Trump Says 1994 Crime Bill Will Sink Biden

Donald Trump claims Biden's role in passing the 1994 crime bill will cause Biden to lose the African American vote.

Biden should lose all Democrats' votes over the 1994 crime bill -- and the other dracoian bills he drafted,supported or pushed through to passage.

Joe Biden was a one-man crime band.

Joe Biden the Crime Warrior has long roots. Of course, Trump is no one to talk. Remember the ads he took out in 4 newspapers calling for the death penalty for the teens in the Central Park jogger case before they were convicted? (Their convictions were later set aside and New York City agreed to pay them $40 million).

I hope Joe Biden does not get the nomination. He's no breath of fresh air. Trump is like exhaust fumes. His criticism is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.

< More Indictments for Michael Avenatti | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    After Special Counsel, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 29, 2019 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    Robert Mueller's presentation a growing number of Democratic presidential contenders have supported or called for impeachment proceedings.

     Biden's statement agrees with the caution expressed by Speaker Pelosi, adding that it "may be unavoidable if this Administration continues down this path."

    If this Administration continues down this path?  The path that Mueller refers to in Volume I of the Report?  The documented effort by Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election and the Trump campaign's response as a willingness to participate?   And, the successful, in part, obstruction of justice that prevented gaining sufficient evidence?

    Pelosi wants to "follow the facts."  Biden seems troubled, if Trump continues down the path of obstructing the obstruction.

    Mueller's presentation provides yet another opportunity for Democrats to seize the moment and do the right thing. Otherwise, this will become a another 24 hours news story to be replaced with another Trump escapade. It will soon feel like years ago that Mueller made his statement.

    An impeachment inquiry needs to be opened. Mueller needs to be subpoenaed and provide testimony in open hearings. Even if he just reads his Report, and answers questions by referring to pages in the Report, it will be powerful. All new to anyone who has not read the Report, which is almost all Americans, including House members.

     But, even in today's short presentation, Mueller provided important clarifications: in the Report, it states that the investigation "did not establish" a conspiracy. His oral briefing used the words: "there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

     And, it was instructive to learn that there was not no collusion, there was no exoneration, and there would have been indictments but for DOJ policy (which Mueller oddly says would be unconstitutional).  Explain please, Mr. Mueller.

    And, Joe Biden, Mueller's presentation started and ended with Russia interfering in our election. It may not help prospects for election in 2020 if Trump and Putin go down that path again.

    It really did just illustrate (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 29, 2019 at 04:50:15 PM EST
    The value of testimony.  If 8 minutes did this what would 8 hours do.

    You want to read the report?  No problem.  Welcome to reading rainbow with our special guest Robert Mueller.


    You should see Jordan Klepper ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 29, 2019 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    ... shilling for a proposed audiobook of The Mueller Report with Hillary Clinton as the narrator: "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm f*cked." It's worth watching the clip just to see her read that part.

    Biden (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 29, 2019 at 05:48:15 PM EST
    seems to be the only candidate who has had the wrong reaction to what Mueller said today. Even Booker who said it's too early to talk impeachment did a 180 but Biden appears to walk about his previous impeachment support today after Mueller.

    As much as I hate repeating Trump tweets (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 29, 2019 at 06:09:35 PM EST
    It's really is pretty great to watch the evolution from



    There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent.

    Bannon (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 29, 2019 at 07:00:28 PM EST
    says Trump was running a 40 year criminal enterprise. For some reason he blabs everything he knows to this Wolf guy. I guess it probably is going to be the money laundering that is going to end his presidency.

    A wonder why Bannon isn't raking (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Fri May 31, 2019 at 01:58:49 PM EST
    in the $$ from his own tell-all books.

    he's too busy (none / 0) (#39)
    by leap on Fri May 31, 2019 at 09:13:36 PM EST
    He has enough time to blab to (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri May 31, 2019 at 09:42:41 PM EST
    Michael Wolf.

    Which is quite right, by the way, IF THIS WERE (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peter G on Fri May 31, 2019 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    a criminal case. But it is not. Mueller has emphasized that he took as a ground rule, and Tr*mp most certainly embraces, the notion (right or wrong) that a sitting President cannot be indicted. As such, the question for the other subjects of the investigation (Manafort, Stone, et al.) may be the sufficiency of evidence to convict at a criminal trial, but as to Tr*mp it is only whether substantial grounds for impeachment were uncovered. Which, as Mueller implicitly confirmed the other day, they were.

