I’m not sure why you’d defend misinformation and censorship of that sort unless it’s because you want to dismiss and minimize the information therein. Is there some other reason I’m unaware of? — NOS4A2

You've conflated actions by social media organizations, the BIden campaign, and former intelligence officials.There's no evidence of any conspiracy, despite the misinformation spread by MAGA media and Congressmen.

Whether or not social media organizations should limit access to suspected disinformation is debatable. But the Biden campaign didn't tell anyone what to do.

I've already given you the facts about the former intelligence officers letter, but you choose to ignore the details.

Trump was spreading disinformation ABOUT the laptop,including false accusations that Biden's efforts to fire Shokin were related to the "revelations" on the laptop. Does this concern you? If not, why would it concern you that Biden tried to diminish the relevance?

I like to be as informed as possible. I read the NY Post story when it came out, and felt there was a sufficiently good chance the laptop contents were true, and felt it important to consider the implications if it were.The letter from the former intelligence officers indicated they didn't know if it was true, so it was a non-factor. The only thing I learned from the laptop materials was what a lowlife Hunter had been, and what a concerned father Joe was. There was nothing that indicated Joe had done anything wrong. I'm pretty confident that anyone who understood the full facts would have agreed. You haven't even pointed to anything that should be a concern to anyone, so I question your posturing about misinformation. It looks like you're simply upset that the right-wing spin on the laptop didn't dominate the public debate at the time. Sure, if those half-truths had been reported by all news outlets similarly to the spin by FOX, OANN, and NEWSMAX, it might have turned some fringe Biden voters off - but that would have been more a product of misinformation, not of full facts.

What many people don't seem to realize is that this, too, is democracy. The problem isn't Trump, isn't Orban, it's the very phenomenon of democracy itself. In a democracy, people defend their own interests. And this inevitably leads to tensions. A common way of coping with those tensions is to try to discredit the others. — baker

I'd go further and call this crap a cultural or human thing. Democracy has always contained the possibility of its own undoing, it just takes a majority vote of someone non- or anti-democratic.

It's simply how they are already. — baker

In part this is true.Those who voted for him because of his anti-abortion stance already held that view. Those who are anti-gay or anti-trans did not become that way because of Trump. Those who are anti-regulation in many cases did not become that way because of Trump. Those who are racist and white supremacists did not become that way because of Trump. In all these cases he simply fed their fears and added accelerant.

Those who believe he is a good business manager bought into a false image and are ignorant of his "small loan" from his father (one million dollars plus) his business failures, his cheating, his stiffing contractors, his misrepresentations, and his "business strategy of repeated bankruptcies.

He covers his failure to deliver on promises by making further promises.

It seems to be easier to propose that people are basically good, but weak; than to consider the possibility that people are basically evil and strong. — baker

Both are distortions. Some people are basically good and others are not. Some are strong or weak in some ways but not others. There is no correlation between being weak or strong and good or bad.

I don't have any hope any more, I'm just trying to make sure my kids will be spared the worst of what is to come.

I haven’t conflated anything. Serious analysis of the drive itself and the contents therein contradicted everything they claimed about it. That’s just a fact.

We found out from the laptop that Joe Biden met with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi In 2015, something the Whitehouse has repeatedly lied about. We learned that Biden’s denials he knew anything about his son’s business dealings was a complete lie. Hell, it turns out he was in there like a dirty shirt.

Such a good father was the elder Biden that he let his son accompany him to China in 2013, and days later Hunter is appointed director of a new investment boutique backed by CCP money.

The disinfo and censorship of this info was less a conspiracy as it was a confluence of stupidity, just like the Russia hoax. They actually believed it was Russian disinfo, just like they believed Russian bots won Trump the election and Trump himself was a Russian agent. They’re still trapped in that moral panic. But it was former disgruntled CIA director John Brennan who delivered the letter to a politico writer known for pushing the Russian hoax, and the writer served it up on a propaganda platter for unsuspecting Americans getting ready to vote. It was even passed around on here in order to discredit the laptop. And Secretary Blinken and members of the Biden campaign have their fingerprints all over it.

This may be above board for you but to many it reeks of corruption, collusion, election interference, and fraud.

