How Bad was Biden while POTUS?

[jusplay4fun]

THE BIG LIE: (to borrow ConfedSS's favorite tactic)
Those of us who said Biden was ALL in for himself and his family at the sake of THIS COUNTRY were called Liars and fascists and racists, while the Democrats said how SHARP Biden is and how well he is doing while President.

Joe Biden was HIDDEN "in his basement" during the 2020 campaign to hide from the scrutiny of Americans in 2020 while Democrats and the Liberal mainstream Media attacked Trump personally with ad hominem attacks. Trump was called a fascist, a racist, anti-Semitic [even though his own daughter converted to Judaism] and a puppet of Putin.

And the mainstream Media went along with this LIE and did not challenge this narrative and never really tried to reveal the Truth. This is the SAME Media who called the Hunter Laptop a LIE and a Russian collusion. Does anyone wonder why the mainstream Media is losing viewership when they cannot be trusted to present the News in a fair and unbiased way?

Age-concealing makeup, reflective tape: Book reveals 'effort to cover' Biden's health decline
Clare Mulroy & Savannah Kuchar USA TODAY

Kamala Harris gaslit by her own campaign team. Makeup before internal aide meetings and fluorescent tape to guide an aging Joe Biden. Donald Trump’s 180 from an early-voting skeptic to an early-voting evangelist. A tearful, pre-assassination premonition from Trump’s chief of staff.

These are among the revelations from “Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House,” where journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes uncover never-before-seen details and strategies that shaped the 2024 presidential election. USA TODAY spoke with the authors about the most surprising takeaways and reactions since the book was published April 1.

Perhaps the most revelatory insight from “Fight” is the lead-up and aftermath to Harris’ succession as the Democratic nominee. Nancy Pelosi’s involvement was paramount for the switch, with the authors telling USA TODAY it felt “Shakespearean,” like a “knifing,” or “a real Brutus moment.” Allen and Parnes outline the chaos that followed Biden stepping down, including Barack Obama scrambling to set up an open convention to “circumvent” Harris and Biden insisting there be “no daylight” between them, even as the White House staff gave the go-ahead to push for her victory. While Harris felt loyalty to Biden, he did not feel the same to her, the authors say.

“I think a lot of people who will read this book will be surprised and, on the left, be saddened at the degree to which Joe Biden put himself above the interests of his party and ultimately … from the Democratic point of view, the interests of the country,” Allen says.

(...)
Parnes: They felt like he had had a successful first term. I think he really wanted to run again. We detail in the book that Mike Donilon, one of his closest advisers, says, “Look, it's hard to step away from the house and the plane and the chopper.” I think this was a guy who wanted to run for president his entire political career, just about, finally gets it and has difficulty letting go of it.

(...)
Some of America perceives it to be a cover-up. Is that what happened?

Allen: There was definitely an effort to cover for him. I think the reason that we don't use the term “cover-up” is simply because it connotes a criminal conspiracy. I don't think we have evidence of crimes that were committed.

The one unanswered question that the Democratic party refused to reckon with is, how is it possible that he can get out of the race effectively because he is no longer capable of running for president, and yet he remains in office? The idea that he no longer had the capacity to be a candidate, but somehow had the capacity to be president, I think is irreconcilable for a lot of people.

And I will give Nancy Pelosi credit for helping ease/push Biden aside, when NO ONE in the Democrat Party was willing to say what I noticed in 2020: Biden had slipped and SHOULD not RUN again in 2024 and should step aside. I think and will say again that he was NOT FIT for the OFFICE of the POTUS in 2020; he hid in his basement during the 2020 campaign.

Whose counsel led to Biden making the historic move to step out of the race? Was it Obama or Pelosi?

Parnes: Both, but more so Pelosi.

She goes on “Morning Joe” and says, famously, he has a decision to make … and the reaction inside the campaign in that moment was like, “F you Nancy.” They were all so upset. And I think that was the moment that really changed it all. Of course, she's working the phones privately and hearing from colleagues, but to go out there and take such a stand. She felt like she needed to do it on the show that he watches every morning. I mean, it was a real knifing.

Allen: That's Shakespearean. The chapter title is “Et tu, Nancy?”

and what about President Trump in this book?

You report that Wiles confided in tears that she was worried about an assassination attempt weeks before Butler, Pennsylvania. If she had that premonition, why do you think more precautions weren't taken?

Allen: A lot of mistakes were made in Butler, and as a nation, we narrowly escaped the tragedy of a major nominee for president and former president being killed. And that's no small thing. If anything, it's been understated in the public discussion.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2025/04/10/fight-book-biden-trump-harris-election-secrets/83009197007/

[jusplay4fun]

And do we NEED more Proof? There are at least FOUR books planned or already published to show How Bad was Biden while President.

