NY Mayor Eric Adams indicted by DOJ

[Fnord 2,172]

48 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Reposting this here for you from earlier in the thread

You see, I am aware of a guy who had some whistleblowers speak to his misdeeds   and there is also bank records suggesting some things are not right   and there is even information suggesting familial involvement as well.

Thank you.

Lots of damning evidence there, but in my quick looks at your links I did not see a "smoking gun" pointing to Joe directly receiving money. There would certainly seem to be enough evidence to open a serious investigation, which I have zero issues with. Especially given the evidence indicating that Joe was actively trading on his position as VP. I do not believe the removal of Shokin was directly due to the Biden family interests, however there looks to be some intersection. I trust that Trump's DOJ will investigate further, and file charges if warranted. Hell, I have no problem putting Joe in prison or house arrest if he is found guilty.

I noticed that much of what the Biden family is accused of secretly doing that has justifiably riled so many on the right are things that the Trump family does blatantly out in the open. Like crypto meme coins, as an easy example. Ya know, trading on your family name and support that it garners to make fast money on worthless non-fungible commodities. Or quickly approved, highly profitable Chinese trademarks for a favored child; or that child's husband securing $2B worth of Saudi investments based on... well, not his experience in managing that sort of money. 

So when shall we expect the outcry over these things to begin coming from the fine, law abiding and upstanding MAGA faithful?

[Horseman 2,438]

15 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Thank you.

Lots of damning evidence there, but in my quick looks at your links I did not see a "smoking gun" pointing to Joe directly receiving money. There would certainly seem to be enough evidence to open a serious investigation, which I have zero issues with. Especially given the evidence indicating that Joe was actively trading on his position as VP. I do not believe the removal of Shokin was directly due to the Biden family interests, however there looks to be some intersection. I trust that Trump's DOJ will investigate further, and file charges if warranted. Hell, I have no problem putting Joe in prison or house arrest if he is found guilty.

I noticed that much of what the Biden family is accused of secretly doing that has justifiably riled so many on the right are things that the Trump family does blatantly out in the open. Like crypto meme coins, as an easy example. Ya know, trading on your family name and support that it garners to make fast money on worthless non-fungible commodities. Or quickly approved, highly profitable Chinese trademarks for a favored child; or that child's husband securing $2B worth of Saudi investments based on... well, not his experience in managing that sort of money. 

So when shall we expect the outcry over these things to begin coming from the fine, law abiding and upstanding MAGA faithful?

Biden already pardoned himself and his family dumbasss.  

Not to mention Trump's EO outlawing prosecution of former president's and political opponents.  Dems are the ones that do that. 

[Fnord 2,172]

2 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Biden already pardoned himself and his family dumbasss.  

No, he did not pardon himself. Dumbass.

[TrailGuy 554]

47 minutes ago, RLLD said:

There is just as much evidence of Biden conducting a quid pro quo....but, you dont believe that....do you chief..... 

There is?  Then why didn't comey impeach him?

We can do this all day boyo. 

[RLLD 4,191]

18 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Thank you.

Lots of damning evidence there, but in my quick looks at your links I did not see a "smoking gun" pointing to Joe directly receiving money. There would certainly seem to be enough evidence to open a serious investigation, which I have zero issues with. Especially given the evidence indicating that Joe was actively trading on his position as VP. I do not believe the removal of Shokin was directly due to the Biden family interests, however there looks to be some intersection. I trust that Trump's DOJ will investigate further, and file charges if warranted. Hell, I have no problem putting Joe in prison or house arrest if he is found guilty.

I noticed that much of what the Biden family is accused of secretly doing that has justifiably riled so many on the right are things that the Trump family does blatantly out in the open. Like crypto meme coins, as an easy example. Ya know, trading on your family name and support that it garners to make fast money on worthless non-fungible commodities. Or quickly approved, highly profitable Chinese trademarks for a favored child; or that child's husband securing $2B worth of Saudi investments based on... well, not his experience in managing that sort of money. 

So when shall we expect the outcry over these things to begin coming from the fine, law abiding and upstanding MAGA faithful?

I think there is just as much evidence as that against Adams, and that was the conversation here.

So, it would seem that this amount of evidence is suitable to consider Adams guilty, but not enough to consider Biden guilty.   This is the problem with selective morality. 

