Patterico's Pontifications

7/8/2024

The Democrats’ Joe Biden Conundrum [Updated]

Filed under: General — JVW @ 3:47 pm



[guest post by JVW]

The long holiday weekend has done nothing to assuage Democrats that Joe Biden will be capable of mounting a robust summer and fall campaign. In fact, calls for him to step down have only seemed to increase, especially after a disastrous call-in to the insipid Morning Joe show on MSNBC where the President let his grouchy and unpleasant side out and bitched to the hosts — both of whom will support the Democrat nominee come hell or high water — that they shouldn’t be asking him to demonstrate at least a little bit of cognition and sentience in his daily interactions. (It’s interesting that earlier this year we discovered that “Morning Joe” is to the 46th President what “Fox and Friends” was to the 45th. Is it too much to ask that we have a President who is not a senior citizen watching rage news television?)

The President followed up later in the morning by releasing a two-page letter addressed to “Fellow Democrats.” I read it anyway; so sue me. Meanwhile, the White House press corps appears to finally be tired of repeatedly being lied to by Democrat administrations who expect complete compliance. Meanwhile, the rest of the pro-Democrat media is starting to understand that they have been complicit in covering up President Biden’s frailty and bewilderment and are overcompensating by reporting on important stories they had previously left to conservative media. Meanwhile, senior White House staffers are suggesting that Joe Biden needs to step down. The vultures are circling, and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who is said to have a good relationship with the President, had planned to lead a delegation of Congressional Democrats to presumably discuss doing to Joe Biden what Republican members of Congress did to Richard Nixon a half-century ago.

But there is just one problem with dropping Joe Biden from the ticket: he doesn’t plan to go anywhere and nobody can make him leave. Sen. Warner scrapped plans for the meeting, Team Biden has been forceful in insisting that he won’t back down, and Democrats increasingly appear to be stuck with Joe Biden at the top of their ticket. As both pro-Biden and anti-Biden forces have pointed out, removing him is harder than party activists want to pretend. As of right now, the Biden campaign controls 3,866 delegates to his party’s convention, with only 1,976 needed to secure the nomination.

Even if President Biden released all of the delegates from their pledges, it’s hard to see how anyone would quickly and effectively secure the nomination. Democrats such as Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, and others (Polis? Pritzker? Is Betomentum back?) would try to amass the 1,976 delegates in order to clinch a first-ballot nomination at the party’s August 19-22 convention in Chicago. If no candidate can secure a first ballot nomination things get really interesting. According to party rules, the 700-plus “superdelegates” consisting of various elected officials and party activists would then get to vote starting on the second ballot. After all of the controversy among Democrats over superdelegates in both the 2008 and 2016 election campaigns, the last thing the party would need is yet another replay of backroom bargaining determining the party’s fate in 2024.

We’ll see where it goes from here, but if Joe Biden stays at the top of the ticket the Democrats and their media adjunct are going to have a difficult time whipping up excitement for the ticket when they have spent the past eleven days wearing out the panic button. No matter how much they try to tell us that they are united squarely behind Biden/Harris, the public isn’t going to forget how desperately they tried to force the Chief Executive into retirement. Furthermore, the President of the United States will be at a point where his party can’t afford to have him out in public except for the most tightly-managed appearances. His acceptance speech on the convention’s final night will be highly anticipated not because anyone expects him to say anything interesting or inspiring, but because people will legitimately wonder if he can read through the entire text without utterly embarrassing himself. And the September debate between the two candidates — should it not be cancelled — will be a doozy. About the only solace for our 46th President is that his performance probably can’t get any worse. But that is no source of solace for our weary nation, once again facing an absolutely wretched choice of candidates.

UPDATE – Our Adorably Obnoxious Clueless niece has joined the Establishment. She must have really been freaked out by what happened to Jamal Bowman, or else she’s just so tired of those blue-haired kids and their demands for free-this-and-that.

[Note: I changed the original embed Tweet to one with a video of nos sobrina telling us what’s what.]

– JVW

189 Responses to “The Democrats’ Joe Biden Conundrum [Updated]”

  1. Starting off the post-holiday week with one of my typical upbeat and positive posts!

    JVW (0887bf)

  2. A silver lining: The mainstream press may rediscover their independence. Up to now if Fox carried a story, they would not — even if it was about the sun going nova.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  3. Biden is now 12 points behind where he was this day in 2020. Instead of up by 8.8 points, he’s down by 3.4.

    Some of the states that he thinks he’ll get (Colorado, New Mexico, New Jersey) haven’t been polled recently. It could be as bad as 366-172, with Trump +10% in the popular vote.

    New show about Biden’s chances: Breaking Bad.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  4. And there is no guarantee that the next time he tries to walk off the edge of a stage that reporters will ignore it.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  5. UPDATE – Our Adorably Obnoxious Clueless niece has joined the Establishment. She must have really been freaked out by what happened to Jamal Bowman, or else she’s just so tired of those blue-haired kids and their demands for free-this-and-that.

    NEW: Rep. @AOC tells us she spoke to President Biden over the weekend and it’s time to end the speculation over his future:“Joe Biden is our nominee. He is not leaving this race. He is in this race and I support him.”— Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) July 8, 2024

    JVW (b02843)

  6. If it was Rashida Tlaib who said it, it would mean something.

    nk (16ff93)

  7. Noah Rothman makes a salient point to all of those Biden partisans who are trying to assure everyone that their man has done “a great job” over the past 42 months: if that were true, then why isn’t he running away with this race, even given his infirmities? The whole point of this is that Joe Biden has been a uniquely bad Chief Executive according to a majority of Americans, and this has been true since the botched exit from Afghanistan seven months into his tenure. After the roller coaster ride with Donald Trump, the American people were predisposed to like Joe Biden’s less bombastic and more conventional style. What they got instead was his utter incompetence and a grouchy old fart who refused to moderate his agenda or style.

    JVW (b02843)

  8. Note: I changed the original embed Tweet to one with a video of nos sobrina telling us what’s what.

    JVW (b02843)

  9. Thank you for the post JVW. It is timely and needed.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  10. @7:

    We could at least have gotten an independent Kurdistan, but no.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  11. Of course both could die before Friday.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  12. More than three years into Biden’s term, the press corps decides this is the right time to start sounding skeptical of White House spokesholes.

    Briefing Erupts After Multiple Reporters Bombard KJP With Questions About Neurologist Visiting White House

    CBS News senior White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe said the press secretary should be able to answer the questions on the president’s health. Jean-Pierre said she must respect the privacy of the doctors and the thousands of personnel who receive White House medical care.

    “Ed, I also said to you for security reasons, we cannot share names. We cannot share names,” Jean-Pierre said.

    “You cannot share names of others he would’ve met with, but you can share names in regards if someone came here in regards to the president,” O’Keefe shot back.

    “We cannot share names of specialists broadly. From a dermatologist to a neurologist. We cannot share names,” she said. “There are security reasons—Ed, I hear you. I cannot from here confirm any of that because we have to keep their privacy. I think they would appreciate that too.”

    “It is public,” NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O’Donnell can be heard saying, along with other reporters. Jean-Pierre continued to refuse sharing the doctors’ names from the podium.

    “It is public information,” O’Keefe said.

    “I hear you, guys, guys, guys, hold on a second. There’s no reason to go back and forth and get this aggressive,” she said.

    O’Keefe said he is “miffed” by the information provided to the Press Corps. about the president’s health and the public information in the White House logs.

    “You answer incorrectly and then you have to come back and clean it up,” O’Keefe said. “Now in regards to Dr. Kevin Cannard.”

    “And I am telling you, right now, that I am not sharing confirming names from here. It is for security reasons, Ed. It doesn’t matter how hard you push me, it doesn’t matter how angry you get with me, I am not going to confirm a name. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the log. I am not going to do that from here. That is not something I am going to do,” she said.

    Cannard, a neurologist and “movement disorders specialist,” reportedly met with Biden’s physician Kevin O’Connor at the White House on Jan. 17 and visited the residence clinic on March 28, according to the New York Post, citing White House logs. An expert for Parkinson’s disease reportedly visited the White House eight times throughout an eight month span between July 2023 and March 2024.

    lloyd (1e8f35)

  13. The mainstream media is understandably embarrassed by their failure to report what they all knew, so now they are going to pretend they were mislead.

    Kind of like Hirohito hearing of atrocities.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  14. What did they know about the President and when did they know it?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  15. Yeah, the media has a lot of egg on their face, but if there is one thing we have learned throughout the years it’s that these jerkwads are so shameless that it won’t be long before they return to the standard narrative of “Trump is just so fascistic that we have to elect the stupid and senile old bastard and just hope for the best.” Note the new cover story on The New Republic as prime evidence of this. Not only that, but a certain segment of the left (looking right at you, NYT editorial board) will actually ply us with a bunch of essays insisting that the Biden agenda has been remarkably good for the country and that it’s just right wing noise that is making people believe otherwise.

    JVW (b02843)

  16. Also, prepare yourselves for a whole spate of “Facing Her Greatest Political Test, Kamala Harris Rises to the Occasion” type stories about how the Vice-President, once dismissed as a cackling and verbose lightweight, is suddenly fully engaged in policy and starting to really impress “insiders.” They will even find some anti-Trump Republican from the Lincoln Project or somewhere to say something nice about her. None of it will be true, but the media is gonna do what the media is gonna do.

    JVW (b02843)

  17. It has nothing to do with shame or embarrassment. The media is afraid Biden is leading their favored party over a cliff. They want a new candidate they can fawn over without looking ridiculous.

    lloyd (1e8f35)

  18. The “aggressive” briefing today was a daily occurrence during the Trump years. The press corps thought they were doing Democrats a favor by refusing to be an opposition media. Look what it got them.

    lloyd (1e8f35)

  19. I bought a pound of ground round at Walmart today without looking at the price. The receipt said $6.84. Tell me there’s been no inflation. Last I looked this was under $5.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  20. AOC knows a biden defeat helps our wing of the party afterwards. Calling for joe to pullout helps panicked establishment corporate dems to survive not her. Like black democrats the party elites survival is no concern of ours. As for Bowman he barely won primary in 2022 in more moderate district then AOC’s. Cori Bush district is heavily black. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tliab districts are less vulnerable to aipac money. Collapse of biden is in moderate democrat areas.

    asset (57aeb5)

  21. Kevin M

    It Cuban coffee turns up in New Mexico, try that. It’s still $3.25 or so (when you factor in the sales price).

