candide

Stephen Colbert Spots The Exact Moment That Could Mean Fox News Is Screwed

"In the recording, she asks if he has evidence that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has an interest in Dominion.

“I’ve read that, I can’t prove that,” Giuliani replied.

Colbert rolled a clip of Bartiromo then saying on the air about Dominion: “I understand Nancy Pelosi has an interest in this company.”

Colbert called that “the phrase that pays,” which in this case could be the phrase that forces Fox News to pay out $1.6 billion"

https://news.yahoo.com/stephen-colbert-spots-exact-moment-064858029.html

13 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

It's a shame we didn't do a hand count in 2020!!!

It's a shame no hand recount and audits have been organised in states and/or counties where the right-wing claimed that fraud occurred!

Oh wait! ????

https://the2020election.org/2020-election-recounts-and-audits/

41 minutes ago, 2009 said:

Lol.

I am not even trying to prove he interfered by arresting Trump.

Where have I even attempted to show evidence that he did that??

 

(Though the timing is convenient, that's for sure)

 

What I am saying (multiple times already) is that it is unethical (suspicious even) for him to say that he'd do everything in his legal power to stop Trump becoming president again.

 

I don't think it's his job to do that. He should leave that to the voters because it's supposed to be a democracy.

 

Do you agree or disagree with that? Placeholder dodged this question. Will you?

 

I had time to check what was exactly said and when, and here is my reply.

A look at the context and at what he exactly said is quite instructing, and it's not unethical as you suggest.

Here's a quote of what he said, which includes what he said just before:

(BIDEN) "And so, they’re very concerned that we are still the open democracy we’ve been and that we have rules and the institutions matter.  And that’s the context in which I think that they’re looking at: Are we back to a place where we are going to accept decisions made by the Court, by the Congress, by the government, et cetera? 

Q    So the entire genesis of that G7 conversation was tied to your predecessor, who is about to launch another campaign.  So how do you reassure them, if that is the reason for their questioning, that the former President will not return or that his political movement, which is still very strong, will not —

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, yeah?  (Laughs.)  

Q    — once again take power in the United States?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we just have to demonstrate that he will not take power by — if we — if he does run.  I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.

Q    Thanks."

The subject discussed was:

"that we have rules and the institutions matter."

"Are we back to a place where we are going to accept decisions made by the Court, by the Congress, by the government, et cetera?"

Is that an unethical perspective?

It is also relevant to note that he did not use "we" as "me" or the government, or the Democrats, but as the USA

"we are still the open democracy"

"Are we back to a place"

Then he talked about Trump returning to power because he was asked about it, because the G7 countries were worried (according to the journalist asking the question).

"I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again."

He does not suggest he will interfere in anything. There no precision about what he meant. It could well be, for example, to beat him at the next elections. It's not unethical, and it is not in contradiction with voters voting to choose the next President, as you claim.

In brief, you have nothing.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/11/09/remarks-by-president-biden-in-press-conference-8/

Other readings:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-indictment-biden-666348749991

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-trump-indictment-stop-power-1792426

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/bidens-2022-remarks-not-related-to-trump-indictment-contrary-to-online-posts/

1 hour ago, 2009 said:

He said, in that video I posted, that he would do everything legally possible within the constitution to interfere (if Trump ran for office again).

 

He stated that as his intention.

So, as noticed by placeholder, he did  ot say he will interfere. That's only your interpretation. However, he clearly made a reference to the Constitution. Does the Constitution allow a president to interfere?

Anyway, a biased interpretation of a not very clear statement does not prove anything. How exactly did he interefere and what is the evidence? You have nothing.

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Should I be worried by the IMF’s grim forecasts for the UK economy?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/business/should-i-be-worried-by-the-imf-s-grim-forecasts-for-the-uk-economy-b2272897.html

As pointed out in this article, the OECD come up with similar forecast.

https://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/march-2023/

55 minutes ago, 2009 said:

No, that's not what I said.

 

I said it's unethical for Biden to use the law/constitution to stop someone becoming president.

 

That's not his job. It's the job of the voters. It's called democracy.

 

Rather than legally messing around with an election candidate, which - correct me if I'm wrong - is what he said.

 

It's a misuse of his power as president.

A baseless B.S. claim...

4 minutes ago, 2009 said:

Yeah, but it's clear these charges are trumped up. (Lol. Couldn't help it. ????)

 

The timing with his arrest and him running for presidency again is a bit more than a coincidence.

 

Biden even said that they would do everything in their legal power to stop him becoming president if he did run again. Lol.

 

Watch this from 25:19 to hear him say that, "If he does run,.........."

 

 

 

Is it really Biden's job to use the law to prevent someone else becoming president after him? I thought that was the job of the voters in a democracy, no??

 

Unethical.

 

The timing has more to do with Trump refusing to give back the documents to NARA during around  one year.

Oh wait! You may be right that there is a link! Trump announced his 2024 run a few months after the "raid"! ????

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

So the reality of the poll is:

"Most Americans think Trump should continue to run for President"

 

OK ... got it ... DEMOCRACY ROCKS

To be honest, I also wish he would run!

The cherry on the cake would be to see him run from a prison cell! ????

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Not to flog a dead election, but he never said to inject bleach. Read the transcript.  He did move quickly to stop air travel from China at the beginning, which was loudly decried as racist by prominent Democrats like Nancy Pelosi.  I also remember a certain President declaring, "if you get vaccinated, you won't catch Covid"...

"which was loudly decried as racist by prominent Democrats like Nancy Pelosi."

Come on, not this lie again! It was about the so-called Muslim ban, not China.

"The Trump Administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law. The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy,” Pelosi said in a statement."

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/480991-pelosi-trumps-expanded-travel-ban-is-outrageous-un-american-and-threatens-rule/

I'm too lazy to check the rest of your post....