• Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Can we scream this from the hill tops and cite our sources? Literally just call Rubepublicans Russians.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Ironically all perfectly legal and above-board, because there’s no law against US branches of foreign companies covering the legitimate expenses of a House Speaker’s campaign, like that app that tells your son if you’re jerking it.

      While American Ethane was run in 2018 by American John Houghtaling, 88 percent of the firm was owned by three Russian nationals—Konstantin Nikolaev, Mikhail Yuriev, and Andrey Kunatbaev.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Nikolaev

      Konstantin Yuryevich Nikolaev (also transliterated as Nikolayev) (Russian: Константин Юрьевич Николаев; born March 5, 1971, in Dniepropetrovsk, Ukraine SSR) is a Russian billionaire and businessman who is a financial supporter of Maria Butina, a co-owner of the Tula Cartridge Plant that supplies very large amounts of ammunition to Russian forces during Russia-Ukraine War

      According to Ilya Yashin (Russian: Илья Яшин), who is an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin and is incarcerated in Russia for his violations of laws in support of Russia during the Russia-Ukraine War, the family of Konstantin Nikolaev, defense plants in Russia, the NRA, Donald Trump, Trump’s gun lobby, Steven Seagal, Maria Butina and others are supporting and financing Russia during its war in Ukraine and have effectively blocked more appropriate sanctions.

      Lolz. Damn. That shit’s crazy.

  • squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    9 months ago

    Splendid! According to his own beliefs he’ll be tortured by satan for an infinite amount of time.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s really such an insane theory though. You get .01 through 100 years on earth, and if you screw up your one shot, you’re rewarded or punished for eternity? Just nuts. I have no idea why people would feel normal telling themselves and each other this.

        • Opafi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think the original idea was to not only tell people they’ll go to hell because they once wore two different kinds of fabric at the same time but to also sell them absolution before their death. Just consider it a business model.

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Religion is all just a Ponzi scheme. How do you think they get the scratch to build all those giant fancy houses for their imaginary friends to admire?

  • Birdie@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    9 months ago

    New Moses is a liar, and he’s repeating the mistakes of Old Moses by leading his people around in circles.

  • anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    My favorite part was when someone asked “what about the santos district flip” and he starts bitching about the money spent and i said aloud “nuh uh motherfucker, you all claimed that was speech. Why didn’t you speak up?”

  • NotAFuckingBot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    For Mike “Tuggin-Ma” Johnson to accuse Biden of breaking the law must make his anus twitch around Trump’s little dick in pleasure.

      • NotAFuckingBot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t have an army, billions of dollars, or a Supreme Court in my pocket. I can only fight evil with mockery.

        To you, I apologize for spattering your imagination. To the GOP? I’ll leave that to your imagination.

        • harmsy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’ll leave that to your imagination.

          You better not do that. You might spatter his/her imagination a second time.

          • NotAFuckingBot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            The only ones I purposely wish to offend (in this context) are the traitorous fucks of the GOP - not well meaning folks, and I’m not skilled enough to always avoid them.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    9 months ago

    He broke the law like jaywalking is breaking the law.

    But actually less dangerous than jaywalking.

    If Biden is such a lawless motherfucker, the #GOP damn well better hope that SCotUS doesn’t give him free reign to exile them from the country or just straight up zero them w/ this upcoming immunity decision.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is a distraction from the Intelligence committee’s news.

    I bet they found a backchannel between Johnson & the Kremlin.

  • Boinkage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    71
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I mean, in fairness, the report did find that he broke the law, but the investigator declined to prosecute based on his findings. Decline to prosecute =/= found no laws were broken.

    Edit for the butthurt: page 1, paragraph 2 of the report:

    “Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.”

    As others have said, whether they could establish mens rea in a court of law is another question. But they found evidence of willfulness.

    • Brokkr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Juries and judges are the ones who should be making those decisions though. Not a political rival.

      The report found that there was insufficient evidence and therefore it wasn’t worth a jury or judge’s time to review the case (which is what decline to prosecute means in this situation)

      • Thann@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        9 months ago

        Juries and judges are the ones who should be making those decisions though.

        You realize that neither a judge nor a jury were involved with the decision to not prosecute right?

