Pages

Monday, January 31, 2022

Will the GOP impeach Biden in 2023?

 50% Support Biden’s Impeachment

Half of voters believe President Joe Biden should be impeached, and nearly as many think Republicans will do it if they win a congressional majority in the midterm elections.

A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and The National Pulse finds that 50% of Likely U.S. voters support the impeachment of Biden, including 33% who Strongly Support it. Forty-five percent (45%) are opposed to impeaching Biden, including 33% who Strongly Oppose it. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Well why not? Democrats impeached Trump and not 50% of the public can tell us what the actual reasons were in retrospect. Most would accurately say that Democrats just hated Trump and needed to lash out. Impeachment used to mean something, but now it is just a political tool to make a President look less appealing. 

In fact, might I suggest that they impeach Biden three times or even more? Who cares for what, but three times would make him a worse President and obviously much more of a criminal than Trump ever was, because Trump was only impeached twice.  

But, liberals will say... you cannot just impeach someone for nothing? I would argue that you certainly can and Democrats proved as much when they impeached Trump for inquiring about the possibility of investigating Hunter Biden (for perfectly legitimate purposes) because it was considered an abuse of power to investigate someone associated with a possible political opponent. 

  • By those standards, the fact that Biden is in favor of investigating Trump is abuse of power (because Trump is a potential political opponent) and impeachment number one. 
  • We also had the situation where we saw political violence in Kenosha after President Biden called Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Not only is that incitement (according to liberals) but it was also a slanderous act against a private citizen. That is impeachments two and three if want to separate them. 
  • Oh, and we have the fact that Biden was caught secretly moving illegal migrants out of the border states and placing them in other states, without even notifying those states? Against the law? Absolutely. Impeachment number four..
  • How about the fact that he was responsible for a drone attack on an innocent Afghan family and then tried to cover it up by calling the family terrorists? Impeachment five. 
I could probably go on and on and on... but we all get the point! Will Republicans impeach the President? Time will tell, but the public would seem to be okay with it and quite frankly I doubt anyone would care anymore. 


Will Joe Biden's nominee be more qualified than Sri Srinivasan

Because according to stupid liberals comparing qualifications to Garland is racist?  

Padmanabhan Srikanth "Sri" Srinivasan[1] (/ˈsriː ˌsriːniˈvɑːsən/; born February 23, 1967) is an Indian-born American jurist and attorney serving as the Chief United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[2][3] The United States Senate confirmed Srinivasan by a vote of 97–0 on May 23, 2013. Before his confirmation, Srinivasan served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States and argued 25 cases before the United States Supreme Court. He has also lectured at Harvard Law School.
In 2016, Srinivasan was considered by President Barack Obama as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States after the passing of Antonin Scalia in 2016.[4] President Obama nominated Merrick Garland instead.

In one of the dumber statements I have seen, a particular man of the cloth suggested that it was racist to only consider those who are the most qualified, because they will obviously be of some sort of race and therefore you would be disqualifying the other races who do not have a similarly qualified candidate. Almost as if "qualifications" are not the main driver to why people are picked for jobs, but rather race should be the first factor.

Imagine if you decided that it was unfair for an NBA team to pick the most qualified player with their first round draft choice, because it would somehow be considered unfair to people of other races? Perhaps that first round draft choice of the NBA draft should be of Japanese or Ecuadorian descent. After all, the NBA is just a game (not the United States Supreme Court) and if there is somewhere that we can afford to have the employees reflect the basic racial makeup of the country, you'd think it would be a better experiment in the NBA than the nation's top court. 

I have a hint for the religious scholar in question. There are ultimately many, many very qualified candidates who have years of experience on the appellate courts and other qualifications that should put them on a short list for the USSC. Not all of these people are going to be White males and many (like Srinivasan) will represent a nationality or race that is not currently included on the USSC.  But by not allowing a process to actually consider everyone, it becomes much more difficult to get both someone with the highest qualifications and someone who is racially diverse. 

This is why you have people like Lindsey Graham pushing a home state District Court Judge as the pick, in spite of her having no appellate court experience and in spite of her lacking in other qualifications. You are reduced to picking and choosing from a very very reduced pool here and it becomes embarrassing when you consider someone like Srinivasan cannot be considered because he is of Indian/Asian descent rather than a black women.  


