Biden campaign targets Trump over 'neglect of duty' on eve of CNN Presidential Debate (www.foxnews.com)

submitted 4 months ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] something_random_tho@lemmy.world 40 points 4 months ago

Downvoting.

We can surely find a better source than Fox News, which has admitted in court that it knowingly lies to its viewers.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 34 points 4 months ago

While I would like to know more, i’m definitely not clicking on faux news

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

So, a couple of things... Why this is coming from Fox and why I'll allow it:

"The spot, shared first with Fox News on Wednesday..."

It SEEMS the Biden campaign CHOSE Fox to release this information. It's not a matter of their biased coverage, the campaign wants Fox to be the outlet here.

Second, reading it over, the story is remarkably editorial free. Sticks to the facts.

[+] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -41 points 4 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

Even the supreme Court disagrees with your censorship bs.

[-] big_slap@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

country in the world invade our Southern border, taking a week off work to prepare for a debate (who's running the country?).

A good president can do that because a good president actually appoints good people that can be trusted to run things instead of a bunch of sycophants

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You do know that illegal crossings are down significantly, right? Are you crediting Biden with that? Biden is not censoring anything. Trump is doing his best to get himself locked up by states, not the federal government, dingus. Trump spent a third of his time golfing and STILL managed to fuck things up horribly. Did you just run this through AI and it hallucinated garbage?

[-] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -3 points 4 months ago

Not the Federal government huh? That's why Bidens number 3 at the justice department just happened to demote himself down to Braggs office right before charging Trump and then prosecuting him. Why would anyone do something like that unless they were directed to by their boss? By now, you should know the MSM is lying to you, especially after the debate. If you still think they're being honest with you, you're living in denial

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Not the Federal government huh? That's why Bidens number 3 at the justice department just happened to demote himself down to Braggs office right before charging Trump

You do realize that is not proof, right? Just because you do not know the reason does not mean the reason is due to your whacko conspiracy theory. And you also realize that a jury convicted him, right?

[-] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -3 points 4 months ago

Proof enough for me, unless someone could tell me 1 other reason why he would demote himself down 3 levels, less pay, less benefits, lower job title. And what are the chances of coincidence he ended up in that court, right before prosecuting Trump? Zero! You're just very naive to think he wasn't put in there for the purpose of prosecuting Trump

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

You don't seem to understand what proof is. Bragg was a professor before his current position so I'm not sure you know the order of events.

You are looking for something that isn't there because you want to believe that Trump was somehow wronged. He knew what he was doing was illegal. A jury of his peers (even someone who got their news only from Truth Social and Twitter) agreed and that those crimes rose to the level of a felony.

[-] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -3 points 4 months ago

Lol, wasn't even talking about Bragg. He was the DA. It was Matthew Colangelo that was working for Biden and then demoted himself right before prosecuting Trump

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Colangelo was the acting associate AG which means it was never intended for him to stick around. He worked with Bragg prior to that and went back to doing that. Saying he demoted himself is not reality.

But again, that would not matter because it was a jury that found Trump guilty. The prosecutor just laid out the substantial evidence against him.

[-] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -2 points 4 months ago

Bragg didn't become DA until November 2021. Colangelo was #3 at the Justice department for 3 years before leaving to prosecute Trump. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-prosecutor-quit-top-doj-160009861.html And yes, a jury did convict Trump based on the instructions they were given from the corrupt judge in the case that also happened to be a Biden donor and anyone that says it doesn't matter who the judge or prosecutor is doesn't understand our system very well because it absolutely does matter. It's also very obvious that Matthew Colangelo's main job over the last several years has been to get Trump any way possible.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

And yes, a jury did convict Trump based on the instructions they were given from the corrupt judge

That is not how this trial nor any trial works. It is pretty bad that you fail at that basic knowledge which seems to be what your whacko conspiracy relies on. Sorry but that part is wrong which makes your whole premise fall apart.

[-] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -2 points 4 months ago

Historically, most successful appeals were the result of overlooked errors in jury instructions – often these errors were verbose instructions that confused jurors. For an appeal to be successful, the jury instructions have to be read as a whole and found to contain errors that were not harmless, but rather which ultimately made for an unfair trial. ---Cornell Law School

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Guess what has not been done yet? A successful appeal.

Here's your source, BTW since you failed to actually link it:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_instructions

It goes on to say:

Appeals due to errors in jury instruction have been greatly reduced by the implementation of model, standard, or pattern instructions for specific jurisdictions.

The instructions given to the jury were clear and standard. They were unanimous in their decision. So keep grasping at straws.

[-] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -2 points 4 months ago

Standard? Right...keep telling yourself that. And if you really knew much about law, you'd know that a successful appeal can't happen that fast. The process has been started though, and they've already delayed his sentencing, so we'll see

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

He used the standard for instruction. You can delude yourself into thinking he did not but all it will be is a delusion.

[-] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -2 points 4 months ago

Okay bud, whatever you say

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

Thanks for finally agreeing, bud. Glad that the delusions are fading.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Removed, trolling.

this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024

59 points (71.9% liked)

politics

19097 readers

1138 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News