[TrailGuy 554]

51 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Oh, you care about that again? I guess the Biden years just had that little issue no longer a thing....but now, it would seem that circumstances have arisen whereby you suddenly care again?  Here is the problem, your folks lied about Trump doing it....then lied that Biden wasnt doing it....so today, regardless of what you and yours say..... I dont believe you.  This is the consequence of lying so relentlessly.

You could tell me there is NO EVIDENCE of Adams being in a quid pro quo...I automatically assume you are lying.

Is it even possible for you to debate without bringing up Biden?

Put on your big boy pants and defend your insane conspiracy theory about Adams.  Oh that's right you can't.

WINNING

[RLLD 4,191]

5 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

There is?  Then why didn't comey impeach him?

We can do this all day boyo. 

 

Replicating the corrupt behaviors of the Democrats would be unacceptable, and conducting a normal investigation ( as was done0 is the proper way of handling those situations.  That you would have Republicans be just a despicable as your Democrat overlords is just repugnant. Think about it....what happens next, will the Democrats settle for the same level of corruption when next in power?  No, they would be even worse.  We have to hold the line against liberal crimes

[Fnord 2,172]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think there is just as much evidence as that against Adams, and that was the conversation here.

So, it would seem that this amount of evidence is suitable to consider Adams guilty, but not enough to consider Biden guilty.   This is the problem with selective morality. 

Well thanks for your response in which you completely ignored the content of the post you responded to. You are doing this much more frequently than you ever have before. Why is that?

[RLLD 4,191]

4 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

Is it even possible for you to debate without bringing up Biden?

Put on your big boy pants and defend your insane conspiracy theory about Adams.  Oh that's right you can't.

WINNING

You decry your own tactic.  Interesting.  Biden is the best example of Democrat corruption available.  So yes, by liberal malfeasance we now have a glimmering example of how vile liberalism has become....so I will use it.

[RLLD 4,191]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Well thanks for your response in which you completely ignored the content of the post you responded to. You are doing this much more frequently than you ever have before. Why is that?

I think your attempt to move the conversation away from the actual discussion failed and perhaps that is annoying for you?

[Fnord 2,172]

33 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Thank you.

Lots of damning evidence there, but in my quick looks at your links I did not see a "smoking gun" pointing to Joe directly receiving money. There would certainly seem to be enough evidence to open a serious investigation, which I have zero issues with. Especially given the evidence indicating that Joe was actively trading on his position as VP. I do not believe the removal of Shokin was directly due to the Biden family interests, however there looks to be some intersection. I trust that Trump's DOJ will investigate further, and file charges if warranted. Hell, I have no problem putting Joe in prison or house arrest if he is found guilty.

I noticed that much of what the Biden family is accused of secretly doing that has justifiably riled so many on the right are things that the Trump family does blatantly out in the open. Like crypto meme coins, as an easy example. Ya know, trading on your family name and support that it garners to make fast money on worthless non-fungible commodities. Or quickly approved, highly profitable Chinese trademarks for a favored child; or that child's husband securing $2B worth of Saudi investments based on... well, not his experience in managing that sort of money. 

So when shall we expect the outcry over these things to begin coming from the fine, law abiding and upstanding MAGA faithful?

 

13 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think there is just as much evidence as that against Adams, and that was the conversation here.

So, it would seem that this amount of evidence is suitable to consider Adams guilty, but not enough to consider Biden guilty.   This is the problem with selective morality. 

See, the big difference is that SDNY has made the charges, and being told to stand down by the focking AG (we all know who really made the call, of course, and it wasn't Pam Bondi) resulted in several conservative federal prosecutors stepping down. No such thing has occurred with relation to Biden. Your whole post above is a non sequitur. You also totally avoided my second/third paragraphs.

[RLLD 4,191]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

 

See, the big difference is that SDNY has made the charges, and being told to stand down by the focking AG (we all know who really made the call, of course, and it wasn't Pam Bondi) resulted in several conservative federal prosecutors stepping down. No such thing has occurred with relation to Biden. Your whole post above is a non sequitur. You also totally avoided my second/third paragraphs.

No difference.

I submit that anyone who observes the Adams situation, with the available evidence, and then suggests he is likely guilty.....while refusing to hold Biden to account, is being dishonest.

[Horseman 2,438]

42 minutes ago, Fnord said:

No, he did not pardon himself. Dumbass.

Oh, that's right, my bad.  He's already been found too old and feeble to prosecute.  

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

6 minutes ago, RLLD said:

No difference.

