Joe Biden is an effing a******



It was just fine when Biden’s open-door flood of illegal aliens was overwhelming Texas. It’s just Texas, after all. Biden smugly making Texas bear the burden of millions of illegals was terrific. Liberal idiots in New York and Chicago were blathering on about how they were sanctuary cities- right up until they were forced to become sanctuary cities. Then OMG things went sideways. Eric Adams made very clear what a flaming hypocritical moron he is:

(Bloomberg) — In August 2022, after greeting one of the first buses of immigrants arriving in New York City with handshakes and boxes of food, Mayor Eric Adams pledged officials would set “the right tone of being here for these families.”

A year later, that tone has shifted dramatically. Adams is warning of dire consequences for the city after 110,000 arrivals. He’s begging the federal government for money, telling migrants at the border not to come and demanding state officials find other places to house those who arrive anyway.

“Let me tell you something New Yorkers: Never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to. I don’t see an ending to this,” Adams said at a town hall meeting this week, lamenting the 10,000 people pouring into the Big Apple every month. “This issue will destroy New York City.”

His big words are being shoved down his big bloody mouth. Now he’s crapping his pants about the cost of his phony largesse and worried that NYC will be destroyed. But Adams is worried not for New Yorkers, but his own ass. Adams had the gall to call Greg Abbott a “madman” for sharing the illegal alien wealth with the cretinous mayor of the Big Apple. Adams has begun shipping the illegals to outlying New York counties who now suffer for the financial burden and accompanying crime.

Over in Chicago, the land of unimaginable things- that Chicagoans are so inconceivably stupid that they could elect someone freaking worse than Lori Lightfoot- illegal aliens are turning O’Hare airport into something out of “Mad Max.”

Recently arrived migrants sit on cots and the floor of a makeshift shelter operated by the city at O'Hare International Airport on Aug. 31, 2023. (Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

Thanks to a flood of Joe Biden’s illegal aliens, Chicago’s O’Hare Airport looks like a “scene from Mad Max,” says a local reporter. Mad Max is a dystopian movie franchise set in the near future after the breakdown of society.

“More than 400 [illegals] are reportedly being housed in a section of the airport, hidden from public view behind black curtains,” reports Fox News. This is a jump from 31 in early August.Chicago reporter William Kelly told Fox News that O’Hare is just one of “18 migrant shelters in Chicago and that homeless Americans are no longer allowed to stay at the airport.”

Get a load of this…

Former Democrat Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot booted the homeless from O’Hare due to citizen complaints. But now, illegals are allowed to stay there.

Those brain-dead Chicagoans are now whining about the galactically stupid choice of President they made

It’s getting so bad that even up to now comatose dumbass democrat politicians, their own asses in electoral jeopardy, are voicing concern about the crisis

The voters’ increasing concern about the immigration crisis reflected in the poll has not been lost on Democratic lawmakers.

Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.), who narrowly won election in New York’s 19th District, called on Biden to take charge of the deteriorating situation at the border.

“The No. 1 thing I learned as an Army officer: When in charge, take charge,” Ryan said. “We are in a crisis, the president is in charge, and he and his team need to take charge.”

Josh Riley, a New York Democratic congressional candidate, said Biden’s “aloofness” on the border issue is “offensive,” calling it a “federal problem” that requires a federal response. “I think President Biden needs to get his act together and help solve it,” he said. His campaign website says that “Our immigration system is completely broken, and it needs to be fixed in a way that upholds both the law and our values.”

But now our mentally addled leader is considering a solution to the woes of blue states. Is to shut off the broken water main of illegal invasion?

Of course not.

He’s likely to order illegals to remain in Texas.

President Joe Biden is reportedly considering a plan to require illegal aliens with dubious asylum claims to remain in Texas — a move that would see the Lone Star State absorb tens of thousands of illegal aliens every week.

Biden administration officials who spoke anonymously to the Los Angeles Times said the plan is being considered so that if newly arrived border crossers fail their initial asylum screenings, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents can more easily locate and deport the illegal aliens within Texas since they would be close to the United States-Mexico border.

The move reeks of political favoritism and a nod to Trump’s remain in Mexico policy.

An added benefit for blue state governors and blue city mayors, such as New York City’s Eric Adams, is that the Biden administration would use the Remain in Texas program to shield sanctuary states and cities from waves of illegal immigration that have spurred chaos in recent months.