We were right: New books expose truth about Biden's failing health. I'm furious. | Opinion

Only now, a year too late, are Democratic insiders and journalists finally telling Americans the truth about Joe Biden's failing health while he was president.

For months in early 2024, conservatives like myself tried to sound the alarm on President Joe Biden's declining physical and mental health. It was obvious that he was unwell.

Yet, Democrats and much of the legacy news media ignored that reality and even attacked those of us who were willing to speak the truth. They claimed we were fabricating tales and spreading baseless conspiracy theories.

Now, the narrative has changed dramatically. Journalists are publishing books and news articles detailing not only Biden's poor health but also an orchestrated cover-up inside the White House. According to one of the books, even one of Biden's closest former aides now admits that the commander in chief was "out of it" last year as he attempted to run for reelection.

This is one of the biggest scandals of my adult life. Now we know that Biden's inner circle deliberately misled the American people in an election year about the incumbent president's ability to serve a second term.

We also know that journalists were far too passive, at best, in reporting revelations that Americans needed to know before the election.

'Biden might die in office'
Politico reported last week that at least four books will be published in the next few weeks that provide new details about Biden's failing health and the conspiracy to cover it up.

One of those books, "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House,” by NBC News' Jonathan Allen and The Hill's Amie Parnes, includes incredible details about Biden's poor health while he was still in office.

The authors report that Democratic leaders were worried that Biden could not win another election and had “hush-hush talks” discussing his potential withdrawal from the race as early as 2023.

Biden did withdraw, but not until July 2024, after his disastrous debate against Donald Trump.

The most damning part of "Fight" is the revelation that Vice President Kamala Harris' aides were so concerned about the president's health that they "strategized around the possibility that Biden might die in office."

BOOK #2

Biden aides 'believed what they wanted to believe'
In “Uncharted: How Trump Beat Biden, Harris, and the Odds in the Wildest Campaign in History," author Chris Whipple details Biden's serious mental and physical decline.

“I have fresh reporting on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis of Biden’s final days, and obviously his decline is a major part of the story," Whipple told Politico.

After extensive reporting, Whipple, a former "60 Minutes" producer, came to the conclusion that Democrats were in deep denial about Biden's condition: “I happen to think that to call it a ‘cover-up’ is simplistic. I think it was stranger and way more troubling than that. Biden’s inner circle, his closest advisers, many of them were in a fog of delusion and denial. They believed what they wanted to believe.”

Ron Klain, a longtime aide to Biden and his former White House chief of staff, helped the president prepare for his fateful debate with Trump last year. Klain told Whipple that Biden “didn’t know what Trump had been saying and couldn’t grasp what the back and forth was.”

Klain also described how Biden “didn’t really understand what his argument was on inflation” and “had nothing to say about a second term other than finish the job.”

Americans deserved better
Biden didn't just run for reelection, quit and pass the torch to Harris. He was the sitting president, who was in serious decline and was surrounded by people who knew it but stayed silent.

A Washington Post review of "Fight" notes, "So much fresh material, so many bruised egos, so many scores to settle. ... Every one of them saw the wreck coming, of course, in the instant the train lurched out of the station, but no one would listen. Now, at long last, they can tell it all."

But Americans deserved to be told the truth at least a year ago, not months after the 2024 election. The fact that they weren't is a scandal not only for Democrats but much of the legacy media as well.

Democratic insiders knew that concerns about the president's ability to continue serving were serious. Journalists who covered the president had ample evidence to suggest those concerns were valid.

Only now, a year too late, are they finally telling us the truth.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/04/06/books-biden-health-fight-uncharted/82791100007/

Book #3

Hutchinson Heinemann are set to publish a book on President Joe Biden’s “decline” from journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson.

The book, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, It’s Cover-Up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again by political journalists Tapper and Thompson, is described as “an explosive account of one of the most hubristic mistakes in American political history”. It covers Biden’s decision to run for re-election despite mounting evidence of his decline. (...)

Tapper is the chief Washington correspondent for CNN, an Emmy Award-winning TV journalist and bestselling novelist. Thompson is a national political correspondent for Axios and a CNN contributor.

The pair wrote: “Biden, his family and his team let their self-interest and fear of another Trump term justify trying to put an at times addled old man in the Oval Office for four more years. What was the extent of it? Was it a cover-up? Was it a conspiracy? We will let the facts speak for themselves.”

Original Sin will be published on Tuesday, 20th May, matching the US publication date.

Borchers said: “Original Sin is more than just a thrillingly readable account of the Democrats’ disastrous 2024 election campaign. It also raises profound questions about groupthink, cognitive dissonance and political leadership that have powerful implications for the future of America and the world.”

https://www.thebookseller.com/rights/hutchinson-heinemann-to-publish-account-of-president-joe-bidens-decline

Yes, Trump is causing LOTS of disruptions in America and world. Sometimes we need a "Shake up" of the status quo. Do I agree with all the cuts and tariffs and tactics? NO.

