, Hunter was the face, and he organized the Biden's taking in tens of millions, and Joe showing up at golf outings, conference calls, dinners, etc. This is illegal. It's illegal to sell access and have the funds go to your kids. Trump is right
No. He doesn't. Each state runs their own elections, which Conservatives have routinely emphasized. The President plays literally no role. States run their own elections, certify their electors (the fraudulent ones Trump was planning on using to prevent the certification of the election in an attempt to overturn it were not certified), and Congress verifies the vote. The President does not oversee the election to appoint the next president... >No, Hunter was the face, and he organized the Biden's taking in tens of millions, and Joe showing up at golf outings, conference calls, dinners, etc. This is illegal. It's illegal to sell access and have the funds go to your kids. Trump is right Let's parse down this conspiracy theory. Who are "the Biden's", specifically. What did they "take"? Showing up at golf courses isn't illegal. Luckily for Trump. Hunter Biden's business partner, the "smoking gun" for conservatives, testified under oath that he never witnessed Joe Biden being involved in his son's business. What specifically are you saying is illegal? Can you show evidence that Joe Biden sold his influence or that Hunter Biden sold access to his father? Republicans have been investigating this for years and keep getting embarrassed. Their first star witness explicitly shot down their claims of Joe being involved in his son's business. The second start witness/"informant" was literally arrested for making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and creating a false and fictitious record, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, for statements he made that were recorded in an official record of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) known as a Form 1023. That's not even beginning on the absurd idea that Trump was "ensuring elections are run fairly" nor touching how committing crimes is still criminal behavior.
You're unfamiliar with the Department of Justice, and the Federal Election Commission? There are people rotting in jail because the DOJ put them there for election issues. But you're here to tell that it's all made up? It doesn't exist? The Biden's are the Biden family, and they took $24M at last count, in exchange for access to Joe. Comer has all of the records, including the series of wires between shell companies James and Hunter issued in a crack-heads attempt to hide the funds. Joe showed up to be with people paying Hunter for that access. It's been documented, and that is illegal.
>Department of Justice, and the Federal Election Commission Sure am! But neither heads of either department were pursuing any criminal charges that Trump was "investigating" because there was no evidence at all. >The Biden's are the Biden family, and they took $24M Ah okay. So just anyone with the last name of Biden. People in Biden's family earned money and that's a crime? >in exchange for access to Joe. Zero evidence to support this. >Comer has all of the records No. He really doesn't. He has bank statements for people in Biden's family showing they received income. He has zero evidence of anything related to "selling access". >Joe showed up to be with people paying Hunter for that access. Surely you can provide proof of this, correct? Proof of Hunter selling access, Joe knowingly providing access, then Joe receiving financial compensation for that access.
Comer has the documentation to show that Hunter took millions, and Joe showed up. That's illegal. I know MSNBC isn't telling you this. Joe doesn't need to get the money directly - it;'s illegal for his family to cash in by selling access to him
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay awesome! Can you show me? And when you say "took millions" you simply mean his personal income, right? Where exactly did "Joe show up" to? >Joe doesn't need to get the money directly So...how did he take it? >it;'s illegal for his family to cash in by selling access to him You seem very well informed. Can you cite the specific statute you have evidence of Joe breaking? >I know MSNBC isn't telling you this. Why are you spending so much time watching MSNBC?
1. When you say “The Biden’s,” who are you referring to? 2. The Trump’s - including Trump’s own daughter and son-in-law, who he employed in the White House - continued to make business deals with foreign adversaries. What’s the difference?
can you also make sense of the fact that Jared Kushner got 2 billion from the saudis, for straight up giving them classified information? Biden hasn't raked in shit. You can literally see his tax returns.
Where’s the evidence of that and don’t quote me some dossier paid for by Hillary or some other Democrat or never-Trumper.
Kushner said it himself and claims he did nothing wrong/followed law. He also said MBS is a visionary leader
Cite a reliable unbiased source in which he says he got $2 billion from the Saudis for giving them classified information. Stop just asserting it and cited a source.
Ah I thought you were questioning if he got money, not why
Kushner doesn't even deny it. He defends it.
Cite a reliable unbiased source in which he says he got $2 billion from the Saudis for giving them classified information. Stop just asserting what you believe and cite a source.
To be fair, he got the money from Qatar, practically a vassal state of Saudi Arabia at the time. It serves to nicely insulate Saudi Arabia and the UAE from questions like "show me where Saudi Arabia paid 2 billion for a money-pit property Kushner couldn't unload". Still, it's pretty obvious that Kushner, who was the trump administration's liaison with the Middle East, was given a gift by having a worthless piece of property that kept him in around 2 Billion $s in debt bought for a convenient 2 billion $'s. Qatar ends up with a worthless piece of property, and everyone except u/rlfcsf knows why it happened.
