MAGAThread XVIII: The Authority Is Total

[Kowani]

These people hold no true positions. Only care about holding power.


I almost feel sorry. They are essentially trapped to sink on the HMS partisan.

I have to assume that they are good people. At least I hope somewhere within them .. https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/ ... 1554775040

I believe you mean the USS Partisan.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

These people hold no true positions. Only care about holding power.


I almost feel sorry. They are essentially trapped to sink on the HMS partisan.

I have to assume that they are good people. At least I hope somewhere within them .. https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/ ... 1554775040

I believe you mean the USS Partisan.

I was phrasing it around the HMS titanic. Witch I now realize was the RMS.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I dont trust a news company that shields pedophiles and fires their own employees.

Ok. I am bored and can use a laugh.

What News company is trustable?

50 golden shekels on Breitbart.

[Gormwood]

Ok. I am bored and can use a laugh.

What News company is trustable?

50 golden shekels on Breitbart.

Ooo... InfoWars!!!

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

So who does someone like Rudy Giuliani have as their lawyer? I'm thinking some Wolfram and Hart type smelling vaguely of brimstone.

[The East Marches II]

Ok. I am bored and can use a laugh.

What News company is trustable?

No news company. But the closets to 100% are ones that have a tradition of integrity in the face of power. Like the washing post.

Or Bill Kristol and his merry band of neocons :^)

[The East Marches II]

I dont trust a news company that shields pedophiles and fires their own employees.

Ok. I am bored and can use a laugh.

What News company is trustable?

The Qatari propaganda outlet is pretty ok compared to our shitshow. You don't lose braincells when watching.

[Vassenor]

Nothing short of a recording of Trump is good enough. Not even when he later admits to committing the crime on a FOXNews show.

Lets get this clear once and for all, we, I mean many of us saw and heard President Trump's interview on Fox News and Friends. President Trump never said their was a quid pro quo, on the contrary. President Trump never admitted to any guilty.

I see we're doing the "exact words" defence again.

[The East Marches II]

Lets get this clear once and for all, we, I mean many of us saw and heard President Trump's interview on Fox News and Friends. President Trump never said their was a quid pro quo, on the contrary. President Trump never admitted to any guilty.

I see we're doing the "exact words" defence again.

It'll probably work too. You should try doing another quality post to counter him instead of throwing an ash and trash response. You're actually not bad at them. It'd be far more effective.

[Gravlen]

Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said that the evidence presented in the impeachment proceedings against President Trump thus far is "overwhelming" and that it is sufficient "to justify about three or four articles of impeachment."

In a Friday interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie, Napolitano asserted that the president could face impeachment for several violations but underscored the constitutional implications of going forward with the process.

"The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence, in my opinion, to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president,” he said. “We have to start this conversation by underscoring the fact that impeachment is not legal, it is political. Its only constitutional base is treason, bribery, or other hard crimes and misdemeanors."

Napolitano, 69, elaborated on what violations he feels Trump could legally face impeachment for, highlighting bribery as the primary issue.

"Here’s what I think the Democrats will want ... One is bribery. The allegation is the technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way, and they will argue that the president’s failure to disperse funds that the Congress ordered be dispersed until the recipient of the funds agreed to investigate a potential political opponent is an act of bribery," he said. "That is enough, in my opinion, to make it over the threshold of impeachable offenses. I don’t think it’s enough to convict of bribery, but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment."
The former New Jersey Superior Court Judge also suggested other elements of Trump's actions that could lead to impeachment.

"The second charge will be high crimes and misdemeanors. Election law violation. The third crime will be obstruction of justice,” he said. “The fourth will be interference with the witness, and the fifth, maybe, lying under oath.”

Napolitano dismissed the idea that there is room for interpretation in Trump's impeachable actions, saying later in the interview, “The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming." Prior to the impeachment hearings, he also condemned the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as having "manifested both criminal and impeachable behavior" shortly after it became public.

If you don't like the Washington Examiner, take a look at the interview with Reason here

[Crockerland]

Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said that the evidence presented in the impeachment proceedings against President Trump thus far is "overwhelming" and that it is sufficient "to justify about three or four articles of impeachment."