I submit that anyone who observes the Adams situation, with the available evidence, and then suggests he is likely guilty.....while refusing to hold Biden to account, is being dishonest.

I don’t agree. 

1. I’ve studied the Adams situation and I believe, honestly, that he’s guilty, that the DOJ was correct to indict him, and that the current DOJ actions are corrupt. 
 

2. I’ve studied the Biden situation and I believe, honestly, that he’s not guilty, that Congress was correct not to impeach him, that Biden’s DOJ did not act corruptly (unlike the current DOJ). 
 

These are my honest beliefs based on my analysis of the facts I’ve seen. Feel welome to disagree but please don’t accuse me of being dishonest simply because I don’t see things the way you do. 

[Fnord 2,172]

7 minutes ago, RLLD said:

No difference.

I submit that anyone who observes the Adams situation, with the available evidence, and then suggests he is likely guilty.....while refusing to hold Biden to account, is being dishonest.

I'm doing neither. I clearly stated that Biden should be prosecuted if the evidence dictates it. In Adams' case, that's already occurred, but TRUMP decided to temporarily allow Adams to play ball as long as he toes the line. Bove admitted as much.

So again, your circular reasoning is not applicable. You're obviously just avoiding answering my questions. Fine, that's your prerogative. But let's not pretend you're so far above the fray with your (quickly fading) intellectual honesty and consistency. 

[Fnord 2,172]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t agree. 

1. I’ve studied the Adams situation and I believe, honestly, that he’s guilty, that the DOJ was correct to indict him, and that the current DOJ actions are corrupt. 
 

2. I’ve studied the Biden situation and I believe, honestly, that he’s not guilty, that Congress was correct not to impeach him, that Biden’s DOJ did not act corruptly (unlike the current DOJ). 
 

These are my honest beliefs based on my analysis of the facts I’ve seen. Feel welome to disagree but please don’t accuse me of being dishonest simply because I don’t see things the way you do. 

Read the links @RLLD provided upthread. They are worth your time and gave me some new insight. There is plenty of smoke, even if the fire isn't quite visible.

[Horseman 2,438]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t agree. 

1. I’ve studied the Adams situation and I believe, honestly, that he’s guilty, that the DOJ was correct to indict him, and that the current DOJ actions are corrupt. 
 

2. I’ve studied the Biden situation and I believe, honestly, that he’s not guilty, that Congress was correct not to impeach him, that Biden’s DOJ did not act corruptly (unlike the current DOJ). 
 

These are my honest beliefs based on my analysis of the facts I’ve seen. Feel welome to disagree but please don’t accuse me of being dishonest simply because I don’t see things the way you do. 

Watching MSNBC doesn't count as "studying" or "analysis".   

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Read the links @RLLD provided upthread. They are worth your time and gave me some new insight. There is plenty of smoke, even if the fire isn't quite visible.

I have. 
The main problem with the accusation that Biden, as VP, was involved in some kind of corrupt scheme in Ukraine is that he was carrying out policy already dictated by the State Department. 

[Fnord 2,172]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

I have. 
The main problem with the accusation that Biden, as VP, was involved in some kind of corrupt scheme in Ukraine is that he was carrying out policy already dictated by the State Department. 

There's way more to it than that, which I agree with you about. There is absolutely at least circumstantial evidence that improprieties occurred. But I don't feel like you would have any issue with Biden being indicted and going to trial if that's where the facts led. Assuming it wasn't just retribution on Trump's part, of course.

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

19 minutes ago, Fnord said:

There's way more to it than that, which I agree with you about. There is absolutely at least circumstantial evidence that improprieties occurred. But I don't feel like you would have any issue with Biden being indicted and going to trial if that's where the facts led. Assuming it wasn't just retribution on Trump's part, of course.

Sure., if that is the case. 
 

But I tried to watch those House hearings on Biden and Hunter as much as I could and they were, frankly, a joke. If there had been any real smoking gun they would have uncovered one there. But there wasn’t . 

[RLLD 4,191]

54 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t agree. 

1. I’ve studied the Adams situation and I believe, honestly, that he’s guilty, that the DOJ was correct to indict him, and that the current DOJ actions are corrupt. 
 

2. I’ve studied the Biden situation and I believe, honestly, that he’s not guilty, that Congress was correct not to impeach him, that Biden’s DOJ did not act corruptly (unlike the current DOJ). 
 