If Trump becomes the Republican candidate after the primary is over, but then is convicted of a felony prior to the general election, are the Republicans stuck with him as their candidate or can they switch to another candidate in light of this development? Can a convicted felon even serve as POTUS? What if he gets a sentence of prison time? Can he serve as POTUS from prison?

This is crazy that we even have to ask these questions. Trump has caused himself so many legal troubles, and I've never seen anything like it from another POTUS. Nixon wasn't anywhere close to this. And with Trump, a lot of it looks like a combination of clever scheming and sloppy bumbling.

Can a convicted felon even serve as POTUS — GRWelsh

Yes.

What if he gets a sentence of prison time? Can he serve as POTUS from prison? — GRWelsh

I suspect any sentence will be suspended until after his term, and then if it's a federal conviction he will pardon himself. Who knows how the Supreme Court will rule on that.

Isn't there a legal principle about not being able to judge one's own case? I think that would apply to not being able to pardon oneself even if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say this. Otherwise, it creates a legal loophole where a President can commit any crime he wants and then pardon himself, over and over. No one should be above the law in this way.

Nemo judex in causa sua... These examples are from Wikipedia: The maxim has been invoked by the United States Supreme Court in various cases, such as the 1798 case Calder v. Bull ("a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause [...] is against all reason and justice") and the 1974 case Arnett v. Kennedy ("we might start with a first principle: '[N]o man shall be a judge in his own cause.' Bonham's Case, 8 Co. 114a, 118a, 77 Eng. Rep. 646, 652 (1610)").

Otherwise, it creates a legal loophole where a President can commit any crime he wants and then pardon himself, over and over. — GRWelsh

Well, what's supposed to happen is that if the President tried to do this then the upstanding members of Congress would impeach him and remove him from office.

I haven’t conflated anything. Serious analysis of the drive itself and the contents therein contradicted everything they claimed about it. That’s just a fact. — NOS4A2

Your vague reference to "they" suggests you are conflating actions by a variety of people and organizations. Point to an individual who knowingly stated a clear falsehood.

We found out from the laptop that Joe Biden met with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi In 2015, something the Whitehouse has repeatedly lied about. — NOS4A2

Biden has consistently said he never discussed business with Hunter or his associates, and his attendance at a dinner doesn't contradict this. Joe did dodge questions about the laptop, such as in the debate with Trump when he referred to the letter by former intelligence officers, but his comment was factual - even though it was misleading. Are you so naive as to think being misleading is a novel thing for political candidates?

Such a good father was the elder Biden that he let his son accompany him to China in 2013, and days later Hunter is appointed director of a new investment boutique backed by CCP money. — NOS4A2

This was public knowledge, not some revelation from the laptop. We're discussing the 2020 NY Post story about the laptop and the contents of the laptop, not your general opinion of Biden.

The disinfo and censorship of this info was less a conspiracy as it was a confluence of stupidity, just like the Russia hoax. — NOS4A2

Sure, there was stupidity in the handling of the story, including the way Giuliani gave exclusive access to only one right-wing outlet. The inability for other outlets to verify the information was a factor in the story not being reported widely. The other factor you overlook is Russia's history of assisting Trump, and Trump's taking maximum advantage of that assistance.

The Russian investigation was not a "hoax", because it was initiated as a result of a clear crime (Russians stealing information from DNC servers). A Trump campaign had knowledge of the crime before the emails were made public, and he lied about it. Additional lies were told by other campaign officials during the investigation - it would have been derelict to ignore this. Russian active measures to help Trump were well known during the 2020 campaign, and this was a major factor in wariness of media outlets at reporting it, and in the judgement of the former intelligence officers. It's pretty ironic that Russia's assistance in 2016 backfired on Trump's desire to spread irrelevant dirt in 2020.

it was former disgruntled CIA director John Brennan who delivered the letter to a politico writer known for pushing the Russian hoax, and the writer served it up on a propaganda platter for unsuspecting Americans getting ready to vote. — NOS4A2

None of the signatories of the letter lied. The letter said they were "suspicious of Russian involvement", that it was "consistent with Russian objectives", and "We do not know whether these press reports are accurate". Of course the Biden campaign would use this analysis to maximum advantage, just like the Trump campaign would try to maximize the NY Post story to their maximum advantage.