BUT I do KNOW ONE THING: we as a nation are much better off than having Joe Biden as President in 2025.

And I doubt Kamala would do much better than anything that Old Joe would have done. She would have maintained the Democrat status quo of SPENDING and SPENDING MORE, with all the waste and fraud and abuse of Government funds AND tax payer money AND MONEY that the Federal Government has TO BORROW.

One may doubt and even dislike President Trump. One may not like his policies and actions. I, for one, find Trump a bombastic egotist, and find his personality very annoying. (I will say that he is less so in term #2 vs his first term, for MANY reasons.) BUT I think there is little doubt that President Trump loves his Country and is TRYING to do what (he thinks) is best for this country and especially for the Middle Class and for most workers. THAT is THE MAIN REASON why he got elected, despite all the LIES and LAWSUITS and FAKE charges against him.

And YES, I do not like ALL of Trump's actions and policies and his hyperbole. BUT at this point I support MOST of what he is doing.

[jimboston]

Only ONE American President ever failed to admit defeat and concede. Trump.

Even Nixon, when he lost to Kennedy conceded. Many people around him were telling him to “fight it in court”… there were people claiming that “fraud and abuse” in Chicago was what turned the election. Nixon resisted and purportedly told them he would concede because to do otherwise might “tear this country apart”. He would rather lose than do that.

Now Trump is flirting with the idea of trying to run for a 3rd Term… or trying to somehow “game” the system so he can continue being President. He jokes about it… one direct quote…

"People are asking me to run," he (Trump) said. "There's a whole story about running for a third term. I don't know. I never looked into it. They do say there's a way you can do it. But I don't know about that. But I have not looked into it."

It’s not a joke, it’s not funny, it’s dangerous.

A true President, who CARED about this country, would unequivocally state that a 3rd Term is NOT happening. Would tell supporters to focus on this Term and look for someone to be a successor. He wouldn’t joke about it, or have people trying to find a way to do an end-run around the Constitution.

I agree with Republican Party principles more than Democrats. That said, I am a “Never Trumper”… NOT because I have “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, NOT because I think he’s corrupt and the Dems aren’t (I think they are both corrupt).

I think Trump is dangerous because he is and has broken bedrock NORMS that underly the foundation of our Laws and Constitution. I don’t care how well laws are written… there are still Societal Norms that support everything. When those norms are broken and abused the Laws can become meaningless. His unwillingness to concede in 2020, his flirting with a 3rd Term, his evisceration of standard and Norms at the Justice Department. These are dangerous.

What he has been doing at the Justice Department is the most dangerous thing he’s done. The Education Dept. is too big anyway IMHO… and it can get reconstructed or parts we want can. Loss of funding to science and tech will set us back, but we can recover. All the DOGE cuts will cause lots of problems for some… but you can argue about various cuts and things can be rebuilt. ICE will deport individuals and people will feel pain but you can argue about that too. There’s more… but the problem with the Justice Department (JD) is more serious. Because if the JD is broken… it’s harder to fix. You can’t take them to court… they are the Court. (Not talking about the Supreme Court… you have to go through lower courts first and that’s the JD.

Tell me you think these are OK…
*Tossing out all convictions for people involved in January 6th! Yeah… I can believe JD went too far with prosecuting some (maybe many) protesters who were not overtly violent. We can argue or debate some cases. People though who were involved in directly attacking Police though? People involved in organizing the violent assault on the Capital? The carte blanche issuing of pardons was galling to me.
*Dropping charges for Eric Adams… in a quid-pro-quo deal to get him to use his power to support ICE?

These are just the two things that I find most worrying. Two examples of how he’s willing to use his power even if it’s clearly wrong.

People who find these two actions are OK… I can’t debate you… you’ve drank too much Kool Aid.

[jusplay4fun]

I scanned your previous post, JimB. You are wrong; I have not drunk for the Trump Kool-Aid Chalice.

I know Trump has many faults, more than most politicians, PERHAPS. Of course he was sleazy in getting RICH and to or near the top of that Heap. (And YES, I know that he is not or ever has been the RICHEST Man in the World; that is not the issue here.) And of course, he used power and money and influence for his personal gain, monetarily and otherwise.

BUT unlike Biden, Trump gets things done and unlike the CURRENT Democratic Party, he is trying to help the average person. He is trying to bring back border security and safety on the streets and, most importantly, American jobs. He has and will make mistakes, but his overall goals I can support, despite a hit to my stocks and despite some DOGE CUTS that he has made and despite some bad environmental decisions.

