A Deeply Fractured US

[lenaitch]

I'd be more concerned about the SC report on biden. If true, he needs removal as POTUS immediately. Biden and the WH say he's lucid and decisive? Easy peasy, get him tested. If he fails, retire him. If he passes, then they can proceed with his charges as outlined in the report.

It seems there is an untested and rather convoluted process under the 25th Amendment to have a President declared 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office'. It involves the VP and majority of his Executive (cabinet) making a declaration to Congress, then a 2/3 majority vote.

I'll bet it would take a whole lot more than a lawyer's opinion about his memory, and I'm not aware of a process to force some kind of 'competency test'.

 

[brihard]

So I have to wonder, if the FBI acted on any of this guy's info, before the laptop. And they prosecuted people because of his info. Are they going to set aside all the convictions he was involved in now that they claim he can't be trusted? Or is this just for Biden?

And let's not forget, the laptop is real, no matter who the source was that gave it up.

Generally speaking confidential human source info forms a portion of a basis of evidence to move a case forward, but rarely is relied upon exclusively or substantially in prosecuting. It’s more likely to be part of forming grounds for, eg, search warrants- but actually charging and prosecuting offences would require corroboration. If they had a warrant application before the court right now that relied on this guy’s information, obviously that would be a problem. If there were past instances where his information formed part of the basis for subsequent investigation, and that investigation did in fact uncover other evidence that corroborated what he said, that probably wouldn’t present much of a problem.

Informants are inherently challenging in terms of credibility by their very nature. You really, really need to show how and why source info is compelling, credible, and corroborated to do much with it. Single source uncorroborated info is tough to do much with. But that means that a source who WAS corroborated in a particular case and is later unreliable in a later one is likely not fatal to the earlier case where their information played out as accurate.

 

[lenaitch]

So I have to wonder, if the FBI acted on any of this guy's info, before the laptop. And they prosecuted people because of his info. Are they going to set aside all the convictions he was involved in now that they claim he can't be trusted? Or is this just for Biden?

And let's not forget, the laptop is real, no matter who the source was that gave it up.

It's happened, including up here, when the credibility, admissibility, etc. of a witness or physical evidence is later called into question. There would be no automatic 'setting aside' of convictions. Each case would have to be reviewed on its own merits. There may well be other evidence that saves the conviction.

 

[mariomike]

It seems there is an untested and rather convoluted process under the 25th Amendment to have a President declared 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office'.

For readers keeping score, Google shows 474,000 results on invoking the 25th Amendment for President Biden,

"25th amendment" biden - Google Search

and 724,000 results results on invoking the 25th Amendment for former-President Trump.

"25th amendment" trump - Google Search

Not to suggest invoking it for either individual. Simply the level of public interest for each one.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In the end, we're dealing with an administration that swore on a stack of bibles that the Steele dossier was factual and the Hunter's laptop was a Russian hoax. Without overwhelming and damnable evidence, they just can't be trusted on their word. They have no credibility.

 

[brihard]

In the end, we're dealing with an administration that swore on a stack of bibles that the Steele dossier was factual and the Hunter's laptop was a Russian hoax. Without overwhelming and damnable evidence, they just can't be trusted on their word. They have no credibility.

Indeed, neither party seems particularly competent at recognizing and resisting Russian foreign interference in their partisan/electoral politics. Russia fans the flames of discord very well.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Section 4 of 25A is supposed to be used when the president can't perform his duties, and not merely because some people think he can't perform them well. Biden doesn't fit that, and Trump certainly didn't.

 

[FJAG]

In the end, we're dealing with an administration that swore on a stack of bibles that the Steele dossier was factual and the Hunter's laptop was a Russian hoax. Without overwhelming and damnable evidence, they just can't be trusted on their word. They have no credibility.

Kettle . . . black.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Kettle . . . black.

Sure. Whatever you say.

 

[brihard]

Section 4 of 25A is supposed to be used when the president can't perform his duties, and not merely because some people think he can't perform them well. Biden doesn't fit that, and Trump certainly didn't.

Plus I think we can safely dismiss the notion of any radical change being achieved by any mechanism that needs 2/3 of the Senate to agree.

 

[KevinB]

Plus I think we can safely dismiss the notion of any radical change being achieved by any mechanism that needs 2/3 of the Senate to agree.

Democracy in action…

 

[KevinB]

Trump short listed Mini-Me’s

Trump reveals his vice presidential candidates, all reject US aid for Ukraine - Euromaidan Press

The Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has revealed his list of potential running mates, who have all expressed negative or doubtful views on US aid to Ukraine and positive or appeasing views on Russia and its president.

euromaidanpress.com

 

[Pelorus]

Tucker Carlson interviews Mike Benz who provides extraordinary detail in the mass censorship campaign. Recommended listening for anyone trying navigate and understand all of the shit going on right now.

I don't follow Carlson, do you have an example of a Kremlin talking point he regurgitates?

Huh

 

[daftandbarmy]

In other news, the 'First Dog' is a real dick....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1760431896696086638

 

[QV]

Huh

Someone mentioned TC, I checked out his channel. I know, hard concept.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Democracy in action…

Some things ought not be easy to change. A thing about the US constitution is that there was a lot of deliberation over a long time. That is one of the reasons Canada's 1982 changes failed to create strong protections for individual liberties.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In other news, the 'First Dog' is a real dick....

There aren't many problem dogs; there are lots of problem owners. When an owner has more than one ill-behaved dog, I can easily guess the faults lie with the owner.

 

[mariomike]

Trump short listed Mini-Me’s

Trump reveals his vice presidential candidates, all reject US aid for Ukraine - Euromaidan Press

The Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has revealed his list of potential running mates, who have all expressed negative or doubtful views on US aid to Ukraine and positive or appeasing views on Russia and its president.

euromaidanpress.com

all reject US aid for Ukraine.

Interesting.

 

[kkwd]

Trump short listed Mini-Me’s

Trump reveals his vice presidential candidates, all reject US aid for Ukraine - Euromaidan Press

The Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has revealed his list of potential running mates, who have all expressed negative or doubtful views on US aid to Ukraine and positive or appeasing views on Russia and its president.

euromaidanpress.com

That article was written for "headline only readers". It starts out with a sensational headline saying all reject aid for Ukraine but they temper it a bit in the sub headline stating the candidates expressed negative or doubtful thoughts of US aid to Ukraine (except it was ramped up with the declaration that all the candidates had positive or appeasing views of Russia and Putin). Then we get to the meat of the article, not much to chew on at all. The second paragraph says the candidates either opposed questioned or reduced support for for Ukraine. You know my stance on aid to Ukraine but let's be fair in analysis of political figures and get the facts all in order with evidence presented to back up the headlines.

 

[KevinB]

That article was written for "headline only readers". It starts out with a sensational headline saying all reject aid for Ukraine but they temper it a bit in the sub headline stating the candidates expressed negative or doubtful thoughts of US aid to Ukraine (except it was ramped up with the declaration that all the candidates had positive or appeasing views of Russia and Putin). Then we get to the meat of the article, not much to chew on at all. The second paragraph says the candidates either opposed questioned or reduced support for for Ukraine. You know my stance on aid to Ukraine but let's be fair in analysis of political figures and get the facts all in order with evidence presented to back up the headlines.

Other than Ramascammy, all the others flipped their support for Ukraine when bending their knee to Putin, I mean Donald…