Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, July 07, 2024

"I do think heading into this week Biden is in a commanding position politically," [Mike] Madrid said. "If he doesn't want to go the base appears to be backing him decisively and the blowback on the pressure campaign should be a warning to members coming at him."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Imagine how bad things would be if Biden was a 34 time convicted felon with over 60 additional felony indictments and trials ahead.

Both parties are not the same.

#1 | Posted by Wardog at 2024-07-07 12:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Joe Biden Suffers From 'Denial, Delusion and Defiance': Former Obama Adviser
www.newsweek.com

... President Joe Biden's recent ABC News interview with George Stephanopoulos has done little to quell growing concerns about his age and fitness for office, according to a scathing critique from David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama.

In a CNN opinion piece, Axelrod characterized Biden's response to questions about his poor debate performance and low poll numbers as exhibiting "denial, delusion, and defiance." The veteran political strategist's comments come as Biden, 81, faces mounting pressure from within his own party to step aside amid fears of a potential landslide defeat to former President Donald Trump in November.

Axelrod zeroed in on Biden's interview, during which the president struggled to explain his widely criticized June 27 debate performance against Trump. Biden offered multiple explanations for his poor showing, including a bad cold, exhaustion, and inadequate preparation, before ultimately conceding, "I just had a bad night, I don't know why."

"That, in a nutshell, is the Republican attack. That an aged Biden is not in control, and that's why his debate misfire was so devastating," Axelrod wrote, highlighting the gravity of Biden's stumble. ...



#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 12:45 PM | Reply

The Dems should definitely listen to what the GOP strategist says!

"Trump Hopes Biden Stays in Race, Changes Tone
Donald Trump hailed Joe Biden as his most dangerous rival in a speech on Friday, in what some see as a bid to stave off having the president replaced with a more formidable opponent."
drudge.com

#3 | Posted by censored at 2024-07-07 02:54 PM | Reply

POSTED BY CENSORED

You should do the rest of us a favor and shove your head up Jill Stein 2024!

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-07 02:55 PM | Reply

Biden would have more friends and allies if he hadn't militarized the DOJ against his rival after stealing the election to gain power.

#5 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-07-07 03:19 PM | Reply

@#5 ... if he hadn't militarized the DOJ against his rival after stealing the election to gain power. ...

Still trotting out that old nugget, and again without any manner of evidence.

What else yer got?


#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

What else yer got?

Nothing.

Republicans have been repeating the same lies since 2020.

#7 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-07 03:27 PM | Reply

Biden would have more friends and allies if he hadn't militarized the DOJ against his rival after stealing the election to gain power. #5 | Posted by visitor_

And the 34 felony convictions in NY State court? The charges in Georgia? That DOJ has one heck of a reach, doesn't it?

Poor innocent Donald! Like that time the judge awarded almost $100 million against him for NOT raping that woman and then defaming her.

So persecuted!

#8 | Posted by censored at 2024-07-07 03:32 PM | Reply

Apparently it's a felony to write "legal services" in the memo field of a check when paying for legal services while Trump. And you don't see how bad that looks to the rest of the country without TDS.

#9 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-07-07 03:39 PM | Reply

Apparently it's a felony [...] #9 | Posted by visitor_

And the rest? In any event, too bad we didn't hear Trump's side of the story.

Wonder why he wouldn't testify? "A video of Donald Trump claiming that only the mob and people who are guilty take the 5th amendment has resurfaced on social media." www.newsweek.com "Trump invokes Fifth Amendment nearly 450 times in N.Y. AG's civil probe of his business practices" www.nbcnews.com

I must have misunderstood what Trump was saying in that video. Because of my "TDS."

#10 | Posted by censored at 2024-07-07 03:45 PM | Reply

"Apparently it's a felony to write "legal services" in the memo field of a check when paying for legal services while Trump."

Paying someone hush money isn't a legal service.

Stormy Daniels isn't a lawyer, she didn't get paid for any legal services.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-07-07 03:48 PM | Reply

How should having a lawyer craft and arrange an NDA document signing be coded in an accounting system?

#12 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-07-07 03:59 PM | Reply

Cohen got paid for his legal services. He also got paid a reimbursement for hush money.

------- being the greedy ---- tried to get a tax deduction for the reimbursement so he claimed it was for legal services.

If he hadn't chosen to break the law he wouldn't have broken the law.

#13 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 04:04 PM | Reply

Can you back up your tax deduction claim?