And he understands common sense Science (if not more complex medical Science or Environmental Science):
That in Biology, there are males and females, and the rest, IF truly ANY, is an aberration. And we cannot have OPEN BORDERS that basically allows in ANYONE and EVERYONE.

I certainly AIN'T buying what the Dems are selling: Corruption, excessive spending, BAD leftist views and policies, and a dearth of good ideas. Biden tried to sell ALL that, as a candidate, as was TOO Feeble to LET go of the Power and PRESTIGE.

You want someone that Drank the KOOL-AID? Biden DID, from the Cup of Power and the Cup of Corruption and from the Cup of Bad Ideas. Study History. It is FULL of old men who hang on to POWER too long and DO EVIL. Biden is not as bad as most of the Roman Emperors and many Kings, but his behavior certainly draws comparisons to old feeble men in power TOO LONG. THAT is the point of this thread. Your denigration of Trump does not detract from those facts, JimB.

[jimboston]

[jimboston]

You ignored my specific points.

[Pack Rat]

Thanks for playing the MAGA game Jim!

Debating the moron at his level...you will always lose.

[jusplay4fun]

You ignored my specific points.

As you did mine. At least TWICE now. Call it even (although it is likely you do so more often, JimB).

And you are not on point. This thread is about Biden; I told you that I much prefer Trump to Biden for SO many reasons. I guess you chose to ignore that, too.

[jimboston]

Thanks for playing the MAGA game Jim!

Debating the moron at his level...you will always lose.

I’m not debating… he hasn’t addressed the 3 main actions that (i feel) disqualify Trump.
I’m not going to engage with someone who can’t at least acknowledge these 3 actions/

[jimboston]

You ignored my specific points.

As you did mine.

You have no points… you just ramble.

Explain to me why you feel it’s OK that Trump has refused to acknowledge he lost in 2020.

NO OTHER PRESIDENT IN THE USA HAS EVER FAILED TO ADMIT DEFET AND CONCEDE THE ELECTION.

This violation of historic norms is so dangerous that it alone makes a person unworthy to be President in my opinion.

Please provide a counter argument.

[jusplay4fun]

Only ONE American President ever failed to admit defeat and concede. Trump.

Even Nixon, when he lost to Kennedy conceded. Many people around him were telling him to “fight it in court”… there were people claiming that “fraud and abuse” in Chicago was what turned the election. Nixon resisted and purportedly told them he would concede because to do otherwise might “tear this country apart”. He would rather lose than do that.

Now Trump is flirting with the idea of trying to run for a 3rd Term… or trying to somehow “game” the system so he can continue being President. He jokes about it… one direct quote…

"People are asking me to run," he (Trump) said. "There's a whole story about running for a third term. I don't know. I never looked into it. They do say there's a way you can do it. But I don't know about that. But I have not looked into it."

It’s not a joke, it’s not funny, it’s dangerous.

A true President, who CARED about this country, would unequivocally state that a 3rd Term is NOT happening. Would tell supporters to focus on this Term and look for someone to be a successor. He wouldn’t joke about it, or have people trying to find a way to do an end-run around the Constitution.

Did you hear Trump's actual words? Look them, NOT what someone said that Trump said. The Constitution prevents it. NOT an issue. What if it is a joke? You can't take a joke, JimB? That is YOUR excuse when I catch you in a lie or when I catch making a false prediction. To me, it is NOT an issue. It will be if he INDEED does try, but since it is against the Constitution (22nd Amendment to be specific), it is simple not a legitimate point, and thus is MOOT at best.

I agree with Republican Party principles more than Democrats. That said, I am a “Never Trumper”… NOT because I have “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, NOT because I think he’s corrupt and the Dems aren’t (I think they are both corrupt).

I think Trump is dangerous because he is and has broken bedrock NORMS that underly the foundation of our Laws and Constitution. I don’t care how well laws are written… there are still Societal Norms that support everything. When those norms are broken and abused the Laws can become meaningless. His unwillingness to concede in 2020, his flirting with a 3rd Term, his evisceration of standard and Norms at the Justice Department. These are dangerous.

What he has been doing at the Justice Department is the most dangerous thing he’s done. The Education Dept. is too big anyway IMHO… and it can get reconstructed or parts we want can. Loss of funding to science and tech will set us back, but we can recover. All the DOGE cuts will cause lots of problems for some… but you can argue about various cuts and things can be rebuilt. ICE will deport individuals and people will feel pain but you can argue about that too. There’s more… but the problem with the Justice Department (JD) is more serious. Because if the JD is broken… it’s harder to fix. You can’t take them to court… they are the Court. (Not talking about the Supreme Court… you have to go through lower courts first and that’s the JD.