In a Friday interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie, Napolitano asserted that the president could face impeachment for several violations but underscored the constitutional implications of going forward with the process.

"The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence, in my opinion, to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president,” he said. “We have to start this conversation by underscoring the fact that impeachment is not legal, it is political. Its only constitutional base is treason, bribery, or other hard crimes and misdemeanors."

Napolitano, 69, elaborated on what violations he feels Trump could legally face impeachment for, highlighting bribery as the primary issue.

"Here’s what I think the Democrats will want ... One is bribery. The allegation is the technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way, and they will argue that the president’s failure to disperse funds that the Congress ordered be dispersed until the recipient of the funds agreed to investigate a potential political opponent is an act of bribery," he said. "That is enough, in my opinion, to make it over the threshold of impeachable offenses. I don’t think it’s enough to convict of bribery, but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment."

If you don't like the Washington Examiner, take a look at the interview with Reason here

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

If a "thing of value" includes a concept so abstract as an investigation into a relative of a potential political rival, every president since William McKinley is a felon. Obama denied funds to Honduras until they re-instated a dictator who tried to illegally give himself another term, Bush denied funds to a bunch of countries unless they shielded Americans from the International Criminal Court. The president has authority over foreign policy and it would be impossible to criminalize him for supposedly acting in the interest of nebulous, immaterial gains without completely annihilating the powers of the Executive Branch in executing foreign policy.

If an American is taken hostage by some third world country and the president shuts down aid to the country that took him hostage with then says he'll reinstate the aid if they release the hostage, that's a Quid Pro Quo because the hostage might come back and vote for the president, thus aiding him in the election.

If the president puts sanctions on North Korea and agrees to remove them if North Korea frees its political prisoners, he's carried out a quid pro quo by virtue of accepting the positive views people will have of him as a result of freeing the prisoners, thus helping him in the election.

The law is obviously intended to prohibit the trading of "things" as in material goods and treasures that the president might try to accept instead of cash based on their material value. If that weren't the case, and "thing" could be construed to mean nondescript, unmeasurable, and intangible concepts, like the idea that an investigation into a relative of a potential political rival might harm that potential political rival and give the president some incalculable gain, then the law would be so ill-defined and vague as to run contrary to the right to Due Process guaranteed in the United States Constitution, which is the ultimate law of the land.

As per Connally v. General Construction Co.
"That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law."

And United States vs Davis et al
"In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. The vagueness doctrine rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers."

[Phoenicaea]

^indeed. “donation of money or other things of value”, and more than solid. regent has guilt of having done surely, yet not this specific and suited case.

justifiable reason for uncertainty. worst doubt for americans would be, if compromise faction made a feeble accuse case for purpose.

[Valrifell]

Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said that the evidence presented in the impeachment proceedings against President Trump thus far is "overwhelming" and that it is sufficient "to justify about three or four articles of impeachment."

In a Friday interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie, Napolitano asserted that the president could face impeachment for several violations but underscored the constitutional implications of going forward with the process.

"The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence, in my opinion, to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president,” he said. “We have to start this conversation by underscoring the fact that impeachment is not legal, it is political. Its only constitutional base is treason, bribery, or other hard crimes and misdemeanors."

Napolitano, 69, elaborated on what violations he feels Trump could legally face impeachment for, highlighting bribery as the primary issue.

"Here’s what I think the Democrats will want ... One is bribery. The allegation is the technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way, and they will argue that the president’s failure to disperse funds that the Congress ordered be dispersed until the recipient of the funds agreed to investigate a potential political opponent is an act of bribery," he said. "That is enough, in my opinion, to make it over the threshold of impeachable offenses. I don’t think it’s enough to convict of bribery, but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment."