These are my honest beliefs based on my analysis of the facts I’ve seen. Feel welome to disagree but please don’t accuse me of being dishonest simply because I don’t see things the way you do. 

I submit there is equal evidence to suggest BOTH are guilty.   I am not sure why you still defend Biden, he is gone, there is no reason to defend him any longer. 

[RLLD 4,191]

57 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I'm doing neither. I clearly stated that Biden should be prosecuted if the evidence dictates it. In Adams' case, that's already occurred, but TRUMP decided to temporarily allow Adams to play ball as long as he toes the line. Bove admitted as much.

So again, your circular reasoning is not applicable. You're obviously just avoiding answering my questions. Fine, that's your prerogative. But let's not pretend you're so far above the fray with your (quickly fading) intellectual honesty and consistency. 

There is just as much evidence about Biden as Adams.

You want Adams? Take him, by all means. I could give a fock about a politician ( I dont use corrupt here because it is redundant).   Take him out alllll  you want.

But also know this. I saw you and yours defend Biden where there is equitable evidence, and now you suddenly want to take someone out? I see you all for what you are. 

[TrailGuy 554]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

You decry your own tactic.  Interesting.  Biden is the best example of Democrat corruption available.  So yes, by liberal malfeasance we now have a glimmering example of how vile liberalism has become....so I will use it.

If Biden is as corrupt as you say he is why is he not in jail?

[TrailGuy 554]

27 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I submit there is equal evidence to suggest BOTH are guilty.   I am not sure why you still defend Biden, he is gone, there is no reason to defend him any longer. 

Oh now there is equal evidence.  Yesterday you said there was no evidence that Adams was guilty and you blamed it on the Biden DOJ.

[RLLD 4,191]

13 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

If Biden is as corrupt as you say he is why is he not in jail?

We do not simply put people in jail. Lets extend your logic.  So then , we should put Adams in jail right now?   Of course not......but, then, what happens if he is not convicted?  Will you maintain his guilt?

[RLLD 4,191]

16 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

Oh now there is equal evidence.  Yesterday you said there was no evidence that Adams was guilty and you blamed it on the Biden DOJ.

Incorrect. I state that the administration declared the pursuit to be the corrupt DOJ.  Now, you and yours want to protect Biden still?   Tell you what.....take Adams, do what ever....but hold Biden equally accountable for HIS obvious misdeeds....that is all I ask. Why the fock would I care what happens to a politician??  Fock them all

[Fnord 2,172]

36 minutes ago, RLLD said:

There is just as much evidence about Biden as Adams.

You want Adams? Take him, by all means. I could give a fock about a politician ( I dont use corrupt here because it is redundant).   Take him out alllll  you want.

But also know this. I saw you and yours defend Biden where there is equitable evidence, and now you suddenly want to take someone out? I see you all for what you are. 

No, you didn't, and no, you don't.

You're falling into the same trap that has claimed the majority of your MAGA bedfellows. You mistake those that tend to vote Democrat as a monolithic bloc, all voting/ thinking/ feeling the same, all guilty of the same thought crimes as the fringe extremists, and they just flat-out aren't. You are willingly perpetuating lies. No different than if I were to say "all MAGA are uneducated, racist morons." It's drivel, and if I said that without present context, I should rightly be held to the mat on it.

[TrailGuy 554]

Just now, RLLD said:

Incorrect. I state that the administration declared the pursuit to be the corrupt DOJ.  Now, you and yours want to protect Biden still?   Tell you what.....take Adams, do what ever....but hold Biden equally accountable for HIS obvious misdeeds....that is all I ask. Why the fock would I care what happens to a politician??  Fock them all

You cared yesterday.  You were trying to say Adams was the victim of a corrupt DOJ.  Now you don't care.  Ok.  Nice to see you have no spine.

Comey had years to impeach Biden and he couldn't.  If they did it would have been justice.  I don't want a criminal holding the office of the president.  You do.

[RLLD 4,191]

3 minutes ago, Fnord said:

No, you didn't, and no, you don't.

You're falling into the same trap that has claimed the majority of your MAGA bedfellows. You mistake those that tend to vote Democrat as a monolithic bloc, all voting/ thinking/ feeling the same, all guilty of the same thought crimes as the fringe extremists, and they just flat-out aren't. You are willingly perpetuating lies. No different than if I were to say "all MAGA are uneducated, racist morons." It's drivel, and if I said that without present context, I should rightly be held to the mat on it.

But.....then there is the MAGA people? 