THIS is SIMPLY WRONG, JimB. For one, the Justice Department (JD) is in the Executive Branch and therefore is NOT the Court, or the Judicial Branch. The Federal Courts have THREE LEVELS and are part of the Judicial Branch. SCOTUS is the highest court, JIM. Please study the US Constitution (Article III) before making ridiculous and FALSE claims, JimB.

At first I thought when you said "JD" you were referring the Vice President, JD Vance. Please try to be more lucid, to avoid clouding the issues

further, you said:

His unwillingness to concede in 2020, his flirting with a 3rd Term, his evisceration of standard and Norms at the Justice Department.

I count THREE. Am I supposed to refute ALL THREE and NOT TWO? this is incoherent, confusing, and ALMOST not worthy of a response. BUT I will give you a chance to clarify this one, two or three points, JimB.

you have to go through lower courts first and that’s the JD.

False. I already addressed that issue. SO this IS NOT an issue. Scratch.

Tell me you think these are OK…
*Tossing out all convictions for people involved in January 6th! Yeah… I can believe JD went too far with prosecuting some (maybe many) protesters who were not overtly violent. We can argue or debate some cases. People though who were involved in directly attacking Police though? People involved in organizing the violent assault on the Capital? The carte blanche issuing of pardons was galling to me.

How is this different from Joe Biden's pardon of Hunter and the rest of the Biden family? For one, Trump said in the Campaign, before he was elected, that he was likely to do so. So it is NOT a lie and most people who voted for Trump KNEW this before he was elected. Trump has and is honoring MOST of what he PROMISED he would DO, or at least START doing something about them. (And yes, when Trump bragged he would end this conflict in ONE day I KNEW it was hyperbole.) AND BIDEN, the actual topic here in THIS thread? He LIED about pardoning son. PERIOD.

And YES, I believe that Trump should NOT have pardoned ALL for the Jan. 6 riots. Many had already served their time, as I recall. I do not want to argue EVERY single one of them, unless you give me a specific name. I will not bother researching that issue. You raised it, NOT me.

*Dropping charges for Eric Adams… in a quid-pro-quo deal to get him to use his power to support ICE?

speculation, at best. Perhaps it is. SO, what is the point? That the sancitimonious Democrats would NEVER do such a thing? REALLY?? THAT is drinking the KOOL Aid, JimB. I have not heard enough evidence to determine what happened in the case agains Mayor Eric Adams to know what to think, tbh. That investigation started under Biden's DOJ or DoJ, (NOT DJ, is the usual ACRONYM, Jim), or whoever was in CHARGE. AND based on all that I reported IN THIS thread ALREADY, it is UNCLEAR who was in charge and how much Biden actually knew or did.

You have to offer more than mere speculation to make it worth a debate, JimB. There is NO THERE, THERE.

These are just the two things that I find most worrying. Two examples of how he’s willing to use his power even if it’s clearly wrong.

Two things? this is getting very MUDDY. What are the TWO things that you want me to debate here? And, honestly, I have refuted nearly your entire post already, and I did not count, because you are now sounding like ConfedSS, stream of consciousness thinking, BUT with punctuation.

The "stream of consciousness" refers to a continuous flow of thoughts, feelings, and sensations in the mind. It's a metaphor for how our minds process information and experiences, rather than a rigid, logical chain of thought

People who find these two actions are OK… I can’t debate you… you’ve drank too much Kool Aid.

And what two SPECIFIC actions are we TRYING to debate? Because your debating technique and skills are (how can I put this?) rather incoherent; also, your points of contention are very nebulous, at best.

I think I did cover ALL these issues. This post is OVER and DONE, as far as I am concerned, without additional clarity from you.

Now can we get to the MAIN POINT HERE of this thread? How YOUR GUY Biden was so feeble, incompetent, and not mentally able to meet the demands of a Campaign or to be President in more ways than JUST a name and face? The Debate between Biden and Trump proved that very point CLEARLY to ALL doubter, that Biden is too old, too feeble, and too incompetent, even if he ANSWERED EVERY Question, as per Dr. Jill Biden.

[jusplay4fun]

You ignored my specific points.

As you did mine.

You have no points… you just ramble.

Explain to me why you feel it’s OK that Trump has refused to acknowledge he lost in 2020.

NO OTHER PRESIDENT IN THE USA HAS EVER FAILED TO ADMIT DEFET AND CONCEDE THE ELECTION.

This violation of historic norms is so dangerous that it alone makes a person unworthy to be President in my opinion.

Please provide a counter argument.

This is ALL simply a red herring. THERE is NOTHING OF ANY SUBSTANCE here. It is barely worth my time and effort to REFUTE this, but I can, and I will with little effort.