Bottom line - Trump made black lives better and Biden has made them worse

Why Joe Biden Is Bleeding Black Support
Although Biden has lost ground with most every demographic group, he’s suffered especially steep losses with African American voters. In polling from NBC News, Biden’s approval rating among Black voters has fallen from 83 percent last April to 64 percent today. Quinnipiac University’s surveys show a similar trend, with Biden’s Black support dropping from 78 percent to 57 percent over the course of his first year in office.
Much of that erosion has come in just the last few months. A Pew Research survey released this week finds that Biden has bled seven percentage points of support among Black adults since September. Over that same period, the president lost just four points of support from whites, and virtually none from Asian or Hispanic voters.
Available polling suggests that across America as a whole, the push for voting rights has only limited salience. When Gallup asked U.S. voters to name their nation’s “most important problem” in December, only one percent said “elections” or “election reform.” In a recent poll from the Democratic firm Navigator Research, only 21 percent of Black respondents said that they had “heard a lot” about the Democrats’ main voting-rights proposal, the Freedom to Vote Act. Further, in Quinnipiac’s recent poll, Black voters were actually much less likely than white or Hispanic voters to agree with the statement, “the nation’s democracy is in danger of collapse.”
For another thing, Biden’s erosion of support among Black voters far predates the voting-rights push’s latest failure. In fact, we still don’t have much polling conducted after Democrats failed to come up with the votes necessary to pass the Freedom to Vote Act in defiance of a Republican filibuster this month. Quinnipiac’s survey, which showed Biden’s Black support at a disastrous 57 percent, was largely taken during a period when the president was treating voting rights as his top legislative priority.
Democrats and liberals have long believed that the secondary keys to keeping their black voters satisfied was through more government handouts and more political pandering. They have long believed that the main key to keeping their black voters on their side was to scream racism every chance they get. 

But the truth is coming out. It seems (strangely enough to liberals) that black voters are like everyone else and they want things like good jobs, decent wages, lower crime, better schools, and basically the same thing everyone else wants. While Trump succeeded in almost every area for the black community in terms of jobs and overall quality of life, Biden has failed in these sames measurements. Black unemployment climbed from all time lows, crime in black neighborhoods has gone through the roof, and overall things just look bleak.

Rather than tell black people that he has a solid plan to bring them back to where they once were and perhaps even further along, he things he can appease them with a USSC nominee and more chants of racism. In fact, it's openly known that the plan was to nominate a black justice and then call all opposition racism. But I think black people might be on to it. It's sort of sad really that Democrats have not figured it out.
 

Sunday, January 30, 2022

Can't look at my own website

Because certain people will put football scores in the comment section while many people are watching on recording delay.  49ers Rams still 0-0 in the first quarter for me.

people who don't understand the concept of DVR

 

Is she more qualified than Merrick Garland

The only question needed to be asked when Biden narrows the list

  • Merrick Garland clerked for Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. 
  • Merrick Garland served as a Federal prosecutor for several years
  • Merrick Garland served 23 years as an Appellate Judge for DC (one of the most important appeals court in the nation)
  • Merrick Garland was Barack Obama's first choice for the USSC in 2016
  • Merrick Garland has spent nearly a year as the US Attorney General  

So are any of Biden's potential nominees in the same time zone as Garland when it comes to their personal qualifications. Because let's face it, Merrick Garland is available and many believed he was the most qualified seven years ago. Since then he has only garnered more experience as a Judge and as the Attorney General. But this man will not be considered, because he is a man and is not black. 

ABC Poll - Biden a racist who is pandering for votes or what gives?

Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL
A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as motivated by partisanship, while President Joe Biden's campaign trail vow to select a Black woman to fill a high-court vacancy without reviewing all potential candidates evokes a sharply negative reaction from voters.
During the spring 2020 presidential primaries, days before his set of big wins on Super Tuesday, Biden pledged to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court, if elected. Now, with the chance to do so, just over three-quarters of Americans (76%) want Biden to consider "all possible nominees." Just 23% want him to automatically follow through on his history-making commitment that the White House seems keen on seeing through. At a ceremony honoring the retiring justice, Biden told reporters he is able to honor his promise without compromising on quality.
Although the poll's sample size was not large enough to break out results for Black people, only a little more than 1 in 4 nonwhite Americans (28%) wish for Biden to consider only Black women for the vacancy. Democrats are more supportive of Biden's vow (46%) than Americans as a whole, but still a majority of Democrats (54%) also prefer that Biden consider all possible nominees.

