US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)

Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?

 

[AnotherPleb]

I doubt it. The Rittenhouse verdict feels like momentum is rolling against Dems now. Attempting to push this is just going to be more self destructive than anything else.

Rittenhouse needs to be forgotten because of all the negative aspects of going after him.

So in other words they're going to push for more.

 

[Slappy McGherkin]

So in other words they're going to push for more.

Which aligns with my original statement about the DOJ. When exactly have they NOT doubled-down on being wrong?

If they were smart, they'd walk away and get the media to memory hole it. Keyword there? "Smart"

 

[Gehenna]

Which aligns with my original statement about the DOJ. When exactly have they NOT doubled-down on being wrong?

If they were smart, they'd walk away and get the media to memory hole it. Keyword there? "Smart"

It's not just a matter of being smart or wanting to double down. There are in fact limits to their power, and limits to how far they can make it stretch. These limits constantly see them try to expand them, but there are still limits to how far even that can go.

Rittenhouse is rather safely beyond those limits.

They cannot concoct a law out of thin air, but instead, they try to expand existing laws well being their remit. The problem for them here, amongst many others, is that there is no law they could possibly stretch to reach him.

 

[Clem Fandango]

I went to bed last night reading that Burden thought "the jury system works" after hearing the verdict. I wake up this morning to headlines that he's "angry and concerned".

That colonoscopy must have fucked with his brain. That, or his handlers couldn't decide which tack they should take with this. You gotta communicate, people!

Fake edit:
My autocorrect somehow changed "Biden" to "Burden", but I actually like that better so I'm leaving it in.

 

[Slappy McGherkin]

It's not just a matter of being smart or wanting to double down. There are in fact limits to their power, and limits to how far they can make it stretch. These limits constantly see them try to expand them, but there are still limits to how far even that can go.

Rittenhouse is rather safely beyond those limits.

They cannot concoct a law out of thin air, but instead, they try to expand existing laws well being their remit. The problem for them here, amongst many others, is that there is no law they could possibly stretch to reach him.

You're not being creative enough on the stretch, my fren. It won't be criminal charges, it will be some bullshit civil rights charges about how he violated poor pedo's right to protest and diddle kids.

While I'm genuinely happy with the verdict, you know they're not and "stretch" they will. When you've got the FBI making political hits for you (Veritas, Colorado school marm), what's to stop them? The media is frothing at the mouth over the verdict and would cover for them 100%.

I trust nothing about Biden's administration. He literally doesn't give a fuck about the courts, the law, or the Constitution and the slimy fucks will pull an end-around on anything (cough, cough... mandates) to get the end result they want.

Why should Kyle Rittenhouse be any different?

 

[Gehenna]

You're not being creative enough on the stretch, my fren. It won't be criminal charges, it will be some bullshit civil rights charges about how he violated poor pedo's right to protest and diddle kids.

While I'm genuinely happy with the verdict, you know they're not and "stretch" they will. When you've got the FBI making political hits for you (Veritas, Colorado school marm), what's to stop them? The media is frothing at the mouth over the verdict and would cover for them 100%.

I trust nothing about Biden's administration. He literally doesn't give a fuck about the courts, the law, or the Constitution and the slimy fucks will pull an end-around on anything (cough, cough... mandates) to get the end result they want.

Why should Kyle Rittenhouse be any different?

Did you stop and consider what you just typed?

"Civil Rights Charges"

"Charges"

"It won't be criminal charges..."

What... do you think those civil rights charges are? The government cannot sue its own citizens, it simply cannot. It can only deliver charges of a criminal nature. If they want to bring charges, they are in fact going to be criminal charges because that is all the government can bring.

 

[soy_king]

I doubt it. The Rittenhouse verdict feels like momentum is rolling against Dems now. Attempting to push this is just going to be more self destructive than anything else.

Rittenhouse needs to be forgotten because of all the negative aspects of going after him.

you forget how out of touch these people are

 

[soy_king]

Did you stop and consider what you just typed?

"Civil Rights Charges"

"Charges"

"It won't be criminal charges..."

What... do you think those civil rights charges are? The government cannot sue its own citizens, it simply cannot. It can only deliver charges of a criminal nature. If they want to bring charges, they are in fact going to be criminal charges because that is all the government can bring.

they could try the interstate forearms possession laws. a stretch, maybe, but its possible.