    I'm wondering if Robert Mueller (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Fri May 31, 2019 at 02:02:49 PM EST
    will now publicly disclose hs communications with DOJ re the OLC directive.   Barr now says Mueller was free to recommend prosecution of Trump on charges of obstruction of justice.

    Not only that he was free to (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 31, 2019 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    But that he should have expressed an opinion.  I agree I would love to see that out to Mueller.

    So, seeing as has your boss thinks you should express your opinion, what is your opinion.


    PUT (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 31, 2019 at 03:25:59 PM EST
    to Mueller

    Your hope is different than the hope I expressed (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Fri May 31, 2019 at 04:43:42 PM EST

    Of course it is (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 31, 2019 at 05:00:22 PM EST
    I'm not sure there is reason to suspect there necessarily was a lot of communication with the DOJ about it.  Mueller seemed to make it pretty clear he took the thing as it was written.

    One interesting thing he said about that was that the opinion said it would be "unconstitutional" to indict a sitting president.  I'm was not under the impression it said exactly that.  And that the constitutionality of the whole thing was pretty up in the air.  That the opinion simply said it would be "bad" because the president is busy and stuff.

    I though the use of the word unconstitutional would be a great thing to ask him to explain.


    As opposed to Trump's mass child abuse? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Dadler on Fri May 31, 2019 at 09:10:53 AM EST
    Law and Order Chicklet-tooth Joe Biden can bite me, he's a cruel career pol, but Trump IS a mass child abuser. This is a fact, established via his orders to I.C.E. to assault, kidnap, incarcerate and dope up immigrant/asylum seeking children and families. Those black-clad I.C.E. stormtroopers are criminals to this day, domestic and international criminals every one. I'm the adult survivor of child abuse, and I know what this was. I know.    

    Imo (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Tue May 28, 2019 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    The only way Biden loses is if it becomes a two-person race sooner rather than later, essentially before super Tuesday. Otherwise it seems like he'll win with ~40%.

    Right now, I think the biggest issue with "not-Biden" is that there isn't anyone running who can consolidate the opposition to Biden.  Bernie can't because too many people are "not-Bernie", maybe Harris or Warren but they aren't getting anywhere right now so they'd have to climb far pretty fast.  Everyone else is an even bigger  long-shot.

    If we get (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 28, 2019 at 02:10:28 PM EST
    Biden we're sunk sooner or later. He can probably beat Trump but he is in complete denial of the problems in this country. And it's going to be a repeat of Obama begging the GOP to go along with whatever he proposes. He apparently learned nothing from Obama's 8 years a president.

    Complete Denial (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jmacWA on Wed May 29, 2019 at 05:55:49 AM EST
    Agree completely with this.  Biden is one of those who thinks you can reason with today's GOP.  It should be proven to any sane person now that this is not possible.  Reagan started the decline, and the policy that dems must be crushed was cemented in place by Newt.  I want to see a Dem who is willing to fight fire with fire, I am tired of Dems who want to compromise.  I really don't want to see Biden get the nomination, but I will have to vote for him if he does... it will not be pleasant but considering the alternative I would have no choice.

    If Biden (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 29, 2019 at 07:19:06 AM EST
    gets the nomination I will vote for him but that is all. I will not donate, make phone calls or promote his candidacy on social media like I did for Hillary. I will basically ignore the presidential campaign and focus on our senate race here in GA and house races. We have a fantastic candidate Teresa Tomlinson running for the D nomination for the senate. If she becomes the nominee I will be incredibly excited. If anybody else gets the nomination I will work for them also maybe just not at the excitement level I would have for Tomlinson.

    I am reaching the point I want someone (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 29, 2019 at 08:55:20 AM EST
    To start fighting as dirty as they do.

    They want to say democrats are killing babies?  Start responding by saying republicans are killing women.

    Start using their tactics that have been so successful against them.

    The conventional wisdom has been it won't work because democrats are snowflakes and want the pure truth and the high road.

    I say BS.

    Democrats are f'ing sick of being doormats.  They want a fight.  
    And I don't mean a Warren bury them with policy fight.  I mean a down and dirty Bill Clinton style political fight.


    Not the elected variety (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by jmacWA on Wed May 29, 2019 at 09:36:30 AM EST
    Democrats are f'ing sick of being doormats.  They want a fight.