    Appalled (51e9a4)

  22. What brand Appalled? Only one I ever see that cheap is a rare Chock Ful of Nuts and I dont care for their quality of coffee.

    NJRob (198954)

  23. Busteo. Best in a stove top espresso percolator a/k/a a Moka pot.

    nk (20c41e)

  24. Great breakdown why Judge Merchan should throw out the Trump conviction (he won’t) due to SCOTUS’ immunity ruling.

    Here’s the key section where the immunity ruling comes in play for Trump’s defense, and gives Merchan an off ramp:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/07/after-supreme-court-decisions-judge-merchan-must-throw-out-trumps-convictions/


    Significantly, Bragg’s prosecutors tried one additional thing to have some thin reed on which to rest their FECA allegations against Trump. Hoffinger elicited from Cohen that then–President Trump assured him that the FECA “matter is going to be taken care of and the person, of course, who is going to be able to do it is [then–Attorney General] Jeff Sessions.” In testimony that lasted less than 30 seconds, Cohen related that he had imparted this information to Pecker in order to allay his fears after Pecker was contacted by the FEC in early 2018. (See transcript, pp. 3,576–77.)

    To describe this testimony as fishy would be an insult to fish. By that late point in Cohen’s direct testimony, Hoffinger had drawn out the details of several conversations Cohen recalled having with Trump. Yet, she never got around to asking him about the circumstances — the words exchanged — when the president of the United States supposedly explained to Cohen that he was having the attorney general of the United States corruptly kill a FECA probe in which the president was implicated. Instead, the state elicited this critical Cohen-Trump conversation as an afterthought: Cohen recalled telling Pecker that Sessions would take care of “the matter”; then, Hoffinger asked why Cohen had said that, and Cohen curtly replied that Trump had told him so. No follow-up questions — Hoffinger just moved on to a new subject.

    Perhaps she preferred not to linger long because the story makes no sense. Sessions controlled the Justice Department. At the time in question (early 2018), Pecker and Cohen were being contacted, not by the Justice Department, but by the FEC. In administrative state jargon, the FEC is an “independent” regulatory body. It is not controlled by the attorney general, or even by the president. (The president just nominates its members, who must be confirmed by the Senate.) While the DOJ handles criminal enforcement of FECA, the FEC is in charge of civil enforcement. Putting aside the fact that Sessions is a straight arrow (who famously recused himself from the Trump-Russia collusion probe to avoid even the appearance of doing Trump’s bidding), an attorney general has no power to kill an FEC enforcement action — as Brad Smith could have explained to the jury had Merchan permitted the defense to call him.

    For present purposes, my main point is not that Cohen’s testimony about Sessions is not believable; nor is it that the testimony is too weak to establish Trump’s state of mind with respect to a FECA offense (quite apart from the dearth of evidence that FECA concerns had anything to do with Trump’s 2017 record-keeping). My point is that Merchan permitted the state to prove a criminal offense against the former president based on his performance of his official duties.

    This was testimony about the president’s consultations with the Justice Department about the enforcement of federal election law. Ergo, we are not talking about the outer margins of presidential power. With respect to this exact subject — namely, a president’s discussions with Justice Department officials about the exercise of the executive branch’s prosecutorial discretion — the Supreme Court, in its just-issued Trump ruling, instructed that this is a core constitutional power. It is part of the “conclusive and preclusive” ambit of executive authority as to which a president has absolute immunity. And when presidents have such immunity for official acts, Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion elaborated, such acts may not be alleged as crimes per se, nor may they be used by prosecutors as evidence of crimes.

    Hence, to induce the jury to find Trump guilty, Bragg used evidence of official action for which Trump had absolute immunity. It is virtually the only evidence in the case from which it could be argued — however weakly — that Trump willfully schemed to flout FECA. Such guilty verdicts cannot stand. Merchan is obligated to vacate them.

    Do read the whole thing.

    whembly (477db6)

  25. Thinking about Joe’s health, I wonder how many world leaders are bypassing the befuddling, time wasting conversations on the phone with a guy who won’t remember the call anyway. I’d guess more and more work in being done by the unelected, and what is worrisome about that is, like everything in life, the further from the source you go, the differences grow. Jake Sullivan knows Biden well, has been with him a long time, has a good idea of how Biden sees the world… or saw the world lucidly, comprehensively. So we already had Jake Sullivan’s best attempts at doing it like Joe, with Joe’s oversight. This assumes Jake Sullivan is a good person who puts his own personal views aside, but eventually with no guidance, his unique views on the world will gradually take over. Lets say Jake moves on and a new replacement is picked by “Biden”. This person has less of a personal connection, and also was picked not by Biden, but by people with their own views. Israel doesn’t get rearmed, Ukrainian weapons are even more restricted, sends China Hillary’s old reset button, ships a C-5 full of 100″s to Iran

    steveg (1850eb)

  26. Catoggio’s latest on Biden is top-notch, comparing Biden’s approach to solidifying support within the party to Trump’s. It’s worth a full read but here’s a notable paragraph…

    Biden defrauded his party, depriving primary voters of a fully informed decision, and now he’s touting the success of that fraud as a reason for why he should be allowed to get away with it.

    https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/boilingfrogs/heel-turn/

    Paul Montagu (cff05a)

  27. Hillary Clinton is tanned, rested and ready!

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  28. Appellate Issues in the Trump Hush Money Case: The Extraordinary Ordinariness of Justice Merchan’s Adjudication

    ………..
    Justice Merchan’s rulings are extraordinary in their extreme ordinariness, given the circumstances. The defense has some nontrivial issues for appeal, but the conviction hardly bears some grave constitutional taint.
    ………..
    This case is going to move through New York appellate courts, just like any other case would. That is, before the case could ever find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, it must first make stops at the First Judicial Department of New York’s Appellate Division and then at the New York Court of Appeals. Review at those courts will be thorough and, in virtually any other New York criminal appeal, they would have the last word. The case presents some issues of federal law, but New York courts are fully empowered to decide them. State courts decide federal issues all the time.
    ……….
    The indictment itself didn’t specify the unlawful means for violating § 17-152, but that’s not a constitutional problem. After all, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), which governs federal trials, provides “A count may allege that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown[.]” Still, the object offenses and unlawful means were specified well before trial started. ………

    ………
    ………In People v. Taveras, the New York Court of Appeals held that “falsifying business records … is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement … not any additional actus reus element.” And here’s People v. Thompson, an appellate decision by the court that will hear Trump’s first appeal: “The People were not required to establish that [the] defendant committed, or was convicted of, the crime he intended to conceal[.]” There’s nothing Kafkaesque about Justice Merchan’s determination that the statute means what it says—namely, that there need only be an “intent” to commit or conceal some other criminality, not a conviction for a completed crime.

    Many commentators also suggest that there will be appellate comeuppance for what they call a selective prosecution. ……..

    The only similarly situated defendant Trump identified was Hillary Clinton, but he confused Clinton and her campaign. ……The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office had prosecuted 437 crimes under 175.10 in the past decade, and each one had an object offense. Many of these prosecutions, in fact, had object offenses that were federal crimes.

    Justice Merchan simply applied straightforward New York law to weak factual allegations, and he refused to spit at the appeals court that would review the verdict in his case……..
    ………..
    One of the more vulnerable parts of the conviction involves Justice Merchan’s approach to the law of “unlawful means”—but only to pieces of it. Recall that the jury was instructed to determine whether Trump intended to participate in a § 17-152 conspiracy having three potentially unlawful means: other false business records, FECA violations, and state tax misreporting. The jury had to find unanimously that unlawful means existed, but jurors did not have to agree on what the unlawful means were. There is no record of which means or combination thereof formed the basis for each juror’s vote.

    ……….. Few contest that Justice Merchan properly instructed the jury that the unlawful means for the § 17-152 conspiracy could include other unlawful document falsification. The idea is simple: Trump promoted his candidacy through some falsified documents (the § 17-152 conspiracy) and then falsified others to conceal that behavior (the § 175.10 felony). The jury therefore considered as the unlawful means (a) the false paperwork for the LLC that was going to be used to reimburse a third party for its hush-money payments to Karen MacDougal, (b) the false paperwork for the LLC used to make hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels, (c) the false notations on the wire transfer to MacDougal, and (d) the false 1099s filed to reimburse Michael Cohen.
    ……….
    Of the three unlawful means, the FECA violation is the most frequently questioned. ……..

    The second FECA issue is the argument that there was no campaign contribution or expenditure. This might come into play if the U.S. Supreme Court wanted to plow new legal ground, but there’s a big gap between the public discourse and the existing law. Candidates can self-contribute all they want, but the money for Daniels came from the Trump Organization, not Trump himself; and the fixation on the payment to Daniels ignores the American Media Inc. (AMI) payment to MacDougal, which didn’t come from either Trump or the Trump Org. Even on the most Trump-favorable readings of federal law, the AMI payment to MacDougal is still a blatant FECA violation. ……

    The third FECA issue centers on federal “preemption” of state law and—speaking relatively—it’s probably a stronger appellate argument than the other two. ……..Trump made this argument to a federal district court when he tried to move the trial proceedings there, but Judge Alvin Hellerstein found that argument had “no colorable basis” and Trump didn’t even bother to appeal that ruling.
    ………..
    ………..(T)he most substantial unlawful-means argument: that Justice Merchan should have told the jury it needed to agree unanimously on what the unlawful means were. To be fair to Merchan, the best reading of existing New York case law, which does not speak directly to this interpretative question for this statutory provision, does not require unanimity as to means……..although there was no appellate precedent directly interpreting § 17-152’s reference to “unlawful means,” there’s a strong interpretive tradition under which similar language in New York penal law doesn’t require unanimous specification. Given the universe of case law that was to inform Merchan’s ruling, he got it right.