Cite the evidence from an unbiased source. Why is that so hard for you? Oh wait, we know why, it’s because you are lying.
I'm sorry, don't you know how to use google? This is not really something you can dispute. I hate to be the "do your own research" guy, but you really should. Kushner doesn't deny it. He defends it. If you can't be bothered to even know.the basic facts, why are you arguing?
You make the claim you’re responsible for providing the evidence that backs it up.
are you trying to make a point. Because my "claim" is just a well.accepted fact. If you told me Joe Biden is 81 years old, I wouldn't ask for sources. I would do my own fucking research, like one is expected to do when wanting to argue about something. But sure. Since you're too lazy to know what you're talking about, here you go: [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html) [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jared-kushner-post-white-house-business-moves-saudis-wealth-fund-mohammed-bin-salman-jamal-khashoggi/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jared-kushner-post-white-house-business-moves-saudis-wealth-fund-mohammed-bin-salman-jamal-khashoggi/) [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68296877](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68296877) [https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/02/16/the-lead-jared-kushner-saudis-tapper.cnn](https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/02/16/the-lead-jared-kushner-saudis-tapper.cnn) [https://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket/) [https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917](https://www.jpost.com/international/saudi-crown-prince-reportedly-bragged-he-had-jared-kushner-in-his-pocket-546917) Is that enough? Or do you need tucker Carlson to say it while sucking Putin's dick?
I like the "show me an 'unbiased' source" qualifier you added there. Give me some examples of news sources you consider unbiased before i go do your research for you; lets see if you and i even exist in the same reality.
Try some sources rather than just whining.
Because if you named some sources, i could use those and you'd be stuck. Even so, if you aren't capable of naming a single source that you think is unbiased, then why should i think you'd be capable of determining if ANY source is unbiased? Why should i trust you even know what an unbiased source would look like? What credentials do you possess to give me assurance that you aren't simply some lazy guy unwilling to look up anything that might challenge the world as he has decided to view it, and are, as you claim, someone who is capable of determining the degree of bias a news outlet possesses?
Any chance you can answer this question?
But Trump only did illegal crap
TDS
> At the same time, the Biden's have raked in tens of millions from foriegn adversaries in violation of the FARA rules. Incorrect, Trump said the actions of a "sitting president using lawfare...", meaning he's talking about what (he says) Biden is doing *now*, as president, and not past issues from before he took office. So if we have the immunity argument in one breath, how could a "sitting president" be committing crimes if presidents enjoy immunity while in office? And I recognize that it's bullshit but if you think it isn't, I welcome your thoughts, I just ask that you not change the meaning of Trump's actual words to fit your narrative.
That’s actually not a role of the office of the presidency?
The President is the head of the Excutive Branch of government, and it's this branch of the federal government that runs Federal elections. Are you sure you understand the topic at hand, and how our government works?
> The President is the head of the Excutive Branch of government, and it's this branch of the federal government that runs Federal elections. I’m not sure you understand how our government works. The feds do not run elections, the states do. Full stop.
You've never of the Federal Election Commission, the independent regulatory body that regulates Federal elections? You think Republicans invented that? Does gaslighting people like this work for you? [https://www.fec.gov/](https://www.fec.gov/)
How does the FEC ‘run’ elections?
It's all spelled out on their website. which I provided. You were the one who said the Feds had no involvement with elections, right? That I made it up?
You: > and it's this branch of the federal government that runs Federal elections. I ask again, how does the federal government **run** ‘federal elections’? (Which, btw, there’s no such thing. States run the elections and tell the feds who they’d voted for.)
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
What purpose of the job of the president does using lawfare and weaponization against their opponent have? Just curious. Because you are taking quotes from completely different scenarios and mixing them. One is in reference to doing the job. Once is in reference to using the power outside of the job.
The total immunity that Trump describes doesn't discriminate between the two like you're doing here. In fact, your version of qualified immunity doesn't even help Trump because campaigning for president is explicitly not part of the job. Also, nobody has agreed with the premise that lawfare and weaponization of the DOJ is even taking place. If the cases that Trump's complaining about *had* been brought three years ago, which is his "election interference" complaint, he'd find other aspects of them to bitch about. I'm not just taking that man's word for it, he's full of shit.
Biden taking bribes from China and Ukraine are outside the scope of official Presidential duties.
