[johnforbes]

Inspired by Hunter's example (creating "paintings" which can be bought and constitute effectively money laundering), I am now offering my own paintings:

For a mere 100k, I will take a piece of cardboard and place my muddy bootprint in it.

Offers?

[Clownkicker]

It's always hilarious to see naive johnny get upset with someone for doing the same things the wealthy have been doing for a hundred years.

What do you think the Trump Organization is, dimwit? As a legitimate real estate developer Trump was a bust. (His billion dollar Taj Mahal Caino recently sold for what it is actually worth--$54 million.) Now they launder money for the Russians and take their cut. Before that, in the 90s Trump was not just broke, but he was hundreds of millions in debt. Why do you think Trump kisses Putin's ass, dummy?

[johnforbes]

Former FBI head Mueller spent two years investigating Trump and the Russia collusion claim, but he learned within two weeks (or Weissman did) that there was no evidence.

Two years later, these partisans have still found no evidence whatsoever to support the many and various paranoid claims of Trump-Russia collusion.

Trump was impeached for a supposed deal with Ukraine, but Joe admitted on video that he demanded the prosecutor be fired before Ukraine could get a billion in aid and it later turned out that was the prosecutor looking into Hunter's business deals.

Physician, heal thyself.

[Clownkicker]

"Former FBI head Mueller spent two years investigating Trump and the Russia collusion claim, but he learned within two weeks (or Weissman did) that there was no evidence."-johnfibs

johnny, you really should actually read the Mueller report. Mueller found lots of evidence and came up with 15 points where Trump committed crimes. He just thought it was up to the Justice Department or Congress to pursue them, not the special prosecutor.


"Trump was impeached for a supposed deal with Ukraine..."-johnfibs

No he wasn't, johnny. You made it up. There was no deal because Ukraine refused to knuckle under to extortion. Trump was impeached for trying to extort a foreign government to announce a phony 'investigation' into a political opponent for personal gain and against the broader interests of the United States and its allies.

And here's the proof that I am right and you are lying, johnny--THE TEXT OF THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT:

"Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation."

THAT'S what he was impeached for. There is nothing about a "supposed deal". And Trump did commit the crime. The proof was provided by Trump himself in the form of a transcript of the phone call where he committed the crime but fortunately failed to extort the foreign head of state. I read it and you read it.



"...Joe admitted on video that he demanded the prosecutor be fired before Ukraine could get a billion in aid and it later turned out that was the prosecutor looking into Hunter's business deals."-johnfibs

Wrong again, numbnuts. Biden insisted the corrupt prosecutor be fired because all of Europe wanted him gone because he was corrupt. That prosecutor was never "looking into Hunter's business deals" You made that up too. The guy had nothing to do with the Bidens. The company (not Hunter) was being investigated for things that happened before Biden was even on the board. Hunter was never the target of any investigation into Burisma.


Dimwit, heal thy willful partisan ignorance.

[johnforbes]

Did they pursue any Russia collusion charges against Trump? Nope, because there wasn't sufficient evidence other than the fevered imaginings of leftists at CNN and MSNBC and the NY Times and Washington Post.

Every president has enemies, and as senile Joe stumbles on in his tenure he will gain more of them too.

To what extent did he know about the business deals of his dirtball son? He had denied all knowledge, but photos keep emerging showing he had met many, and the laptop suggests he got half according to Hunter as the "Big Guy."

If the son went to law school (think he did), there isn't likely to be any evidence, but there should at least be some pro forma investigation so that Americans can at least have some minimal faith that the rule of law still pertains to Dems.

[Clownkicker]

Did they pursue any Russia collusion charges against Trump? Nope, because Republicans were in charge and they wouldn't indict their boss. There was plenty of evidence against Trump.


"If the son went to law school (think he did), there isn't likely to be any evidence, but there should at least be some pro forma investigation so that Americans can at least have some minimal faith that the rule of law still pertains to Dems."-johnfoibles

johnny, if there was an investigation into Hunter and they found nothing, you would not be satisfied that the rule of law still pertains to Dems. You would whine about how the fix was in and we would never hear the end of your partisan whining and you know it, even though you yourself think "there isn't likely to be any evidence" that he did anything wrong.

So why waste taxpayer money on a purely partisan scam? It won't make anyone feel better, will it. You already know the outcome. You don't need to keep beating this dead horse, johnny. One would think you would have something better to waste your useless life on than this.

[sillydaddy]

What did the Feds get from raiding Rudy Giuliani’s Manhattan home and office..?
They were just out to harass the man because of his association with Trump...
Did they actually think Rudy was going to leave information about his business dealings out in the open for anyone to take??
They were out to harass him as they are now doing with Trump's bookkeeper..
Now that is a waste of taxpayer money...

[johnforbes]

Reportedly, Rudy had even offered them the material and had asked what they wanted.

Well, apparently they wanted a story on the evening news about a raid.