    I have to assume you are talking about those registered as Democrats.  I sure don't see this for many elected Democrats... there are some, but way too many are like Biden, including a majority (as least from what I've seen of their positions) of the presidential candidates


    Definitely true (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 29, 2019 at 10:11:38 AM EST
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 29, 2019 at 05:56:59 PM EST
    I agree. Also BTD and his "fighting Dems" that he likes so much. Too many seem to be taking the kumbaya approach-I'm looking at you Joe Biden-or the if I can jsut promise Medicare For All roses will fall at my feet approach. Really what I think we all want is some to just STAND UP and say ENOUGH.

    In a way (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 28, 2019 at 07:56:17 PM EST
    It's the same problem the republicans had when Trump won.  There are so many "others" no one person can get the support to beat him.

    It seems it would be good if we could find a balance between two people running and everyone running.


    I agree (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 28, 2019 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    And every time Trump opens his mouth about Biden it's like a campaign contribution.

    2020 AD (none / 0) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 28, 2019 at 05:18:38 PM EST
    Based on statistical models, Steven Rattner (NYTimes) predicts that Trump has a formidable re-election tailwind based on incumbency and the economy. However, not so fast Mr. Rattner. These sane predictors about Trump need to take into account--insanity factors.

    Not only the criminality, corruption, and demogogy, but also, the willful destruction of the Constitution, that make the next election an existential contest. It is not hyperbole to say that the next presidential election may well be last chance to sustain democracy and keep the Republic as we know it. For me, it is 2020 AD --- 2020 Any Democrat.  

    In a way (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 28, 2019 at 05:31:57 PM EST
    I like all these cautionary "Trump could win" stories even if I agree I do not think he will.  But the last thing we want or need is another cycle of inevitability.  That did not go so well the last time.

    People need to be afraid.  


    I hope (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 28, 2019 at 08:22:07 PM EST
    2020 ends all the BS narratives we have been putting up with for the last 20 years. One is it's inevitable. Another is the president is Jesus. Another is post partisan unity crapola. There are going to be some things that D's and R's can agree on but in reality both parties stand for different things and frankly they shouldn't be writing a whole lot of bipartisan legislation.

    40% (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 28, 2019 at 08:19:37 PM EST
    of the electorate which is where he is stuck in almost every poll is where Bob Dole was in 1996 and it's 180 EVs.

    And the layoffs apparently are starting in August is what I have read. Republicans always jack the economy up on some sort of tax cut sugar high and then it all comes crashing down at some point. Looks like the crashing is going to start in the fall.  


    I just posted a CNBC (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 28, 2019 at 08:29:00 PM EST
    Link in the open about recession.  And the such as it is upside  is it will be all Trumps.  There will be no confusion about that.

    They are already crying about the looney trade war


    This is pretty interesting (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 29, 2019 at 06:15:29 PM EST
    They hold 80% of them.

    China Gears Up to Weaponize Rare Earths in Trade War

    A flurry of Chinese media reports on Wednesday, including an editorial in the flagship newspaper of the Communist Party, raised the prospect of Beijing cutting exports of the commodities that are critical in defense, energy, electronics and automobile sectors. The world's biggest producer, China supplies about 80% of U.S. imports of rare earths, which are used in a host of applications from smartphones to electric vehicles and wind turbines.

    I have always thought Rattner (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 29, 2019 at 08:49:01 AM EST
    Was a pud and a font of conventional wisdom.  I take every thing he says with large grains of salt.

    But this morning he was owned by Alan Lichtman on the subject of impeachment and the larger subject of bearing Trump.  I agree with pretty much everything Lichtman said.  And as mentioned he has a near perfect record of predicting elections including 2016.  Rattner not so much.

    Dems must `show boldness, not timidity' for 2020 win, says Lichtman

    American University professor and author Allan Lichtman thinks Democratic leadership "is wrong morally and constitutionally" by avoiding an impeachment inquiry against President Trump. Steve Rattner provides historical context with the Clinton impeachment hearing.

    They Both Ignored the Elephant in the Room (none / 0) (#15)
    by RickyJim on Wed May 29, 2019 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    Trump's financial records will be known before November 2020.  Whether or not it is best to use impeachment to get them before the public is the real issue.

    Biden will not win the swing states.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dadler on Wed May 29, 2019 at 10:43:27 AM EST
    ...that put Trump in office, in our Lose-the-Election-but-still-be-Appointed-Prez by our always appeasing racist system. Obama never could've won today, with hacking and flipping and the online nefariousness that has turned electoral politics into rigged slot-machine levering.