If you don't like the Washington Examiner, take a look at the interview with Reason here

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

If a "thing of value" includes a concept so abstract as an investigation into a relative of a potential political rival, every president since William McKinley is a felon. Obama denied funds to Honduras until they re-instated a dictator who tried to illegally give himself another term, Bush denied funds to a bunch of countries unless they shielded Americans from the International Criminal Court. The president has authority over foreign policy and it would be impossible to criminalize him for supposedly acting in the interest of nebulous, immaterial gains without completely annihilating the powers of the Executive Branch in executing foreign policy.

If an American is taken hostage by some third world country and the president shuts down aid to the country that took him hostage with then says he'll reinstate the aid if they release the hostage, that's a Quid Pro Quo because the hostage might come back and vote for the president, thus aiding him in the election.

If the president puts sanctions on North Korea and agrees to remove them if North Korea frees its political prisoners, he's carried out a quid pro quo by virtue of accepting the positive views people will have of him as a result of freeing the prisoners, thus helping him in the election.

The law is obviously intended to prohibit the trading of "things" as in material goods and treasures that the president might try to accept instead of cash based on their material value. If that weren't the case, and "thing" could be construed to mean nondescript, unmeasurable, and intangible concepts, like the idea that an investigation into a relative of a potential political rival might harm that potential political rival and give the president some incalculable gain, then the law would be so ill-defined and vague as to run contrary to the right to Due Process guaranteed in the United States Constitution, which is the ultimate law of the land.

As per Connally v. General Construction Co.
"That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law."

And United States vs Davis et al
"In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. The vagueness doctrine rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers."

Why are you reaching so hard? Why must your guy be so clean?

By the way, your comparison is shitty since it lacks the concepts that people are getting fussed about, a clear and direct personal benefit to the President and only the president.

Now, I will not be explaining this again to you, so if you insist on going off the rails again then this will be the last thing I have to say to you.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Lets get this clear once and for all, we, I mean many of us saw and heard President Trump's interview on Fox News and Friends. President Trump never said their was a quid pro quo, on the contrary. President Trump never admitted to any guilty.

I see we're doing the "exact words" defence again.

Thank you for saying what you wrote above, that I am doing the exact words defense of President Trump on Fox News and Friends we all saw and heard. I see your are doing the not exact words attack again on President Trump.

[Valrifell]

The emotional investment some of y'all have in a New York businessman with a a bad track record only matched in shitiness by his spray tan is quite pathetic and sad.

Get new hobbies, I insist.

[Zurkerx]

Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said that the evidence presented in the impeachment proceedings against President Trump thus far is "overwhelming" and that it is sufficient "to justify about three or four articles of impeachment."

In a Friday interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie, Napolitano asserted that the president could face impeachment for several violations but underscored the constitutional implications of going forward with the process.

"The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence, in my opinion, to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president,” he said. “We have to start this conversation by underscoring the fact that impeachment is not legal, it is political. Its only constitutional base is treason, bribery, or other hard crimes and misdemeanors."

Napolitano, 69, elaborated on what violations he feels Trump could legally face impeachment for, highlighting bribery as the primary issue.

"Here’s what I think the Democrats will want ... One is bribery. The allegation is the technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way, and they will argue that the president’s failure to disperse funds that the Congress ordered be dispersed until the recipient of the funds agreed to investigate a potential political opponent is an act of bribery," he said. "That is enough, in my opinion, to make it over the threshold of impeachable offenses. I don’t think it’s enough to convict of bribery, but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment."

If you don't like the Washington Examiner, take a look at the interview with Reason here

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

If a "thing of value" includes a concept so abstract as an investigation into a relative of a potential political rival, every president since William McKinley is a felon. Obama denied funds to Honduras until they re-instated a dictator who tried to illegally give himself another term, Bush denied funds to a bunch of countries unless they shielded Americans from the International Criminal Court. The president has authority over foreign policy and it would be impossible to criminalize him for supposedly acting in the interest of nebulous, immaterial gains without completely annihilating the powers of the Executive Branch in executing foreign policy.

If an American is taken hostage by some third world country and the president shuts down aid to the country that took him hostage with then says he'll reinstate the aid if they release the hostage, that's a Quid Pro Quo because the hostage might come back and vote for the president, thus aiding him in the election.