[Clownkicker]

"Reportedly, Rudy had even offered them the material and had asked what they wanted."-johnfoibles

Oh, well then why didn't they just accept that a criminal would give them everything he had that might incriminate himself and the guy he worked for, eh, counselor?

Well, apparently they wanted a story on the evening news about how they actually collected the damning evidence before Rudy had a chance to destroy it. Ya think, dimwit?

[johnforbes]

As an officer of the court, he had a duty anyhow to proffer anything they wanted and apparently he did.

But they wanted a news story.

[Clownkicker]

Yes, johnny, they got the news story that they were smart enough to actually collect the damning evidence before Rudy had a chance to destroy it.

Kudos to all involved, eh? Glad to see you agree that law enforcement shouldn't be so gullible as to simply take the word of suspected criminals that they will voluntarily incriminate themselves if just given the opportunity to stay out of a "news story."

...as if Giuliani voluntarily turning over the evidence they found wouldn't also have been a "news story."

You are indeed a partisan tool simpleton, johnny.

[johnforbes]

Apparently he was informed what they wanted and offered it to them.

Obviously, neither you nor I have those documents to verify that.

Clearly, they wanted publicity because he was a known public figure and not going anywhere.

[Clownkicker]

Yes, good, they got the evidence despite Giuliani being a dishonest scumbag.

We got it, johnny. You don't have to convince us further.

[johnforbes]

But there's no apparent reason to suppose he was dishonest at all.

They wanted the political theater of a dawn raid, so that's what they did (cf. the Stone dawn raid with CNN advised to show up and film it).

[Clownkicker]

"But there's no apparent reason to suppose he was dishonest at all."-johnfibs

Yes, there was, dummy. I heard him lie outright on TV about legal matters repeatedly. So did you. I call that a definite sign of dishonesty. I presume the FBI heard him as well.

He kept claiming there was evidence of election fraud in public, but when a judge asked to see the evidence of election fraud, Rudy said the lawsuit didn't claim election fraud....and then he was tossed out of court along with his frivolous lawsuit.

He also kept claiming all sorts of evidence against Biden in Ukraine, but he could never produce any of that evidence either. He carried out an illegal shadow foreign policy in Ukraine for Trump's personal political gain at the expense of U.S. security. That's another sign of dishonesty.

Besides, what is inherently wrong with political theater? (It wasn't, but let's pretend it was.) If it stops other liars (like Sydney Powell) from continuing to press the "Big Lie" without any evidence, then good. That's what theater is supposed to do; keep more people from committing crimes by frightening them with the realization that they will be investigated and prosecuted. What do you think all the news stories about the IRS prosecuting tax evaders every year right before April are about, johnny? It's theater? The prosecutions are real and valid, but they hit the news at the right time to remind taxpayers that they shouldn't cheat on this year's taxes.

[johnforbes]

No, you are assuming there were no election problems.

There were, and every audit showed that, and that is why Dems oppose further audits.

In truth, every election every year should be audited to assure election integrity, regardless of what party is hurt or helped.

[Clownkicker]

"No, you are assuming there were no election problems."-johnfibs

Don't be silly. I always assume there are election problems. Elections are run by humans. There are problems when humans are involved. But they are very small problems that don't change election results, just as Barr told you. They are minor problems that need to be addressed before the next election.


"There were [election problems], and every audit showed that..."-johnfibs

No, they didn't. You're making that up. You can't offer a single case of verified, documented "election problems" that would have impacted the election results. What was consistently found in cases of alleged voter fraud, they would find perhaps two to ten cases in an entire state. When it was alleged ballots for Biden magically showed up "late in the night," the ballots turned out to all be legitimate and they arrived "late in the night" because that's how long it typically takes to deliver the ballots to the counting stations. When there was an unusual adjustment of running vote tally totals, they were all explained (by Republicans doing the tally) as correcting some honest mistake or glitch in the count system. When it was alleged vote counting machines were 'flipping' votes away from Trump and toward Biden, the hand recounts all verified the machine counts were correct.

You still haven't offered a single concrete case of significant election fraud. That means you need to tell us the state specific fraud occurred in and present the evidence that the fraud actually occurred. But you won't because you can't. Just as Giuliani and Powell can't present any cases of fraud to us. If they could, they would have. And if they had, it would have been front page news months ago. If there was any actual evidence of fraud, Republicans would have shown it to us. But not one has presented any evidence whatsoever.

There comes a time in every election when you must simply accept the word of your Republican authorities, johnny, when they tell you that the election was secure and valid. Your incessant, unwarranted whining only serves to undermine faith in our democratic system. And that is bad for America.


"In truth, every election every year should be audited to assure election integrity, regardless of what party is hurt or helped."-johnfoibles

If an audit were done in "every election every year" we wouldn't know who won until months after the election, dummy. I'm not just making that up. The latest Arizona 'audit' has been going on for nearly three months and we still don't have a result. That will come weeks from now. (Imagine the partisan upheaval if we had to wait until mid-February to get election results as you are suggesting.)