He has done NOTHING to try limit the invasion and everything he can to weaken the border

A fixture of the Biden administration’s lax enforcement of federal immigration law has been to oppose policies that seek to limit the movement of border crossers and illegal aliens — opting for an expansive Catch and Release network that has released millions into American communities in the last two and a half years.

But who gives a bloody feck about Texas, right? After all, it’s a red state.

I wish the Americans would effing wake up. Joe Biden is a corrupt goddam moron who cares about himself and no one else- certainly not me and damn sure not you either. He’s a f**king a******.

And here’s a bonus from what could not be a more dim-witted set of women

Damn you Biden voters for what he’s doing to this country.

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The first priority for distribution of illegal aliens is to send them exclusively to sanctuary cities and states

Send more to Martha’s Vineyard

Governor Greg Abbott Fires Warning As Biden Regime Considers Blatantly Unconstitutional Plan Forcing Illegal Aliens to Remain in Texas

I hope Abbott lines up hundreds of buses, loads them up and sends them all at once. Flood these bleeding hearts (as long as they someone else does the suffering) with their beloved “asylum seekers”. Let’s see Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden stop them.

Biden Cancels Previously Issued ANWR Oil and Gas Leases in Alaska

The collapse of the domestic energy industry by biden has caused inflationary economic pressure.

Under President Trump we became energy independent. That is no longer the case and it is the principle driving force in the economic collapse.

Biden Cancels Previously Issued ANWR Oil and Gas Leases in Alaska

Biden Cancels Previously Issued ANWR Oil and Gas Leases in Alaska

He should be applauded for doing so. We don’t yet have the technology to safely access these resources without risk of an environmental disaster that we couldn’t control.

Biden Cancels Previously Issued ANWR Oil and Gas Leases in Alaska

Not only do we have the technology, we’ve been doing it for decades, you moron.

It has nothing to do with lacking technology. What a maroon greg is.

I suppose that explains why lingering effects of the Deepwater Horizon disaster are still with us a decade later.

Not only do we have the technology, we’ve been doing it for decades, you moron.

You really want to go there, an example where Obama waived safety measures because BP made campaign contributions and Obama just let the oil spew and spread because the union would not waive the Jones act? The technology is there, as long as Democrats don’t sell the safety features.

Please don’t call Greggie a moron, it’s an insult to morons. He’s nothing more than a Dumb ¢het tool, emphasis on DUMB.

Leftists never understand the repercussions of their actions. They just lash out like spoiled children and then blame everyone else for the disastrous consequences.

Most overland LNG transport is by pipeline. Oversea transport is by LNG carrier.

Not for the weak. Promoting critical thinking. News Feed. No DM

Wendy should provide how-to instructions for making your own tinfoil hat.

The Bible says to knock the dust off your feet when trying to make commonsense of a personage likened unto you . TROLL !

Just recently you were on this forum bragging more oil was being produced than ever with Biden as president. Now here you are fussing oil production is a bad thing and supporting shutting it down. So in other words whatever the regime’s position is on any subject at any given time is your position.
Just for FYI, Biden is an environmental disaster. Just go look a the southern border and all the tent cities springing up in Democrat run cities which also includes crimes sprees on merchants and car jacking.

Biden Under Fire for ‘Unlawful Cancellation’ of Oil Leases as Prices Hit Highest Point of 2023

Leftists never think about the lies they are supporting and promoting or worry about reconciling them with past statements or positions.

They are ten year leases and legally biden cannot cancel them citing indigenous people reasons.

“The No. 1 thing I learned as an Army officer: When in charge, take charge,” Ryan said. “We are in a crisis, the president is in charge, and he and his team need to take charge.”

Anyone that expects Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden to do anything more than he is doing right now (absolutely nothing) is a moron that hasn’t been paying attention. But, if Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden wants to force millions more illegal immigrants to stay in Texas, go right a-f**king head. You can also kiss any fantasy of Texas turning blue goodbye forever. Ignorant Democrats have this delusion that Hispanic Americans think flooding their neighborhoods with illegal immigrants that have no stake in this country and don’t care about what kind of mess they make or leave is wonderful. They don’t. No one hates illegal immigration more than Hispanic citizens that work their asses off to have a home and keep it nice. They don’t like being associated with illegal immigrants. A guy I worked with that actually immigrated legally called them “visitors” derisively. He called them stupid. He hates them.