 

[Gehenna]

they could try the interstate forearms possession laws. a stretch, maybe, but its possible.

Gun was bought in Wisconsin, stayed in Wisconsin, by a citizen of Wisconsin.

The gun never once moved between states.

 

[soy_king]

Gun was bought in Wisconsin, stayed in Wisconsin, by a citizen of Wisconsin.

The gun never once moved between states.

when has the doj not tried to stretch reality or the law beyond its reasonable limit. oh, about the Civil rights stuff. they could go after him for killing jews, and that squarely falls under Civil rights violations.

 

[Gehenna]

when has the doj not tried to stretch reality or the law beyond its reasonable limit. oh, about the Civil rights stuff. they could go after him for killing jews, and that squarely falls under Civil rights violations.

Except there isn't a charge there. This wouldn't be making a stretch, it'd be making from whole cloth.

Keep in mind the hard limits here. It would either need to be something done between two states or the person being an actor -of- the state.
Rittenhouse is not an employee of the state (this is what they were going to get Chauvin with) so that criteria is utterly nonapplicable to Rittenhouse. And hence why getting him for Rosenbaum being a jew won't happen. No hook there, nothing they could stretch to make it apply to Rittenhouse.



The Hook is the most important part of the stretch. They first need to find a way that federal law -even begins to possibly apply- to Rittenhouse.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

Gun was bought in Wisconsin, stayed in Wisconsin, by a citizen of Wisconsin.

The gun never once moved between states.

Didn't he bring the gun back to Antioch when the events were done?

 

[SeniorFuckFace]

The problem for them here, amongst many others, is that there is no law they could possibly stretch to reach him.

There is another strategy by which they can reach; social justice.

If they are not successful in the courts they simply shift to the streets, greenlighting activist to enter, engage in the "good fight" by the propaganda program delivered through the MSM.

He is already framed as a white supremacist, with ill intentions, having crossed state lines to wreckeslly kill 2 BLM activists participating in a mostly peaceful protest.

Thats all they need to burn shit down and not only does the MSM actively support it, there is also signaling from the President and VP that they share in that same messaging.

What the fuck is that about?

They are "angered", "concerned" and that "it is obvious from the decision that more work needs to be done"

That shit is bananas...

 

[Gehenna]

Didn't he bring the gun back to Antioch when the events were done?

Technically unknown, but it's not alleged in any of the prosecutorial documents. Given that it wasn't a slapped on charge, I'd assume he handed it off to his friend who lent it to him.

 

[soy_king]

Except there isn't a charge there. This wouldn't be making a stretch, it'd be making from whole cloth.

Keep in mind the hard limits here. It would either need to be something done between two states or the person being an actor -of- the state.
Rittenhouse is not an employee of the state (this is what they were going to get Chauvin with) so that criteria is utterly nonapplicable to Rittenhouse. And hence why getting him for Rosenbaum being a jew won't happen. No hook there, nothing they could stretch to make it apply to Rittenhouse.



The Hook is the most important part of the stretch. They first need to find a way that federal law -even begins to possibly apply- to Rittenhouse.

the civil rights laws do touch upon private action, but I see your point. I'm not going to look into this, but I suspect there's someone at the doj working on this right now

 

[Gehenna]

There is another strategy by which they can reach; social justice.

If they are not successful in the courts they simply shift to the streets, greenlighting activist to enter, engage in the "good fight" by the propaganda program delivered through the MSM.

He is already framed as a white supremacist, with ill intentions, having crossed state lines to wreckeslly kill 2 BLM activists participating in a mostly peaceful protest.

Thats all they need to burn shit down and not only does the MSM actively support it, there is also signaling from the President and VP that they share in that same messaging.

What the fuck is that about?

They are "angered", "concerned" and that "it is obvious from the decision that more work needs to be done"

That shit is bananas...

It's generic political messaging. It translates as "We don't like the result, but don't have any specific actions to counter it. So we will say some generic messages to indicate our disapproval while we figure out what to do.".

the civil rights laws do touch upon private action, but I see your point. I'm not going to look into this, but I suspect there's someone at the doj working on this right now

Only so far as it is a private business with public accommodations.

Absolutely fuck all for individual actors, unless it is hooked onto an existing felony (and thus prosecuted by the state as one of the Hate Crime charges), or that person is an actor of the state (And thus in the federal law enforcement field).

The former was never even attempted to be applied and is far too clearly outlined to fiddle with even if it wasn't far too late to use it. And the latter does not apply to Rittenhouse.