    Still, there’s a nonzero possibility that New York’s highest court refines state law in Trump’s favor or that the U.S. Supreme Court constitutionalizes the issue. In the latter scenario, the Court would need to substantially extend a principle from a 1991 decision, Schad v. Arizona. ………(where the Supreme Court stated):

    We have never suggested that … jurors should be required to agree upon a single means of commission, any more than the indictments were required to specify one alone. … [D]ifferent jurors may be persuaded by different pieces of evidence, even when they agree upon the bottom line.

    ………The Supreme Court, however, would have to substantially extend Schad to apply it here, where the conduct in question was all part of a single catch-and-kill conspiracy and the unlawful means constitute a § 17-152 offense only if the conduct promoted the same political candidate.
    …………

    Note that this was written prior to the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  29. Sorry for formatting issues.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  30. I plan to read your link, whembly, but do you trust McCarthy to get legal issues right? My impression is that he is a partisan first that causes him to make questionable conclusions similar to Sarah Isgur.

    DRJ (9026ea)

  31. Note that this was written prior to the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.

    And the argument McCarthy is making (iiui) is that some of the EVIDENCE used at trial is impermissible as a result of that ruling.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  32. @30

    I plan to read your link, whembly, but do you trust McCarthy to get legal issues right? My impression is that he is a partisan first that causes him to make questionable conclusions similar to Sarah Isgur.

    DRJ (9026ea) — 7/9/2024 @ 10:44 am

    I trust him as far more in federal issues, than state law for sure.

    I disagree that he’s partisan first… he’s not a Trump voter. What he is… though, is an advocate for good-faith legal practices in the legal sphere, with some political commentary.

    Read the story and get back to me. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

    whembly (477db6)

  33. @31

    Note that this was written prior to the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.

    And the argument McCarthy is making (iiui) is that some of the EVIDENCE used at trial is impermissible as a result of that ruling.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/9/2024 @ 11:01 am

    Correct.

    One of the evidence used in the case was Trump’s interaction with is AG, which SCOTUS just recently asserted full immunity.

    Can the judge make a “ruling” stating that particular piece of evidence didn’t matter? Or should he declare a mistrial because of the prosecutions now improper evidence?

    I’m pretty sure in federal court, at minimum, the judge should declare a mistrial… but, not sure what avenues are available by the judge in state trials.

    whembly (477db6)

  34. Any appeal must take into account the import of the evidence. Federal court is no different there. If there is a significant effect I’d expect a mistrial, but I haven’t read it deeply enough, nor followed the trial enough, to make that kind of call.

    Trump’s lawyers, of course, see it as plain as day.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  35. I will read it but McCarthy has been saying what the Supreme Court said for years. They make it sound like it is easy to separate Constitutional/ official and unofficial acts – like apples and oranges. It isn’t but I think the trial court remands will be interesting.

    DRJ (9026ea)

  36. The standard is typically whether the impermissible evidence was material. I don’t think any such evidence was material but if so, it may be considered duplicative or other evidence.

    DRJ (9026ea)

  37. @35

    I will read it but McCarthy has been saying what the Supreme Court said for years. They make it sound like it is easy to separate Constitutional/ official and unofficial acts – like apples and oranges. It isn’t but I think the trial court remands will be interesting.

    DRJ (9026ea) — 7/9/2024 @ 11:56 am

    I don’t think it’s too difficult to delineate between official v. unofficial acts. The hardest part, is getting the nitty-gritty details to make such determination pre-trial. Which is exactly the job of the district court to establish a record of that.

    whembly (477db6)

  38. McCarthy has another article that advocates that the NY conviction be vacated because of due process mandates:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/07/scotus-reminder-on-due-process-mandate-of-unanimous-juries-requires-trumps-guilty-verdicts-to-be-vacated/

    To wit:


    The agreement can only be a criminal conspiracy if it entails an effort to commit a crime. The agreement to commit a crime is what makes a conspiracy, and the concealment of such a conspiracy is what makes falsification of business records a felony, rather than a misdemeanor. Consequently, in Erlinger terms, the objective crime is the fact that exposes the defendant to an enhanced penalty. For a conviction to be valid, then, a jury would have to find, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, at least one of the three criminal activities (or “unlawful means”) proposed by Bragg — the FECA scheme, the falsification of Cohen’s business records, or the tax crimes. To be clear, the jurors needed only to have found one, not all three; but they had to find at least one — the same one, unanimously.

    That’s what criminal due process demands, as Erlinger reminds us. In this case, it was also what common sense required. That’s what ought to alarm reviewing courts. In a prosecution of this magnitude — American history’s first ever criminal trial of a former American president — it was utterly irresponsible for a prosecutor to suggest, and even worse for the judge to rule, that the jury did not need to be in unanimous agreement on the most consequential finding it needed to make in the case. Implicitly, that means the due-process standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not honored. So basic and exalted in the criminal law is the principle that, on essential facts, juries must make unanimous findings beyond a reasonable doubt, that an appellate court, viewing Merchan’s trial record, would be compelled to ask: What other corners did the trial judge cut to help the prosecutor win guilty verdicts?

    In this case, the appellate court would find a hectagon’s worth.

    The jury did not unanimously find the fact necessary to make Trump guilty of conspiracy — namely, the objective crime. Ergo, the jury did not unanimously find the fact that enhanced Trump’s potential sentence from a misdemeanor to a felony — namely, that he falsified his business records to conceal the conspiracy he’d supposedly committed. Those constitutional flaws were clear even before the Supreme Court’s Erlinger decision. After it, there can be no doubt that the convictions cannot stand. Judge Merchan is duty bound to vacate them.

    whembly (477db6)

  39. @36

    The standard is typically whether the impermissible evidence was material. I don’t think any such evidence was material but if so, it may be considered duplicative or other evidence.

    DRJ (9026ea) — 7/9/2024 @ 11:59 am

    Ah… that makes sense. Thanks.

    whembly (477db6)

  40. Trump’s object here is to get the judgement vacated so he is no longer a felon. If they retry him it will be in 2029, or so he thinks.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  41. Speaker Johnson trolls Harris by suggesting that she invoke the 25th Amendment. That’s a no-win proposition for her. If she did it, she can kiss the Presidency goodbye, and it won’t work if Biden is not on board.

    But it is no doubt fun from Johnson’s POV.

    While Democrats are soul-searching on whether to support President Biden as the Democratic nominee, House Speaker Mike Johnson and fellow Republican leaders view the president’s tenure as a danger to the country.

    Polls and some Democrats in Washington have turned against Mr. Biden, something that Mr. Johnson said Republicans should enjoy politically. Yet he’s not enjoying the reality of it, arguing that Mr. Biden’s condition is “dangerous.”

    Asked again if he supported Rep. Chip Roy’s resolution to call on Vice President Kamala Harris to remove Mr. Biden from office with the 25th Amendment, Mr. Johnson said most Americans and Republicans would agree that it was appropriate for her to take that historic step…..

    Members of House Republican leadership hammered Mr. Biden as unfit to serve as president, contending the GOP was right all along about the president’s health and mental decline.

    House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik, New York Republican, accused Democrats and members of the media of covering up the president’s condition.

    “Every time we raised these legitimate concerns, far-left Democrats and their loyal stenographers in the mainstream media rushed to Biden’s defense, claiming that the clearly diminished Joe Biden was as sharp as ever and accusing us of peddling conspiracy theories,” she said.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  42. But it is no doubt fun from Johnson’s POV.

    That’s not fair. I’m sure they are treating this with the utmost gravity.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  43. The jury did not unanimously find the fact necessary to make Trump guilty of conspiracy — namely, the objective crime. Ergo, the jury did not unanimously find the fact that enhanced Trump’s potential sentence from a misdemeanor to a felony — namely, that he falsified his business records to conceal the conspiracy he’d supposedly committed. Those constitutional flaws were clear even before the Supreme Court’s Erlinger decision. After it, there can be no doubt that the convictions cannot stand. Judge Merchan is duty bound to vacate them.

    As pointed out above, that is not a requirement under New York law or the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), which governs federal trials, and provides “A count may allege that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown[.]” See also Schad v. Arizona.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  44. Erlinger was an interpretation of how past offenses would be treated under the Armed Career Criminal Act. It would require another SC decision to extend its holding beyond the ACCA. Erlinger did not overrule Schad, which isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Erlinger either the majority or dissenting opinions.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  45. Let’s set aside the core Constitutional duties that, as I understand it, SCOTUS grants absolute immunity.

    That leaves the presumption of immunity for official acts that I assume can be rebutted with evidence that it was not an official act. Would proof that a President was accepting bribes rebut the presumption as to those acts? I think it would.

    Finally, Presidents have no immunity for unofficial acts. To me, campaign and personal acts would be unofficial. Trump has ignored the Hatch Act rules in the past and blurred the line between campaign and Presidential acts. I think he will continue to do that but, if so, I think he opens the door to an argument that his actions when in the White House can be discoverable.

    DRJ (9026ea)

  46. A Trump presidency will invite continual impeachment probes.

    Because:
    A) Trump will continually do things that don’t align with American laws and constitutional norms

    B) Trump will dare congress to investigate/impeach him, and they will

    C) Trump will probably face a Democratic congress, he has proven that he doesn’t have coattails. Lots of people voted for him and against Rs in previous cycles.

    D) Dems hate him and a few Republicans too

    E) If he blurs the lines, everyone knows that the basic requirement to prosecute him will be to impeach first.

    Sad, but not surprising that polling of voters shows that a Hillary/Harris ticket does best against Trump. Biden does better than Whitmer or Newsom.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  47. Klink, at this point those polls are probably measuring name recognition

    Time123 (e50240)

  48. @47

    Klink, at this point those polls are probably measuring name recognition

    Time123 (e50240) — 7/9/2024 @ 3:17 pm

    Not so sure anymore…

    This is kinda mind boggling…

    RCP poll average on this day in prior campaigns:
    2020: Biden +9.0
    2016: Clinton +4.7
    2012: Obama +2.5
    2008: Obama +4.2
    2004: Kerry +2.0

    Trump right now is leading Biden +3.3 head to head. In a 5-way race Trump is at +4.8, a hair better than Clinton in 2016 (which she lost in a squeaker).

