Bidens Ford moment

[wiffleball 4,631]

If you look back on Jerry Ford's tenure, the dude never stood a chance. In order to unite the country and  get past Watergate he really didn't have much choice but to pardon Nixon. But to many many people, even the thought of that was anathema.

 

The moment he did that, he threw away any chance at being elected.

 

Bidens in a very very similar spot. But in many ways, worse. What happened at the Capitol is one of the darkest moments of our history. Add in the fact that Trump is just cartoonishly loathsome and virulently hated by a big chunk of Bidens support base.

 

Dude doesn't stand a chance. The left will hate him for pardoning Trump. The right will hate him for the serious Crackdown that's coming.  The GOP is going to want revenge oh, there's already a GOP lawmaker who plans to file impeachment papers on day one of Bidens presidency.

 

Dudes walking into a bear trap. He's too conservative for the radicals on the left and too socialist for the radicals on the right.

 

I would be damn surprised if he doesn't end up pardoning Trump though.

[posty 2,296]

4 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Dude doesn't stand a chance. The left will hate him for pardoning Trump. The right will hate him for the serious Crackdown that's coming.  The GOP is going to want revenge oh, there's already a GOP lawmaker who plans to file impeachment papers on day one of Bidens presidency.

Going to file this on the moon?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

Pardon him for what? I want you to imagine that being in the most sarcastic, NY accent possible. 

[RLLD 3,455]

Not sure what any pardon might be for.

The only reason I can see for anything the Democrats have done is to attempt to prevent him from running again, because they are afraid of him.

The first impeachment was a complete lie, this one is not much better, more pretending that they know what was in his head because his skin is white.

[jerryskids 5,165]

I was hoping for a Betty Ford moment, where he parties with alcohol and drugs.  

[TheNewGirl 1,018]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Not sure what any pardon might be for.

The only reason I can see for anything the Democrats have done is to attempt to prevent him from running again, because they are afraid of him.

The first impeachment was a complete lie, this one is not much better, more pretending that they know what was in his head because his skin is white.

This. 

The reason behind the second impeachment is to keep him from running again. And I agree, they are scared of him for some reason; maybe he really does have a lot of dirt on some of these people. I mean, all of the Epstein crap, and other stuff he may have been involved in, or known about. 

 

[Herbivore 904]

1 hour ago, TheNewGirl said:

This. 

The reason behind the second impeachment is to keep him from running again. And I agree, they are scared of him for some reason; maybe he really does have a lot of dirt on some of these people. I mean, all of the Epstein crap, and other stuff he may have been involved in, or known about. 

 

our geek righties have an endless stream the "dirt" or "evidence" that is coming, but never comes.  doesn't that get tiring.

[TBayXXXVII 2,105]

1 hour ago, TheNewGirl said:

This. 

The reason behind the second impeachment is to keep him from running again. And I agree, they are scared of him for some reason; maybe he really does have a lot of dirt on some of these people. I mean, all of the Epstein crap, and other stuff he may have been involved in, or known about. 

 

The reason they're scared of him is because they know that had the election process been run as normal, Trump would have won.  If Trump runs in 2024 against Harris, Trump will win.  They know that there's enough people out there who know that Trump will continue to shine light on the scum of DC.  They're scared because their livelihood is in jeopardy.

[joneo 529]

1 hour ago, wiffleball said:

The right will hate him for the serious Crackdown that's coming.  

 

 

 

 

[TheNewGirl 1,018]

11 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

our geek righties have an endless stream the "dirt" or "evidence" that is coming, but never comes.  doesn't that get tiring.

It doesn't necessarily HAVE to come to light. Him just having it might be enough for them to make sure he's gone; canceled, doxxed, whatever you want to call it; along with anyone that is seen as an accomplice. Right now, they've trashed him so much, that people won't believe if he says the sky is blue. 

All of them are dirty. 

 

[Herbivore 904]

4 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

It doesn't necessarily HAVE to come to light. Him just having it might be enough for them to make sure he's gone; canceled, doxxed, whatever you want to call it; along with anyone that is seen as an accomplice. Right now, they've trashed him so much, that people won't believe if he says the sky is blue. 

All of them are dirty. 

 

you are not thinking this out.  it has to come to light to matter at all.  otherwise it is just as i said...our geek club righties hoping for your fantasies to come true.

[RLLD 3,455]

1 hour ago, TheNewGirl said:

This. 

The reason behind the second impeachment is to keep him from running again. And I agree, they are scared of him for some reason; maybe he really does have a lot of dirt on some of these people. I mean, all of the Epstein crap, and other stuff he may have been involved in, or known about. 