The most amusing part of all of this are the tone-deaf (generally lily white liberals) who actually believed that the country was going to rally around a decision by the President to eliminate 93% of the applicant because they have the wrong sexual organs and/or skin color. The decision didn't even garner a positive take within the Democratic Party itself. 

How many "this is going to help Democrats in the midterms" stories were their out there in the past few days here?  Enough to make a lot of people look awful stupid! 

This was a boneheaded campaign promise and an even bigger boneheaded decision to follow through with it. Rather than really stick it to Republicans (who are supposedly going to look racist for opposing his nomination) it appears that Biden has stuck it to himself and his own Party has people see through the pretense and at a fundamental level know that it is bad in 2022 to be picking something this important over gender and race.

Knowing this, Republicans will have a clear path to attacking the nominee on basis of experience or qualifications with only the few lily white liberals and black race baiters still screaming in a circle jerk about bigotry. As pointed out, the candidates on the list for Biden seem underwhelming as it goes to experience and qualifications. When three quarters of Americans are against Biden limiting this pick by sex and race,  it will resonate with those people if the Candidate seems like a stretch pick or seems less qualified than other possible names. 

More bad news (really bad news) for Biden and his flailing Party.


Sunday Funnies part II

























Sunday Funnies part I


Saturday, January 29, 2022

I remember when Democrats wanted to keep big money out of politics?

George Soros Gives Dem PAC $125 Million to Help With Midterms


It’s okay when the Democrats do it. It’s okay when it’s George Soros. Soros started Democracy PAC in 2019 to help Democrats in 2020. I’m guessing he is seeing a deer in the headlights because he cut the PAC a $125 million check. Soros told Politico the donation will support “pro-democracy ’causes and candidates, regardless of political party.'” Those who want to strengthen “the infrastructure of American democracy: voting rights and civic participation, civil rights and liberties, and the rule of law” will receive the money.

Zuckerberg gave more than this to democratic election officials across the country under the guise of Covid, but we now know that money was used for a variety of get out the vote drives, ballot harvesting and other things that had nothing to do with Covid. 

Interestingly while Democrats are looking to Federalize elections and pass a new law before 2020, limiting or eliminating this sort of "dark money" is not on their agenda. If the dark money helps them it is a good thing. It is only bad when it was working against their Party. 


Manchin gets standing ovation from West Virginia legislators for standing up to pushy Democrats!

  As our friends at Hot Air note, 72 percent of West Virginians support Manchin blocking the Build Back Better bill. It’s a red state, and Republicans control both the House and the Senate, so they’re definitely supportive of what Manchin has done. He might be the only Democrat who could win that office in that state. So, Democrats have the choice between Manchin or a Republican because that’s the reality.

So as much as Democrats and liberals are pretending that Manchin is some sort of traitor to the country the truth is that this is still and has always been a center right country that does not like it when liberals assume their personal ideals are akin to American values.  


Number of police officers shot during the Jan 6th riot? Zero!

This is one week's worth of shootings... but the Biden administration keeps searching for citizens who held up a sign too close to the Capitol building so they can throw the book at em? 


Anyone want to really know why Biden is soooo unpopular and how it is even possible that Pelosi and her minions are even less popular? Well this is part of it right here. While the lion's share of our population is well over a riot that took place over a year ago... liberals do everything in their power to keep in in the news in a lame attempt to distract us from how horrible they are actually doing their jobs. 

Let's actually use our Justice department to go after real criminals. Wouldn't that be a novel idea? But rather they pander to liberal extremists who are still trying to argue (over a year later) that the Capital riots was an attempt to take over the country. 

Here is the reality. It doesn't matter how hard they try, how deep they dig, how many charges they make, or how many witnesses they demand talk to them. People are not dumb enough (well most people are not dumb enough) to think that a bunch of unarmed protesters were going to seize control of the United States Government. 

Meanwhile, real criminals are defended everyday by liberals who will tell us that the police are the bad guys and the criminals are the victims. They probably believe that ten officers deserved to be shot and injured and they probably are cheering that three more were shot and killed.