Despite Trump's repeated statements that he did NOT lose the 2020 Election, he did and everyone ACKNOWLEDGED it. Did Trump go Washington DC and parade around as if he were STILL POTUS? Did he sign FAKE Executive Orders? Did he try to get a ride on Air Force One OR TRY to FORCE his way into the White House, claiming he was STILL PRESIDENT?

SIMPLE answer: NO. NO SUCH actions.

Perhaps Trump said things will campaigning that IRRITATED you, BUT NO actions, after January 6, 2021, were taken.

(AND THAT I said back then that the entire January 6 matter was a HUGE mistake to do what Trump said and did on that date.)

There is NO DEBATE here. You may NOT LIKE his style (AND I DO NOT it, either) BUT there NO POINT here, other than Trump's EGO which will not allow him to admit that he lost.

Trump may not have PUBLICLY admitted defet (or defeat, either), but he did acknowledge it by his actions since January 2021. He left DC after the Inauguration of Biden.

What is clear to me, JimB, is that you do not like Trump and that you will find ANY and TRY TO USE ANY excuse to denigrate him. All you offer is that you do not like his attitude and his pronouncements that reflect that attitude. I am not a fan of those either. SO BE IT/Them.

Trump is STILL PRESIDENT, was duly elected, and was certified; and the DEMOCRATS can do little more than CRY that they LOST. It seems to me that these are your tears, JimB.

[jimboston]

OK. So I get it. You see no danger in a President ignoring long standing norms of conceding the election.

You also see no danger in a president toying around with the idea of trying to circumvent the Constitution and getting into the White House for a 3rd term.

OK. Now I know where you stand.

Oh… I did use his exact quote.

You misunderstand the power of the Justice Department. Issue do have to go through the lower courts. The judges are part of the Judicial Branch… but the Prosecutors are part of the Executive Branch. The Justice Department (JD) can choose to aggressively pursue specific cases… or just drop cases. This is a LOT of power. As evidenced by Trump’s Quid-Pro-Quo deal with NYC Mayor, Eric Adams.

[jusplay4fun]

Thanks for playing the MAGA game Jim!

Debating the moron at his level...you will always lose.

I’m not debating… he hasn’t addressed the 3 main actions that (i feel) disqualify Trump.
I’m not going to engage with someone who can’t at least acknowledge these 3 actions/

What THREE actions? I cannot debate if I cannot determine what you want me to discuss or debate. AND this is MY SECOND post addressing your unclear nature of what you are CONTENDING. Be lucid, coherent, and logical, JimB. I see none from you on these

3 main actions that (i feel) disqualify Trump

actions? do you mean Trump's attitude? again, unclear, and VERY.

[jusplay4fun]

OK. So I get it. You see no danger in a President ignoring long standing norms of conceding the election.

You also see no danger in a president toying around with the idea of trying to circumvent the Constitution and getting into the White House for a 3rd term.

OK. Now I know where you stand.

Oh… I did use his exact quote.

You misunderstand the power of the Justice Department. Issue do have to go through the lower courts. The judges are part of the Judicial Branch… but the Prosecutors are part of the Executive Branch. The Justice Department (JD) can choose to aggressively pursue specific cases… or just drop cases. This is a LOT of power. As evidenced by Trump’s Quid-Pro-Quo deal with NYC Mayor, Eric Adams.

Yes, I think I did notice that you did post much of the Trump quote, but I was on to other matters in that post by then. If I failed to acknowledge such, I apologize now. I did not check to see if your quote is verbatim, but I do not think it necessary. You captured its essence, as I recall. AND the essence is that Trump said he is not really considering running for a third term. THAT is END Of story there, as far as I (and many others) are concerned. You are trying to TURN that quote, a non-issue, into a HUGE mountain, which it IS NOT. Misplaced energy there, JimB.

I said MUCH of that, JimB, about DoJ, AND I had to correct you (see below, and my previous Posts). And yes, prosecutors, such as District Attornys (DAs) and in VA Commonwealth Attorneys, have LOTS of power, to decide which cases to prosecute. I am not a lawyer, but I did serve ON TWO juries, one Grand Jury and one in an actual case. I did not know more than the lawyers or judge or any Judge, AND never made such a statement. But I knew more than any of my other co-Jury members, and guess what? I got elected Jury Foreman.

And you failed to ACKNOWLEGE your mistake, JimB, about the Department of Justice is the Courts:

the problem with the Justice Department (JD) is more serious. Because if the JD is broken… it’s harder to fix. You can’t take them to court… they are the Court.

The DoJ is NOT the Courts. And I pointed out your mistake, quoted you Article III of the US Constitution, and you failed to admit that I was RIGHT, that the Department of Justice (DoJ) IS NOT part of the COURTS. PERIOD. This is like, to me, Trump failing to acknowledge that he lost the election in 2020. You are Trump are in the SAME BOAT on that JimB.

