MichiganCardinal

I'm on your side RE Biden. That doesn't mean that the ideal Presidential candidate moving forward should be five years older than the US life expectancy.

I think Buttigieg is a future Presidential candidate. Hopefully when he's still in his 40s or 50s and not when he's in his 80s.

I think Biden bows out by Monday and the newest fracture turns to whether Kamala or the field should take his place. Because unity is just antonymous to the 2024 Democratic Party.

I wonder if there are MAGAs who draw the line at ear bandages how I drew the line at Honolulu Blue ski masks. I hope they work equally as well in practice.

In this alternate timeline, I don't think Vance is on the ticket.

Kamala will wipe the floor with him if they debate.

I wonder if Sheila will return to the field with him and get the applause she deserves. Last time she made a truly public appearance was at halftime with Calvin in 2021 and she was mercilessly (and unfairly) booed. And I can only assume ESPN will give the Lions and Calvin the same treatment they gave Jimmy Johnson and eschew all halftime advertisements in order to nationally televise it. RIGHT?

Depending on the evidence that was being used, they would have needed to litigate who was going to say what. When a number of the government's witnesses were probably people close to him during his administration (e.g., Nauta), there are arguments to be made that those statements are official acts. Likewise, if an element of any of the charges is that he have personally delivered the documents to their improper location, he can argue that when the documents were delivered (when he was President) they were official acts, so the government can't prove that element. It's the same reason the sentencing on the Stormy Daniels case is delayed. If any of the evidence used was evidence of official acts that SCOTUS now says shouldn't have been used against him, he may get a new trial, without that evidence being introduced.

Footnote 61 from the opinion is telling as to Jack Smith's thoughts about this:

This case wasn't going to be heard before the election anyway though, that's the weird thing to me. The easy way to kick the can was already lined up by the Supreme Court. Prosecuting a former President will now take months, if not years, of evidentiary hearings to suss out the line between official acts and unofficial acts. That wasn't going to happen before November.

The Appointments Clause?!? Are you kidding me?!? I figured it would have been on the grounds of the recent Supreme Court case. But it's on.... the Appointments Clause?! I think they could theoretically just re-file without Jack Smith. I haven't read the full opinion, but I can't imagine how this ruling would get around basically claiming that all Special Prosecutors ever appointed by the DOJ are unconstitutional, because they weren't confirmed by the Senate. It's a joke.

That's what shocks me about this whole thing. If the entire story was "nutjob at Trump rally apprehended with assault rifle; possible assassination attempt thwarted by Secret Service" - that's a one or two-day nothing burger of a story in 2024's America, and honestly happens to every President. Remember when the 20yo crazy dude drove a box truck onto the White House lawn last year trying to attack Biden and overthrow the government? Assassination attempts were thwarted pretty much every year when Obama was in office. With the availability of guns in America and the prevalence of untreated schizophrenia, there is a reason Secret Service exists. But I've seen motorcades and Secret Service protection. They're insanely comprehensive. As I said before, for every agent you see there are 20 you don't. And they're good at what they do, using technology we don't even know exists to assess threats. All of DC was in chaos last week for NATO. There were entire roads blocked, residents' commutes tripled, and police and agents were on literally every street corner in downtown, for foreign leaders that the vast majority of Americans couldn't pick out of a lineup. How does this attempt come so close to killing to the leader of a major political party? Maybe it's different for former Presidents, especially ones who love to hear themselves speak in public on a regular basis. But for this dude to be able to get onto a rooftop within firing range of a protected person is just insane to me.

I agree. I think he was caught off guard by the one question that came through but his response was perfect.

Absolutely stunning level of incompetence on the part of law enforcement and Secret Service if true.

Mike Collins (R-GA) suggesting Biden ordered the assassination attempt:

I deleted Twitter a month or so ago. I went back today when I heard the news, hoping illogically it would have magically turned into the decent real-time news site it once was. Absolute trash. I hope something can replace it.

I have a hard time believing someone could get a deadly weapon that close to a protected person in 2024. Secret Service protection is 10x more advanced than what people think it is. For every agent you see there are 20 you don't. For a public facing event like this, they scope out entire city blocks for threats, using technology the public doesn't even know exists. If we actually came close to losing a presidential candidate four months before the election, then serious re-evaluations of protocols needs to occur. This has nothing to do with politics.

Have they confirmed it was a real gun? It sounded more like a pellet gun, though obviously the sound can be deceiving.

They're going to blow up my inbox news folder and then have the audacity to suggest I shouldn't be drinking in my favorite place to drink?!?

This is one of the dumbest headlines I think I've ever seen from a major media news outlet, FOX included.

I think Joe Biden can beat Trump. I think Kamala Harris can beat Trump. I don’t think a fractured party without any clear identity or leader can beat Trump. I don’t really care who the candidate is. But make up your mind like yesterday and unite ffs.

Should help the Lions recoup money I would think.

The point wasn't to re-litigate Hillary's 2016 campaign or the 2016 primaries. Both are long dead, and the autopsy reports would be hundreds of pages long. The point was that Bernie supporters - rightly or wrongly - felt ostracized by the Party, when Hillary needed their votes. I think many stayed home and I'm sure some voted for Trump. You can blame that on whomever you want, Bernie certainly isn't blameless. In 2024 though, the Party needs all the votes. It doesn't need Democratic Reps coming out publicly against him, working to create an in-group and out-group within the Party.

I truly think Bernie would have won in 2016. He had his own cult-like backing (though not one that would storm the Capital for him) and I really think he would have carried WI/MI/PA, which would have allowed him to win by a razor thin margin. Look back at those Dem primaries and you could see the trouble on the horizon. Bernie ran away with Wisconsin and won a shocker in Michigan, despite polling in the ballpark of -30 behind Hillary. But he wasn't nominated because the DNC wanted a united front behind Hillary. They were determined to show that there was an answer to succession after Obama, and it was predetermined set in stone, and it was Hillary Clinton. The superdelegates pledged their allegiance early and the predetermined results were force fed to voters. The faction that resulted cost Hillary (and America) in the end. Then in 2020, the Dems had more of a free market primary, but settled on Biden quickly, swiftly, and the party got behind him in full force. There was no in-fighting. By Super Tuesday, most every candidate had dropped out and endorsed Biden. That's all neither here nor there at this point. My point is... Why now - months after the faux primaries and with an incumbent in office who does not want to leave - are we playing this game that there needs to be a free market to determine the Democratic candidate? We've never played by that rule. When we have our candidate - the anointed Democratic candidate - the rule is we get behind them and shun the other candidates, or anyone who speaks out against them. And when it works, it works. The Party united behind Biden in 2020, and he won. The party united behind Obama in 2008, and he won handily. The party did not successfully unite behind Hillary, leaving swaths of Bernie supporters in the dust and a DNC in shambles, and she lost. Why are we trending towards 2016 rather than 2020?