Let's table that.....

I patiently await those who are so inclined to declare Adams guilty, to also....now....declare Biden was guilty.  But I wont hold my breath.

[RLLD 4,191]

5 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

You cared yesterday.  You were trying to say Adams was the victim of a corrupt DOJ.  Now you don't care.  Ok.  Nice to see you have no spine.

Comey had years to impeach Biden and he couldn't.  If they did it would have been justice.  I don't want a criminal holding the office of the president.  You do.

Wrong.  I noted that the Trump administration correlated the timing if his prosecution to the changing of his immigration policy.   Now, if you want to declare Adams guilty....by all means....I dont give a fock what happens to him....but I WILL....highlight the fact that suddenly, liberals see evidence....where they apparently could not with regard to Biden.....so your position will change depending on who is involved. That is the essence of my position. 

[Fnord 2,172]

7 minutes ago, RLLD said:

But.....then there is the MAGA people? 

Let's table that.....

I patiently await those who are so inclined to declare Adams guilty, to also....now....declare Biden was guilty.  But I wont hold my breath.

I've already done this, though I stop short of calling either of them guilty, as they have not been shown to be via a jury trial.

8 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Wrong.  I noted that the Trump administration correlated the timing if his prosecution to the changing of his immigration policy.   Now, if you want to declare Adams guilty....by all means....I dont give a fock what happens to him....but I WILL....highlight the fact that suddenly, liberals see evidence....where they apparently could not with regard to Biden.....so your position will change depending on who is involved. That is the essence of my position. 

You are claiming inconsistencies that are not there. The essence of your opinion is built on a cloud, completely amorphous. 

[RLLD 4,191]

15 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I've already done this, though I stop short of calling either of them guilty, as they have not been shown to be via a jury trial.

You are claiming inconsistencies that are not there. The essence of your opinion is built on a cloud, completely amorphous. 

The inconsistencies are there, perhaps you are above the fray.  But many others, notably those who matter much more than you and I .....are not....

Democrats protected Biden in every possible way to hold power.   Now, I see Democrats (perhaps not you) looking to take down Adams....using similar evidence as was present for Biden.

Now the two are not the same.  I am not clear what Adams derived, likely some money I would surmise....which is what Biden got...but we do not know what Biden sold to our adversaries for that money.

[TrailGuy 554]

33 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Wrong.  I noted that the Trump administration correlated the timing if his prosecution to the changing of his immigration policy.   Now, if you want to declare Adams guilty....by all means....I dont give a fock what happens to him....but I WILL....highlight the fact that suddenly, liberals see evidence....where they apparently could not with regard to Biden.....so your position will change depending on who is involved. That is the essence of my position. 

My position never changed.  If there is evidence of crime that results in an indictment then that individual should go to trial.  Biden was never indicted.  Adams was.

[RLLD 4,191]

1 hour ago, TrailGuy said:

My position never changed.  If there is evidence of crime that results in an indictment then that individual should go to trial.  Biden was never indicted.  Adams was.

There was similar evidence for both.  When Democrats are able to admit that, they can start to end their blatant power hypocrisy. 

[TrailGuy 554]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

There was similar evidence for both.  When Democrats are able to admit that, they can start to end their blatant power hypocrisy. 

Why didn't Comey impeach?

[League Champion 1,909]

4 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

Why didn't Comey impeach?

Eric Adams did the right thing for the benefit of the Country. He's a great American   

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

3 hours ago, RLLD said:

I submit there is equal evidence to suggest BOTH are guilty.   I am not sure why you still defend Biden, he is gone, there is no reason to defend him any longer. 

The reason to defend him is because I don’t think he’s guilty. 

[The Real timschochet 6,585]

How will Trump react when Governor Hochul removes Adams? Any predictions? 

[RLLD 4,191]

10 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

Why didn't Comey impeach?

Replicating the corrupt behaviors of the Democrats would be unacceptable, and conducting a normal investigation ( as was done0 is the proper way of handling those situations.  That you would have Republicans be just a despicable as your Democrat overlords is just repugnant. Think about it....what happens next, will the Democrats settle for the same level of corruption when next in power?  No, they would be even worse.  We have to hold the line against liberal crimes

[RLLD 4,191]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The reason to defend him is because I don’t think he’s guilty. 

Both men are very likely guilty.   if you think the evidence supports this to be true for Adams then it is not a stretch to think the same for the evidence toward Biden.