 

I doubt he has "dirt" per se.....

I think his existence is a threat.  Here is a guy who could not be bought, intimidated or controlled.  He did as he pleased regardless of the norms of politics that magically makes people who earn less than 200K a year millionaires....

he employed minorities, was ending our military global footprint, making trade deals fair.  Hating him is important to people who need minorities to not see improvement, need the companies that make weapons to send them money, and honor their arrangements with foreign companies and governments.

[porkbutt 860]

he focked with china. it's that simple

[listen2me 23 1,529]

Justin the other day mentioned something I agree with.  The Dems are doing it to exclamation point the history books and reference the evil republicans backing the impeached president.  Long term stuff.

No I do not think they are afraid he would win a reelection.  There are so many that voted for him just 2 months ago that are completely off the bandwagon now.  

The republican party is pretty screwed in my opinion.  Yes without Trump the Dems wont have much energy from people who hate Trump's face and went to the polls just to see him out.  But with Democrats having a stranglehold on social media and MSM they will reference the Capitol stuff over and over.  Shame voters with it just like they did for being white...calling everyone who opposed them a racist.  

The narrative was already controlled by them.  Thr Capitol event just makes it even easier.

Republicans have to win with the seats for a whilw I think.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

Nancy Pelosi withheld aid to the American people to hurt Trump. It’s a fact. She should be run out of town on her broomstick. 

[Fnord 1,119]

Why in the righteous fuk would Biden pardon Trump? Will never happen. And shouldn't. Besides, in all likelihood Trump will attempt to pardon himself before Biden would even have a chance.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

Just now, Fnord said:

Why in the righteous fuk would Biden pardon Trump? Will never happen. And shouldn't. Besides, in all likelihood Trump will attempt to pardon himself before Biden would even have a chance.

Pardon him for what? 

[Fireballer 2,367]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Nancy Pelosi withheld aid to the American people to hurt Trump. It’s a fact. She should be run out of town on her broomstick. 

Nothing will happen unless the media were to push that narrative. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

Just now, Fireballer said:

Nothing will happen unless the media were to push that narrative. 

They won’t. Won’t stop it from being said. Liberals have no retort for it. 

[Fnord 1,119]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Pardon him for what? 

Ask the OP. Or Trump. He's the one gabbing about pardoning himself.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

Ask the OP. Or Trump. He's the one gabbing about pardoning himself.

He is? I didn’t read that. What news outlet claims that? 

[The Elevator Killer 497]

15 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

He is? I didn’t read that. What news outlet claims that? 

It's some un named source that claims Trump has talked about it. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

4 minutes ago, The Elevator Killer said:

It's some un named source that claims Trump has talked about it. 

Those guys again? They should get a Pulitzer too. If the failing NYT can get one for the Russia hoax, why not? 

[Fnord 1,119]

44 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

He is? I didn’t read that. What news outlet claims that? 

Jesus dude. You like to present yourself as if you know everything, and tell people to look it up themselves. This time I'll humor you though, as I find this instance entertaining.

CNN

POLITICO

WAPO

INDEPENDENT

DAILY MAIL

ABC

NYT

[Fnord 1,119]

28 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Those guys again? They should get a Pulitzer too. If the failing NYT can get one for the Russia hoax, why not? 

In those glorious bygone pre-Trump days, no one cared that a legitimate news org used confidential sources. It's how you speak truth to power and keep informants out of trouble. This is the bedrock of the First Amendment. It's how sh!t gets done in the press. You can't seriously scream about censorship and then have a problem with anonymous sources that are then verified. NYT will interview a dozen people within Trump's circle, all of them anonymous, all corroborating a story and then you b!tch about anon sources.  You lose all credibility.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

3 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Jesus dude. You like to present yourself as if you know everything, and tell people to look it up themselves. This time I'll humor you though, as I find this instance entertaining.

CNN

POLITICO

WAPO

INDEPENDENT

DAILY MAIL

ABC

NYT

Thanks. It was a simple question, I only said I didn’t see it. One would have sufficed. Didn’t see anyone putting their name to it though. Doesn’t mean it’s not true, doesn’t mean it is. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

In those glorious bygone pre-Trump days, no one cared that a legitimate news org used confidential sources. It's how you speak truth to power and keep informants out of trouble. This is the bedrock of the First Amendment. It's how sh!t gets done in the press. You can't seriously scream about censorship and then have a problem with anonymous sources that are then verified. NYT will interview a dozen people within Trump's circle, all of them anonymous, all corroborating a story and then you b!tch about anon sources.  You lose all credibility.