#14 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-07-07 04:10 PM | Reply

You don't understand the difference between a company (------- Industries) or a political campaign paying legal expenses vs. personal expenses?

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 04:18 PM | Reply

Either you can back your claim of tax fraud or you can't. So far you haven't.

#16 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-07-07 04:21 PM | Reply

" Apparently it's a felony to write "legal services" in the memo field of a check when paying for legal services "

No, dumfuq, paying hookers for sex isn't a legal expense, even if it's filtered through a lawyer.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-07 04:22 PM | Reply

You do understand that if he just paid her a personal check this wouldn't have been a crime, right?

He chose not to, because it would have embarrassed him.

So, he went through his company and incorrectly claimed a personal expense as a business expense. You see that is a no-no.

Since the purpose of the hush money was to protect himself from political fallout, his payment could be construed as a campaign contribution by ------- Industries. If he paid the hush money himself that wouldn't have been a violation of campaign laws because he is allowed to fund his own campaign without restrictions.

------- Industries cannot provide unlimited funds to his campaign because that would be an easy money laundering scam. and as a company it has specific record keeping requirements. For money laundering Putin pays Billionaire who buys ------- real estate and ------- Industries funds his campaign. See, that is a No-No

#18 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 04:24 PM | Reply

Either you can back your claim of tax fraud or you can't. So far you haven't.

#16 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

you don't understand basic finance, so there is that, don't blame me for your ignorance.

#19 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 04:25 PM | Reply

You're claiming he took a tax deduction, can you prove it?

#20 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-07-07 04:26 PM | Reply

Point of clarification, the way the scheme was structured was also a crime. Cohen took out a home equity loan to pay the hush money. Since the cause of the hush money was to protect -------- campaign, it became a campaign contribution and an illegal one as it exceeded allowable limits and wasn't reported. ------- falsified documents so that it did not appear that the money Cohen used came from him.

You get it yet?

#21 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 04:28 PM | Reply

You're claiming he took a tax deduction, can you prove it?

#20 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

I don't need to, he falsified the documents-misdemeanor, he falsified the documents to hide a crime. Either he was making an illegal contribution, hiding Cohen's illegal contribution or improperly assigning the payment for tax purposes. He is guilty any which way you slice the pie.

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 04:30 PM | Reply

he falsified the documents to hide a crime-making it a felony.

Ignoring everything else, Cohen was found guilty for these payments ------- was hiding his involvement in those payments, his guilt is so cut and dry it's not funny

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 04:31 PM | Reply

"You're claiming he took a tax deduction"

It was reported as legal fees.

Trump also "grossed up" Cohen's payoff, so he'd be made whole AFTER paying income taxes on the "legal fees".

Pro tip: That's NOT how legal fees work. That IS, however, how hush money (and election crime) gets covered up.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-07 04:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

None of that was alleged in the show trial.

#25 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-07-07 04:35 PM | Reply

@#12 ... How should having a lawyer craft and arrange an NDA document signing be coded in an accounting system? ...

Why does that even matter at this point?

Fmr Pres Trump was found guilty by a jury on 34 counts.

Unless there's something hidden in the re-look due to the SCOTUS immunity decision, the next step would be what does fmr Pres Trump use as a basis of appeal.



#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 04:35 PM | Reply

Sounds like more taxes were paid than were owed.

#27 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-07-07 04:36 PM | Reply

@#24 ... None of that ...

None of what?

#28 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 04:38 PM | Reply

None of that was alleged in the show trial.

#25 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Yes, it was.

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 04:39 PM | Reply

@#24 ... Trump also "grossed up" Cohen's payoff ...

Trump paid Michael Cohen $420,000. Here's how they got at that number. (May 2024)
www.politico.com

... Cohen also explained to jurors the rest of the sum was "grossed up" to account for taxes, which McConney explained on the stand last week. ...

#30 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 04:40 PM | Reply

" Sounds like more taxes were paid than were owed."

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-07 04:40 PM | Reply

Sounds like more taxes were paid than were owed.

#27 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Irrelevant.

He falsified documents, to hide a crime.

He chose to do that.

No one forced him to do that.

The Biden DoJ did not charge him.

A prosecutor in NY did.

A grand jury of his peers indicted him.

A jury of his peers found him guilty-unanimously.

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

" None of that was alleged"

Tell us you weren't paying attention without using those specific words.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-07 04:41 PM | Reply

Sounds like more taxes were paid than were owed.