    The interesting thing, is that for the first time in 24 years that a GOP nominee has led after the July 4th holiday, going into the convention.

    It’ll be interesting to see what the polls are at post GOP/DNC conventions.

    whembly (477db6)

  49. “McCarthy has been saying what the Supreme Court said for years. They make it sound like it is easy to separate Constitutional/ official and unofficial acts – like apples and oranges”

    I only read the syllabus, but in my view the Supreme Court made certain “core” acts with sound easy, and they gave examples. For acts “on the perimeter” (the tough questions) they made it sound possible- probably because the Supreme Court were a little put out that the District Court didn’t even try

    steveg (454302)

  50. Fixed it.

    “McCarthy has been saying what the Supreme Court said for years. They make it sound like it is easy to separate Constitutional/ official and unofficial acts – like apples and oranges”

    I only read the syllabus, but in my view the Supreme Court made certain “core” acts sound easy, and they gave examples. For acts “on the perimeter” (the tough questions) they made it sound possible- probably because the Supreme Court were a little put out that the District Court didn’t even try

    steveg (454302)

  51. The DNC is going to be chaos. If France can call for and have 2 national elections in 6 weeks, the Dems ought to be able to punt Biden before the convention, and even have a “campaign”.

    I don’t think you’re measuring name recognition with Biden, he’s been Veep or Prez for 12 years and a senator for 5,670 years before, maybe Whitmer, but Newsom is pretty well known, he opened his liquor store literally one building over from my house in the Mission, so when I heard he was running for office I was like, “why’s the wine guy getting appointed to the city supervisors commision”? He got kinda rich from Getty money and family support from the Pelosi’s. It’s kind of odd that Newsom and Donnie Jr. had/have the same lady friend.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  52. I don’t think that\Trump\s alleged conversation about Sessions in the future protecting the National Enquirer was even evidence at all against him that pertained to any of the charges. Taken at face value it is about something that never happened.

    Sammy Finkelman (51823e)

  53. CBS News senior White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe said the press secretary should be able to answer the questions on the president’s health. Jean-Pierre said she must respect

    The same doctor was also there eight time during one year during the Obama Administration. It was o=probably, like they said about a recent year, for training of doctors. He visited once prior to a Biden medical exam for Biden’s doctor to consult. They did not conclude he had Parkinson’s and diid not prescribe anything for it. What Biden has which they are hiding or obscuring is mostly untreated sleep apnea and he doesn;t like the standrd treatment and they are to stuck in their was to try to something else. He may also have vascular (circulation( problems. He’ not getting enough good sleep. More hours won’t help much. The senior moments are not dementia.

    Sammy Finkelman (51823e)

  54. Trump’s now saying they will wait to announce a vice president till after the Democrats sort things out. This can’t be the exact truth.

    Sammy Finkelman (51823e)

  55. Biden should get ex-Dr. Ronny Johnson-Jackson to just give him a handful of Ambien to help him sleep.

    Wife had those during menopause, I had a couple, jeez, those things are pure happy candy.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  56. We had two mopes whom we would not trust to wash our cars in 2016 and we gave our country to one of them and just went whistling along; and then we had two mopes whom we would not trust to wash our cars in 2020 and we gave our country to one of them and then just went whistling along; and now in 2024 we have two mopes whom we would not trust to wash our cars and no choice but to give our country to one of them.

    Just have a sip of water and pucker up! Oh, wait! We’re already doing that.

    nk (64cb60)

  57. Nim Biden doesn’t need sleep. He needs restorative sleep/=. Sleep that builds blood vessels in the brain. And enough oxygen. Low blood sugar (but not too low) during sleep and.or lower\\They don’t fully understand what’s going on. body temperature.

    Sammy Finkelman (51823e)

  58. I mean low blood sugar during sleep and.or lower body temperature (needed for protein synthesis)

    A1C ahould be checked for anything less than ideal/

    There’s no simple medicine for integrity problems.

    Sammy Finkelman (51823e)

  59. If France can call for and have 2 national elections in 6 weeks, the Dems ought to be able to punt Biden before the convention, and even have a “campaign”.

    The two are not alike. Having a two-round election process in France is standard practice, booting a President from an election is not standard practice in the US.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  60. “A count may allege that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown[.]”

    This isn’t the “means” though. That would be knife, revolver or candlestick. What is in question is whether they need to specify which crime he committed that enhances the charge. The state of NY may be OK with that, but “due process” is a federal claim.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  61. Would proof that a President was accepting bribes rebut the presumption as to those acts? I think it would.

    Any interpretation that produces ridiculous results would lead to a refinement of the rule.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  62. Klink, at this point those polls are probably measuring name recognition

    There is also the honeymoon phenomenon. Harris may poll well now, but give her 10 minutes and a microphone and she may dispel that.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  63. “probably”

    Sammy, when you use that word I know the rest will be unsupported.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  64. The two are not alike. Having a two-round election process in France is standard practice, booting a President from an election is not standard practice in the US.

    Vice-presidents have been booted for, ah, medical reasons.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  65. From Cattagio today:

    “The main conclusion I’ve come to over the past two weeks is that Democrats are apparently not actually that scared of a second Trump term,” Meghan McCain tweeted on Tuesday, marveling at the party’s willingness to stick with a very likely electoral loser.

    “If Biden holds on because his fellow Democrats refuse to speak up, I am going to have serious doubts as to whether they simply miscalculated or whether they decided to save their own skins at the expense of their country,” Jonathan Chait wrote at New York magazine, echoing McCain’s point. The more Biden digs in, after all, the riskier it becomes for congressional Democrats to oppose him: At some point, if the president won’t budge, continuing to question his fitness will accomplish nothing except to sow doubt about him among swing voters.

    Forced to choose between demanding the strongest possible nominee in hopes of saving classical liberalism from Trump or quietly lining up behind Biden and all but certain defeat, many Democrats seem to prefer the second option—because at least then they won’t be scapegoated by the base for undermining the president’s campaign. They’d rather keep their own seats in the House and Senate than risk losing them for the sake of maximizing the odds of defeating authoritarianism.

    Saving democracy isn’t their highest priority, it appears.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  66. Losing to Trump will move Biden down 20 spots in the Presidential rankings, in among the likes of William Howard Taft or Chester Arthur.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  67. I plan to read your link, whembly, but do you trust McCarthy to get legal issues right? My impression is that he is a partisan first that causes him to make questionable conclusions similar to Sarah Isgur.

    DRJ (9026ea) — 7/9/2024 @ 10:44 am

    As I believe our host has observed on Twitter, McCarthy may not be affirmatively pro-Trump, but he’s so reliably anti-anti-Trump that the net result is the same. A description which I’d say also applies to some of our commenters.

    lurker (c23034)

  68. asset (57aeb5) — 7/9/2024 @ 3:29 am

    Only you could spin AOC’s support for Biden as opposition.

    lurker (c23034)

  69. SO, let me get this straight. Being “reliably” anti-anti-Trump colors one’s opinions to the point where they can be discarded, but being stridently anti-Trump makes them … what?

    This kind of thinking is why we can’t have nice things.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  70. Maybe Biden should swim the Potomac.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  71. Only you could spin AOC’s support for Biden as opposition.

    Cataggio did that today, too:

    The strange spectacle of far-left progressives rallying to Biden’s defense has also raised suspicion about motives. “The matter is closed,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters on Monday. “Joe Biden is our nominee. He is not leaving this race. He is in this race, and I support him.” Fellow Squadster Ilhan Omar—who has described the Biden-backed Israeli effort in Gaza as a genocide—also lent the beleaguered president her support.

    Why? Are they really just loyal Democratic partisans after all, or do they see certain benefits to progressivism in a Biden defeat? If the president runs and loses, the left can argue that he would have prevailed with a more left-wing agenda. More importantly, their movement will profit from the radical polarization brought about by a second Trump administration. For someone whose goal is to convert normie liberals into socialists, there’s nothing like having a right-wing authoritarian in power to help heighten the contradictions.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  72. @69 Thats because you don’t understand inside democrat politics. In 2018 AOC ran against joe crowley and democrat establishment not trump who she hardly mentioned. Never trumpers and establishment democrats main goal is to stop trump. The left’s first enemy is the democrat corporate establishment. It is establishment democrats who have trump derangement syndrome not the left. I don’t like trump ;but I don’t hate him. AOC only won in 2018 because trump got elected in 2016. AOC wants left power in the house so joining the moderates will not help ;but joining congressional black caucus in support of biden will. Its called real politik!

    asset (2aacf5)

  73. George Will with some scorching criticism for the White House and its media accomplices:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/08/joe-biden-american-institutions-news-media/

    The leakage of trustworthiness from American institutions began with the lies that enveloped Watergate and Vietnam. It accelerated during the 2008 financial crisis, when cynicism (“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”) fueled the government’s indiscriminate and lawless response: The law restricted bailouts to financial institutions? Declare automobile manufacturers to be such. The leakage became a cataract during the pandemic because of the public health establishment’s plucked-from-the-ether edicts (about masks, social distancing, which political gatherings should be exempt from social distancing, etc.) and the sacrifice-the-children opportunism of the most powerful segment of organized labor (teachers unions).

    Now the world’s oldest political party and its media accomplices have effected a gigantic subtraction from trust: Leaders of the former lied about President Biden’s condition until, on June 27, continuing to do so became untenable. The latter had allowed the lying because they believe Donald Trump’s many mendacities are an excuse for theirs.

    One example: The bleating sheep on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” reminiscent of a chorus of quadrupeds in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” were vehemently wrong in denouncing (“so tilted,” “shocking,” “a classic hit piece,” etc.) the Wall Street Journal’s meticulously reported June 4 catalogue of the abundant evidence of Biden’s decline. That the sheep are still on the air, dispensing undiminished certitudes, is evidence of two things. That — outside of a few bastions of meritocracy and accountability, such as professional sports — there is no penalty for failure in contemporary America. And that many prominent people have the scary strength that comes from being incapable of embarrassment.