Wanted to go ahead and share this for Roger....

Who really needs their bananas cut for them? 

Chicken fried substance fingers with creamy potato surprise! 

Frozen chicken nuggets, frozen veggies, lumps, and peaches out of a can with cool whip! 
we are all soooo jealous! 

Friday, January 28, 2022

Another Covid year Election law shot down by the courts!

Pennsylvania mail in votes were the largest statistical aberration of the entire 2020 election 

This will be bittersweet news for a lot of people. A five-judge panel has ruled that Pennsylvania’s universal mail-in voting law violates the state’s constitution, an argument conservatives have been making since it was enacted in 2019. That election law went on to play a pivotal role in delivering the state for Joe Biden in 2020, who trailed on Election Night, but pulled ahead as more and more mail-in votes were counted.
The court’s decision essentially made the case that any law to make mail-in ballots universal versus only being allowed in defined circumstances needed to come via an amendment to the state’s constitution, given the current language. That was the same case former President Donald Trump’s legal team attempted to make. Unfortunately, the courts at the time brushed off their challenge. Now, though it’s far too late to change things, there is some vindication happening on that front.

Still doesn't explain or change the fact that Joe Biden won 76% of the mail in ballots in spite of the demographic makeup of the returned ballots (Pennsylvania mails and returns ballots by political Party) suggesting he would garner no more than 70%.  This was a swing of somewhere between a 200,000-300,000 vote difference in the end result. Most election observers (including the Biden camp itself) had written off Pennsylvania to Trump on election night, expecting him to win by as much a quarter million votes. 

But it does show how these courts were so quick to undermine and toss any and all lawsuits, generally arguing lack of standing or dropping them on some sort of legal technicality while never actually ruling on the merits. Arguments that Trump "lost" all of his election lawsuits were simply disinformation, if not outright lies. He continues to win them, albeit after the fact when it doesn't matter anymore.

 

This is the new state of media affairs...

And the only thing the left can do is try to censor Rogan because they cannot compete!

Are comparisons to Reagan's pledge about a woman unfair?

Biden's Supreme Court pledge is not Reagan's nor Trump's—it's unfair
Various commentators insisted that Biden did exactly what Reagan did in 1980 when he pledged to appoint a woman to the Court. The comparison, however, shows the opposite. Reagan did not exclude anyone other than women in being considered while making clear that he wanted to give one of his vacancies to a female candidate. On Oct. 15, 1980, Reagan declared that "I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find. … It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists."
Notably, it was Jimmy Carter who pounced on that pledge as creating a threshold gender criteria. Others noted at the time that Reagan was simply pledging that he would select a woman in "one of the first Supreme Court vacancies" rather than the first vacancy. Indeed, when a vacancy did arise, aides told the media that there was "no guarantee" that he would select a woman. Reagan never pledged to only consider women and in fact considered non-female candidates. One of the leading contenders was considered Judge Lawrence Pierce, an African American trial court judge. Newsweek and other media sites listed an array of males being actively considered including Robert Bork, Dallin H. Oaks, Malcolm R. Wilkey, Philip B. Kurland, and Edwin Meese III.
Nevertheless, Reagan clearly wanted a female candidate and reportedly told White House Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Deaver to "find a woman who was qualified and come back and discuss it if that wasn’t possible." That person was Sandra Day O'Connor. Reagan did what many universities do in seeking to add diversity in admissions while not excluding other applicants. The Supreme Court has allowed universities to use race or gender as a factor in seeking to create a diverse "critical mass" on campuses.

I think there are plenty of subtle differences here between the Reagan pledge and the Biden pledge. I think it is definitely a reality that Presidents want to consider gender and race when appointing any position. The fact that Biden also added the lackluster and unqualified Kamala Harris to his ticket was 100% because she was a black woman. Perhaps it even helped him win an election. In politics almost everything is done more for politics than for the good of the country.  

Is it "fair" to the dozens of qualified candidate who have worked their whole lives to put themselves in a position to possibly be considered for a coveted spot on the USSC to not be provided a chance because they have the wrong sexual organs and/or the wrong skin color? Of course not. That is why choosing employees based on gender or race is considered illegal. It's why Harvard is being sued for bending their qualifications and admissions in a manner that discriminates against Asian and White Americans.