Democrats live in their own little coastal world, believing their own fantasies. Illegal immigration is not only hurting the country, it’s hurting their party. So, let er rip, Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden; if we can prevent you from giving them all ballots, they will be the destruction of your whole degenerate party.

Biden’s “asylum ineligibility rule” had reduced asylum requests by nearly 40%; illegal border crossings dropped from 10,000 a day to around 3,500. The rule was blocked in federal court.

Republican politicians want the political issue, not a solution.

You probably need to take a refresher course on counting. Tens of thousands are still flooding the border every day. Abbott’s mid-river barrier is so effective in stopping illegal immigration and drownings, Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden wants it removed.

You hit the spot like Victor David Hanson did today and any any legal US voter who votes Democrat in ’24 is either a doofus or now, a traitor. This nation is simply unraveling on and in all segments of our social, economic ,political life. Electing the Bidens of the world has made the US absolutely unsafe and open to conquest by a variety of our foreign enemies ala the Chicoms, Russia, Iran and the NORKS and if they tied together, it would be the end of this nation after 200+ years.

Biden just keeps on hammering more nails into his reelection Coffin each day

It doesn’t matter what biden does. Democrats control the voting machines and the mail in ballots. Can anyone give me any evidence to the contrary?

TX might want to put them in tents and charge them $2,200. each per month for the accommodations.

They need to be packed off to Austin, San Antonio, Houston and all the other self-proclaimed sanctuary cities. These are cities eaten up with liberalism and they need to have to climb over piles of illegal immigrants every time they make a move. Texas will be forever red.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(a)Criminal penalties(1)(A)Any person who—
(i)knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii)knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B)A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i)in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii)in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden has declared that law invalid and no longer in effect. You can’t hide behind it. NEXT?

Isn’t that a riot, an open-border supporting leftist citing immigration law? That’s like Hillary teaching a class on decision making… oh, wait. Like Lori Lightfoot teaching a class on health… damn. Wait… Like DeBlasio teaching policy making and…. shit. OK, like Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden teaching ethics.

