A Deeply Fractured US

[brihard]

LOL - I sure hope you're better at interviews than this when you try and elicit a statement in a real file.

This isn’t a statement and I’m not interviewing you, but that’s a couple times now I can remember you getting a bit pissy at me and taking it personal with a crack along those lines. Didn’t bother me then and it doesn’t now, but I did notice it.

I also notice you didn’t answer the question. There’s a discussion here that you’ve chosen to participate in, and you said something that begs a question- so I asked. Since you didn’t answer the first time, were you being deliberately vague on something you’re not willing to outright commit to? You seemed to suggest you believe bureaucrats are playing an outsized role in picking the president. I’m curious how far that belief of yours - if I read your words right - goes.

 

[QV]

I'm certainly amused.

The same bureaucrats that told everyone Hunter's laptop had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, or that Trump was cooperating with Putin to throw the election, Trump will start WWIII, etc etc... all want everyone to believe the cases against Trump or the deal with Hunter are totally legit too. I'm doubtful, and so are about 100M other people.

The bureaucrats have their thumb on the scale and its obvious. I'm guessing you are ok with that because of your disdain for the subject at hand. You can correct me if I am wrong, but all I've ever seen on here from you is "trump bad" while ignoring the more egregious and unprecedented malfeasance by the three letter agencies involved.

 

[Lumber]

... ignoring the more egregious and unprecedented malfeasance by the three letter agencies involved.

JFC... There is little to no evidence of ANY malfeasance by those groups, and if there is, it's pales by orders of magnitude compared to the things done by Trump.

 

[QV]

JFC... There is little to no evidence of ANY malfeasance by those groups, and if there is, it's pales by orders of magnitude compared to the things done by Trump.

Don't take my word. There are investigations and reports available (Mueller, Durham, Horowitz), testimony in various public hearings, as well as commentary by serious legal minds in the US such as Johnathan Turley or Allen Dershowitz. Scandal after scandal revealed like the 50 senior intel signatories, or FISA court fraud.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Trump's appointees at that level were based on recommendations by the DOJ/AG. They aren't Trump's buddies - LOL

U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Delaware​

The United States is divided into 94 federal judicial districts. Within each district, a United States Attorney serves as the chief federal law enforcement officer. Delaware has one federal judicial district with its office located in Wilmington. U.S. Attorneys and their Assistant U.S. Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, and they serve under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General and DOJ in Washington D.C. Each U.S. Attorney exercises wide discretion in the use of his or her resources to further the priorities of the local jurisdictions and needs of their communities.

Source

 

[QV]

U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Delaware​

The United States is divided into 94 federal judicial districts. Within each district, a United States Attorney serves as the chief federal law enforcement officer. Delaware has one federal judicial district with its office located in Wilmington. U.S. Attorneys and their Assistant U.S. Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, and they serve under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General and DOJ in Washington D.C. Each U.S. Attorney exercises wide discretion in the use of his or her resources to further the priorities of the local jurisdictions and needs of their communities.

Source

Still not Trump's buddies, which is often inferred by people here if 45 made the appointment.

 

[QV]

The Intentionally Provocative Hunter Biden Plea Deal | National Review

Democrats are not hiding the two-tiered justice system; they’re flaunting it . . . quite intentionally.

www.nationalreview.com

For you Lumber. Another angle to ponder.

 

[brihard]

I'm certainly amused.

The same bureaucrats that told everyone Hunter's laptop had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, or that Trump was cooperating with Putin to throw the election, Trump will start WWIII, etc etc... all want everyone to believe the cases against Trump or the deal with Hunter are totally legit too. I'm doubtful, and so are about 100M other people.

The bureaucrats have their thumb on the scale and its obvious. I'm guessing you are ok with that because of your disdain for the subject at hand. You can correct me if I am wrong, but all I've ever seen on here from you is "trump bad" while ignoring the more egregious and unprecedented malfeasance by the three letter agencies involved.

