Biden Too Old to Be Indicted

Whatever you may mean by "good portion" you aren't wrong about this in principle. There's plenty of "hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two perceived evils" voters, and single-issue voters, out there. Maybe the DNC ought to think about that, if they actually think they're the better party, and change that paradigm.

What are you talking about, Biden is letting millions of Mexican rapists cross the border as we speak, they're going to get a political majority and ban McDonalds and put a taco stand on every street corner!

Ok. Let’s start here.

What specific policies do you think trump supporters dislike?

Also, aside from personality, what about those “democratic policies” are trump supporters so willing to overlook trump’s obvious personality trait that he needs to be in charge. You do know, after he usurps democracy, he won’t stop there. You DO know that right?

MAGA flunkies would say Biden has two dicks, and one doesn't work, if they thought it would lose him votes.
And FF would bring it here as a new thread.
There's no "hey, wait a minute, that's too stupid" scanner in FF's head.

I don't intend to read the report, not just because I have better things to do, but also there is no reason that a report of this nature should be 356 pages.

Just looking through the executive summary, it seems that the majority of things that we're talking about are notebooks containing Biden's handwritten notes as to classified material. Even the special prosecutor acknowledges that there's ambiguity over whether a person can retain their own notes as to classified material. As the special prosecutor acknowledged Ronald Reagan did that as well.

The main evidence the special prosecutor cites that the retention of anything by Biden was "willful" was that Biden told his ghostwriter that he had just found some classified materials. As the special prosecutor acknowledges, it's not really clear-cut to infer from that that Biden was referring to the classified materials that he turned over recently or other classified materials, and it's also possible that he maintained the possibly incorrect belief that he was not obligated to return to the government his handwritten notes about classified subjects.

So yes, he willfully retained those, but he mistakenly thought that he was allowed to.

By contrast, the facts in the Trump case are all pretty well established and don't really leave much room in the way for doubt: Trump was asked repeatedly for all classified documents in his possession. He dragged his feet repeatedly and told his lawyers essentially he didn't want to return the documents. He had a lawyer of his sign a false certification saying that he had returned all the classified documents. When the FBI got information that he still was retaining classified documents, they were able to convince a federal judge to approve a search warrant for Trump's home where indeed classified documents were found. A recording illustrated Trump telling parties without a security clearance of U.S. plans to attack Iran and acknowledging that the documents he was apparently referring to were still classified.

It's not possible to reconcile those facts with inadvertence or a good faith mistake.

This is a key point. And of course ignored by the Trump supporters in this thread.

And not to break my arm patting myself on the back something I was pointing out a year ago.

Now something I also pointed out is that especially when it comes to notes and stuff something that at the time wasn’t classified can become classified later. That’s the really fun part about all this.

So it was totally just a slip up but Egyptian social media is going crazy over Biden saying Sisi is the president of Mexico as ‘el makasiky’, the Mexican, is Sisi’s meme nickname.

https://x.com/mohamednzk/status/1755777171505745973?s=46&t=t4SjKAdDfFIcJ6SvqCRv6A

What are some legitimate options to replace Biden that can beat trump?

In any sane universe?

An amoeba.

Hell, a virus would have a shot.

In this universe?

I dunno, Americans are whack.

Presupposing that Biden opted to not run, I tend to think that most Democrats with national name recognition and net positives could possibly get it done.

Really, it's a relatively simple formula: which Democrats would be able to hold most of the states that Biden won in 2020 and possibly make incursions into some of the ones he lost?

I think in 2020, most of Biden's votes were not particularly because of him, but rather anti-Trump. In 2024, the same is likely to hold true. Indeed, there's an argument that Biden might lose votes because of his age or because people blame him for the world not being perfect or any number of other things.

Kamala Harris would have her time as VP and senator to fall back on. But she would possibly drive some people away for a) being Biden's VP, b) by being a Black woman, c) by being "a cop" as a former attorney general. But those things could attract people too, and she (I don't think) would be afraid of taking it to Trump in a way that Biden has been reluctant to.

I think that Governor Newsom of California and Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan are probably viable candidates.

AOC turns 35 in October. I think if she were to run for president some day she could get there. I think she would probably rally a lot of young voters to the polls. I also think she would drive Trump and conservatives insane.

Through the magic of Google, I found an article that talked about all the above, and Transportation Secretary Pete, here:

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...tives-if-president-biden-exits-the-2024-race/

P.S. apparently Republicans have floated a conspiracy theory that it's all been planned that Biden would drop and that Michelle Obama would swoop in to run for president. Never mind that Michelle Obama has repeatedly said she has no interest in doing so, and knows that doing so would subject her and her family to daily attacks that have probably only now begun to wane some what.

And while the "hold your nose" crowd did make up a big percentage of his votes in 2016 due to party loyalty and the fact that, politically speaking, Trump was still something of an unknown, even those with doubts counted on the guardrails of our system of government and the "adults" in his administration to keep things on track.

