Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
Considering the colorful things I've heard a few of the local Rabbis say about him, I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet."YOU'RE NOT A ISRAELI CITIZEN."
Are we sure about that?
Motherfucker sure as hell pretends he is though.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2022
It's worth pointing out this is worse than it sounds. Israel is actually under a really big drama with Bibi having similar shit poll numbers to Biden from both the israeli left disliking his pandering to orthodox and the israeli right for fucking up and allowing Oct 7th to happen. So it's even more provocative than usual for the US to be trying to Color Revolution them.
This is a sing of total insanity taking place that they think they can just dictate terms to Israel after so long of being such massive cuckholds to Tel Aviv.
This is a sing of total insanity taking place that they think they can just dictate terms to Israel after so long of being such massive cuckholds to Tel Aviv.
Anasûrimbor Kellhus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 9, 2022
I guess perhaps we're at the point where they're seeing a difference between tel aviv and bibi? I would think they wouldn't think this unless there's elements in israel willing to take power that want this to stop couldn't imagine chucky shumer of all people saying that unless he knows the play will go his way and calm down that DNC proggy base
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2022
yeah from what I've heard a common take on Bibi these days is "as soon as we're done obliterating Gaza he's out on his ass for being on-watch while the Hamas attack happened" even among people who thought the previous legal drama he was facing was bullshit
6MillionCoofs
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
No surprise. None of these cases are getting dismissed.
mandatorylurk
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
Julie Kelly is saying there is a good chance Canon dismisses the case based on selective prosecution, because you can't hit Trump for something every other president (and even vice president like Joepedo) does, and she know they were deliberately pulling his access to trap him.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2018
At the risk of coming across as a coomer or the anti-Last Stand, her tits look fantastic in that still frame.
Sekirodiealot
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
I love how the shithole comment is proven true.
verissimus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
Trump's lawyers should have cited the same excuse Hur used for not prosecuting Biden.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
No because then we'd be hearing non stop from the MSM that Trump can't run because he's an old man with memory issues. Which the media already does. But having his lawyers say it is just pouring a gallon of oil on top of a bonfire. Its bound to backfire.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2019
That "old man with a bad memory" bit makes me think: Biden cheated his way into office, has been in politics for most of his life, and now he is trapped in his own dementia-laced mind. The irony is not lost on me.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2020
How odd that the headline does not mention which motion was denied...
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2024
The Democrats are trying to use legal action to not just remove Trump from the ballot, but also EVERYONE ELSE running against Biden.
Am I the only one slightly disapproving of how Democrats are, you know, openly trying to end American democracy?
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
American democracy is clearly a rule by Democrats only, bigot.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2020
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2016
And AWFLs still believe that Trump is the one who's a fascist.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
I remember one local race where both parties magically came together in a bipartisan effort to exclude a strong 3rd party candidate from the debates. Ever since then I never trusted the two party system.
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
Fani Willis can remain on Trump’s election case in Georgia, judge rules
L / AJudge Scott McAfee has ruled in Georgia that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her office can continue prosecuting Donald Trump and his co-defendants, but only if special prosecutor Nathan Wade steps down.
In his Friday ruling, McAfee wrote that the defense had failed to meet its burden proving that Willis "acquired an actual conflict of interest in this case through her personal relationship and recurring travels with her lead prosecutor."
But the judge went on to write that the record in the case highlighted "a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team — an appearance that must be removed through the State’s selection of one of two options."
Those options are 1) for Willis, along with her whole office, to step aside, which would mean the case would be reassigned by a state panel to another office or prosecutor. The second option is 2) for Wade to withdraw, which McAfee wrote would allow "the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case."
Defendants in the election-related racketeering case against Trump and others argued that Willis and her office should be disqualified from the case, alleging a conflict of interest or at least the appearance of one. They argued that Willis improperly profited from the hiring of Wade, with whom she had a romantic relationship, and that it gives the elected district attorney an impermissible stake in the prosecution.
Days of publicly broadcast hearings on the matter featured dramatic and salacious testimony, with the parties disagreeing about, among other things, when the relationship between Willis and Wade began and the extent to which she reimbursed him for trips they took.
Importantly, the judge wrote that the evidence in the case "demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the District Attorney to indict and prosecute this case."
To be sure, McAfee wasn't complimentary of Willis. Though there wasn't an actual conflict, he wrote that his ruling
The judge also criticized a speech Willis gave whose effect, McAfee wrote, “was to cast racial aspersions at an indicted Defendant’s decision to file this pretrial motion.” However, he concluded that the speech didn’t cross the line to the point of denying a fair trial or requiring her disqualification.
The allegations did nothing to change the facts of the election subversion charges against Trump and his co-defendants but imperiled the prosecution nonetheless, because disqualifying Willis’ office would mean that a Georgia state prosecutors’ council would have to appoint a new office or prosecutor to handle the case. And that process would at least add further delay.
In his Friday ruling, McAfee wrote that the defense had failed to meet its burden proving that Willis "acquired an actual conflict of interest in this case through her personal relationship and recurring travels with her lead prosecutor."
But the judge went on to write that the record in the case highlighted "a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team — an appearance that must be removed through the State’s selection of one of two options."
Those options are 1) for Willis, along with her whole office, to step aside, which would mean the case would be reassigned by a state panel to another office or prosecutor. The second option is 2) for Wade to withdraw, which McAfee wrote would allow "the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case."
Defendants in the election-related racketeering case against Trump and others argued that Willis and her office should be disqualified from the case, alleging a conflict of interest or at least the appearance of one. They argued that Willis improperly profited from the hiring of Wade, with whom she had a romantic relationship, and that it gives the elected district attorney an impermissible stake in the prosecution.
Days of publicly broadcast hearings on the matter featured dramatic and salacious testimony, with the parties disagreeing about, among other things, when the relationship between Willis and Wade began and the extent to which she reimbursed him for trips they took.
Importantly, the judge wrote that the evidence in the case "demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the District Attorney to indict and prosecute this case."
To be sure, McAfee wasn't complimentary of Willis. Though there wasn't an actual conflict, he wrote that his ruling
The judge went on to write that an "an odor of mendacity remains" and that "reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it."
The judge also criticized a speech Willis gave whose effect, McAfee wrote, “was to cast racial aspersions at an indicted Defendant’s decision to file this pretrial motion.” However, he concluded that the speech didn’t cross the line to the point of denying a fair trial or requiring her disqualification.
The allegations did nothing to change the facts of the election subversion charges against Trump and his co-defendants but imperiled the prosecution nonetheless, because disqualifying Willis’ office would mean that a Georgia state prosecutors’ council would have to appoint a new office or prosecutor to handle the case. And that process would at least add further delay.
Judge knows he causes a shitshow if he 86's her so he goes half and half. It's clear he knows she's an unhinged nigger in a position she has no reason to inhabit but can't/won't do anything about it.
Regardless, the case is highly unlikely to go to trial before November so it's effectively done at this point.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2020
Once again it is fine to break the law if you are a black democrat woman.
She embezzled nearly a million dollars through her boyfriend. Perjured herself. Jeopardized countless cases with her claim that cellphone data is not reliable.
The judge is a coward.
- Status