I’m sure if we dug back far enough in my posting history I’ve expressed personal opinions of the man; obviously those opinions are very low. But my opinions of him don’t matter, and no one cares anyway, so my posts almost never have anything to do with that. I think I did recently say “he’s fucked”, but that was an opinion on the indictment document, not his character. I try to stick with the objective stuff, like court proceedings, unsealed affidavits, and such. I also find the legal deliberations and analysis interesting, and at least reasonably close to my wheelhouse… Since a few people do seem to appreciate that at least a bit, that’s what I mostly bother to post- and at that, only on the cases with real national significance, as you’ll recall me pointing out to you when you asked if you’d be seeing my opinion on the sexual abuse and defamation trial.

So if all you claim to have seen out of my posts on this is ‘Trump bad’, I guess that shows how much attention you pay or how selectively you read. That’s a ‘you’ thing, not a ‘me’ thing.

 

[Navy_Pete]

@QV, If you are still defending him, I can only assume you haven't read the indictment.

I am fully aware of my bias against Trump, but that's not a new thing from when he started running for President. I think he's a greasy sex pest who is way too fond of his daughter, a compulsive liar, cheater and a terrible businessman. He also has awful taste in decor. In short, I think he is a piece of shit, but that has been my impression for 25ish years, that is reinforced the more he does pretty much anything.

He was not as bad of a President as I thought he would be, but since then he tried to overthrow his democratically elected replacement, and is still actively calling for violence against the justice system, while using it as an opportunity for continued graft and self enrichment.

There is no evidence at all though that there is a conspiracy against him, and I suspect there is probably a mix of people going out of their way for and against him. But when you steal national secrets, show them to journalists to impress them, and have a recording where you tell them you know you shouldn't have something, and you shouldn't be showing it to them, but do it anyway, there doesn't need to be a conspiracy against you because you are dangerously inept and irresponsible.

I don't think he was a puppet for Russia, because he's frankly too stupid and unpredictable for them to use as an operative, but he is a superfan of ruthless dictators, which again, is not what you want for a leader of a democratic country.

Why anyone thinks he's on their side is beyond me, his only real objection to the swamp was the money wasn't going into his pockets and people weren't stroking his ego. He's a golden spoon trust fund billionaire who likes the poors to be cheering for him as long as he doesn't need to do things like pay them for their work or socialize with them.


Despite all of that I figured there is no way even he would be stupid enough to do what was laid out in the indictment. I don't know if he took his own BS too literally and thought he could actually murder someone in the middle of the street and get away with it, but he blatantly broke the law, gave enemies of the US ample opportunities to get to nuclear secrets and other national secrets that could get millions of people killed. Even if it was out of arrogance, ignorance and stupidity, may have leaked bigger secrets than any of the previous spies have done, so really have no clue how anyone is defending him at this point, and frankly feel sorry for anyone that dug into their opinion.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what point of view you look at a piece of shit from, it still stinks., but I think I will just stop arguing there because it seems to be a waste of time and effort.

 

[brihard]

 

[QV]

What they have done and are doing to Trump is the scandal. Whether you hate the man or not, that kind of corrupt abuse of power should be a gigantic warning signal to everyone. But because it’s happening to a detestable person, the abuses by people in positions of power are overlooked, watered down, or just given a pass. I don’t abide by that and I never will.

 

[brihard]

What they have done and are doing to Trump is the scandal. Whether you hate the man or not, that kind of corrupt abuse of power should be a gigantic warning signal to everyone. But because it’s happening to a detestable person, the abuses by people in positions of power are overlooked, watered down, or just given a pass. I don’t abide by that and I never will.

Have you read the indictment?

 

[KevinB]

Have you read the indictment?

Pretty sure you know the answer.

Anyone who has 1) read it, and 2) has a functioning brain wouldn’t be acting like QV is currently.
So either they haven’t read the indictment or they haven’t a functioning brain (or I guess Both couid also be true).

I’ve noticed that very few of the current MAGA/Trump supporters have read it. It’s like reading it would be an acknowledgment of the fraud they have been part of for the last 2.5 years.

 

[dimsum]

I’ve noticed that very few of the current MAGA/Trump supporters have read it. It’s like reading it would be an acknowledgment of the fraud they have been part of for the last 2.5 years.

Of course. "If they don't see it, it didn't happen" is something I've been noticing in different connotations.

What if someone were to just buy out commercial breaks on AM and FM stations in the US, and read out the indictment?