#27 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Approximately $300,000 was written off as a business expense-legal fees.

These fees were not in fact legal fees, but personal expenses.

He paid taxes based on a fraudulent $300,000 deduction.

That is LESS taxes.

That is a crime.

You or I would have been charged.

#34 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 04:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Visitor, do these facts change your mind/perspective on the trial?

Can you at least admit you are wrong?

#35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 04:44 PM | Reply

" How should having a lawyer craft and arrange an NDA document signing be coded in an accounting system?"

For the payoff: personal expenses
For the gross-up: personal expenses
For the hourly legal fees for the NDA: personal expenses

Why the last one? Because legal fees for personal activity outside of the business AREN'T DEDUCTIBLE AS LEGAL FEES OF THE BUSINESS.

Now ... If it was a legal NDA between Trump, Inc, and an employee? FINALLY! Deductible legal expenses, legally!

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-07 04:55 PM | Reply

See, you bring a magat to the truth and they run away.

We are doomed

#37 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 05:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How should having a lawyer craft and arrange an NDA document signing be coded in an accounting system?
#12 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

How should paying hush money be coded?
Because it's not a legal expense. Can you understand why?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-07-07 06:24 PM | Reply

"So, he went through his company and incorrectly claimed a personal expense as a business expense. You see that is a no-no."

That's exactly it.

Writing a check to your lawyer, and then telling him to pay your bills with it, isn't a legal expense.

The lawyer could charge a fee for the service. But the money being paid is out of Trump's pocket.

It doesn't get laundered by virtue of having his lawyer cut the check and pretending the hush money payment is also part of the lawyer's fee.

It seems impossible you can't understand the difference between personal and business expense, and how it applies here. Did you ever have a job where you submit expense reports?

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-07-07 06:51 PM | Reply

JFC

VISITOR_ is an absolute moron and fascinatingly unconvincing.

Swallow it.

#40 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2024-07-07 07:12 PM | Reply

You have presented no evidence how Trump reported these legal expenses on his taxes. Even the thin case by the political hack AG didn't bring up tax fraud in the show trial. Do you know what the former Democrat AG Cuomo has said about this farce?

#41 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-07-07 07:32 PM | Reply

@#41 ... You have presented no evidence ...

Accusing others of what your current alias does?

Typical. (see #6)

What's yer got in response to #6?



#42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 07:39 PM | Reply

You have presented no evidence how Trump reported these legal expenses on his taxes. Even the thin case by the political hack AG didn't bring up tax fraud in the show trial. Do you know what the former Democrat AG Cuomo has said about this farce?

#41 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Do you understand WHY businesses are required to keep records?

IDGAF what Cuomo says.

------- committed the crime.

The crime has been tried 10s of thousands of times

He knew he was committing a crime.

No one forced him to commit a crime

Do you know what his defense was? That everyone does it and he had an oral retainer agreement with Cohen-laughable on the face

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 07:42 PM | Reply

@#39 ... The lawyer could charge a fee for the service. But the money being paid is out of Trump's pocket. ...

Former exec describes his role in hush money payments (May 2024)
www.nbcnews.com

... McConney, the prosecution's 10th witness, began by discussing the company's ledger and accounting practices " both of which are at issue. Trump is accused of falsifying business records by classifying the money to repay Cohen for a hush money payment to Daniels as legal expenses. ...

Asked by prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, "Are you aware of another instance where an expense reimbursement was doubled to account for taxes?" he answered, "No." ...

McConney said he later asked Cohen for invoices so he could begin paying him. Cohen sent him an email that said, "Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017," each for $35,000.

Asked whether he ever saw a retainer agreement, McConney said, "I did not." In an email shown in court, Weisselberg told McConney on Feb. 14, 2017, that the payments were approved as "per agreement with Don and Eric," the Trump sons who took over day-to-day management of the company after their father took office.

The next month and afterward, the checks were paid from Trump's personal account instead of his trust, so the check had to be signed by Trump at the White House and then sent back to the company, which "was a whole new process for us," McConney said.

Trump's 2016 debt to Cohen wasn't mentioned in his 2017 federal financial disclosure form, McConney, who prepared the disclosure form, acknowledged. It was added the following year, after news of the payment had become public.

"In the interest of transparency," the filing said, in 2016 "expenses were incurred by one of Donald J. Trump's attorneys, Michael Cohen. Mr. Cohen sought reimbursement of those expenses and Mr. Trump fully reimbursed Mr. Cohen in 2017," said the 2018 disclosure, which was signed by Trump. ...