    I can’t argue with him.

    norcal (fa20d0)

  74. @75 During lincoln’s era politicians and the wealthy paid journalists and newspapers to run favorable stories. As for sports businesses paid papers to run sports pages so workers would go to sporting events instead of union marches on sundays. Ever here of yellow journalism/ Pulitzer and Hearst? The chicago tribune dewey defeats truman. The corporate deep state came up with unbiased reporting scam in the 1950’s to fool the readers in their war on communism. George stephenoupolis admitted today that biden was inept in his interview today.

    asset (2aacf5)

  75. SO, let me get this straight. Being “reliably” anti-anti-Trump colors one’s opinions to the point where they can be discarded, but being stridently anti-Trump makes them … what?

    This kind of thinking is why we can’t have nice things.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/9/2024 @ 9:39 pm

    Kevin, I encourage you to re-read my comment and see if you can find where you made the leap from what I said to what you imagine I meant. Because I neither said nor believe anything like what you’re attributing to me.

    lurker (c23034)

  76. Cataggio did that today, too:

    I stand corrected. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go blow my bank account on foie gras, heroin and hookers, as the convergence of Allah Nick’s and asset’s worldviews portends the imminent end of spacetime.

    lurker (c23034)

  77. The Benjamins are still with Biden, and Alexandria and Ilhan still like good sex, warm bathrooms, and comfortable shoes.

    nk (18cf83)

  78. How many of these camp followers do you have to hear are on OnlyFans to understand that the statehouse is their alternative to the streetlight?

    Im Feldquartier auf hartem Stein streck ich die müden Glieder
    Und sende in die Nacht hinein der Liebsten meine Lieder.

    nk (18cf83)

  79. Vice-presidents have been booted for, ah, medical reasons.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/9/2024 @ 6:29 pm

    Such as?

    Rip Murdock (14415d)

  80. During lincoln’s era politicians and the wealthy paid journalists and newspapers to run favorable storie

    And before that. The difference was that those publications were fairly open about their bias. But the mainstream media — network news, major papers — all claim to be unbiased. Often they are, but sometimes they just cannot bring themselves to report a story. And it’s a open secret in the newsroom what kind of stories get you promoted and what kind of stories get you “laid off” and looking for work at Fox.

    Nobody is going to get promoted for “getting Joe Biden”, even now. Do you think the NY Times would publish a story about how Hunter had split his Burisma fees with dad? They treat such stories as Trumpist figments (which, tbf, they likely are) and won’t even check them out.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  81. Such as?

    Thomas Eagleton, from McGovern’s ticket, after it came out he had had shock therapy for depression.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  82. McCarthy may not be affirmatively pro-Trump, but he’s so reliably anti-anti-Trump that the net result is the same.

    Lurker,

    What then did you mean by this, if not to disparage his opinion?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  83. How many of these camp followers do you have to hear are on OnlyFans to understand that the statehouse is their alternative to the streetlight?

    Reagan said that his was the world’s second oldest profession. So, this is not a recent thing.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  84. https:/thespectator.com/politics/newly-disciplined-donald-trump-driving-left-nuts

    For years now Republicans have voiced some version of the same opinion: “If only Donald Trump could get out of his own way…” things would be going much better for them. In the DC swampland, this usually was followed with some comment about his tweets and personal feuds. Outside, if it came from older voters, it was usually expressed as “I wish he’d just put down the phone sometimes.” And if it came from middle-aged supporters, it was more than once expressed to me that Trump just needs to “stop tripping on his own d*ck.”

    The attitude is ubiquitous among some portions of the president’s br: they just think he’d be better off if he could focus and not give Democrats so much material. But because this hypothetical has never emerged, we never really got to find out if it was true — until now.

    Since Joe Biden’s utterly disastrous debate performance, Trump has displayed incredible restraint and focus, not giving any fodder to the media to distract from the Biden White House’s flailing inability to deal with this moment. Democratic commentators have openly complained about the lack of public events from Trump, as if desperate for him to do something, anything to shift the focus. Amid House Democrats’ demoralized caucus meeting, frustrated donor calls and Sorkinesque fantasies about a “convention blitz” of replacement candidates, Democrats and their media allies would love to have anything gifted to them from Trump to talk about instead.

    It’s an amazing trend to behold. The left got so used to this happening over the past eight years, they just took it as a given — now they’re practically begging Trump to do something crazy. Could he pretty please say something racist or sexist or start beef with another Republican? The T-Rex is out there in the forest, but he won’t come eat the goat.

    Now, this could change. Tonight in Florida Trump will hold his first in person rally since June 28, alongside several of his potential choices for vice president. The White House has to be hoping he announces his choice tonight to pull attention away from the NATO gathering that puts more pressure on Biden than ever. But personally, I think he’ll keep waiting. Trump loves to keep people in suspense anyway — and instead of frustrating Republicans, this time, it’s giving the other side fits.

    This disciplined Trump is something we haven’t seen before for any extended period, and it’s working out incredibly well for him, with Biden’s poll numbers sinking after each passing day as Democrats spin in the wind. They want Trump to save them from spending another week talking about the worst thing to happen to their party since 1968 — and he won’t.

    Old dog. New trick.

    I’ve been out of the country for much of this Biden-post-debate bruhah… but, yeah, someone must have muzzled Trump recently.

    It definitely won’t last past the RNC convention though…

    whembly (477db6)

  85. Vice-presidents have been booted for, ah, medical reasons.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/9/2024 @ 6:29 pm
    ……..
    Thomas Eagleton, from McGovern’s ticket, after it came out he had had shock therapy for depression.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/10/2024 @ 8:17 am

    Eagleton was never a vice president.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  86. Eagleton was never a vice president.

    We were talking about nominees.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  87. Trump and the GOP will likely troll Biden by running against “President Harris”

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  88. This Biden administration is monsterous:
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/whistleblowers-detail-how-85000-unaccompanied-minors-went-missing-after-biden-admin-dropped-them-off-with-sponsors?topStoryPosition=2

    WASHINGTON — The Department of Human Services has lost at least 85,000 children who crossed the border illegally as “unaccompanied minors” after placing them with “sponsors” who may be trafficking the children into prostitution or forced labor, according to multiple government whistleblowers who laid out the process to a Senate panel Tuesday.

    Whistleblowers assigned to process minors near the border said that children were being placed with people who clearly were not their relatives and when there was evidence of abuse and trafficking.

    One whistleblower, assigned to process minors near the border, said that after a group alerted supervisors to the fact that children were being placed with people who clearly were not their relatives and that there was evidence of sadistic abuse, the Biden administration’s DHS Office of Refugee Resettlement took her off the job and retaliated against her, instead of acting on the facts they had uncovered.

    The Biden administration apparently shoveled children out to the homes of poorly-vetted volunteers as fast as it could to avoid holding them in secure facilities — Joe Biden had painted those as his rival Donald Trump putting “kids in cages,” and wanted to avoid those optics at all costs, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said.

    Absolutely pathetic and not only impeachment worthy, but criminal charges as well.

    This Biden administration and congressional Democrats don’t care about children being abused. They just care about avoiding the “putting kids in cages” headlines.

    But, sure, Biden is the decent guy here. /sarc

    whembly (477db6)

  89. And the “cages” began in the Obama administration in 2014.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  90. whembly:

    Thank you for the link to the dailywire article. This is obvioulsly monsterous in the ways government can be when it wants to hide something from the public. How would you solve what’s happening here?

    One of the whistleblowers, Tara Lee Rodas, suggests the following:

    Commit to oversight, transparency, and accountability. #1 Priority for HHS is Oversight. Data from the UC program needs to be examined by expert data analysts. This can quickly be done by experts in the IG Community at the Pandemic Analytics Center of Excellence (PACE). Children could be rescued, and criminals could be prosecuted if the PACE had access to the data in the UC portal.

    Stop retaliating against whistleblowers. Stop retaliating against the truth tellers who are trying to help. As it is writen, “A wise man listens to advice, while a fool continues in his folly.” HHS needs to be wise.

    Change HHS’ culture of speed over safety. Speed is the wrong performance measure.

    Revamp the vetting process of Sponsors and have Case Managers who are investigators, data analysts, certified fraud examiners, etc.

    Reimagine a system where the Sponsor is the accountable party. Sponsors should be required to report to ORR.

    Source: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20230426/115798/HHRG-118-JU01-Wstate-RodasT-20230426.pdf

    All of these reforms would slow things down at the border, require more staffing that require more funding. Is that funding and border pile up something Trump and company are likely to get on board with? Or is this something your side would condemn if implemented?

    Appalled (721968)

  91. The bureaucratic impulse is to clear cases. This is unsurprising. I wonder if this will make the MSM. It would if this were Trump’s administration.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  92. It’s amusing to me that Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe still believes that Biden has an impressive record of accomplishments. OK, maybe from a liberal perspective…and perhaps from a marshalling NATO perspective…maybe, but the basic stubborn fact is that Biden’s job approval has hovered around 40% and he is losing in all the swing states. If people believed his performance was good, then Biden should be comfortably leading Trump by 5 to 10 points. The case should be self-evident and the debate debacle should not have generated much concern.

    I know, I know….it’s MSNBC and the hosts are unapologetic rooters…but the debate right now is about supporting Biden or pushing for him to get out. I also get that there is no such thing as a sure bet replacement at this point…but this is one of those moments that people (like me) will point to as a colossal missed opportunity. Biden had one opportunity during that debate to create an impression. He failed. He may not get a second debate. He does not appear much quicker in the one-on-one interviews. Absent Trump scoring an own goal, it’s unclear what will swing this campaign back toward Biden. If history will wag its bony finger at the GOP’s Trump trance, so will it wag it at the Biden fluffers. Republicans want to win. Democrats want to be loyal. Bed-wetters, indeed! I think we know how this ends…

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  93. Absent Trump scoring an own goal…

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 7/10/2024 @ 10:47 am

    Oh you know it’s coming…

    whembly (477db6)

  94. There are so many things I wonder right now, because what we have seen is unique in US politics. We aren’t England, where it is easy to hustle out a prime minister who has botched things.