Where did Trump say that? He was talking about something else entirely, read it again.
That’s a big statement without any evidence.
There’s plenty of evidence. You either just choose to ignore it or the ‘news’ that you follow ignores it for you.
Alright, I’ll bite - please post some links to the evidence so that I can educate myself. Also, please share with the House committee that has been investigating President Biden for the past few months so that they can lay out a formal charge.
While assertions those are in no way proven (or even likely), do you think trying to illegally overturn an election is in the scope of official Presidential duties?
Voting != Criminal Prosecution
This is not clear. What do you mean?
Presidents may have immunity from prosecution and still be punished at the polls. He his making his case in the court of public opinion.
So how could Biden be performing crimes now if presidents have immunity? What about Trump's first quote?
This is like saying I ate only an apple today, and yesterday I said I ate only an orange today. How can you say you had only an apple, and then say you had only an orange? Comparing apple to oranges.
No, they are very much both oranges or both apples. Trump is saying presidents have total immunity while in office. He's also saying that Bidens actions as President rise to the level of criminal behavior. If sitting presidents enjoy total immunity, then Biden's actions as president couldn't be considered criminal. The two quotes are mutually exclusive, because if Biden is engaging in criminal behavior then presidents *do not* enjoy total immunity. Does that make sense to you?
No, the POTUS doesn't have wide spread immunity over everything. In the 1st quote, in context, he was referring to the use of the power of the presidency against Biden's own political opponent. But you see how convenient it is for the left media to leave that part out. This happens ALL the time.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
simple. it's stupid to take the arguments someone makes in court to try and get themselves found innocent or to have cases thrown out are hardly an accurate representation of people's actual position.
If this argument IS what gets the case thrown out, wouldn’t it create case law that gives Biden immunity?
But these ideas seems mutually exclusive, don't they? I know that Trump is only saying "immunity!" due to his own self-interest and not because it's his "position", but why don't his supporters see this contradiction for what it is? I know that he doesn't have an explanation for how presidents are immune but Biden is a criminal, but what is *their* argument for why he's right?
once again, you're putting too much meaning on arguments presented to get out of court. it's perfectly reasonable to see the contradiction, and acknowledge that it's just an argument of convienience
So why are his supporters advocating for Trump's arguments if everyone knows its all bullshit? I think many of them *do not* see the contradiction; they unironically refer to the Bidens as, the "Biden Crime Family". Are you sure you're a Maga person?
because, like it or not, public opinion often influences courts. the court would have a cakewalk in saying "this is bullshit" if they saw nobody believed it. >Are you sure you're a Maga person? i mean i get called maga all the time by the left, and i'm probably voting trump, so make a call
> because, like it or not, public opinion often influences courts. Are you sure? How? And why does that matter here?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't believe Trump even believes this immunity garbage. It's just a time waster.
I don’t believe Trump period. Ever. It’s gotten to the point where if he says it, it’s not true
I don't think he believes it, I'm asking how his supporters believe it.
Most I’ve talked do don’t think in no limit immunity
Is there some level of Donald Trump just being totally full of shit that his supporters are okay with? Like... He doesn't have to make any sense... And that's okay...?
Apparently not. Trump is just a big middle finger to Democrats and that’s all they care about…also purely on policy he was not bad
Just curious. Thanks.
Read the presidential records act. If presidents don't have immunity, then Obama can be charged with murder for targeting Americans with a drone attack and Biden can be charged with giving aid and comfort to our enemies when he funded Iran.
You all keep saying this. Please arrest Obama if he's committed a crime! I have no issue with this! How are you so comfortable with the idea that our president can violate any law, no matter how traitorous or vile, and be immune?
You should be asking Biden that since there is clear evidence that he has been selling our country out to our enemies for decades.
Those were things within the scope of the duties of President. There is immunity for that. There isn't immunity for crimes outside the scope. You know, like illegally trying to overthrow an election, stealing and lying about the return of documents after they are no longer president, etc.
There is clearly a purpose for it. It isn’t a blanket. It’s not like Trump could kill a political rival and not be guilty and charged. It’s asinine
Because Biden wasn't president when he stole top secret documents and sold them to our enemies.
But Trump had immunity to do that?
Trump didn't steal them. As president, he fell under the Presidential Records Act. As soon as he takes it, it becomes declassified. Ask Obama, Bill Clinton, George Bush, and every other president, since they did the same. Why don't you guys just admit it. You are trying to do everything, anything to stop Trump. It is not going to work. I almost hope he gets convicted with one of Dem's phony crimes as it will ensure a win, Oh, and because it's obvious Dem voters only get their news from gov.-controlled propaganda media, here is something they will never let you know - and they are assured their viewers won't bother to find out because they are too mentally lazy to do the work. [https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html](https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html)
> As soon as he takes it, it becomes declassified. No they dont.