#44 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 07:44 PM | Reply

Is it just my memory or did Republican senator and congressmen say Clinton was unfit for office because he had an affair?

#45 | Posted by Tor at 2024-07-07 07:56 PM | Reply

@#45 ... did Republican senator and congressmen say Clinton was unfit for office because he had an affair? ...

Here's what I found in a quick search...

Sen. Lieberman Says Clinton's Behavior 'Immoral' (September 1998)
www.cnn.com

... In a significant break with his president, Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman took to the Senate floor Thursday to condemn President Bill Clinton's marital infidelity as immoral, disgraceful and damaging to the country.

Lieberman of Connecticut said he was angered and disappointed in Clinton's behavior, and what he called Clinton's "premeditated" deception.

Lieberman said Clinton "apparently had extramarital relations with an employee half his age and did so in the workplace in the vicinity of the Oval Office. Such behavior is not just inappropriate. It is immoral."

Said Lieberman: "I was disappointed because the president of the United States had just confessed to engaging in an extramarital affair with a young woman in his employ and to willfully deceiving the nation about his conduct."

"I was personally angry because President Clinton had, by his disgraceful behavior, jeopardized his administration's historic record of accomplishment, much of which grew out of the principles and programs that he and I and many others had worked on together in the new Democratic movement," Lieberman said. ...


Sen Lieberman was, at the time, a Democratic Senator from my home state, Connecticut.


#46 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 08:35 PM | Reply

@#46

Also ...

I, however, did not find any MAGA-like violence or death threats against fmr Sen Lieberman by Democrats for coming out against then Pres Clinton.

#47 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 08:38 PM | Reply

"Unless there's something hidden in the re-look due to the SCOTUS immunity decision, the next step would be what does fmr Pres Trump use as a basis of appeal.
#26 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER"

This case was getting overturned regardless of the immunity decision. But, the immunity decision just 100% ensures it.

We know that a 2nd crime is required to elevate the book keeping violation to felony or the charge had already expired due to statute of limitations and the charge most claimed by the -------- is federal election law violation. Problem for them is - this was looked at by the FEC and they determined no crime had occurred and no charges would be sought - THIS INCLUDES BOTH THE TRUMP AND BIDEN ADMINS as the 'illegal' federal crime occurred 7 ------- years ago! But, with the new ruling, this 2nd crime - BY DEFINITION - is no longer a crime.

This will actually go back to bite the corrupt judge in the ass that told jurors that they did not have to be unanimous on the 2nd crime - because, if he had required that AND the 2nd crime they specified WAS NOT the fed election crime, it could have withstood a challenge on these grounds. But, seeing how he was only interested in the conviction based on the false notion that this would help the Dems - he took a shortcut and now it will cost him dearly. He is also a prime target for a Federal indictment for violation of Trump's civil rights.

#48 | Posted by Claudio at 2024-07-07 10:37 PM | Reply

@#48 ... We know that a 2nd crime is required to elevate the book keeping violation to felony or the charge had already expired due to statute of limitations and the charge most claimed by the -------- is federal election law violation. Problem for them is - this was looked at by the FEC and they determined no crime had occurred and no charges would be sought - THIS INCLUDES BOTH THE TRUMP AND BIDEN ADMINS as the 'illegal' federal crime occurred 7 ------- years ago! But, with the new ruling, this 2nd crime - BY DEFINITION - is no longer a crime. ...

... and the charge most claimed by the -------- is federal election law violation. ...

Is that the charge or charges the DA brought forward?

If so, then a jury said fmr Pres Trump was guilty.

If not, then, what else yer got? Aside from aspersions against Liberals?



#49 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 10:43 PM | Reply

"Is that the charge or charges the DA brought forward?
If so, then a jury said fmr Pres Trump was guilty."

We actually DON'T KNOW the 2nd crime charged by the DA - and this was done intentionally by the Dems to ensure a conviction. Now, it is biting them in the ass. You can go ahead an prove me wrong by telling me which 2nd crime Trump was unanimously convicted of though if you have a link for it.

"If not, then, what else yer got? Aside from aspersions against Liberals?
#49 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER"

We actually don't know the 2nd crime Trump was convicted of as pointed out above as the judge did not require them to specify it. As I said, I think this will result of him facing charges for a civil rights violation at the federal level in 2025.

#50 | Posted by Claudio at 2024-07-07 11:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort