EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

[highfigh]

what a douchebag ........

Colostomy bag.

 

[highfigh]

Well, the point raised that you responded to was someone claiming that Chicago did not, in fact, have a lower violent crime rate than 5 states.

That was their segue from blaming crime in Chicago on immigrants.

Which was their segue from blaming crime in Milluwakee on immigrants in Chicago

Which was their segue from blaming Biden for crime

Which (I wasn't here for this part) seems to have been their attempt to attack Biden to get people to forget about Trump's many felonies.

But by all means: Let's talk about Trumps many, many, many crimes.

You really need to read the words- I never wrote that Biden is responsible for crime outside of allowing more border crossings without consequence. Look at all of the cities where immigrants have been sent- crime- as an example, five attacked police officers, then tried to go back to their home countries and were apprehended in AZ.

Are you aware of the increase in gang members coming into the country? Apparently not. Personally, I don't really care who let them in, I want it stopped- it just happens that for the last 3-1/2 years, Biden has been POTUS, to whatever extent he can carry out his duties. If the DNC doesn't even think he can continue, don't try to say "He's fine".

Trump was convicted, buy has he killed anyone? No, but Biden's Secret Service sure made a Corn Flake out of their duties. It's his Secret Service while he's in office, it was Trump's SS when he was in office and it will be the SS of whomever wins the elections in the future. The new director admitted that it was the SS's failure and it could have been avoided, but that would have taken one of your happy moments away.

 

[Trell]

All I can do without going somewhere is talk with people and read about those places- you seem to believe that's all someone needs to know ALL about a place but, go ahead and let your opinions override facts.

You really don't get it, I see, yet again.

I await your 'dumb' rating.

I gave you a funny! Happy now?

Mikado asked a valid question- have you been to Chicago?

Why does it matter whether or not I've been to Chicago to the discussion at hand?

 

[Trell]

You really need to read the words- ...

:snicker: That's rich, coming from you that has such a long history of exactly not doing that. I chalk it to you being unable to do so and not out of laziness.

 

[Trell]

Colostomy bag.

You got some personal experience with a colostomy bag?

 

[Dude#1279435]

Because... you said so?

Still, interesting exercise:

Here is a timeline of notable instances from the past four years where Republican actions have interfered with or blocked Democratic efforts to improve border security:

2020:

• Republican Platform on Immigration: The GOP refused to update their platform on immigration policy, maintaining policies from the Trump administration that included family separation and poor detention conditions rather than pursuing bipartisan reform efforts.

2021:

• Biden Administration’s Initial Proposals: President Biden proposed comprehensive immigration reform on his first day in office, which included bolstering border security and creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. However, this faced immediate opposition from Republicans, who criticized the plan and did not support its passage.

2022:

• Funding Opposition: House Republicans voted against border security funding included in the FY22 and FY23 funding packages. They also opposed a $4.9 billion supplemental request to address border management and security issues in December 2022.

2023:

• Bipartisan Border Security Bill: In February, Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan border security bill that included measures to curb fentanyl trafficking and enhance border security. Despite bipartisan support and a second opportunity to pass the bill in May, it was again blocked by GOP opposition, driven in part by directives from Donald Trump, who aimed to use the issue as a campaign talking point rather than a policy solution.
• MAGA Republican Influence: Trump directed House Republicans to reject the bipartisan border security deal. This continued into December, as Republicans in Congress prioritized partisan rhetoric over the passage of comprehensive border security measures, despite the Biden administration’s efforts to negotiate and implement effective reforms.

2024:

• Continued Blockage: Senate Republicans once again blocked a popular bipartisan border security bill in May, illustrating a pattern of refusing to advance legislation that could improve border management. This has been seen as a strategy to maintain border chaos as a campaign issue rather than seeking practical solutions.

Throughout these years, Democrats have repeatedly accused Republicans of politicizing border security and obstructing meaningful reforms for political gain, rather than addressing the actual challenges at the border.

Here's some more:

2008-2012:

• 2008-2010: During the Obama administration, attempts to pass comprehensive immigration reform were met with resistance from Republicans. Notably, the DREAM Act, which aimed to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented youth, was blocked by a Republican filibuster in the Senate in 2010.
• 2013: The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill with bipartisan support, including measures to increase border security and create a path to citizenship. However, House Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner, refused to bring the bill to a vote, effectively killing the legislation.

2014-2016:

• 2014: Republicans in the House blocked efforts to address the influx of unaccompanied minors at the border, rejecting a $3.7 billion funding request from President Obama to improve border facilities and expedite immigration proceedings.
• 2016: The GOP, aligning with then-candidate Donald Trump’s hardline stance on immigration, continued to oppose comprehensive reform efforts, focusing instead on border wall funding and stricter immigration enforcement.

Your actual request "every turn" actually puts the burden on you (as it's a positive claim to say that the republicans have supported at least some efforts). It would be like you saying "prove every animal isn't a unicorn".

What are some examples under Biden where the GOP has supported a DNC or bipartisan bill on immigration or border security?

Link?

 

[JerryLove]

I wouldn't say it has been at every turn, but neither side wants to play well with the other.

That's a false equivelence. The DNC supports GOP legislation that aligns with DNC priorities and has been continually willing to support compromise bills.

It's literally only the right that has refused to support even policy-aligned bills "to make the other side look bad".

And it's not speculation: the quiet part has been said out-loud. This is literal policy.

 

[JerryLove]

Link?

It's public record. Pick one and I'll link it just to prove the point. Otherwise, just hit google. This isn't obscure in the slightest and your "link?" response looks like a challenge to common knowledge.

 

[JerryLove]

You really need to read the words- I never wrote that Biden is responsible for crime outside of allowing more border crossings without consequence.

You really need to read the words. Where did I claim that you wrote that Biden was responsible for crime outside of allowing more border crossings? Quote me.

But you *did* claim that Biden was responsible for crimes because, you claim, he's allowing border crossings which, you claim cause the crime. You've just re-iterated that here and now. And that's exactly what I said you said.

Look at all of the cities where immigrants have been sent- crime- as an example, five attacked police officers, then tried to go back to their home countries and were apprehended in AZ.

Yes. Let's look at immigrants and crime: https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2024/03/immigrants-are-significantly-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-the-us-born/

The city with the highest percentage of immigrants in the US is Hialeah, Florida. 74% of the population is foreign-born. It has a violent crime rate of 1.35 crimes / 1000 people.

Let's compare that to, say, Montgomery, Alabama where 2.7% of the population is foreign born. It's violent crime rate is 5.6 crimes / 1000 people.

So yea. Let's look at cities and immigration and crime. I don't think you'll like the results.

Are you aware of the increase in gang members coming into the country? Apparently not.

You are aware of natives joining gangs? Apparently not.

Personally, I don't really care who let them in, I want it stopped- it just happens that for the last 3-1/2 years, Biden has been POTUS, to whatever extent he can carry out his duties.

Which he's been doing; though repeatedly blocked by a GOP-controlled congress.

If you'd like to know who let them in, let me point you at some of the people opposing the actions to stop them. Let's start with Donald Trump.

Trump was convicted, buy has he killed anyone?

Yes. To name just a few:

Kevin Greeson, 55
Benjamin Phillips, 50
Ashli Babbitt, 35
USCP Officer Brian Sicknick
Jeffrey Smith, 35

There's also treason, sedition, influence peddling, and a slew of other felonies.

No, but Biden's Secret Service sure made a Corn Flake out of their duties. It's his Secret Service while he's in office, it was Trump's SS when he was in office and it will be the SS of whomever wins the elections in the future. The new director admitted that it was the SS's failure and it could have been avoided, but that would have taken one of your happy moments away.

So it's Trump's fault then that the SS had so many failures of their duties on Jan 6? (I mean it is, but that's because he *caused* Jan 6) (https://cha.house.gov/2024/8/top-takeaways-from-dhs-oig-redacted-report-on-secret-service-january-6-failures#:~:text=Specifically, USSS had issues communicating,with rioters in the building.)