      • Thann@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        44
        ·
        9 months ago

        There is sufficient evidence to say he broke the law, but there is insufficient evidence to say he did it with malicious intent. I think it’s fair to say “he broke the law”, you just can’t say “he willfully broke the law”

        • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          45
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          That makes no sense. The laws in question require willfulness. So if you can’t say there was willfulness, you can’t say the laws were broken.

          For instance, assault with a deadly requires willfulness, so if a baseball bat slips out of a baseball player’s hands and clobbers someone in the stands you wouldn’t say the player broke the law but lacked willfulness, you’d just say they didn’t break the law.

          • Thann@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            9 months ago

            And who’s to decide if the baseball bat was willfully thrown? The jury! You could still be charged with assault because 1000 people saw your bat hit someone in the face, so its 100% plausible to say you broke the law.

            If the law says don’t cross the line, and you accidentally cross the line, you broke the law, regardless of willfulness. Its up to a jury to decide if youre guilty

            Its not like the police have an “accident detector” they roll up to the scene to determine if a law was broken.

            • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              The law includes willfulness as part of “the line to cross”, so again, no. Without the willfulness included, then there was not a broken law. This really isn’t hard to understand.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      9 months ago

      If intent is an element of a crime and there isn’t reliable evidence of intent, then the elements of the crime are not met.

      (Compare with, say, Trump who was hiding his documents, asking his lawyers and staff to lie, and demonstrating left and right he intended to break the law.)

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Lol, I love how you quote one sentence that’s contradicted the very next paragraph where they explicitly state that they didn’t have the evidence to prove it.

      You’re literally just quoting propaganda that isn’t even supported by the rest of the document.

      Also, I love the idea that the person who immediately turned over what they had and cooperated fully with investigators is being accused of ‘willful retention’ as if it wasn’t just a lazy attempt at both sidesing this.

      • Thann@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        9 months ago

        they said they didn’t think they had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Its not the same thing, and if you read the report there are hundreds of pages of evidence, its not like they were short on evidence.
        It seems to me the biggest factor in not charging him was actually his senility.

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          9 months ago

          they said they didn’t think they had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Yeah, because there isn’t much ‘evidence’ there. It’s all just circumstantial conspiracy theory baking. It really feels like they’re just grasping at straws, especially when they paint a grand conspiracy and then immediately point out the completely innocent possibilities that are more likely.

          It seems to me the biggest factor in not charging him was actually his senility.

          Or, maybe, because he willfully turned all the documents over and didn’t attempt to retain them?

          • Thann@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Did you read the report?

            From the report page 65 Biden says: “They didn’t even know I have this” In reference to notes he knows he shouldn’t have still

            Then on page 77 biden says: “I didn’t want to turn them in” again reference to notes he should not have retained.

            These are both from audio recordings, so there is actually plenty of evidence to suggest he willfully retained classified docs he knew he shouldn’t have.

    • perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The report’s author assumed that it was wilful - they didn’t find anything to back up that assumption.

      • Thann@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        There was no assuming…

        From the report page 65 Biden says: “They didn’t even know I have this” In reference to notes he knows he shouldn’t have still

        Then on page 77 biden says: “I didn’t want to turn them in” again reference to notes he should not have retained.

        These are both from audio recordings, so there is actually plenty of evidence to suggest he willfully retained classified docs he knew he shouldn’t have.

        I’m assuming you didn’t read the report before making this comment.

        • perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          That Mr. Biden was mistaken in his legal judgment is not enough to prove he acted willfully, which requires intent to do something the law forbids

          Everyone thought that diaries were personal and not part of the records (which were carefully stored) because that was the convention adopted by previous presidents.

          • Thann@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            He wasn’t “mistaken in his legal judgement”

            Pg 65 biden says this: “They didn’t even know I have this”

            He knew he had clasified info he wasnt suppoed to have, then bragged about retaining them just like trump…

            He even went to a SCIF multiple times to review his notes, because he knew that’s where they were supposed to be…

    • dudinax@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      If they can’t establish Mens Rea then they didn’t find that he broke the law.

      Some of the evidence they uncovered is like this: Years ago, Biden mentioned document A. We found document B somewhere else years later. If we can establish A and B were the same document, then we could establish willfullness, because it means Biden moved it instead of returning it, but we are unable to prove A and B are the same.

      So they had evidence of something that they thought might be a crime, but even they don’t know.

    • MagicShel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The key to politics is not to speak a verifiable lie while lieing all day long through rhetotical tricks.