Obviously nobody is going to sue the Administration for discrimination because Biden chooses to restrict his search down to a less than 7% of the population. But it does create a situation where the President is insisting that 93% of our American population is not currently meeting his sexual and racial qualifications for the job. It's one thing to say a woman (when women make up 52% of the population) but it's another to pick specific attributes that are this small. 

Joe Biden is doing this 100% for political purposes. He feels (right or wrong) that this is a fight that will help his Party. Not sure if it will help or hurt in the long term, but there can be no question that by limiting his search to the point where people are actually considering Kamala Harris as a possibility tells us that this could go very wrong.   


Thursday, January 27, 2022

The state of the 2024 hypothetical match up!

Polling Data

PollDateSampleMoETrump (R)Biden (D)Spread
RCP Average11/3 - 1/20----45.740.3Trump +5.4
Harvard-Harris1/19 - 1/201815 RV--4640Trump +6
InsiderAdvantage12/17 - 12/19750 RV3.64941Trump +8
Rasmussen Reports11/22 - 11/231200 LV3.04532Trump +13
Wall Street Journal11/16 - 11/221500 RV2.54546Biden +1
USA Today/Suffolk11/3 - 11/51000 RV3.14440Trump +4
Emerson11/3 - 11/41000 RV3.04543Trump +2

Apparently a lot of black voters in Georgia are not really black!

Meltdown in Georgia: Black voter disapproval of Biden quadruples

Only 5% of Democrats gave him an unfavorable review in the AJC’s May poll; in this poll the number rose to 21%. His support among independents fell sharply, too. But the contrast was particularly sharp in the most powerful constituency in the state Democratic Party. In May, only about 8% of Black voters disapproved of Biden’s performance. That number had more than quadrupled in the AJC’s latest poll, which found disapproval among Black Georgians at 36%.

Well for one, the President is calling all of Georgia racist for implementing a bill that is very popular in Georgia (and yes even popular with black voters). Apparently they believe that they should be entitled to their own opinion and they are not behoven to the Democratic Party line.

If you throw your peas again you will get a fourth dose!

Fauci and CDC want to immunize two year olds... thrice!

 We will be implementing strict vaccine passport rules for playgrounds and sandboxes!

Not to do this math thing and confuse the lily white liberals with numbers, but we are now two years into this pandemic and less than 80 children between 1-4 have passed from Covid. That number is a fraction of the children that age that will die from the flu or pneumonia.

Moreover that is approximately three deaths per month nationally and less than two deaths per state since the pandemic started. Think of everything that can kill a toddler and then figure that less than one per state per year will die of Covid. While every death of a child is tragic, this doesn't seem like much of a crisis.

But we will be vaccinating an whole generation of children with a vaccine that has not been tested much (if any) on children to this point according to most in the know. We do know currently that the list of possible side effects could take one of those fast talkers about half the commercial if we were advertising it on television. Yet we are putting this into our toddlers without any concept of the consequences either short or long term.

At the end of the day are just flying by the seat of our pants and doubling down on the only solution that our Government experts apparently understand. Vaccines. Until money can be made hand over fist from the new Pfizer Covid pill, we will just continue to push the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. 


Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Neil Young tries to cancel Joe Rogan and spotify cancels Young

Young says it's him or Rogan... Spotify starts removing Young music from their platform
“I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform,” he continued. “They can have [Joe] Rogan or Young. Not both.”

“I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines – potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them,” he wrote. “Please act on this immediately today and keep me informed of the time schedule.” 

So perhaps Young already knew that Spotify would side with Rogan over an aging singer/songwriter.  I have to say that as a someone who is personally a hack of a singer songwriter (my original material would barely make one album) that I have always respected the musical abilities of Young. Some of his stuff was pure genius and his live guitar playing and singing back in the day was truly phenomenal. Just take the time to watch this video and you will know what I mean. 


I thought he went off the beaten track and like many aging musicians started pushing his political views into his music, but such is life. There was a time when you could write about what you believe without bringing the actual partisan party politics of present day into things. The musicians of the sixties and seventies were political in terms of pushing certain beliefs. Heck even the Beatles had beliefs you could relate to without having to feel like it was liberal versus conservative deal.   

But those days appear long gone for people like Young. I find it sad that such a rare talent would (at the end of his days of relevance) pick a fight with the guy who has the most listened to Podcast in the world. 