    1. If Biden really cares that Trump is an existential threat to Democracy, why is he willing to cede the issue of senility to Trump. He knows he looked bad. His advisors seem to seen similar episodes here and there. So, Joe, what’s your endgame here. You will not be allowed to squirm out of this one. It is very apparent

    2. What we are seeing is the MSM actively work to push their guy out by unending coverage and an op-ed swarm. Has that ever happened before? As a thought experiment, if Fox, Newsmax and OneMedia dealt with Trump’s lapses in the same fashion, where would we end up?

    3. If Biden resigns as a candidate, he really needs to resign as President. Will he?

    4. Will Dems be able to drop replacement fantsy camp and deal with President Harris?

    I think Harris is unusually well suited to deal with Trump — because she can return fire on the fly. (Now, reason out a coherent policy position….well, um…).

    Appalled (721968)

  95. @96 There are so many things I wonder right now, because what we have seen is unique in US politics. We aren’t England, where it is easy to hustle out a prime minister who has botched things.

    1. If Biden really cares that Trump is an existential threat to Democracy, why is he willing to cede the issue of senility to Trump. He knows he looked bad. His advisors seem to seen similar episodes here and there. So, Joe, what’s your endgame here. You will not be allowed to squirm out of this one. It is very apparent

    The real reason? His Abuser-In-Chief:
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jul/9/jill-biden-abuser-in-chief/

    2. What we are seeing is the MSM actively work to push their guy out by unending coverage and an op-ed swarm. Has that ever happened before? As a thought experiment, if Fox, Newsmax and OneMedia dealt with Trump’s lapses in the same fashion, where would we end up?

    Were you asleep in 2015 right before the RNC convention? There were oodles of news stories for a brokered convention because Trump, lol, couldn’t possible win against Hillary Clinton!

    3. If Biden resigns as a candidate, he really needs to resign as President.

    At this stage… yeah. If he’s too old and comprised to run for re-election, he’s too old and comprised to run the government NOW.

    Will he?

    No. See Abuser-In-Chief.

    4. Will Dems be able to drop replacement fantsy camp and deal with President Harris?

    Yeah, I think so. Mainly for two reasons:
    1) Deadlines on getting names on the ballot. (I believe Michigan has passed, and either passed or nearing in Az… two states that Biden/Harris absolutely needs).
    2) The current Biden/Harris re-election warchest is about 100 million and existing campaign infrastructure is only for Biden or Harris (if Joe steps down). Any other Democrat candidate would have to start over from scratch.

    I think Harris is unusually well suited to deal with Trump — because she can return fire on the fly. (Now, reason out a coherent policy position….well, um…).

    Appalled (721968) — 7/10/2024 @ 11:14 am

    lol… no.

    Trump is going to have a field day debating Boarder Czar Harris.

    whembly (477db6)

  96. #97

    A race with Harris should be about Trump and immigration, no question. Harris botched the issue back in 2021.

    A debate with Harris, on the other hand, would be about whatever Trump tries to lie about, neo-birther-ism, DEI, and Trump’s political decision to not address immigration in Congress. He will not stay focused on immigration because he prefers a wave of bs approach. That worked fine aganst Biden who was incapable of addressing all the spew. Anyone who attempts to address where Trump is lying in his energetic tirades will do well.

    Appalled (721968)

  97. #97

    The first lady is an enabler of a very bad decision, but Joe Biden has agency here. He’s not totally gone, mentally. It’s just he has good days and bad days, and that’s just not good enough for the Presidency. (This is likely the first and only time where I am harder on Biden than you are, whembly. :))

    Appalled (721968)

  98. No one but I might say that Dr. Jill is a Grima Wormtongue, just as no one but I would say that Joe is a King Theoden; except for the fact that this is not Middle Earth. So I will say that Jill is no Grima Wormtongue and Joe is no King Theoden.

    felipe (6b880b)

  99. @99 The problem I have with the first lady, is that she’s clearly not looking at her husband’s best interest.

    I think she’s an evil woman, willing to push her compromised husband to do one of the most difficult job in the world, in order to enjoy the perks of being first lady, and a shadow-President.

    whembly (477db6)

  100. @100

    No one but I might say that Dr. Jill is a Grima Wormtongue, just as no one but I would say that Joe is a King Theoden; except for the fact that this is not Middle Earth. So I will say that Jill is no Grima Wormtongue and Joe is no King Theoden.

    felipe (6b880b) — 7/10/2024 @ 12:02 pm

    Nailed it.

    Plus, kudos for weaving in one of my most cherished stories in this post!

    whembly (477db6)

  101. Absent Trump scoring an own goal…

    The NYT is running a “best of” piece to fill the void

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  102. You will not be allowed to squirm out of this one. It is very apparent

    But not to him. Like the fat guy who used to be buff, self-image has lagged reality.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  103. As a thought experiment, if Fox, Newsmax and OneMedia dealt with Trump’s lapses in the same fashion, where would we end up?

    With “Trump News Network” replacing them?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  104. Now, reason out a coherent policy position….well, um…

    Luckily for her, that’s not an issue with Trump.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  105. @99 The problem I have with the first lady, is that she’s clearly not looking at her husband’s best interest.

    She is absolutely looking after her husband’s best interests. Not the country’s, but her husband’s 100%.

    There is no better position than the Presidency for an old man with a neuro-degenerative disease and one foot in the grave to be in.

    There has never been a king, emperor, or imperial crown princess in all of history who is as pampered, with all that the taxpayers’ money can buy, as the President of the United States.

    They have food tasters for crying out loud! Gourmet chefs, cars and planes, servants and bodyguards up the wazoo, pomp and ceremony wherever they go, the best possible medical care.

    That’s why the mopes want it, hate to give it up, flourish while they’re in it, and sicken when they leave it.

    nk (e376e9)

  106. I don’t think that debating Trump is all that easy, so long as he is civil and coherent (the 1st 2020 debate was terrible the way he acted).

    The viewers, like the voters, don’t pay all that much attention to the subject matter. They really cannot tell who’s right when Trump says black and Harris says white. The fact-checkers are no help as they will find fault with truth from Trump and paper over lies by Harris. What WILL matter are gotchas and sound bites. And Harris only gives sound-meals. Her best plan is not facts, but to troll and bait Trump, hoping he melts down.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  107. Eagleton was never a vice president.

    We were talking about nominees.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/10/2024 @ 8:54 am

    And I was talking about nominees for president, not VP.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  108. Newsom stands by Biden, says he wouldn’t challenge Harris

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday said he would not run for president against Vice President Kamala Harris and remained steadfast in his support for President Biden as talks about seeking an alternative presidential nominee continue among Democrats.

    His comments indicate that if Biden gives into calls to step aside, the California governor will not challenge Harris, a front-runner in conversations about who should replace the president on the November ballot, if she seeks the nomination.

    “Of course,” Newsom said when asked whether he stood by comments he made last year about not running against Harris. “Yes.”

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  109. And I was talking about nominees for president, not VP.

    Yeah, but “Vice-presidents have been booted” was a hint I was now talking about VP nominees.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  110. “3. If Biden resigns as a candidate, he really needs to resign as President. Will he?”

    I’m not sure this is true. LBJ chose to not run in 1968 and he did not resign. Of course, if Harris will be the nominee, it would help her out to become the actual President. However, I don’t see Biden wanting the asterisk. He believes that he has the cognitive abilities to do the job. One can make an argument that he just cannot win. The further we get away from the debate, the less likely it becomes that he will drop out. He should, but this is the denial phase of every candidate and their true-believing supporters. “I can’t be losing to THIS guy”…and in this case, it has to be especially infuriating.

    “I don’t think that debating Trump is all that easy”

    I don’t think liberals think this through. I think it takes some cognitive flexibility and planning to figure out which lies require answering and which don’t. The other problem for Biden is that despite the economy trending well, it’s complicated to say that the direction is good and we need to stay the course. He also has a hard time justifying waiting to do anything on immigration. Finally, prosecuting Trump’s unfitness requires more than a laundry list or an existential claim. It really needs to be rehearsed with clear and biting questions directly posed to Trump…to force him to deflect, dodge, and prevaricate. Biden was not able to do that in the first debate…and after 9 years, it should have been drilled into muscle memory. I don’t care how sick he was, that core argument should be part of every speech he gives. Hell, Dead Biden should be able to twitch it out via Morse Code.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  111. However, I don’t see Biden wanting the asterisk.

    He’s courting one anyway. If his ability degrades further, the 25th Amendment will need to be used.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  112. It appears that we presently have an elected figurehead, and an un-elected, un-accountable coterie of people making the actual decisions.

    I don’t believe Biden has the mental acuity to be President right now, let alone in a second term.

    norcal (01b780)

  113. @114

    It appears that we presently have an elected figurehead, and an un-elected, un-accountable coterie of people making the actual decisions.

    I don’t believe Biden has the mental acuity to be President right now, let alone in a second term.

    norcal (01b780) — 7/10/2024 @ 2:55 pm

    It would be an absolute civic disaster to vote for Biden.

    Americans shouldn’t have a figurehead POTUS whereby “un-elected, un-accountable coterie of people making the actual decisions.”

    But, hey, people tells me I’m a cult member for daring to vote for Trump over Biden.
    o.O

    whembly (477db6)

  114. I’d still take the coterie over someone who called for the termination of the Constitution, and who was content to watch the storming of the Capitol like it was the most awesome movie ever.

    norcal (01b780)

  115. The coterie may be un-elected, but it will not be un-accountable. On the other hand, the lunatic fringe (that’s a reference to Trump’s hair, is “lunatic comb over” better?) will enjoy Presidential immunity thanks to six gerbils in black robes.

    nk (e9077b)

  116. Yeah, but “Vice-presidents have been booted” was a hint I was now talking about VP nominees.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/10/2024 @ 2:14 pm

    Nobody cares about vice presidents, especially one who never take office.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  117. He’s courting one anyway. If his ability degrades further, the 25th Amendment will need to be used.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/10/2024 @ 2:36 pm

    As you have pointed out, if Biden contests his removal by the cabinet, it is unlikely that 2/3 of both chamber of Congress would be able to agree to his removal.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  118. @117 “The coterie may be un-elected, but it will not be un-accountable”

    Interested in how this works. So, when Austin or Mayorkas screw up they’ll fire themselves? Or a hologram Biden does it? ChatGPT?

    lloyd (e30950)

  119. if Biden contests his removal by the cabinet

    If he degrades much further that won’t be an issue.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  120. Dear President Trump,

    Don’t let them get you down. You know you can do this! They’re all just jealous of your accomplishments. Stick with it.