comment image

The Frightened Left

Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
An impeachment inquiry looms and the shrieks of outrage are beginning.
The Left is now suddenly voicing warnings that those who recently undermined the system could be targeted by their own legacies.
So, for example, now we read why impeachment is suddenly a dangerous gambit.
True, the Founders did not envision impeaching a first-term president the moment he lost his House majority. Nor did they imagine impeaching a president twice. And they certainly did not anticipate trying an ex-president in the Senate as a private citizen.
In modern times, the nation has not rushed to impeach a president without a special counsel investigation to determine whether the chief executive was guilty of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
But thanks to the Democrats, recent impeachments now have destroyed all those guardrails. After all, Trump was impeached the first time on the fumes of an exhaustive but fruitless 22-month, $40 million special counsel investigation—one designed to find him guilty of Russian “collusion” and thus to be removed from office but found no actionable offenses at all.
Instead, dejected Democrats moved immediately for a second try. In September 2019 a few weeks after Trump had announced his 2020 reelection bid, the Democratic House began to impeach the president on the new grounds that he had talked to the President Zelensky of Ukraine and said he might delay offensive arms shipments—unless the Ukrainians could demonstrate that they had ended corruption and, in particular, were no longer influenced by the Biden family quid pro quo shakedowns.
Trump was proven right: the Biden family is not just corrupt, but, in particular, Joe Biden as head of the family and Vice President had intervened in the internal politics of an aid recipient, by threatening not to delay but rather to cancel outright all U.S. aid to Ukraine—unless it fired Viktor Shokin, a Ukrainian prosecutor.
Shokin was then looking into the misadventures of Biden’s son Hunter, and why the Vice President’s imbecilic son was receiving lucrative compensation on the boards of a Ukrainian energy company Burisma, yet without any demonstrable expertise or education in matters of energy policy.
Since Trump was impeached, we now know that Joe Biden did lie that he had no connection with or even knowledge of his son’s business. And we know that the fired prosecutor believed the Bidens were recipients of bribes. We know that contrary to Biden’s assertions, he was not following State Department policy.
In contrast, the U.S. had, in fact, lauded Shokin’s efforts to repress corruption. In sum, Biden was undermining the stated policy of the U.S. government to protect his son’s—and his own—efforts to leverage money from Kyiv by monetizing the influence of his own Vice Presidency. In some sense, Biden was guilty of the very “treason” charge—altering U.S. foreign policy for personal benefit—by which Rep. Adam Schiff had earlier falsely accused Trump.
Given that reality, it is easy to argue that the House impeached Donald Trump in 2019 for crimes that he did not commit, but which the current president Joe Biden most certainly had during his Vice Presidency.
But weaponizing impeachment is just one baleful legacy of the Left. There are plenty more of their own precedents that Leftists now would not wish to have applied to themselves:
Will the next president have the FBI pay social media censors to suppress the dissemination of any news it feels is unhelpful to the reelection of a Republican president?
Is it OK now for the next Vice President to invite his son onto Air Force Two to cement multimillion dollars deals that benefit both, with Chinese, Russian, and Ukrainian oligarchs who enjoy government ties?
Should a conservative billionaire stealthily insert $419 million late in the 2024 campaign to absorb the work of registrars in key voting precincts?
If a Democratic president wins the 2024 election should conservative groups riot at the Capitol on Inauguration Day? Should a conservative celebrity yell out to the assembled crowd of protestors that she dreams of blowing up the White House? And if a Republican wins, should he prosecute any Democratic rioters who once again swarm Washington on Inauguration Day and charge them with “insurrection,” meting out long prisons sentences to the convicted?
Is Joe Biden now vulnerable to being impeached for systematic family corruption, or using the Department of Justice to obstruct the prosecution of his son in his last days in office, and then being tried in the Senate as a private citizen?
If the Republicans gain the Senate, will they move to end the filibuster in agreement with Democratic assertions that it is “racist” and a “Jim Crow relic”?
If the midwestern Electoral College “Blue Wall” seems to reappear, or if Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada recreate new blue walls, will there be a conservative effort to end the constitutionally mandated Electoral College?
If in 2024 there is a narrow Democratic win in the Electoral College, should conservative celebrities conspire to run ads urging the electors to reject their constitutional duties and not vote in accordance with their state’s popular vote that went Democratic? Should a Republican third-party candidate sue to stop a state’s selection of its electors on grounds the voting machines were rigged?
If Supreme Court decisions begin to appear to favor the left, will Republicans talk of packing the court, or have the DOJ turn a blind eye when mobs began to swarm the homes of liberal justices? Should the conservative media go after liberal judges with serial accusations of corruption? Should the Republican Senate leader assemble a mob of pro-life protestors at the doors of the court and call out Justices Sotomayor or Jackson by name, with threats that they will soon reap the whirlwind they have sowed, given they have no idea of what is about to “hit” them? Should conservative legal scholars urge the country to ignore Supreme Court decisions deemed liberal?
Will local prosecutors in red jurisdictions begin filing criminal charges against leading Democratic candidates on various charges, among them accusations of old inflated real estate assessments, campaign finance laws, questioning ballot results, or taking classified documents home? If Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton were to run in 2024, will their past illicit behavior gain the attention of a city or state attorney in Utah, West Virginia, or Wyoming?
If Joe Biden continues to decline at his present rate, will Republicans demand he be given the Montreal Cognitive Assessment? Will they subpoena Ivy League psychiatrists to testify that an intervention is needed to remove him from office? And will an FBI director and a deputy Attorney General plan to wear wires, and record Biden in his private moments of senility, as a way of convincing the cabinet or Congress that he is demonstrably mentally unfit for office?
In the 2024 election, should the Republican nominee hire a foreign ex-spy to compile falsehoods about the Democratic opponent and then seed them among the media, and Department of Justice? Should the FBI hire such a Republican contractor and likewise use him to gather dirt on the Democratic nominee?
If there appears incriminating evidence concerning a Republican nominee, should the FBI retrieve such evidence, keep it under wraps, lie about its veracity, and instead go along with media and ex-intelligence officers assertions that it is a fraudulent production of Russian intelligence?
Will conservative CIA and FBI directors, and the Director of National Intelligence be given exemptions from prosecutions for systematically lying while under oath in Congress or to federal investigators?
Will conservative celebrities ritually on social media, without fear of censorship, brag about ways of decapitating, shooting, stabbing, burning, or blowing up the Democratic nominee?
Since in many states the statues of limitations have not yet expired for arson, murder, assault, looting, and attacks on 1,500 police officers during the summer 2020 riots, will state prosecutors now begin identifying those 14,000 once arrested and mostly released, and begin refiling charges of conspiracy, racketeering—and “insurrection”?
Will they also file insurrection charges against those who torched a federal courthouse, a police precinct, and a historic Washington DC church, or conspired to riot and swarm the White House grounds in an effort to attack the President of the United States?
Will they file charges against Vice President Kamala Harris for “inciting” ongoing violent demonstrations with monotonous, emphatic, and repetitive threats in the weeks before her nomination? Contrary to liberal “fact checkers” at time of nationwide violence, Harris certainly did not distinguish violent from non-violent protests, but in fact implied that they were intimately tied to the upcoming election and beyond. So given the hundreds of police officers injured, the hundreds of millions in property damage, and the dozens killed, what exactly did Harris mean by tying that ongoing summer of often violent protests to Election Day?:
“But they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not.”