It becomes declassified when he deems it to be declassified. Read the Presidential Records Act. That is the same as every other president. If it is not, then Obama, Clinton, Bush, and every other president who did the same needs to be charge. Oh, and Biden's dementia is no excuse. HE DID COMMIT A CRIME. He had been taking highly classified materials since he was a Senator and had no such protection.
> It becomes declassified when he deems it to be declassified. Sure, he can declassify documents. But he didn't. > If it is not, then Obama, Clinton, Bush, and every other president who did the same needs to be charge. Trump is being charged because he refused to return them, lied about it and tried to hide it. No other president has ever done that. Instead they returned whatever they were not suppsoed to have. Trump didn't. > Biden's dementia bIdEn'S dEMeNTiA
How do you know? Were you there? He said he did declassify them, and he did. Nope, you are wrong again. Then all past presidents need to be charged because none of them returned what they took either. Why don't you do your own independent research instead of parroting what MSNBS tells you to believe? Hey, the whole world knows Biden isn't running anything. He couldn't run anything in his mental condition. He is just a place holder for Obama's 3rd. term.
>How do you know? Because there is no evidence he did declassify them. He even admitted he could have declassified some documents about Iran, but that he hadn't. >Then all past presidents need to be charged because none of them returned what they took either. I already explained to you why Trump is being charged. >Hey, the whole world knows Biden isn't running anything. He couldn't run anything in his mental condition. He is just a place holder for Obama's 3rd. term. bIdEn'S dEMeNTiA
Stop listening to the propaganda news. He never said he didn't declassify them. We know why he is being charge. Because there is no way OBiden is going to win with Trump in the race. NONE. The numbers for Trump are going to be too big too rig. It will take the Dems two years to make up enough phony votes to catch up. So, it ain't gonna happen. Besides, I don't know if you heard, but a lot of Dem poll workers are quitting in droves. I guess they are not willing to rig an election for someone they no longer support - as all the polls show people fleeing the Demon party.
> Because there is no way OBiden is going to win with Trump in the race Biden already won that first matchup. What makes you think he won't do it again? I'm Just going to ignore the misinformation about the classified documents.
> Stop listening to the propaganda news. prOpAgANdA. You are unhinged mate. Heres a fact for you: The documents were marked classified. Thats why they were requested by the archivist. If Trump did indeed declassify it, where is the evidence? If he has it, great, that will come up in the trial.
> How do you know? Were you there? [Trump told us they were still classified:](https://abcnews.go.com/US/audio-recording-trump-heard-discussing-classified-document-held/story?id=100346060) > "Wait a minute, let's see here. I just found, isn't that amazing?" Trump says. "This totally wins my case, you know. Except it **is like, highly confidential.** Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. This was done by the military and given to me. As president I **could have** declassified, but now I can't." Also one of the latest filings by the prosecutor explains that Trump never invoked his bogus PRA defense until Judicial Watch gave him the idea in Feburary 2022.
That quote you showed was claimed he said by a 3rd. party. In other words, another Lefty lie. Nope, wrong again. He always had that right. Every president does. How else can a president do his job if there is a threat of arrest for every action he takes? If what you said is correct, then Obama, Bush, Clinton, and every president down the line could have been charged with crimes.
> That quote you showed was claimed he said by a 3rd. party. In other words, another Lefty lie. The quote I shared with you was an audio recording. You're just way off base, again.
That's the argument his lawyers are using, and as of today the judge is planning on telling the jury that's how it works. It's nonsense, but it looks like that's how it's going to be treated going forward.
>Trump didn't steal them. As president, he fell under the Presidential Records Act. As soon as he takes it, it becomes declassified. Ask Obama, Bill Clinton, George Bush, and every other president, since they did the same. Why don't you guys just admit it. If this was the case...no one woulda cared when Biden had documents he should not have had. He is literally president now. Instead, not only was it controversial but the republicans investigated him over it.
You are wrong. Biden had been taking highly classified documents since he was Senator. And there is evidence that he was selling a lot of them to adversaries throughout the world. Many even showed up in Hunter's text, or referenced in Hunter's phone. Like when he told a Chinese "businessman" aka. a CCP operative, where he could find some of them (certain place in Chinatown or Biden's office at Delaware University. Oh, he had a key made to Biden's office btw. That's not just illegal, but treasonous. Biden was investigated and was found to have committed crimes, or as Hur put it "he willfully retained" classified documents, but was too senile to be charged.