But by 2020 and certainly by now people who plan to vote for him know exactly who they're getting and are apparently just fine with that. This time there won't be any adults in the administration. It'll be filled with Stephen Miller types from top to bottom.

It’s really going to depend on how effective the smear in the report is, and we probably won’t know for a week, 3-5 weeks to get long-term effects. If Biden actually can’t remember what years he was VP (I give him much more of a pass on remember what year his son died… I can’t immediately remember what years my grandparents died) and it turns out he didn’t just say something like 2008-2016 instead of 2009-2017, that’s really quite bad, and I’d rather he declined to run again. Still light-years better than Trump though.

Whitmer seems like the obvious choice to replace him, electability-wise. I really hope it’s not Newsom. Harris and AOC seem like easy wins for Trump. Buttigieg I don’t have a good sense about. He hasn’t done a great job in the cabinet, and he’s gay, but otherwise thoroughly inoffensive, and that quality should be enough to earn a vote against Trump. But will it? I dunno.

I’d laugh my ass off if Biden ran, won, and resigned immediately to give us President Harris though.

Re: thread title: this is false. There was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which means insufficient evidence to indict. That’s the bottom line. Competent federal prosecutors are not in the habit of saying “well, he did it, and we have the evidence to prove it, but he’ll be too sympathetic to a jury, so let’s toss the whole case.” Now, I suppose it’s possible that Hur is not a competent prosecutor. But he was appointed by Trump, so he’s certainly not biased for Biden.

Like I said: the guys an asshole and such statements border on prosecutorial misconduct.

So Joe Biden appointed Garland as AG. Garland chose to delay Trump prosecution for years and then appoint a special counsel without enough time to go through the prosecution of Donald Trump. Garland also appoints a Trump appointed stooge as special prosecutor to investigate Joe for his special documents. They do all of this to satisfy people who are never goibng to like Joe because Joe is a a republican with a D next to his name.

The Dems want another four years of loser joe giving everything to the repugs in a hope they will like him, and this fucking Garland guy who really should have been Trump's AG.

OK, four more years of this. Don't blame progressives because Joe is a scumbag working to get Trump re-elected. Joe is his own biggest enemy and the only reason he was president and has a chance to be again is he is up against another man who hammers himself. It is the world's biggest loser competition, and americans in majority love their big fucking losers and wilol never try at all for anyone else. Biden Bros and Trumpanzees will be voting for the corpses of their two assholes in a couple of years.

But what about UA and Jenee having gross cartoon sex?
You left that out.

If I do that will it make you actually stop licking Biden's taint? You do seem a bit resistant to admit that Biden has done all of this shit to himself, and given the republicans the gun to shoot him with. Who else to we know who avoids every single failure of their glorious leader and pretends he is the greatest ever?

While laughing at FF misrepresenting something again in his absolute non love of Trump, we should remember that US presidents being so old is wild and clearly a problem.

Biden is right now a decade older than any UK, Canadian, or Australian PM since 1900 was in office, barring Winston Churchill (and even then Biden is already older than Churchill was when he left office).

But in fairness, we have better medical care and these days and I'd guess that being 81 in 2024 with access to the presidential level of health care today is probably not as risky as being 70 in the 1980s, or in one's 60s in the 50s.

Which is of course not to say that Biden (and Trump, and anyone older than 75) is probably too old for to be a good candidate for what has to be the most stressful job in the world.

It starts with a minimum age of 35. Which, in many cases is already too old.

The inverse of this thread is also true - Federal Farmer not old enough to be indicted.

You misspelled get laid.

https://bsky.app/profile/juliaazari.bsky.social/post/3kl35jicg3s2e

Okay so as others have said there is no mechanism for replacing him now aside from some kind of revolt at the convention.

Even if Biden resigned/withdrew/died/whatever it would be too late for folks to put themselves on almost any primary ballot.

That said I’d put five folks on my short list of who *at this moment* would be replacements in some kinda alternate timeline:

Harris - Duh. VP. That’s literally their job. But not that popular.

Newsom and Buttigeg - They want it, want it bad, and you gotta want it and go for it to get it.

Whitmer and Shapiro - I haven’t heard they don’t want it and they are popular purple state Dems that are doing a great job actually getting shit done which makes them very popular with the kind of pragmatic left politicos I mostly listen too. Even with the moderate right and further left folks I listen to/read to be sure to get a variety of opinions they are mentioned a lot and positively.

Also, saying Biden would be the oldest president in U.S. history completely ignores the fact that a man who held one of the most badass titles of all time was TWICE elected President of the Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania while older than 81.

Now he also created electricity and the one hundred dollar bill so dude obviously had it together.

Also the older ladies loved him

And Biden loves the younger ladies

Yeah, you just keep regurgitating the crap you eat from the right wing echo chamber, but you're definitely not a Trumpista.

God forbid anyone should use video evidence that a president is shown to be doing something wrong, unless it’s J6 footage like the J6 committee that didn’t have any Republicans on it.

Liar.