09/13/23 – Trump privately discussed Biden impeachment with GOP lawmakers

Former President Trump has been keeping close ties with House Republicans as they barrel toward an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

Trump has privately discussed the inquiry with members of the House Freedom Caucus and other top Republicans, The New York Times reported. These discussions come as Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) directed committees Tuesday to open a formal impeachment inquiry into Biden based on House probes into his family’s foreign business dealings and the prosecution of his son Hunter Biden.

Just two days ahead of McCarthy’s announcement, Trump met with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) at his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey. Greene said in an interview with the Times that she told Trump that she wanted the impeachment inquiry to be “long and excruciatingly painful” for Biden.

“I did brief him on the strategy that I want to see laid out with impeachment,” she said.

Greene also said she wanted to have a “long list of names” of people she claimed are co-conspirators in alleged crimes committed by Biden’s family, adding that she aims “to go after every single one of them and use the Department of Justice to prosecute them.”

…“I speak to President Trump a lot. I spoke to him today,” Stefanik told reporters on Tuesday, adding that she believes the Biden family’s business dealings are “the biggest political corruption scandal of our lifetime.”

The Times also reported Stefanik has spoken weekly with Trump over the past month, and she has discussed impeachment inquiry strategies with the former president. A person familiar with the conversations told the newspaper Trump thanked Stefanik for supporting the inquiry.

The former president has been outspoken about his support for an impeachment inquiry into Biden as he labels his legal troubles as politically motivated.

“Biden is a Stone Cold Crook — You don’t need a long INQUIRY to prove it, it’s already proven,” he wrote in a Truth Social post last month. “These lowlifes Impeached me TWICE (I WON!), and Indicted me FOUR TIMES – For NOTHING! Either IMPEACH the BUM, or fade into OBLIVION. THEY DID IT TO US!”

During his tenure in the White House, Trump was the subject of two impeachment inquiries.

The Hill has reached out to the offices of Greene and Stefanik for comment.

The corrupt s.o.b. is currently facing 91 felony counts, but still puppeteering the GOP to attack his political enemies.

His son-in-law received $2 Billion from the Saudis and was paid to manage their investment for two years while making no investments.

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump reported between $172 million and $640 million in outside income while working in the White House, according to an analysis of financial disclosures by CREW. It is impossible to tell the exact amount as the income is sometimes reported in broad ranges and cover four months of income before Ivanka Trump officially joined her father’s administration and nearly one month before Jared Kushner joined.

Both Kushner and Trump announced they would not take a salary while working for the government in an attempt to shut down nepotism concerns. While their supporters marked this as a public sacrifice, the massive amount of money they made on the side undercuts that argument, as government salaries would have been less than 1% of their income.

One major factor in their outside profits came from Ivanka Trump’s ownership stake in the Trump Hotel in DC, just blocks from the White House and the locus of influence peddling in the Trump administration. Before business slowed down due to the pandemic, the couple paid a combined 23 visits to the hotel. All told, Ivanka made more than $13 million from the hotel since 2017, dropping from about $4 million a year between 2017 and 2019 to about $1.5 million last year, at least in part due to the pandemic. On top of the drop in revenue, there’s an unexplained drop in the value of her ownership. Having previously claimed it to be worth between $5 million and $25 million, in her final disclosure she listed it as only worth $100,000 to $250,000. She did not report selling any of her ownership share in the hotel.

The hotel was far from Ivanka Trump’s only controversial source of income while working in the White House. In 2018, Ivanka announced she was shutting down her namesake brand, and she later filed a disclosure with the government that “[a]ll operations of the business ceased on July 31, 2018.” But we discovered that she still made up to $1 million from it in 2019 despite the fact that she claimed it no longer existed.

