Biden Too Old to Be Indicted

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/trump-...wing-he-is-cognitively-there-1.5035687?cache=

Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV!

My sad fuckstain will leave office after his second term.

"The evidence of one's own eyes and ears does not carry much weight if all one can see and hear is the inside of their own ass." - Confucius

Just goes to show you have absolutely no standards when you complain about Trump being fucked in the head, but you will excuse sloppy eye joy who falls asleep on the podium and is clearly not fully aware of where he is. It is terrible when trump bibbles away and fucks things up, but as long as it is joe you will accept everything including rape, a clear history of corruption, racism, sexism, anti_glbt hate, being a member of a cracked out cult who is the largest worl trafficker of children, covers for child molestors, and believes god came to earth composed of crackers and cheep wine and you have to eat him to go to heaven.

The onlyt standards dems have are as low andf fucked as Trump. At least UA and FF know to pretend Trump is not their guy.

Don't run away @Diacanu , UA and FF have a support group for people who get lost in the cult of their glorious leader and believe he can only be perfect and never does anything wrong. Maybe you all can help each other to come to terms with the fact your guy is way too fucking old, and you have a really hard time getting that. You are the same fucking idiot with different guys.

You really might want to check in with the trump culties who pretend they are not trump culties. There is something libertarians get that democrat Biden Bros don't.

Meanwhile I will be over here lobbing shit at all of you because I realize Bernie should be given up on and even Warren should be left ot enjoy her accomplishments in retirement. They are nice people with good ideas that should be taken up, but we need more people and cannot rely on them to lead the movement at their age.

Do you think that Jimmy Carter, Clinton, W, or Obama were asked to take such tests? Mind you, symptoms of Alzheimer's can present themselves in people as young as their late 40s/early 50s. Sorta seems like every elected Federal official should have to take a battery of psychological tests during their annual government physical, but there's no law requiring that.

Need I point out that the NY Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch? And that he's older than Biden?

OK, there should be a law requiring it for all people elected to office including the president where the results are shared with the public. Joe Biden does not have to by law do this, just as trump did not even though he did take the simple test joe will not.

It should be that an elderly person who wants to get your vote and the party nomination should take the fucking test because it should not be automatic he gets the nomination because he has the party stacked with loyalist stooges. This goes for both sides. If the old man is bothered about taking the test, no one needs him to be president and he should go enjoy retirement because we can get people who will do the test and we do not need the elderly old fuck whether he is white as a ghost or orange as a rotting pumpkin.

If it is bothering joe and his supporters that people want him to take the fucking test, we could always put someone else in there who is not 80, obviously tired and suffering from mental fatigue, and let the poor old grumpy guy go do something fun because he isn't necessary for any reason at all. The only thing keeping joe in there is his ego and his old man stubbornness and fantasy that he knows better than the kids on his lawn.

Joe needs to retire, hug his wife, help his son, and stop being a huge anchor to the dem party.

Yes, yes. trump didn’t encourage an insurgency. Cuz the party told you he didn’t.

Nope. I saw with my own eyes and ears him telling people to go peacefully and patriotically to the capitol. You’re party told you he didn’t and you believed it despite evidence to the contrary.

Because that’s what the party wanted you to see.

That you don’t even see what you are pushed to think and see yet you so openly and incessantly point out that same failing in others, is so humorous to me and still I have to question either your intelligence or your sincerity. Which one are you lacking?

You understand the idea of subtext and context, right?

When a mobster says, "Nice place. Shame if anything were to happen to it," they aren't expressing their enjoyment of the location and their concern that some random misfortune might happen.

When someone who has repeatedly been told that he lost, who has no evidence of fraud that would change the result of the election, who repeatedly browbeat various officials to try change the results of the election, who enlists militia and who gets angry that metal detectors were going to screen his crowd, when that person tells people that they need to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore" because the election was rigged, it's likely to drown out any part where he said "and do it peacefully."

Your eyes and ears should have shown you at this point that Trump basically did nothing at first but fan the flames when the insurrection turned violent. So even if we were to credit him with being ignorant about the possible effect that his words might have had, when given a chance to help defuse the situation, he went out of his way to avoid doing so.