You know there was a whole hoax for two years based on anonymous sources that ended up being complete bullshit, right? I’m not the one who took their credibility away. The truth did. And I don’t know how many times people in the Trump administration came out and said “I never said that or heard that” After your precious anonymous sources made some garbage up. John Bolton ring a bell?  Nice try. No dice with your revisionist history.  

[Fnord 1,119]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You know there was a whole hoax for two years based on anonymous sources that ended up being complete bullshit, right? I’m not the one who took their credibility away. The truth did. 

If you're talking about Russia/Mueller, you can just quit. Ignore everything other than the actual report Mueller put out. Ignore the Steele dossier BS, all the rest of the news about it, fake or otherwise. Just look at the Mueller report. It is damning in and of itself, even with the voluminous redactions. Calling that a hoax is partisanship at it's most base, irrational level. But I won't convince you otherwise, so carry on.

Disclaimer: I'm NOT saying that Trump colluded with Russia. I'm saying there is certainly evidence of it, NOT PROOF. Obstruction of justice charges against Trump and numerous flunkies would seem to be a slam dunk, however. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

3 minutes ago, Fnord said:

If you're talking about Russia/Mueller, you can just quit. Ignore everything other than the actual report Mueller put out. Ignore the Steele dossier BS, all the rest of the news about it, fake or otherwise. Just look at the Mueller report. It is damning in and of itself, even with the voluminous redactions. Calling that a hoax is partisanship at it's most base, irrational level. But I won't convince you otherwise, so carry on.

Disclaimer: I'm NOT saying that Trump colluded with Russia. I'm saying there is certainly evidence of it, NOT PROOF. Obstruction of justice charges against Trump and numerous flunkies would seem to be a slam dunk, however. 

 Please, show me even some evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.  Not some process crime they got a few of his flunkies on, evidence against him for collusion . Damning my ass. If they could impeach him for an overheard phone call they would have for all that evidence you’re claiming they had. Wow. Proof. In congress. Yeah, that’s the standard. 

[Fnord 1,119]

33 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 Please, show me even some evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.  Not some process crime they got a few of his flunkies on, evidence against him for collusion . Damning my ass. If they could impeach him for an overheard phone call they would have for all that evidence you’re claiming they had. Wow. Proof. In congress. Yeah, that’s the standard. 

Mueller just did the investigation. He had zero prosecutorial power. IMO, Trump damn well should have been impeached for it. But Nancy knew it was a failing proposition. See the results of the Ukraine impeachment.

Link

tl;dr highlights:

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Pardon him for what? 

Trump is going to be hit with a buttload of criminal charges and civil suits over the next year. He will likely spend the rest of his life in court.

[lickin_starfish 1,477]

Did someone say Ford?

https://media.greatawakening.win/post/fq2pVrnT.jpeg

[porkbutt 860]

16 hours ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Trump is going to be hit with a buttload of criminal charges and civil suits over the next year. He will likely spend the rest of his life in court.

[TBayXXXVII 2,105]

19 hours ago, Fnord said:

Mueller just did the investigation. He had zero prosecutorial power. IMO, Trump damn well should have been impeached for it. But Nancy knew it was a failing proposition. See the results of the Ukraine impeachment.

Link

A report generated by all Democrats with a specific agenda?  Put in place by people who knowingly and illegally falsified documents to get warrants to investigate a private citizen?  Yeah, I put 0 credence in the Mueller report.

[Mike Honcho 4,007]

I thought this was going to be about the time he hit Cornpop with his Mustang.  

[Fnord 1,119]

4 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

A report generated by all Democrats with a specific agenda?  Put in place by people who knowingly and illegally falsified documents to get warrants to investigate a private citizen?  Yeah, I put 0 credence in the Mueller report.

Mueller is a lifelong Republican who received universal praise from Republicans when he was appointed to the job by Republicans. But it's all a Democratic agenda. OK. Read up, bud. You have been grossly misinformed. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

19 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Mueller is a lifelong Republican who received universal praise from Republicans when he was appointed to the job by Republicans. But it's all a Democratic agenda. OK. Read up, bud. You have been grossly misinformed. 

Mitt Romney is a Republican too. Stop with this Republican stuff. Most of them hated Trump more than the Democrats did.  

[wiffleball 4,631]

24 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Mitt Romney is a Republican too. Stop with this Republican stuff. Most of them hated Trump more than the Democrats did.  

Even McConnell

[wiffleball 4,631]

Lots of posts here that will be fun to quote in Future Days.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

9 hours ago, porkbutt said:

I didn't say there was any validity, or that I approve, I just said it was going to happen. He's been fending off numerous investigations and suits with presidential immunity.