Justice Breyer to retire - before the election so Democrats can actually get a nominee passed?

Sees the writing on the wall. A Republican Majority in the Senate starting in November and a Republican President in 2024
Justice Stephen G. Breyer will retire at the end of the current Supreme Court term, according to a person familiar with his plans, giving President Biden a chance to reinforce the court’s liberal minority and make good on his campaign pledge to make history by nominating the first African American female justice.

This would mean that Breyer would have to (at best) sit on the bench for another six years or be replaced with a conservative. But hey, good thing that Biden is not a racist or sexist who would decide the best candidate based on gender and skin color!  Nope, best available for him!

Generic Ballot numbers

Polling Data

PollDateSampleRepublicans (R)Democrats (D)Spread
RCP Average1/7 - 1/25--47.143.0Republicans +4.1
Monmouth1/20 - 1/24735 RV5143Republicans +8
Insider Advantage1/21 - 1/23850 LV4942Republicans +7
Economist/YouGov1/22 - 1/251249 RV3842Democrats +4
Politico/MornCon1/22 - 1/232005 RV4242Tie
Harvard-Harris1/19 - 1/201815 RV5347Republicans +6
FOX News1/16 - 1/191001 RV4443Republicans +1
NBC News1/14 - 1/18790 RV4647Democrats +1
Trafalgar Group (R)1/12 - 1/151077 LV5642Republicans +14
Rasmussen Reports1/9 - 1/132500 LV4839Republicans +9
Quinnipiac1/7 - 1/101178 RV4443Republicans +1

Tuesday, January 25, 2022

The difference between a real criminal investigation and a witch hunt?

It boils down to something quite simple here folks!


So what do all real criminal investigations have in common? They are actually investigating a crime. In other words, they know a crime has been committed, they need to nail down the specifics about what, where and who, and ultimately they hope to charge someone with the crime in question. For example if a bank is robbed, you know what crime is being investigated. The general concept is that you will eventually want to charge someone with robbing the bank.

On the flip side, when you see "investigations" (recently almost always political in nature) that revolve around particular actions that are not easily described with any actual real criminal statute, but those investigating just keep digging deeper "looking" for something that might turn criminal; well then that is what is called a witch hunt. 

I mean seriously folks. We have at least three different investigation of Donald Trump across the country and none of them are even suggesting an actual criminal charge that they believe that can stick. 

They talk about the Jan 6th "insurrection" but making an incitement charge against him would be tossed at the first judicial review. There is no legal obligation for a President (or anyone) to stop other people from rioting and it's not a crime if he didn't address it in some sort of timely matter. You hear all sorts of "leaks" about who they all interviewed, but not a single leak about anyone providing anything substantial about anything. You think if Bill Barr had something damaging on Trump that could show a crime that we would not have already heard about it? More to the point, the FBI and other law enforcement have finished their investigations and all that is left is the partisan political one in the House. 

They talk about all sorts of election shenanigans where Trump was trying to undermine the election.  These goes from the concept of alternative electors to unsigned orders to investigating phone calls where he requests that fraud be more forcefully investigated. None of these things have an actual criminal statute tied to them. We've had alternate electors in the past, unsigned and unused executive orders happen, and we have had people demand that there was fraud. The existence of actual alternate electors (even had they actually existed) is not a criminal act and calling them "fake" doesn't change the law. There is no crime in drafting an order that never goes through.  Short of him threatening a Georgia official, there is no crime there no matter how hard you look. Perhaps this is why the Georgia officials have opened a grand jury that has no authority to indict anyone.

Lastly, the SDNY have been investigating Trump for supposed financial crimes for years. The prominent AG who led the charge had gotten pretty much everything he wanted in terms of information and he still never put forth charges. What are they suggesting? In a roundabout high level manner they are arguing tax fraud, but in the more concrete they seem to have little tangible in terms of specific charges. Generally tax fraud is charged by the IRS and the current investigation ongoing now is actually civil (rather than criminal). So even if they are successful, they plan on suing him, not charging him.

So right now we have multiple investigations into the so called "crimes" of Donald Trump. Yet, one is coming from Congress, the other involves a grand jury without authority to indict, and the last is being performed as a civil action rather than criminal. So does anyone see a common theme here?