If the president puts sanctions on North Korea and agrees to remove them if North Korea frees its political prisoners, he's carried out a quid pro quo by virtue of accepting the positive views people will have of him as a result of freeing the prisoners, thus helping him in the election.

The law is obviously intended to prohibit the trading of "things" as in material goods and treasures that the president might try to accept instead of cash based on their material value. If that weren't the case, and "thing" could be construed to mean nondescript, unmeasurable, and intangible concepts, like the idea that an investigation into a relative of a potential political rival might harm that potential political rival and give the president some incalculable gain, then the law would be so ill-defined and vague as to run contrary to the right to Due Process guaranteed in the United States Constitution, which is the ultimate law of the land.

As per Connally v. General Construction Co.
"That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law."

And United States vs Davis et al
"In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. The vagueness doctrine rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers."

The FEC would like to have a word with you:

§ 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing
of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or
local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the
meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a
foreign national.
(b) As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section
611(b) of title 22,²⁴ except that the term “foreign national” shall not
include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a
national of the United States (as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act) and who is not lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.²⁵

Foot notes:

24: 22 U.S.C. § 611(b) provides:
“(b) The term “foreign principal” includes—
(1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;
(2) a person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and
a citizen of and domiciled within the United States, or that such person is not an individual and is
organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States; and
(3) a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized
under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”

25: 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20) provides: “(20) The term lawfully admitted for permanent residence means the
status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an
immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.”

So at the very least, he broke campaign finance laws.

Edit: this is what happens when I post early in the morning: I miss the fact that I literally cited the same passage. Ugh. But Donations is defined as a payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit, or anything of value given to a person. The "anything of value" part is broad and includes receiving information from a foreign entity. You cited Obama, Bush, and others as a reason for Trump's justification but as several have pointed out, they did this on a foreign policy basis and thus, is legal. Trump, on the other hand, did this for a domestic purpose, aka, to benefit him and his campaign, which is illegal. That's the difference.

[Asle Leopolka]

So who does someone like Rudy Giuliani have as their lawyer? I'm thinking some Wolfram and Hart type smelling vaguely of brimstone.

The best. And only THE BEST

[Zurkerx]

Ukraine Energy Official Says Giuliani Associates Tried to Recruit Him. Naftogaz executive Andrew Favorov told federal prosecutors that Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman tried to recruit him to help take over Ukraine’s gas company.

This isn't as damaging to Trump but it brings the point that a lot has been happening. It also shows how much influence these two tried to get, especially to enrich themselves and Giuliani likely. These two associates will be in trouble regardless.

As for Parnas, Giuliani associate wants to testify (under oath) that Nunes aides hid Ukraine meetings on Biden dirt from Schiff.

Reportedly, Nunes' aides were going to travel to the Ukraine to interview two Ukrainian prosecutors that may had evidence that could help Trump's re-election campaign. It was scrapped when they realized they would have to tell Schiff they were traveling to the Ukraine and instead had Parnas set up the interview(s) by phone and Skype, which they did. If Nunes and his aides are part of the campaign, this will not only be an ethics violations, it'll also implicate at least one GOP member into the Ukraine Pressure Campaign, and may undermine Republican efforts to derail the impeachment investigation.

[Crockerland]

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

If a "thing of value" includes a concept so abstract as an investigation into a relative of a potential political rival, every president since William McKinley is a felon. Obama denied funds to Honduras until they re-instated a dictator who tried to illegally give himself another term, Bush denied funds to a bunch of countries unless they shielded Americans from the International Criminal Court. The president has authority over foreign policy and it would be impossible to criminalize him for supposedly acting in the interest of nebulous, immaterial gains without completely annihilating the powers of the Executive Branch in executing foreign policy.

If an American is taken hostage by some third world country and the president shuts down aid to the country that took him hostage with then says he'll reinstate the aid if they release the hostage, that's a Quid Pro Quo because the hostage might come back and vote for the president, thus aiding him in the election.

If the president puts sanctions on North Korea and agrees to remove them if North Korea frees its political prisoners, he's carried out a quid pro quo by virtue of accepting the positive views people will have of him as a result of freeing the prisoners, thus helping him in the election.