While after four years it’s still a little hard to tell what, exactly, Ivanka actually did in the White House, her tenure was still marked by repeated scandals revolving around potential conflicts of interest with her businesses. While dealing with foreign governments can raise obvious questions for the children of presidents, getting financial or other benefits from foreign governments while working as a senior staffer in your father’s administration should be an obvious non-starter. But when it comes to Ivanka’s time in the administration, getting foreign trademarks to use after leaving the White House may have been her biggest accomplishment.

Just a month before her father was elected president, Russia renewed two trademarks for Ivanka Trump’s business. This would be the start of a pattern. In 2017, Ivanka’s business won preliminary approval for three Chinese trademarks on the same day that she dined with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago. In May 2018, Ivanka’s business was awarded “registration” approval from the Chinese government for five trademark applications, with an additional one getting “first trial approval.” The same week, President Trump announced he would try to save jobs at ZTE, the Chinese telecommunications giant closely tied to the government. A month later, Ivanka’s business got registration approval for three more Chinese trademarks, on the same day her father announced he’d lift sanctions against ZTE.

Ivanka’s business applied for Japanese trademarks the day after her father won the presidency. They were approved around the time of Mike Pence’s visit to Japan where he met with then-Prime Minister Abe. Ivanka also met with Abe, along with her father, about a week after her company applied for the trademarks. She won approval for additional Japanese trademarks in 2017.

In what would become the defining scandal of her time in office, in October 2018 Ivanka’s brand won 16 new trademarks from the Chinese government, including for voting machines. These approvals came about three months after Ivanka announced that her brand was shutting down, and mark the largest number of new Chinese trademarks she received in a single month during the Trump presidency. Six months after the company officially shut down, it received a new trademark to sell the Ivanka brand in Canada. In all, CREW found at least 28 foreign trademarks approved for Ivanka Trump while in the White House.

While most of her work in the White House was fairly nebulous, we do know that she worked on the Trump administration’s implementation of the Opportunity Zones program in 2018, apparently violating conflict of interest law in the process. At the same time that Ivanka was working on Opportunity Zones, Jared owned a significant financial stake in a company called Cadre which offers investment vehicles under the Opportunity Zones program. When Trump and Kushner entered the administration, Kushner’s stake in Cadre was valued between $5 million and $25 million. The value would rise to $25 million to $50 million. Kushner originally failed to disclose his ownership in Cadre. Despite the fact that the top White House ethics official determined at one point that it was “reasonably necessary” for him to divest from Cadre in order to do his job at the White House, he never did.

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump should never have been allowed to work in the White House. The Department of Justice reversed decades of precedent to grant President Trump’s wish to have his children work in the White House. While taking on enormous responsibilities that they were unqualified to carry out, and debasing their positions with constant ethics scandals, they likely made hundreds of millions of dollars from questionable sources. All that was waived off by the same nepotism that got them their jobs. Some “sacrifice.”

The corruption is the 91 false charges and election interference, but people dedicated to stupidity can’t realize that.

Note that they reported their income. That means they paid taxes on it and it was on the up and up. Now, compare that to Hunter, who did NOT report the millions he was raking in from his influence peddling and did NOT pay his taxes, yet the investigations were quashed and Hunter and Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden corruption was protected by the IRS, FBI and DOJ. Why hasn’t Hunter been charged with FARA violations?

Paying taxes on income doesn’t have a damn thing to do with whether the income was acquired legitimately acquired or not.

Note that they reported their income. That means they paid taxes on it and it was on the up and up. 

Paying taxes on income doesn’t have a damn thing to do with whether the income was acquired legitimately acquired or not.

No, but if it’s illicit, a criminal is more likely to NOT declare it as it’s source has to be revealed. Like Hunter did when he evaded taxes on millions of dollars. When the income is legitimate, it is usually declared, as honest people (who aren’t Democrats) don’t want to get in trouble with the IRS.

Hunter and Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden are corrupt criminals. This is confirmed and undeniable, no matter how many “whatabouts” you want to try.