This may be above board for you but to many it reeks of corruption, collusion, election interference, and fraud. — NOS4A2

Hunter's corruption was well known.

"Election interference"?! Activities BY a campaign can hardly be called "election interference". Campaigns sling mud, and campaigns try to minimize the impact of that mudslinging.

"Fraud"? Be specific as to who you're accusing of fraud. The laptop story was dirt on Hunter Biden that the Trump campaign tried to use against Joe by drawing false inferences from the contents. You lament the failure of this dirty campaign tactic to succeed. The worst action by Joe that it exposed was that he attended an informal dinner with a Burisma associate and that Joe was misleading when asked about it. That's it!

You clearly brush away Trump's public embrace of assistance by Russia in his 2016 campaign, and direct, intentional lies by Trump and members of his campaign. Your excuse: you dismiss the entirety of the events (including the very real election interference ny Russia) as "hoax", because Trump tells you so. Then you treat campaign efforts to minimize the impact of the the laptop as something insidious, and falsely claim it entailed election interference.

Your vague reference to "they" suggests you are conflating actions by a variety of people and organizations. Point to an individual who knowingly stated a clear falsehood.

The so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself, as I've already said. There is nothing vague about it.

The Russian investigation was not a "hoax", because it was initiated as a result of a clear crime (Russians stealing information from DNC servers). A Trump campaign had knowledge of the crime before the emails were made public, and he lied about it. Additional lies were told by other campaign officials during the investigation - it would have been derelict to ignore this. Russian active measures to help Trump were well known during the 2020 campaign, and this was a major factor in wariness of media outlets at reporting it, and in the judgement of the former intelligence officers. It's pretty ironic that Russia's assistance in 2016 backfired on Trump's desire to spread irrelevant dirt in 2020.

Julian Assange denied the emails came from Russia. Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike admitted under oath that there was no evidence the information was exfiltrated. The US government dropped the case against the Internet Research Agency. It was a bunch of hokum, a hoax, and you're still falling for it.

None of the signatories of the letter lied. The letter said they were "suspicious of Russian involvement", that it was "consistent with Russian objectives", and "We do not know whether these press reports are accurate". Of course the Biden campaign would use this analysis to maximum advantage, just like the Trump campaign would try to maximize the NY Post story to their maximum advantage.

The author of the letter, Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, asking John Brennan to sign the letter in an email said that he wanted to give Joe Biden a talking point in the debate.

"Trying to give the campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on the issue."

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-05/MorellBrennanEMailOct2020.pdf

Given this activity in light of their fake concern that "each of us believes deeply that American citizens should determine the outcome of elections", it appears they lied. It was clearly a political operation used to influence the election, to help the Biden campaign and cripple Trump. I'm interested to hear how you'll spin it.

The so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself, as I've already said. There is nothing vague about it. — NOS4A2

Everything you just said is vague. What lie did the inteligence experts tell? "The White House" was the Trump administration at the time. What specific lie did Biden tell at the time? Provide quote and point to evidence that shows he knowingly made a false statement.

Julian Assange denied the emails came from Russia. Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike admitted under oath that there was no evidence the information was exfiltrated. The US government dropped the case against the Internet Research Agency. It was a bunch of hokum, a hoax, and you're still falling for it. — NOS4A2

You are not well informed.

Assange denying it was Russia doesn't make it so. The leak was traced to phishing email sent by the GRU, and were posted first by the Russian Intelligence persona of Guccifer 2.0, at DCLeaks, a website created by the GRU.

Shawn Henry testified to Rubio's committee that they'd determined the DNC hacks were by Russian Intelligence. 12 employees of the Internet Research Agency were indicted, GRU officer Yevgeny Prigoshin was indicted. He's not being pursued because he's dead.

The only hoax was Trump's fiction of a "Russia Hoax".

The author of the letter, Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, asking John Brennan to sign the letter in an email said that he wanted to give Joe Biden a talking point in the debate. — NOS4A2

You forgot to give me the evidence Brennan & Morrell knew the NY Post story was true at the time. What's wrong with providing talking points for a debate?