So the video evidence is fake? All news channels that covered it and showed us the video evidence just faked it all? That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

What insurrection? There’s zero evidence of this.

So, it’s intelligence you’re lacking.

Try and answer the question.

Given that people have literally been convicted of seditious conspiracy, actual courts have found evidence of an insurrection.

As opposed to the evidence of fraud in the election that was the supposed motivating force for the insurrection. That, no court has found, and numerous courts have found that there was a complete absence of evidence of that, including the one that made the Georgia poll workers millionaires because of how they were defamed.

If Jack Smith thought there was sufficient evidence to prove that Trump engaged in an insurrection I have no doubt that he would have charged him with insurrection. The fact that this didn’t happen tells me all I need to know about these phony charges.

Show the video “evidence” then. You shared a still photo that’s obviously photoshopped.

Obviously. I’m done posting anything that I consider evidence because no matter what, you people ignore it or make excuses for it or flat out deny it. Besides, I’ve shown you the video of Trump saying to go peacefully several times.. Now it’s being counterpointed with conspiracy theories.

No.

Even if I did, you’re obviously to lacking in intelligence to understand. You’ve just proven so by your own post.

What is it you’re hoping to show/convince us?

Let’s say you’re correct. Let’s say trump is innocent of all accused of him.

Now what?

Shut the fuck up and quit making up bullshit?

My mistake. I mistook this thread with the political meme thread.

Ok. Please. Tell me what direction I should go to … decipher whatever it is you are trying to convey.

I'd do the physician heal thyself bit but that might give you airs of having some sort of qualification beyond "Arse Extrusion Exemplar".

1. Love him or hate him, Jack Smith's interpretation of the evidence is not necessarily the only one or the most correct one. There are many considerations he might have in making a decision to charge someone with a crime (or not), including, but not limited to whether he can prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, whether if doing so would be cumulative to other charges, aka "piling on," the time and effort it would take to prove such a crime, etc. It is also possible that he may seek a superseding indictment that specifically charges Trump with seditious conspiracy.

2. Even assuming for argument's sake that Jack Smith never was going to charge Trump with seditious conspiracy (or similar) and that it could be agreed that Trump should not be so charged and was in fact innocent of seditious conspiracy, that does not mean that what happened was not an insurrection. It just means that Trump would not be legally guilty of starting one. Again, the fact that multiple people have been found guilty of seditious conspiracy should put to rest the notion of J6 being anything less than an insurrection.

Over zealous prosecutors change people with all kinds of crazy shit that most rational people would say that those changes are excessive. That doesn’t make it true.

Ok Donald Trump Jr Jr, settle down

You're being disingenuous as usual - while Trump did say "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." at a rally speech before Y'all Qaeda stormed the Capitol, he also said this in the same speech:

And this:

And this:

He also said he'd join the people in marching down to the Capitol but he never did, mostly because he's a bitch

So you're not exactly being fully honest here, are you sport

On the possible existence of overzealous prosecutors, we agree. I think, for example, there might exist a prosecutor who might try to charge Joe Biden in connection with these documents without compelling proof that he retained the documents knowing that he was not supposed to possess them. As much grief as the actual special prosecutor got in this case for saying that it would be difficult if not impossible to obtain a conviction because of how Biden would present, it's nevertheless true. An ethical prosecutor would never charge Biden under these circumstances (and would not need 300+ pages to explain why). An overzealous prosecutor might say "Let's charge him at 82 (or 86 if he wins a second term and serves it out) and see what a jury might do.

So far, however, there's no evidence that Jack Smith is an overzealous prosecutor. Every one of his charges seems to be supported by facts in the public domain.

In any case, when multiple juries have found that people were guilty of a seditious conspiracy in connection with January 6 beyond a reasonable doubt, a reasonable person cannot say in good faith that there is no evidence of a seditious conspiracy, i.e. an insurrection.

Or at least, a reasonable person would have to show some evidence that those juries got it wrong.

.final.V2.updated.finalfinal.novdatainclfinal.xlsx