As it was, Trump was already insisting he won days before the first counts were even finished, let alone the audits being done. Imagine if he had to wait even a month to find out he lost? Clowns like you want the election called on election night. Imagine the whining we would have to endure from you for weeks if we all had to wait for audits of "every election every year" to learn who actually won.

As it is, audits have already been done in many disputed states, and the audits all came back supporting the initial count. But then, when things didn't go your way, you now insist on even more audits, hiring inexperienced partisans to somehow finagle a new result that suits your liking.

[johnforbes]

Easy.

We already have fairly clear problems in GA and elsewhere.

Take the case of PA, where Act 77 clearly stated an 8pm deadline. If beyond that point, the statute was unambiguous and all was "void" to quote the statute.

The PA Sup Ct, a partisan elected body, extended voting 3 days, but under the US Constitution that was within the purview of the state legislature -- not the PA governor, not the Sec of State, not the AG.

[Clownkicker]

Yes, you're clearly "Easy" johnny. Your handlers love your sort of malleable tool.


"We already have fairly clear problems in GA and elsewhere."-johnfibs

There are no problems in Georgia. Republicans there have verified that the election was valid, secure, and without any fraud.
What else do you want from an election, johnny?

The only problems in Georgia are Trump supporters without any evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. In other words, useful tools like YOU are the only real problem remaining.


"Take the case of PA, where Act 77 clearly stated an 8pm deadline.
The PA Sup Ct, a partisan elected body, extended voting 3 days, but under the US Constitution that was within the purview of the state legislature -johnflubs

No, they did NOT extend VOTING three days, johnny. You made it up. They extended the delivery time for ballots by three days because the Trump Administration had intentionally sabotaged the mail service so that ballots from Democrat areas could not be delivered on time. No ballot with a Nov. 7th or Nov. 8th postmark was counted. Stop pretending they were.

The election laws in PA were written by the state legislature, just as required by the US Constitution. All the counted ballots were voted by the legal 8:00 p.m. deadline set by the legislature, just as required by PA law. No law was changed. No counted ballots were "void." The State Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of PA law, said the delivery extension was legal. Once they decide the case, there is no longer any problem as you pretend. That is within THEIR purview under the PA Constitution.

That you continue to say a legally settled issue in PA is still a "problem" only shows you hold the PA Supreme Court in contempt--a stupid move for any practicing lawyer in PA, johnny. You could be put in jail for such nonsense.

Courts often decide issues in ways that you or I disagree with, but once the case is settled, it's settled. It's no longer a legal "problem."

You really should attend a reputable law school sometime. You desperately need to study up on who is the ultimate, 'last word' interpreter of all laws passed by the legislatures in every state either. They have all been legally certified.

The elections in PA and Georgia have been legally audited, recounted multiple times, legally certified, and settled. There was no election fraud. And you have no other more credible examples or evidence that there was massive fraud in any other state.

Now, if you have nothing else, please grow up and submit to the law, johnny, as you must as an officer of the court, as must we all, like it or not.

[johnforbes]

Tools are not malleable.

[Clownkicker]

Of course many tools are malleable, dummy. You really need to buy a dictionary some day.

Take you, for example. You are a tool of the authoritarian reactionary Right and you are quite malleable. That's why they seek out clowns like you. Your opinions are pliable and easily influenced to the point of being willing to accepting the cognitive dissonance of your constant partisan hypocrisy without any of the discomfort of a nagging conscience. Your handlers pound away endlessly at your suggestible brain with moronic propaganda targeted at idiots, and you love them for it.

But an example for the strictly literal-minded dimwits like you, a band clamp is a common tool and by its very nature it is malleable; flexible, pliable, and easily bent without breaking.

But it was refreshing that you didn't try to lie further about your only two examples of electoral "problems" that aren't problems at all. However, you should know by now that your silly diversions from your inability to refute anything I said won't make you right about the topic at hand.

Grow up, johnny.

[johnforbes]

No, I'm an individual.

To find a tool, you would have to find an aptly named "toolbox" and open it.

I hate to hammer this home, but Clownslacker is screwed up.

I apologize for this wrenching conversation.

[Clownkicker]

I appreciate your capitulation to my ineluctable reason, johnny.


You must know by now that when you are forced to resort to your tired, grinning soft shoe comedy routine, everyone knows you've got nuthin'.

[johnforbes]

No, I was thinking -- as you should have been -- of Kantian modes of being.

He distinguished phenomenal things -- as they appear to the mind -- and noumenal things as they are genuinely without sensory observation.

This is the ding an sich, and it was a nod of the head to Plato's concept of ideal forms.

You can see a chair, but you can't use your sensory apparatus to apprehend the notion of a chair.

But isn't the notion of a chair actually more real than the individual chair upon which a person reposes?