Given this activity in light of their fake concern that "each of us believes deeply that American citizens should determine the outcome of elections..." — NOS4A2

What makes you think their concern is fake? It's established Russia interfered in 2016, and that their efforts had been continuing.

You spend too much time reading right wing spin, and not enough time trying to distinguish fact from biased accusation.

Everything you just said is vague. What lie did the inteligence experts tell? "The White House" was the Trump administration at the time. What specific lie did Biden tell at the time? Provide quote and point to evidence that shows he knowingly made a false statement.

He lied about his knowledge regarding his son’s dealings, he used the fabricated talking point in the debates. I’m not well informed so perhaps you can come up with quotes yourself.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/05/hunter-joe-biden-business-testimony-00125056

You forgot to give me the evidence Brennan & Morrell knew the NY Post story was true. What's wrong with providing talking points for a debate?

It was misinformation as developed by former spies, some of whom fumbled the Russia hoax and defrauded the United States electorate. Biden used it to lie in the debates. Media used it to suppress the story.

What makes you think their concern is fake? It's established Russia interfered in 2016, and that their efforts had been continuing.

Their reasons for the letter was to give a talking point to Biden, to help him whim the election as Morell stated. That’s a far cry from the reasons stated in the letter itself.

He lied about his knowledge regarding his son’s dealings, he used the fabricated talking point in the debates. I’m not well informed so perhaps you can come up with quotes yourself. — NOS4A2

There are no quotes that depict Joe telling a lie. Sure, he used the talking points for his political benefit, just as Trump used the NYPost story, and made absurd claims about Biden getting Shokin fired to help Hunter.

Re the Politico story, it adds only one minor fact: some unnamed White House spokesman said something that wasn't true by saying there was no informal encounter with Pozharskyi. Let's get this person fired for failing to seek the truth on the matter, or lying - whichever it was. So what?

It was misinformation as developed by former spies, some of whom fumbled the Russia hoax and defrauded the United States electorate. Biden used it to lie in the debates. Media used it to suppress the story. — NOS4A2

Indeed, the letter was produced for political purposes, and it was used by Joe to dodge questions about the laptop - but he didn't tell a lie. Look at the transcript. . Hardly a unique practice by politicians. I acknowledged this long ago. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that everything in the letter was actually true. Here's a link to the letter. Being wrong does not mean telling a lie.

As I said several posts ago, there is absolutely nothing in the laptop that implicates Joe Biden of a crime or of doing anything contrary to the interests of the United States. The laptop was dirt, and was used as a basis for spreading false information about him - somehow, you overlook that point amidst your ranting about misinformation. It was mudslinging, irrelevant to Biden's qualifications to be President. You're just pissed that the campaign successfully dodged the mud. So please stop pretending to have some moral high ground.

Maine secretary of state disqualifies Trump from primary ballot

Bellows said she received three challenges to Trump's primary nomination petition, two of which argued that the former president did not meet the qualifications for the presidency because he had engaged in insurrection and is therefore ineligible to hold public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The third challenge argued that Trump should be found ineligible under the 22nd Amendment, which establishes that "no person should be elected to the office of president more than twice." Under this theory, the petitioner, Paul Gordon, said that Trump should be disqualified because he has long claimed to have won the 2020 election.

...

Bellows concluded that Trump had engaged in insurrection and that sufficient evidence had been provided to "demonstrate the falsity of Mr. Trump's declaration that he meets the qualifications of the office of the presidency."

That third challenge is hilarious.

That third challenge is hilarious. — Michael

Oh, that is sweet!

That third challenge is hilarious. — Michael

https://www.pressherald.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/12/Trump-Challenge-Paul-Gordon-20231208.pdf

:rofl:

However, Mr. Trump may be able to remove this obstacle of his own creation. If he were to submit a letter sworn under penalty of perjury acknowledging that he lost the 2020 election and repudiating all previous statements undermining the integrity of that election, the question of the 22nd Amendment would no longer be relevant.

Brilliant.

I never thought of that before, but for everyone who defends Trump by saying he isn't lying if he truly believes he won the 2020 election when he claims that, then one consequence of that is according to his own beliefs and claims he has been elected to the office of the POTUS twice and is therefore ineligible.

The obvious defence is that "elected" in the context of the 22nd Amendment refers to being elected by the Electoral College, which he wasn't.