    Your friend,

    Donald Trump

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  121. Interested in how this works. So, when Austin or Mayorkas screw up they’ll fire themselves? Or a hologram Biden does it? ChatGPT?

    In the age of ex-Presidents requesting and receiving immunity for crimes they committed while in office that is as quaint as lace hankies.

    nk (e9077b)

  122. @123 Yeah, Jill Biden getting prosecuted before a DC jury is beyond quaint.

    lloyd (8723d3)

  123. Hunter and jill have been doing a good job running the country so far.

    asset (af6f4e)

  124. I wonder how exposed Biden is to charges of defrauding the government or disenfranchising the electorate here. I guess he can claim that phony health reports are just part of his presidential duties, therefore immune.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  125. I wonder how exposed Biden is to charges of defrauding the government or disenfranchising the electorate here.

    The Supreme Court has severely restricted the definition of “honest services fraud” (18 U.S.C. § 1346) to cover only “fraudulent schemes to deprive another of honest services through bribes or kickbacks supplied by a third party who ha[s] not been deceived” (Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), so it would be a stretch.

    I don’t think “ disenfranchising the electorate” is a crime. It’s best dealt with through impeachment or elections.

    Rip Murdock (14415d)

  126. Both those are charges that Smith leveled at Trump.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  127. “Man, woman, person, camera, TV.”

    How many lies has Trump been telling about his mental and physical status?

    Now many days or weeks does it take to tune him up for a 90-minute public appearance?

    In an isolated environment with blackout curtains and no clocks, and the aid of uppers and downers (and let’s not forget “digestives”), to adjust his biological clock?

    Something that Biden as a working President cannot have the luxury of.

    nk (bb8070)

  128. Something that Biden as a working President cannot have the luxury of.

    Perhaps, but he seems to have pulled it off for a couple of years anyway. And is “no worse than Trump” the standard you propose?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  129. @128

    Both those are charges that Smith leveled at Trump.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/11/2024 @ 7:32 am

    Correct. I’m glad you’re pointing this out.

    I think Rip’s right too in that “I don’t think “ disenfranchising the electorate” is a crime. It’s best dealt with through impeachment or elections.”

    whembly (477db6)

  130. https://twitter.com/realannapaulina/status/1811399593059332442?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    Ironic no one in the media is drawing parallels between what Garland is doing and Watergate is insane and deliberate. Turning over edited transcripts of tapes and not the actual recordings was at the heart of the Nixon impeachment. Nixon’s AG resigned when ordered to defy a…

    — Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) July 11, 2024

    Even though her inherent contempt failed… just does seem to have a stronger point than I realized.

    At this point though, the mere fact that the DOJ refusing to release the tapes simply speaks “louder” than actually releasing it. Garland is effectively saying “this tape is so bad, it’ll destroy Biden”.

    whembly (477db6)

  131. If they really wanted those tapes, they’d start an impeachment inquiry (charging Biden with defrauding the public/honest services fraud) and then subpoena the tapes. That’s a slam dunk following the Nixon precedents.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  132. @132, I thought the break in and destruction of evidence was at the heart of watergate? Also equating transcripts that were edited to remove evidence of wrongdoing with Transcripts that were edited for clarity and confirmed as accurate by the investigators who were there is rather dishonest. Don’t know they person who made the original comparison but they seem untrustworthy.

    Time123 (e50240)

  133. @133 the Executive Privilege claim looks silly to me. But there’s a process to challenge that. They should use it.

    Time123 (e50240)

  134. The Supreme Court has severely restricted the definition of “honest services fraud” (18 U.S.C. § 1346) to cover only “fraudulent schemes to deprive another of honest services through bribes or kickbacks supplied by a third party who ha[s] not been deceived” (Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), so it would be a stretch.

    I don’t think “ disenfranchising the electorate” is a crime. It’s best dealt with through impeachment or elections.

    Rip Murdock (14415d) — 7/11/2024 @ 7:19 am

    Both those are charges that Smith leveled at Trump.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/11/2024 @ 7:32 am

    Trump hasn’t been indicted in the January 6th case with “honest services” fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346); he has been indicted for “conspiracy to defraud the United States” (18 U.S.C. § 371), a completely different crime. Nor has he been indicted for the fictional crime of “disenfranchising the electorate;” the other charges relate to “conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding” and “obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  135. Correct. I’m glad you’re pointing this out.

    I think Rip’s right too in that “I don’t think “ disenfranchising the electorate” is a crime. It’s best dealt with through impeachment or elections.”

    whembly (477db6) — 7/11/2024 @ 9:10 am

    Kevin M was not correct, see post 136.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  136. Trump hasn’t been indicted in the January 6th case with “honest services” fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346); he has been indicted for “conspiracy to defraud the United States”

    Which is why I didn’t use “honest services fraud” @126. Those were YOUR words, not mine.

    Nor has he been indicted for the fictional crime of “disenfranchising the electorate;

    The actual charge is “conspiracy against rights”, to wit disenfranchising voters.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  137. Clearer formatting

    Trump hasn’t been indicted in the January 6th case with “honest services” fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346); he has been indicted for “conspiracy to defraud the United States”

    Which is why I didn’t use “honest services fraud” @126. Those were YOUR words, not mine.

    Nor has he been indicted for the fictional crime of “disenfranchising the electorate;

    The actual charge is “conspiracy against rights”, to wit disenfranchising voters.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  138. I thought the break in and destruction of evidence was at the heart of watergate?

    I’m not aware that Nixon was charged for either of those crimes. Rather he was charged with multiple counts of obstruction and/or witness tampering and conspiracy to same.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  139. @139

    The actual charge is “conspiracy against rights”, to wit disenfranchising voters.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/11/2024 @ 10:00 am

    Which is a very dubious charge in light of the recent SCOTUS immunity opinion. IN any case, the lower court will need to ascertain whether or not Trump’s efforts to challenge the election was:
    a) a POTUS seeking to ensure “laws was taken care” during the election, and sought investigation
    b) or, if such behaviors could only be done for personal (ie, electoral chances) reasons.

    If there’s an iota of “a”… then I don’t think such evidence would survive under then immunity test.

    whembly (477db6)

  140. “I wonder how exposed Biden is to charges of defrauding the government or disenfranchising the electorate here.”

    That’s quite the reach. Anyone following politics over the past 3 years has seen Biden slowing down. Fox News regularly shows montages of stumbles, mumbles, and bumbles. It’s also hard to argue that he’s hiding his diminished debating skills by having his team request and arrange for the earliest debate in memory. It’s not criminal to think he gives the Democrats their best chance in November…though I would completely disagree.

    The Democrat voters messed up when they did not demand an open primary with more than a token Dean Phillips participating. Heck, the party should have acknowledged that Biden was a weak candidate in 2020 who barely won after running a mask-wearing basement-sitting campaign. He should have been a one-term President, with his VP being aggressively groomed to succeed him. It’s fanciful to view Biden in 2020 as being a White Knight with so much good will. His approval has languished around 40% for much of his term. He has a weak case despite his cognitive decline.

    Still, this is different than the fake elector scheme and disrupting a congressional proceeding. We are now toying with the very Lawfare that we supposedly reject. Trump should have been impeached for J6. The people pushing the fake elector scheme should face criminal prosecution. Arguing for bad prosecutions just shows how far Trumpism is taking us down…..

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  141. I’m not actually arguing for it as much as I’m trying to show hypocrisy. People disagree with me on him being behind the J6 event. But the fake elector scheme is entirely on Trump and his agents.

    Biden, his staff, his party and the MSM all conspired to hide, mask and otherwise keep his health issues out of public discourse. If the mainstream press had printed what they knew in 2022 and 2023, the primary WOULD have been open. The reason it wasn’t was that Biden was presented as a going concern, when he wasn’t.

    That was a fraud. How meaningful? Well, it made it so that Trump’s opponent is also unfit. That to me is a big deal.

    I note several MSM editorials today about “Well, Trump is more unfit.” *sigh*

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  142. I thought the break in and destruction of evidence was at the heart of watergate?

    I’m not aware that Nixon was charged for either of those crimes. Rather he was charged with multiple counts of obstruction and/or witness tampering and conspiracy to same.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/11/2024 @ 10:04 am

    Nixon wasn’t charged with any crime (except as an unindicted co-conspirator), nor was he impeached for any malfeasance in office.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  143. The actual charge is “conspiracy against rights”, to wit disenfranchising voters.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/11/2024 @ 10:00 am

    That’s probably the weakest charge in the indictment (and not for whembly’s reasons). A throwaway.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  144. The Democrat voters messed up when they did not demand an open primary…….

    Exactly how would have Democrat voters “demand an open primary”? Anybody who wanted to run against Biden was free to do so.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  145. The actual charge is “conspiracy against rights”, to wit disenfranchising voters.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/11/2024 @ 10:00 am

    That’s probably the weakest charge in the indictment (and not for whembly’s reasons). A throwaway.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/11/2024 @ 11:10 am>

    It’s hard to see how Trump engaged in a conspiracy to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person……..in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same……..”. The indictment doesn’t explain what the conspiracy was and what actions were taken. It merely says “see above.”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  146. “Biden, his staff, his party and the MSM all conspired to hide, mask and otherwise keep his health issues out of public discourse.”

    How was it hidden if you can find the best of Biden prat falls and word salad on youtube? I agree that the MSM should have assumed a more critical role especially with insisting that Biden conduct more press conferences…but are we really wanting to go down the path of criminalizing how a part of the press does its job?

    Elections are precisely about revealing these issues….and the Democrats are paying the price for not being more critical. Trump will win and probably win big if Biden stays the nominee. It’s hard for me to believe that Democrat leaders had no sense that an approaching 82-year-old candidate might be a problem. It’s foolish, not illegal.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  147. “Exactly how would have Democrat voters “demand an open primary”?”