The two legal scholars who say the 14th Amendment would prevent Trump from holding office are both constitutional originalists. I might call that irony—except for the fact Trump neither a conservative nor a supporter of the Constitution. His followers somehow missed the fact that he publicly stated it should be suspended if it proved to be an obstacle:

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

The Conservative Legal Roadmap to Disqualify Trump From Office – A pair of originalist scholars say that Article 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is alive and well—and capable of ending the former president’s return to the White House.

The Conservative Legal Roadmap to Disqualify Trump From Office – A pair of originalist scholars say that Article 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is alive and well—and capable of ending the former president’s return to the White House.

comment image

The soapbox, not credible at all. part of the left wing rag new republic

There is no hierarchal ordering from highest to lowest, because the all-inclusive description of who is excluded, “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or any State”, comes last.

Clark’s “argument” is a perfect example of the “begging the question” logical fallacy. You have to assume that there’s a hierarchal intention to begin with—otherwise the all-inclusive statement at the end instantly demonstrates that there isn’t. The video distracts from this bit of fatally flawed “logic” using cartoonish video effects and dramatic musical score.

Jeffrey Clark is a Trump tool, plain and simple. He was part of Trump’s failed effort to overturn the elections and is presently one of the indicted in Fulton County, Georgia.

Why did jack smith not charge President Trump with insurrection?

The framers made clear neither the President or Vice President are federal offices.

No, they did not. The presidency is the highest office of the Executive Branch of federal government.

The framers made clear neither the President or Vice President are federal offices.

“a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state”
Fourth, the amnesty or removal element allows Congress to remove the disqualification or disability:

“Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Most of the current debates about Section 3 have focused on the offense element: Has President Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof?” Some recent discussions of Section 3 have glossed over the text of the jurisdictional and disqualification elements. These two elements, which refer to two different types of officers and offices, raise two difficult and novel legal issues. First, does the President meet the jurisdictional element? Second, does the disqualification element extend to the presidency? In this post, we will focus on the first question.

The Impeachment Clause, Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of 1788, expressly applies to the President. The Impeachment Clause provides:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
But the jurisdictional element of Section 3 does not specifically mention the presidency. Instead of using express language akin to the Impeachment Clause, the jurisdictional element of Section 3 applies to:

A “person . . . who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States.”
President Trump has never been a “member of Congress” or “a member of any state legislature” or an “executive or judicial officer of any state.” Therefore, the only way for Section 3’s jurisdictional element to cover President Trump would be if he had taken an oath “to support the Constitution” as an “officer of the United States.” But the sole article of impeachment against President Trump elides over this issue. Indeed, the House’s impeachment article did not discuss Section 3’s jurisdictional element.

There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution’s “Officers of the United States”-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that “[t]he people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.'” Rather, “officers of the United States” are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an “officer of the United States.”

Nonsense. They’ve taken a few words from what Roberts wrote and plugged them into their own crack-brained opinion. Here’s the actual context of what Roberts said:

The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence.” The Federalist No. 72, p. 487 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Without a clear and effective chain of command, the public cannot “determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures ought really to fall.” Id., No. 70, at 476 (same). That is why the Framers sought to ensure that “those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest, will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.” 1 Annals of Cong., at 499 (J. Madison).

There’s not a damn thing in there suggesting that the presidency isn’t a federal office. The presidency is the highest office of the Executive Branch of federal government.

Moreover, there is some good authority to reject the position that Section 3’s “officer of the United States”-language extends to the presidency. In United States v. Mouat (1888), Justice Samuel Miller interpreted a statute that used the phrase “officers of the United States.” He wrote, “[u]nless a person in the service of the government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the president, or of one of the courts of justice or heads of departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.” Justice Miller’s opinion, drafted two decades after the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification, is some probative evidence of the original public meaning of Section 3’s “officer of the United States”-language. Miller’s opinion is some evidence rebutting any presumption of post-1788 linguistic drift with respect to the phrase “officer of the United States.” Likewise Mouat rebuts the position that, circa 1868, the obvious, plain, or clear meaning of the phrase “officer of the United States” extended to the presidency.

Grasping at straws… A president is not King of the Federal Government. A president is the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the federal government. He or she holds a federal office.

So far, advocates for Section 3 disqualification of President Trump have not advanced comprehensive or systematic evidence that the President is an “officer of the United States.” They have the burden to establish that the “officer of the United States”-language of Section 3’s jurisdictional element extends to the presidency. They should also rebut the evidence we have put forward in this post (and elsewhere, on many prior occasions).

Lets send them all to the United Nations and let them take them all in