Funny all the same.

They really said that Trump believes he won the election and if that were true, which they argue it's not, then he's ineligible because he's won twice. It’s just a troll at this point for their foamy-mouthed base.

They must be pretty frightened to go to such lengths to keep their opponent off the ballot. The judicial malfeasance explains why few of the election fraud claims were heard—they themselves were in on the steal. And so it continues.

Right, but according to Trump his alternate slate of electors were the ones that should have been counted.

Any time I encounter someone who claims Trump won the 2020 election, I always want the details. If he won, how many votes did he win by? How many electoral votes did Trump get and how many did Biden get? From what I can tell, the typical Trump supporter who likes to blurt out "Trump won!" because "it pisses off the liberals" cannot answer these simple questions. I don't see how one can make the claim that Trump won if one cannot answer these questions. I would have liked to have seen more journalists press Trump on this claim that he won with these specific questions. Of course, he doesn't have the answers, either, since he started claiming he won on election night before all of the votes were even counted ("Stop the count!"). But it is worth repeatedly exposing the claim to victory for what it is: something entirely lacking in evidence, reason or hard numbers. In other words, a Big Lie.

Trump is so unhinged that he recently claimed winning all 50 states in the 2020 election.

I feel bad for anyone who is intelligent and still trying to support Trump's insane claims. Imagine the tortured reasoning and twisted logic one must engage in to justify supporting such an obvious liar.

Trump is so unhinged that he recently claimed winning all 50 states in the 2020 election. — GRWelsh

I don't think he actually believes that. It's all a grift to stoke up his delusional supporters.

All because some imbecile couldn’t bring himself to admit he lost. Trump’s never lost at anything.

Tens of thousands — millions — of fraudulent votes. Easy enough to check out if one actually takes the (predicted) claims of a degenerate con man seriously.

They really said that Trump believes he won the election and if that were true, which they argue it's not, then he's ineligible because he's won twice. It’s just a troll at this point for their foamy-mouthed base. — NOS4A2

If it is trolling, it is brilliant trolling, because it is pointing out that you can't have it both ways. That's true! You cannot, out of one side of your mouth, claim that Trump won two presidential elections -- and then, out of the other side of your mouth, claim he is still eligible to run again in since he was only elected once. Which is it? Was he elected once or twice?

Today, when I heard about how Biden and Trump are so close in the polls, I thought about who is responsible for putting us in this situation. Trump deserves a lot of the blame, for being a malevolent sore loser and a liar. But all of you Trump supporters deserve even more of the blame for enabling him. A sane society would repudiate Trump as a sore loser and say "It's time to move on and admit you lost. Grow up!" But, we live in a time of great cowardice. I am reading the book ENOUGH by Cassidy Hutchinson. That young woman shamed many Republican men, some over twice her age, by showing more courage than they have and doing what they should have done. I'm talking about people like Mark Meadows, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz. How embarrassing for Republican men to be shown up by a young woman like that.

I’m afraid Trump was not sworn in, so the notion is ridiculous, though I can see how such pretzel logic will work wonders on pretzel-shaped brains.

It just goes to show the lengths they are willing to go and the contortions they are willing to commit themselves to in order to disguise their malfeasance. The sad part is they are abusing their power, disenfranchising voters, corrupting their office, and throwing doubt on what they have always claimed were free and fair elections.

I’m afraid Trump was not sworn in... — NOS4A2

The 22nd Amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say "No person shall be sworn in to the office of the President more than twice".

... so the notion is ridiculous

...

It just goes to show the lengths they are willing to go and the contortions they are willing to commit themselves to in order to disguise their malfeasance. — NOS4A2

Yes it's ridiculous. Do you honestly not recognize it as being tongue-in-cheek?

I'm no lawyer but I've worked with enough of them to know they often focus on the exact language, i.e. the "letter of the law." And that's how this argument would be made. The 22nd Amendment doesn't have language about being sworn in. The relevant part of the language here is [bold added by me]: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." So the relevant legal question is whether Trump was elected twice, or not. Was he?

But the constitution also says:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Did Trump say somewhere he was elected to the office of president?

Trump claims he won all 50 states in the 2020 election