The law is obviously intended to prohibit the trading of "things" as in material goods and treasures that the president might try to accept instead of cash based on their material value. If that weren't the case, and "thing" could be construed to mean nondescript, unmeasurable, and intangible concepts, like the idea that an investigation into a relative of a potential political rival might harm that potential political rival and give the president some incalculable gain, then the law would be so ill-defined and vague as to run contrary to the right to Due Process guaranteed in the United States Constitution, which is the ultimate law of the land.

As per Connally v. General Construction Co.
"That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law."

And United States vs Davis et al
"In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. The vagueness doctrine rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers."

Why are you reaching so hard? Why must your guy be so clean?

He's not "my guy" and I didn't vote for him (though I sure as hell am now that the Democrats went so far off the deep end they make the Marianas Trench look like a kiddie pool), it's just that you're so single-mindedly obsessed with hating him that you're trying to demolish the country, due process, and the rule of law to spite him.

It's like seeing someone barrel down LA traffic in a steam roller, crushing dozens of people in an attempt to drive to his ex's house and crush her flower pots, and then he acts legitimately surprised when people take issue with this. "Oh no, why are you siding with my ex!"

By the way, your comparison is shitty since it lacks the concepts that people are getting fussed about, a clear and direct personal benefit to the President and only the president.

First of all, it's obvious that pretty much nobody who is "fussed" over what Trump did in Ukraine to the point they support impeaching him didn't already want to impeach him. It's more of an excuse than a reason.

Secondly, there's no direct benefit, Hunter Biden isn't running against Trump. Are you going to vote for Donald Trump if it turns out that Hunter Biden is a criminal? Yeah, didn't think so.

Thirdly, Joe Biden is currently running against:
Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro
Rep. John Delaney of Maryland
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii
Sen. Kamala Harris of California
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont
Former Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania
Billionaire Tom Steyer
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Author Marianne Williamson
Tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang

None of who are Donald Trump. If Hunter Biden being exposed hurts Joe Biden and therefore benefits Trump, it must benefit all these people too. Either it benefits all of Biden's rivals or none of them. Your claims are wildly contradictory.

Now, I will not be explaining this again to you, so if you insist on going off the rails again then this will be the last thing I have to say to you.

Oh no, now instead of
"Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad,"
all I'll hear will be
"Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad, Trump bad, Trump Bad."

You must hold your own commentary in very high regard, given that you act like you not parroting anti-Trump canards you heard from some media pundit at me any more would be a negative thing I would react adversely to the threat of. This is odd since your comments have yet to deviate from the same generic, robotic, factory-made platitudes repeated ad nauseam by the Trump hatedom.

There are 300 other people who will gladly step up to repeat what they heard on the Colbert Report or Jimmy Kimmel Live. You doing so or not makes no difference to me.

[Valrifell]

I'd have a more fun and more interesting conversation with a wall. I daresay I have, in fact.

[Ifreann]

Thirdly, Joe Biden is currently running against:
Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado
Former Vice President Joe Biden

Heh.

[Crockerland]

Thirdly, Joe Biden is currently running against:
Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado
Former Vice President Joe Biden

Heh.

Read this article and tell me honestly you do not think Joe Biden's biggest enemy (or at least one of his biggest enemies) in the race is Joe Biden

[Asle Leopolka]

Heh.

Read this article and tell me honestly you do not think Joe Biden's biggest enemy (or at least one of his biggest enemies) in the race is Joe Biden

I don't think anyone is denying that. Or, if they are, they're kidding themselves.

[Ifreann]

Heh.

Read this article and tell me honestly you do not think Joe Biden's biggest enemy (or at least one of his biggest enemies) in the race is Joe Biden

Or you copied a list of candidates in the Democratic primary and forgot to delete Biden from it.

[Crockerland]

Read this article and tell me honestly you do not think Joe Biden's biggest enemy (or at least one of his biggest enemies) in the race is Joe Biden

Or you copied a list of candidates in the Democratic primary and forgot to delete Biden from it.