Now it is TRUE that DoJ (not DJ) prosecutors take their CASES, once reasonably established, to the COURTS for a Trial and hearing before the JUDGE in that Court, and that there are Lawyers (such as DoJ prosecutors and lawyers for the defendants) IN COURT, BUT they are NOT the Court. Get Straight on THAT one point, JimB, and ADMIT that you were WRONG, for ONCE, please.

And I challenge YOU to show me evidence of an actual quid-pro quo deal between Eric Adams in the Trump DoJ/DOJ. As I already said, and AGAIN, you fail to ACKNOWLEDGE, such a deal is mere speculation, based on what I read when the charges were dropped against Adams. Does such a deal make sense? YES. Was there an actual deal? NO. I have NOT read anything to assure me that such a deal did take place. After the charges were dropped, that whole matter became something that no longer was important to me to stay "on my radar." I got enough to concern myself with, in RL, and on correcting people on their knowledge (or lack thereof) of the US Constitution, the Document, and NOT the Ship in Boston Harbor.

[jimboston]

And I challenge YOU to show me evidence of an actual quid-pro quo deal between Eric Adams in the Trump DoJ/DOJ.

It’s impossible to debate blind idiots.

I’m done with you.

[Pack Rat]

And I challenge YOU to show me evidence of an actual quid-pro quo deal between Eric Adams in the Trump DoJ/DOJ.

It’s impossible to debate blind idiots.

I’m done with you.

You just can't debate or discuss issues with a MAGA moron.

show

[jusplay4fun]

And I challenge YOU to show me evidence of an actual quid-pro quo deal between Eric Adams in the Trump DoJ/DOJ.

It’s impossible to debate blind idiots.

I’m done with you.

WRONG. Your life is so EMPTY, JimB, so you are NOT done with me. I am one of the few here and in RL that actually pays you ANY attention.

AND JimB cannot DEBATE Because:

1) You CANNOT support your allegation about Eric Adams with any FACTS. I win that point.

2) You cannot admit that you erred about DoJ and the Courts. Another loss for JimB.

3) Blind? NO. I do not use voice to type, so NO WAY.

4) Idiot? NO, I prove that with ALL my posts showing your silliness and that you cannot debate and cannot refute me.

5) Your pee-brained chorus is USELESS, except to parrot silliness.

6) I gave two very detailed, point-by-point responses, and THIS is ALL JimB can do to TRY to answer, much less refute, my analysis? What a SAD and pathetic response. He asked me to answer 2 or 3 points and he cannot even TELL me what those actual 2 or 3 points are. I said that they are either allegations or rumors with NO factual basis, OR SIMPLY a difference of opinions. JimB tried, but failed again.

7) JimB, you have NO REAL response so you lower yourself to use another ad hominem attack. That is what LOSERS do. PERIOD.

8 ) You do not want to debate me anymore since you lost this one SO DECISIVELY.

9) See the evidence for ALL this in this one thread.

10) BOTTOM LINE: JimB lost, clearly, decisively, and cogently.

[jusplay4fun]

And I challenge YOU to show me evidence of an actual quid-pro quo deal between Eric Adams in the Trump DoJ/DOJ.

It’s impossible to debate blind idiots.

I’m done with you.

You just can't debate or discuss issues with a MAGA moron[/i][/b].

[b][i][spoiler]Just ignore him....this will drive him crazy.

LoL..... another silly post by the pee-brained parrot. My Life is FULL of events and people and worthwhile activities and grandchildren. I do not need more such thinking as do my young grandchildren from those who are adults.

If I do not hear from JimB or pee rat, there is NOTHING lost for me, except more blather and drivel. When JimB went on a recent LONG hiatus, I think I only asked ONCE where he is. JimB basically admitted that his return was due to his boredom with his RL.

AND notice that the only contribution from pee rat was an attempt to be a Parrot on JimB's LEFT shoulder. SAD.

[jimboston]

It’s impossible to debate blind idiots.

3) Blind? NO. I do not use voice to type, so NO WAY.

[jusplay4fun]

It’s impossible to debate blind idiots.

3) Blind? NO. I do not use voice to type, so NO WAY.

What a weak and impotent response. PATHETIC.

And here is the KEY POINT, that JimB does not even acknowledge: His posts in this thread are ALL a red herring. As I have said already, JimB does not even address the main point of this thread, that HIS GUY, Joe Biden, was an incompetent old feeble fool who was a TOTAL Failure as President. He avoids discussion of that and instead tries to his usual and hackneyed tactic of insulting others.

I think JimB is the Man in the Mirror:

[Dukasaur]

A man who had good intentions but went senile.

Versus a career con-man whose every waking moment is consumed by plans for grifting and ripping people off.