 

[Corn Flakes]

It seems to me part of the seething among political figures (not your average twitterette) is partially derived from the fact they know they really can't nab Rittenhouse anymore. The kid slipped through their greasy fingers and there's nothing they can do about it legally.

There's no rage like impotent rage.

 

[AnotherPleb]

It seems to me part of the seething among political figures (not your average twitterette) is partially derived from the fact they know they really can't nab Rittenhouse anymore. The kid slipped through their greasy fingers and there's nothing they can do about it legally.

There's no rage like impotent rage.

There's also the fact that he's about to sue the fuck out of the lugenpresse for dragging his name through the mud.

 

[Gehenna]

It seems to me part of the seething among political figures (not your average twitterette) is partially derived from the fact they know they really can't nab Rittenhouse anymore. The kid slipped through their greasy fingers and there's nothing they can do about it legally.

There's no rage like impotent rage.

Exactly. There is a reason that when Chauvin looked like he might get off you had politicians all the way up to the verdict making it clear they had backup plans. Yet with Rittenhouse, you get a single one known for yapping saying anything only -after- the verdict with no one else backing him up.

 

[The Nothingness]

Do it, Kyle!

Rittenhouse could have potential defamation case against Biden over White supremacist tweet, expert says​

Kyle Rittenhouse could potentially have a defamation case against President Biden over a tweet suggesting Rittenhouse was a White supremacist, a lawyer who represented former Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann told Fox News.

Todd McMurtry, who helped Sandmann reach a settlement with CNN over a defamation lawsuit, said Biden could be held accountable for the Sept. 30, 2020 social media post weeks before he was elected. "There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night," Biden's tweet said. The remarks were accompanied by a video showing White nationalists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia, and other images. A voice-over of Fox News' Chris Wallace is heard asking then-President Trump during a presidential debate if he was willing to condemn White supremacists and militia groups.

At one point in the video, an image of Rittenhouse shows him holding an AR-style rifle on the night he killed two protesters and wounded a third in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during unrest after the police shooting of Jacob Blake a month earlier.

"What you take from that tweet is that Kyle Rittenhouse was using his rifle and engaging in White supremacist misconduct so it's actionable," McMurtry told Fox News. "Not necessarily going to win, but it's actionable."
A Kenosha County jury acquitted Rittenhouse on Friday of all the charges against him, including first-degree intentional homicide and recklessly endangering safety.

McMurtry noted Biden was not president at the time of the tweet, meaning he would not have any presidential or congressional immunity. Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, told "Hannity" last week that Biden cast her son as a White supremacist for votes.

"When I saw that I was shocked, I was angry. President Biden don't know my son whatsoever, and he's not a White supremacist," she said. "He's not a racist. And [Biden] did that for the votes. And I was so angry for a while at him and what he did to my son. He defamed him."
During an appearance on Fox News' "America Reports," Leo Terrell, a civil rights lawyer and Fox News contributor, said Biden had no facts to justify his remarks.

"Let me give Joe Biden advice: Be very careful what you say because you’re subject to a possible defamation lawsuit," Terrell said after the verdict. "This was a statement that Joe Biden is going to have to pay for and justify."

The reactions against Rittenhouse and McMurtry's former client have parallels: both were minors and were private figures, McMurtry said. To hold someone liable for defamation against a private figure, lawyers would only have to prove negligence on the part of whomever made the defamatory statement as opposed to actual malice, a higher burden of proof for public figures such as celebrities and elected officials, McMurtry said.

Sandmann, a Kentucky resident, and CNN settled a $250 million defamation lawsuit in January 2020 over the network's coverage of his viral confrontation with a Native American man in Washington D.C. A video clip showed Sandmann wearing a "MAGA" hat around his classmates and smiling at Nathan Phillips, who was beating a drum and singing at the Lincoln Memorial.

Many media outlets portrayed the incident as being racially charged before additional footage appeared to show a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had provoked the confrontation.
"I think Rittenhouse may be able to do the same thing when commentators on MSNBC say he's a school shooter, a White supremacist, even a vigilante," McMurtry said of a lawsuit against media outlets. "Lots of media people said he was a murderer, and I think that's actionable because that suggests that he committed a crime, and we now know that he didn't."

"When you just throw this stuff out there, you take risks," he added.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/rittenhouse-defamation-biden-tweet