 

[dapaterson]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1671848081460166656

 

[Brad Sallows]

Expecting Hunter Biden to be treated like any common US citizen, particularly on the firearm charge, was never reasonable.

Everything has been thrown over to voters to decide.

Related: ordinarily incoming administrations fire all (or very close to all) of the political DoJ appointees and make their own. Trump didn't do this. "Why" doesn't matter. There must be reason(s) the experienced people in the party establishments do it. It would be a political novelty if partisan control had nothing to do with it.

 

[brihard]

Expecting Hunter Biden to be treated like any common US citizen, particularly on the firearm charge, was never reasonable.

Everything has been thrown over to voters to decide.

Related: ordinarily incoming administrations fire all (or very close to all) of the political DoJ appointees and make their own. Trump didn't do this. "Why" doesn't matter. There must be reason(s) the experienced people in the party establishments do it. It would be a political novelty if partisan control had nothing to do with it.

Are you suggesting that partisan control of the prosecutor or justice department officials is why Hunter Biden got a diversion on the firearms charge as part of his plea deal on tax offences that are seldom prosecuted, but, unusually, we’re in his case?

Given that the prosecutor was a Trump appointee that stayed on into the new presidency, that would be a little puzzling.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Are you suggesting that partisan control of the prosecutor or justice department officials is why Hunter Biden got a diversion on the firearms charge as part of his plea deal on tax offences that are seldom prosecuted, but, unusually, we’re in his case?

Given that the prosecutor was a Trump appointee that stayed on into the new presidency, that would be a little puzzling.

Of course it's why. The firearms charge was a no-win for the administration. Someone leaked the suggestion that the defence was prepared to employ a constitutional 2A challenge. (Leaks rarely happen without purpose.) A conviction - or the path to a conviction - would likely involve Hunter offering up other information to reach a deal, and the only other information of interest would be something implicating his father. A loss would be another setback for "gun control".

The fact that incoming administrations (at least the ones composed of people familiar with DC routines) routinely clear house in DoJ means that any political appointees held over from the outgoing administration are acceptable to the incoming administration. Whether or not Trump appointed the prosecutor is close to irrelevant.

Of course there's always the theory that this DoJ plays entirely straight, never standing in front of investigators or prosecutors pursuing an inconvenient case, and never deviating from customary standards and processes when deciding to prosecute or when asking for sentencing.

 

[brihard]

Of course it's why. The firearms charge was a no-win for the administration. Someone leaked the suggestion that the defence was prepared to employ a constitutional 2A challenge. (Leaks rarely happen without purpose.) A conviction - or the path to a conviction - would likely involve Hunter offering up other information to reach a deal, and the only other information of interest would be something implicating his father. A loss would be another setback for "gun control".

The fact that incoming administrations (at least the ones composed of people familiar with DC routines) routinely clear house in DoJ means that any political appointees held over from the outgoing administration are acceptable to the incoming administration. Whether or not Trump appointed the prosecutor is close to irrelevant.

Of course there's always the theory that this DoJ plays entirely straight, never standing in front of investigators or prosecutors pursuing an inconvenient case, and never deviating from customary standards and processes when deciding to prosecute or when asking for sentencing.

Alternatively, plea deals and diversion on minor offences are very routine, and there’s no reason there would not have been one on this particular prosecution? Particularly given that the tax offences in question are very rarely prosecuted? See, for instance, Roger Stone.

Had Joe Biden, on winning the presidency, overseen the firing of the Trump appointed prosecutor investigating (and eventually charging) his son, you and others would have quite rightly howled about interference. Instead it appears he was left alone to do his job, and he appears to have done it.

With that said, I suspect you and I are in agreement that Hunter Biden would not be fit for elected office.

 

[Pelorus]

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf

My interpretation of the linked report is that in 2017, 112,090 denials for a firearms purchase were issued due to incorrect or falsified information on the forms, 12,710 of those were investigated by the ATF, and 12 were ultimately prosecuted.

Thank god for Hunter Biden that his father conducted partisan interference via the Justice Department to * checks calculator * secure him a plea deal for a crime with a 0.01% prosecution rate.