I guess we differ in what's the worse poison.

[jusplay4fun]

A man who had good intentions but went senile.

Versus a career con-man whose every waking moment is consumed by plans for grifting and ripping people off.

I guess we differ in what's the worse poison.

Good intentions? Like getting bribery from BOTH the Chinese AND the Ukrainians? Now that Biden went against his good intentions NOT to Pardon his son Hunter, I guess we will not learn soon what other places he sought corruption money and bribes.

Ripping people OFF? an over-simplification. I will agree that there are LOTS of Trump's past actions that made me NOT vote for him in the 2016 Primary in VA. He still carries that "baggage" of bad deeds and questionable morality. BUT I do not see Biden as having better morals, tbf.

Worse poison? 51/49 or 52/48 is how I see that. What I vote on is POLICIES and not personalities or morality. Ethics are important to me, but if that were my SOLE criteria, I would almost NEVER vote for "slimy" politicians, and most politicians are slimy. EXCEPT, of course, my Congressman. LoL...!

[Dukasaur]

Like getting bribery from BOTH the Chinese AND the Ukrainians?

If this was true, there would have been an impeachment.

Just pure bullshit.

[jusplay4fun]

Like getting bribery from BOTH the Chinese AND the Ukrainians?

If this was true, there would have been an impeachment.

Just pure bullshit.

FALSE. The pardons stopped any real investigation. The House Republicans did not muster an advantage big enough to overcome Democrat stall tactics and the Liberal Media did not investigate no where near what the did against Trump.

If an impeachment report falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

House Republicans might well be asking themselves this question. On Aug. 19, the House Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees released the final report of their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden—accusing him, albeit on unclear grounds, of “abus[ing] his office and … defraud[ing] the United States.” Yet more than a month later, the report has essentially vanished from the political scene. The chamber has made no motion toward actually setting a vote to impeach the president. When the House returned from recess on Sept. 9, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson—hands full with trying to keep the government open—didn’t seem to have impeachment on his to-do list.

Even the biggest GOP proponents of holding a vote have largely cooled on the issue. On the Democratic side of the aisle, meanwhile, some members were eager for Republicans to devote attention to the issue, believing that doing so would remind voters of the GOP’s extremism, but their energy appears to have faded as well. All in all, Republicans seem somewhat uncertain about precisely what the report has accomplished—especially given Biden’s decreased relevance to the 2024 presidential race after he stepped aside in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris.

Given this anticlimax, it would be easy to write off the report as yet another quixotic mission by an increasingly radical flank of the House Republican conference. But this story is worth a closer look for what it says about the uses and limitations of impeachment as a political tool and how these dynamics play out—and might play out in the future—within the House as an institution. Does this (along with the nearly party-line impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in February) represent the dawn of a new era of retaliatory impeachments, a tit-for-tat for the two Democratic-led impeachments of Donald Trump? Or is it instead a demonstration that politicized impeachments are harder than expected to get off the ground? Even if the Biden report vanishes without much of a political trace, it could still have legal and institutional effects on future impeachments and investigations.

Substantively, it’s not really clear what to take away from the report, which accuses Biden of “impeachable conduct” but includes precious few specifics about what the president is personally alleged to have done. The document focuses chiefly on less-than-savory business deals by Biden’s son Hunter and brother James, but with little evidence that the president personally knew of or benefited from these entanglements. Republican investigators also return to a flimsy allegation circulated by Trump himself in the summer of 2019, which itself helped precipitate the first Trump impeachment when the then-president pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to back up the claim. Trump insisted baselessly that Biden—as vice president—leaned on the Ukrainian government to drop an investigation into the gas company Burisma, on whose board Hunter Biden sat. In addition to this dubious story, the report also contains a lengthy section objecting to what it characterizes as the Biden administration’s “hostility towards and unwillingness to cooperate with the House’s impeachment inquiry and Congress’s legislative oversight.”

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-happened-to-the-biden-impeachment

The Pardon of Hunter precludes a more intense investigation to continue, now that Biden does not have the cover of his Presidency. And no JURY, in the Senate, or in a Court, would Biden convict Biden as an “Elderly Man with a Poor Memory.”

In Hur’s view, “it would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-impossible-role-of-robert-hur

I think it is NOW well-documented that Biden has a bad memory, THEN and NOW. I personally saw signs of this as early as 2019.

The Hunter Biden laptop had ALL kinds of evidence that point to, at best, shady deals by Biden, both Hunter and Old Joe. A more vigorous investigation of that by the Liberal Media would have potentially denied Biden much support for his re-election bid as early as 2023. No one really held Biden accountable, given the Liberal Media and some folks in Biden's Intelligence Community (and officials) who tried HARD to discredit that laptop falsely as "Russian Collusion."