And I suppose Reagan is responsible for Hinkley.

You have a very false view of responsibility.

 

[Mr._Clark]

So, can the Grand Jury still indict him? What then?

In this case the jury did not indict.

In terms of what would have happened if they had indicted, I'm not 100% sure. I'm not a member of the AZ bar and I don't practice criminal law. To be honest, I don't feel like taking the time to dig into this arcane legal issue based on hypothetical facts.

I have no doubt that prosecutors have some discretion to dismiss charges after a grand jury indicts (e.g. if strong exculpatory evidence unexpectedly comes to light after an indictment).

I'm not so sure, however, if dropping charges after an indictment adversely effects a prosecutor's ability to bring charges at a later date. This is guesswork on my part, but I suspect that this might be the case in AZ (i.e. I'm guessing that the prosecutor in the AZ case discouraged an indictment because it would have had some negative impact on his ability to indict in the future).

But, again, I'm guessing.

 

[Dude#1279435]

It's public record. Pick one and I'll link it just to prove the point. Otherwise, just hit google. This isn't obscure in the slightest and your "link?" response looks like a challenge to common knowledge.

Ok don't provide a link.

 

[JerryLove]

Ok don't provide a link.

I offered to provide one of your choosing. You won't be picking one?

 

[JerryLove]

In this case the jury did not indict.

In terms of what would have happened if they had indicted, I'm not 100% sure. I'm not a member of the AZ bar and I don't practice criminal law. To be honest, I don't feel like taking the time to dig into this arcane legal issue based on hypothetical facts.

I have no doubt that prosecutors have some discretion to dismiss charges after a grand jury indicts (e.g. if strong exculpatory evidence unexpectedly comes to light after an indictment).

I'm not so sure, however, if dropping charges after an indictment adversely effects a prosecutor's ability to bring charges at a later date. This is guesswork on my part, but I suspect that this might be the case in AZ (i.e. I'm guessing that the prosecutor in the AZ case discouraged an indictment because it would have had some negative impact on his ability to indict in the future).

But, again, I'm guessing.

There's wide latitude in most jurisdictions for prosecutors to drop cases for most reasons "in the interest of justice" being a good catch all one; though there's judge sign off in many areas after some point.

I'm not aware of any requirement that the dismissal be with prejudice; but I suppose that's a possibility. Or it may simply have been more expedient to get the grand jury to decline rather than to have them press and then go through dropping.

Hell, it might be a political stunt for all I know.

 

[isolar8001]

Trump charged in superseding indictment in election interference case following SCOTUS ruling

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged former President Donald Trump in a superseding indictment in his federal election interference case.

abcnews.go.com

 

[mtrycrafts]

Trump charged in superseding indictment in election interference case following SCOTUS ruling

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged former President Donald Trump in a superseding indictment in his federal election interference case.

abcnews.go.com

With all these indictments, isn't it time for a heart attack or stroke?

 

[isolar8001]

With all these indictments, isn't it time for a heart attack or stroke?

Probably my favorite wish.

 

[davidscott]

With all these indictments, isn't it time for a heart attack or stroke?

I respectfully disagree. If he dies before the election, he will become a martyr for the MAGA movement. But if he loses big, it might just change the future of the GOP and our country. One can only hope.

 

[isolar8001]

I respectfully disagree. If he dies before the election, he will become a martyr for the MAGA movement. But if he loses big, it might just change the future of the GOP and our country. One can only hope.

This is true...the house that Fox built is branching out....the real nightmare will come when someone who isn't a total buffoon takes his place.
When he loses on Nov 5th, hopefully his exposure will too.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I respectfully disagree. If he dies before the election, he will become a martyr for the MAGA movement. But if he loses big, it might just change the future of the GOP and our country. One can only hope.

Yes, that is also a good way to look at it. But, with all that baggage he has, the polls don't seem to reflect a wipeout.
Also, with all the nut jobs installed in the state election process offices in the critical states, one could happen is less than 270 and house elects.