    It was a “show” primary, where no one of national note participated. The choice was between Biden and some guy named Phillips that few people knew. A functional party…meaning the senior leadership in concert with the mega-donors….should have understood that Biden was not just vulnerable from inflation/immigration/crime/war issues, but that he was vulnerable from an age perspective. He is a marketing nightmare. So all the consternation that is bubbling up right now should have been there last summer. Voters expressed the displeasure with the candidate selection for awhile…the party responded by imaging Biden was a strong candidate. It ain’t fraud but it certainly is malpractice. Ted Kennedy challenged Carter and gave voters a choice. The same should have happened here.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  148. AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 7/11/2024 @ 11:37 am

    Again, how would voters have demanded open primary?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  149. “Exactly how would have Democrat voters “demand an open primary”? Anybody who wanted to run against Biden was free to do so.”

    Except where the primary was closed. Like Florida, to Save Democracy.

    lloyd (54c6c0)

  150. @148 “How was it hidden if you can find the best of Biden prat falls and word salad on youtube?”

    By discrediting the videos.

    A week before the debate, meaning a week before the White House and MSM lies got exposed:

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre pushed back on a series of recent videos of President Joe Biden as she called them “cheap fakes,” sparking Republican outrage across social media on Monday.

    On Monday, Jean-Pierre was asked about a recent series of videos, which stemmed from Biden’s trip to France earlier this month, his visit to Italy last week and his stop at a fundraiser Saturday, that purportedly show Biden being guided off stage or standing motionless.

    In response to those videos, Jean-Pierre pushed back and said they were being spread in “bad faith” as she referenced a Washington Post article that called the footage “cheap fake” videos.

    lloyd (c98f41)

  151. Can’t really find an fault to this story:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/donald-trump-and-lady-luck/


    Did Donald Trump pay a visit to the crossroads of Highway 61 and Highway 49 near Clarksdale, Miss., in the summer of 2015 to make a special deal with the devil? Does he have a rabbit’s foot made from the genuine Easter Bunny? Does Trump have a desk drawer full of four-leaf clovers in his office at Mar-a-Lago?

    Because I’m not sure how else to explain the fact that Donald Trump is the luckiest man to ever attempt to climb the greasy pole of American electoral politics.

    But has there ever been a luckier man who has pursued higher office? One could almost believe that the universe is conspiring to put Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

    I’m continually amazed by this…

    Any other politician would’ve wilted by now.

    whembly (477db6)

  152. @153 Luck was having Covid hit in 2020 and having the vaccine come out a week after the election. That was Biden’s luck, and he needed it to win.

    lloyd (c98f41)

  153. #153

    True story — I was at a bbq joint at that very crossroads, slipped on some spilled iced tea and landed on my knees. Still can’t play the guitar.

    Appalled (cfa86a)

  154. Except where the primary was closed. Like Florida, to Save Democracy.

    lloyd (54c6c0) — 7/11/2024 @ 12:13 pm

    If there was a serious contest between Biden and _____________(fill in the blank) I’m sure a primary would have been held. Five Republican primaries (Kansas, Alaska, South Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada) were canceled in 2019 despite Bill Weld and Mark Sanford challenging Trump for the nomination.

    Rip Murdock (14415d)

  155. I’m continually amazed by this…

    Any other politician would’ve wilted by now.

    whembly (477db6) — 7/11/2024 @ 12:21 pm

    You shouldn’t be-like Biden, Trump has his enablers.

    Rip Murdock (14415d)

  156. It was a “show” primary, where no one of national note participated.

    And whose fault is that-certainly not the voters.

    Rip Murdock (14415d)

  157. Biden, his staff, his party and the MSM all conspired to hide, mask and otherwise keep his health issues out of public discourse. If the mainstream press had printed what they knew in 2022 and 2023, the primary WOULD have been open. The reason it wasn’t was that Biden was presented as a going concern, when he wasn’t.

    That was a fraud.

    Assuming for the sake of argument what you say is true, it wasn’t a “conspiracy against rights” and not criminal.

    Rip Murdock (14415d)

  158. @156 You’re moving the goalposts. RFK Jr was a serious contender, and Biden refused to debate him, so he said screw that. Imagine if that debate had happened.

    lloyd (c98f41)

  159. No President has ever debated their primary rivals, so it was unlikely that would have occurred under any circumstances.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  160. are we really wanting to go down the path of criminalizing how a part of the press does its job?

    Who said anything about criminalizing it? My argument is to the ethics of the matter and there is manifest evidence of a media-wide ethical failure. Go read any of the last 5 Cataggio columns.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  161. Except where the primary was closed. Like Florida, to Save Democracy.

    Trump’s people cancelled primaries, so this is a bit hypocritical of you lloyd.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  162. You’re moving the goalposts. RFK Jr was a serious contender, and Biden refused to debate him…..

    Which is irrelevant to the question as to cancelling primary contests, so if anyone is moving goalposts (or changing the subject), it’s you.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  163. Rip, why do you go to such lengths to conflate and confuse?

    Nothing in #143, which you quote, has a thing do do with any criminal charge. Why do you make people count back comments to realize you are full of it?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  164. I see today’s WaPo outlier poll is getting a lot of play in the media.

    The Post also has a bunch of battleground state meta-polls which exclude some recent polls and include some crazy outliers. For PA for example, no polls was taken after April, and one included poll has Biden leading by 10, a couple standard deviations outside the mean. None of the state polls listed has any data after mid-June.

    I don’t see how this kind of disinformation does anyone any good.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  165. That was a fraud…….

    I took you too literally.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  166. Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/11/2024 @ 2:17 pm

    That was a fraud…….

    I took you too literally.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  167. Again, “fraud” covers more than narrow statutory infractions. If I put on a dating app that I’m 32 and post a picture of a young Brad Pitt, that would be fraud, but it’s not criminal.

    Although my wife might disagree.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  168. Why do you make people count back comments to realize you are full of it?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/11/2024 @ 2:17 pm

    It would be better for everyone if a commenting system like Disqus was used so comments and responses were linked together.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  169. I hear Dems freaking out about a poll showing Biden trailing Tammy Baldwin by 10. Also hearing that he may be turning New York, yes NY into a battleground. Not good as a certain orange feller is known to say.

    JRH (14e837)

  170. *Poll in Wisconsin I should have said. Where Biden is trailing the Senate candidate.

    JRH (14e837)

  171. @163 “Trump’s people cancelled primaries, so this is a bit hypocritical of you lloyd.”

    Whataboutism. So did Bush’s people in 2004. It’s a common practice among incumbents, which is fine if your incumbent isn’t repeatedly wandering off stage and freezing mid sentence. Those who defended Biden’s primary cakewalk are now seeking a replacement. That’s hypocritical.

    lloyd (c98f41)

  172. Whataboutism

    Apples to apples.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  173. Biden press conference to be held live at 6:30 pm Eastern Daylight Time.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  174. At an event to close out the NATO summit, Biden introduced Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as “President Putin.”

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  175. lloyd (c98f41) — 7/11/2024 @ 12:35 pm

    Luck was having Covid hit in 2020 and having the vaccine come out a week after the election. That was Biden’s luck, and he needed it to win.

    Having the vaccine come out aa week after the election, and not up to four weeks before was not luck.

    That was Democratic Party pressure and the companies caved.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  176. They didn’t have to pressure them. It was corporate support of Biden.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  177. If it had come out before the election and Trump had won, it would be “woke” to refuse “Trump’s death jab” and RFK Jr would be the Democrat nominee right now.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  178. press conference to start in 3 or 4 minutes (make that 2 or 3) It will probably start with an opening statement.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  179. This delay in starting is classic Biden.

    It happened with many of his speeches about Afghanistan in August, 2021.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  180. It was actually originally scheduled for 5:30. Secretary of Defense and others coming into the room

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  181. 178. It was not support of Biden but fear of Democrats.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  182. Victoe=r Orban of Hungary visited China and Russia before the summit and is niw heading to Florida to meet with Donald Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  183. It was not support of Biden but fear of Democrats.

    More to the point, it was the FDA that set the timetable. #Deepstate

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  184. So, where are we now? Plan D or E?

    Here’s a new one: The problem is that Biden cannot complete a second term, but there is no time to switch candidates. That is only half true.

    There is time to switch running mates. If Kamala Harris is incapable of taking over now, she’s a drag on a ticket that doesn’t need more drag. So, replace Harris with a VP candidate who is clearly capable of becoming president when (not if) Biden is done.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  185. More to the point, it was the FDA that set the timetable. #Deepstate

    The Democrats were arguing against pushing the FDA and the companies deliberately decided not to try.

    https://www.axios.com/2020/08/23/trump-fda-mark-meadows

    https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/covid-2020-12-11/card/kGW9TFndp3W7e3uyQL98

    White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn in a phone call Friday that he would need to look for a new job if the FDA didn’t authorize the Pfizer Inc.-BioNTech SE vaccine by the end of the day, according to a senior administration official, prompting the FDA to speed up its plans.

    Dr. Hahn, in a statement, denied that his job was threatened on the call, which was earlier reported by the Washington Post.

    “This is an untrue representation of the phone call with the Chief of Staff,” Dr. Hahn said. “The FDA was encouraged to continue working expeditiously on Pfizer-BioNTech’s EUA request. FDA is committed to issuing this authorization quickly, as we noted in our statement this morning.”

    This was in December.

    But there was somewhere an article that they gave up when the companies gave up trying beofre the election

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  186. The national DSA withdrew its endorsement of AOC for re-election because she was not anti-Israel enough. They are so monomaniacal on this they must be getting money/infiltrated by a foreign power. Maybe China.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/us/politics/aoc-dsa-endorsement.html

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  187. Biden yesterday thought t was important to stress that he was “pro-union” and not “pro labor” although he added that when union wages go up so do non-union wages, which I suppose has to be true.

    This was not a sign of cognitive decline,unless saying so in a very public forum is. It sounds like Biden was thinking of wanting contributions or volunteers.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1197 secs.