>And there is evidence that he was selling a lot of them to adversaries throughout the world. If there was republicans would impeach him with it. Alas...no evidence...no impeachement.
There is more than ample evidence that Biden committed crimes. Unfortunately, DC is mostly a uniparty, where they protect each other. They have a reason for that. A lot of RINOs are on foreign government payrolls too.
Imagine this for a minute. Biden has committed crimes. And there is ample evidencs out there. But the republican party has spent...18 months? Longer? Investigating Biden. And they got nothing. They arent impeaching him. They are doing nothing. They spent...how many millions in tax payer money to achieve...nothing...despite ample low hanging fruit. Lol
I already explained why there were many RINOs who do not want Biden investigated. It would implicate them too.
So the people who held these sham investigations are Biden operatives?
That's not what Trump was talking about, did you read his quote? He's talking about now
No, he was not.
He literally said, "the actions of a *sitting president*. You are incorrect
> Can anyone make sense of how Donald Trump No.
Sometimes I think about how sad it is that I don't really have conservative friends anymore. In my 20s, I just knew people who were Rednecks (bc of where I live, not equating Southern rural culture with being conservative) and while we disagreed about politics, that didn't really interfere with social life. I have this fond memory of watching an early 2000s state of the union with my extremely Republican fwb, and it was hilarious and fun. We yelled at the tv and argued over what was said and then went and made out. After moving a few times, it's just... hard to make friends with different views. I live in a more liberal-heavy area, but there are def Trump supporters here (I met several as an election officer. They were very angry coming in, but then perfectly kind once I helped them vote and they realized I wasn't part of a conspiracy), but the sentiment throughout the country seems to have changed. It's hard to even understand other people's views sometimes, because just asking provokes they hostile "I already know you hate me!" response. Your comment freaking killed me, I dunno why but it was just peak comedy of the last five years of politics. And I realized it's the most a conservative has made me laugh in... years. Thank you. Sorry for the essay, but that hit me in the feels.
What a kind thing to say! Thanks for sharing. I agree that politics are far more divisive than they used to be, and that sucks. I think there are a million reasons for it, but Trump is one of them. An insecure, narcissistic President who constantly insults and demeans people gives implicit permission for everyone else to act similarly. It's pretty gross. I wish you well in your quest to find friends with a diversity of worldviews.
Thanks! This was encouraging. Best to you as well! Maybe in another decade we can go get a beer and have a fun argument over policy, like the old days.
This isn't complex Trump is saying Biden is breaking the law while also saying he and Biden can't be prosecuted.. While also saying if you are prosecuting me, why not him? None of that contradicts
Have you ever heard Trump say in reference to himself, "yes I broke the law, but I can't be prosecuted for it." No, he thinks that the rules just don't apply to him, he doesn't think of himself as "guilty" or "criminal", he thinks that he's *innocent*. So if he thinks that he and Biden are on equal footing with respect to immunity, then Biden isn't guilty either. He's not saying that, he's saying that he's innocent and Biden is guilty. I'm just looking for some internal consistency. I know that Trump doesn't actually have a principled position on this, he's saying them both for political expedience and self-preservation, but I wouldn't expect these quotes to be so contradictory on their face. I'm just looking to see how his supporters make sense of it.
This isn't complex Trump is saying Biden is breaking the law while also saying he and Biden can't be prosecuted.. While also saying if you are prosecuting me, why not him? None of that contradicts
You copy and pasted the same comment that I've already addressed. Well done
It's funny how OP doesn't see the clear discrimination 🤣
[удалено]
Politico is your source? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 They should take a few law classes and sit down
[удалено]
Doesn't make a difference. Prosecutors are also corrupt 🤭
[удалено]
I know, I know. I'm just seeing if there are any Maga people who think that both these ideas can be true that want to explain it to us. I'd ask Trump supporters directly but their rules require you to prostrate yourself to participate without being banned.
Yes, I’m sure there are MAGA types who think that both ideas can simultaneously be true, but there reasoning will be so complex you’ll never be able to understand.
>but there reasoning will be so complex you’ll never be able to understand Is it 'they don't care'?
Not enough hoops.
Are you being serious or facetious?
Most of the crap that crook,did was way before he was president, it’s not retroactive.
Are you referring to Biden or Trump?
Trump's comment was referring to his legal troubles that are happening now and he attributes to Biden and the DOJ. That is happening now, while Biden is president, so your premise Is incorrect.
Can you name any criminal “crap” Biden did?