    Biden is not scheduled (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri May 31, 2019 at 02:07:52 PM EST
    to address this weekend's California Democratic convention. Leaving it to his competitors.

    I thought that was strange (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 05, 2019 at 04:18:32 AM EST
    Because he has so much name recognition I think he is laying low trying to avoid peaking too early in such a crowded field.

    Things Biden could do...... (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 30, 2019 at 03:17:40 PM EST
    ....that could make me want to vote for him.

    1.)  The next time some reporter asks the absolutely inevitable question about the latest Trump crazy Biden should pause, clear his throat, square his shoulders and speak directly into the camera saying..

    "Iran, if you are listening i hope you can get Donald Trumps tax returns"

    And walk away.

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 30, 2019 at 04:48:42 PM EST
    dear lord no, even as a joke this will give the right wing ammo to pin any (real or imagined) malfeasance by Iran on him. Not to mention the both-siderests getting a boner.

    No, "Russia are you listening" should forever live in infamy as a mark of shame, not a joke. On my darkest days I fear it will be our epitaph.

    I think every Democrat should steal Pelosi's "he needs an intervention" and publicly ask the Republican party to do it.



    I could not possibly disagree more (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 30, 2019 at 08:11:22 PM EST
    This needs to be done.  That is not an attempt at humor.  I am as serious as a heart attack. We are reaching the end.  Someone at some point on our side is going to have to stop playing by the f'ing rules step outside the box/trap of conventional wisdom and do something dangerous.

    Someone needs to do something that will cut through the blizzard of BS and make the f'ing zombies pay attention.  You are correct that if a democrat did this the media would literally melt.  The outrage from FOX would only be matched by liberal snowflakes who think it's nothing to be joked about.

    A smart articulate politician could use that as the mother of all teaching moments

    I was just joking

    How could you possibly joke about inviting an adversary country to interfere in our electoral process?


    More seriously I'm not sure I want Biden to do this since he is mentally or verbally nimble enough to make the case.  But if someone did they would be the next president.

    I'm not holding my breath.  I see no heroes.  


    I like the (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 31, 2019 at 09:26:29 AM EST
    way you think.   My suggestion would be to select another adversary, more economic than tinder box,  maybe China.

    And, along the lines of needed boldness, the uncustomary, and tip to the future, Biden should announce key members of a Biden Administration, such as Mayor Pete, Secretary of State; Stacey Abrams, Attorney General; Julian Castro, Secretary of Homeland  Security, Katie Porter, Secretary of Treasury.  And, Kampala Harris as Vice President.

    Biden can present an Administration headed by a President with long-time experience as US Senator and Vice President surrounded by a new generation of leadership.  Policy, no matter how you slice and dice it, comes down to Personnel.

    And, Biden could compare and contrast his view of a quality team with Trump's "best people", some of whom could be interviewed from their jail cells.


    The left coasts (none / 0) (#41)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Jun 01, 2019 at 01:21:40 PM EST
    I suspect that many of the Trump Democratic voters who don't live in the coastal states would be delighted with a presidential candidate who has a track record of being tough on crime.

    I "suspect" that many of the ... (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 02, 2019 at 09:35:47 AM EST
    ... Trump voters who live in any state would be delighted with a candidate who pretends to be "tough on crime" while continuing to put an actual criminal in office.

    I agree, TR, assuming we understand that (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 02, 2019 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    in this context "tough on crime" means (a) supporting harsher sentencing for drug and gun crimes that has no demonstrated effect on crime rates, but which (b) puts vast numbers of young black men in an increasing number of expensive prison cells, to the benefit of no one, except (c) an industry of prison construction and guarding that provides dead-end, low-wage jobs for undereducated, displaced, former industrial workers in outlying counties.

    Kumbaya Joe. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 11, 2019 at 07:45:56 AM EST
    Biden is delusional. He is saying now that the GOP will be bipartisan after Trump is gone. Has he met Mitch McConnell?

    Joe Biden is the NOT the candidate the Democrats need for 2020.

    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jmacWA on Tue Jun 11, 2019 at 07:53:43 AM EST
    He is saying now that the GOP will be bipartisan after Trump is gone

    The GOP hasn't been bipartisan since Newt's speakership.  Biden has no clue, and will hopefully not get the nomination.