After the Special Counsel's report said biden is incompetent, who will the Dems nominate?

Last year Porridgebrain was found to have thousands of pages of classified documents in cardboard boxes in his garage, his DC office and his office at the "Biden Center" at U.Penn,

Since his own DO"J" had already raided Trump's home (Mar-a-largo) for possessing classified, they knew that if they didn't do *something,* even more voters would realize the obvious: that there are two sets of laws in this nation.

SO...the utterly corrupt Merrick Garland appointed a "Special Counsel" to "investigate"--knowing, of course, that the DOJ could bury the report with the often-used excuse of "We can't release this because it's an ongoing investigation."  

You bet, sweetheart: "Ongoing" until hell freezes over, eh?

Well...as a few people may have noticed, last Thursday the DOJ released the report from Special Counsel Robert Hur.  That report said biden *willfully* removed and concealed classified material from his time as VP.

Oooohhh, that's an automatic prison sentence.  (Read the damn law about classified material.  Oh wait, you won't.  Which the rulers well know.  It's how James Comey was able to "excuse" not charging Hilliary for having thousands of Top-Secret docs on her private server.  He bleated that "she had no intent."  Well guess what, morons: Lack of intent doesn't matter.  Comey lied.  On live TV, testifying before congress.  But hey...two sets of laws.)

And in biden's case, the special counsel said he "willfully" took the docs, so intentional.  And that he "shared" classified docs with one of his ghostwriters.

For Dems (like my siblings) who say "That's just like Trump did," the president (which Porridge was NOT at the time) does NOT have the authority to declassify docs, while the prez does.

See the diff?  (Spoiler: Dems don't.  Can't.)

SO...problem for the Democrats, eh?  They obviously don't wanna charge Porridgebrain, but they also don't wanna drop charges against Trump for having docs at his home.

Oooohhh, what to do, eh?

Simple: Use the "ongoing investigation" lie to not release the report until after the election (if ever).

SO since they could have used that dodge, *why did they release the report when they didn't have to?*

Yes, the report carefully uses the excuse that Porridgebrain is so old and senile that if he were to be charged, his attorneys would claim he's just an old man with a poor memory.

Except...he took the classified docs back in Jan of 2017 when he left the vice-presidency.  That was seven long years ago.  Was his memory faulty then too?

So...even though releasing the report gave the Dems a cover for not charging Porridge while keeping the charges against Trump, a few Americans found the report...disturbing...in showing what we all knew: that Porridge is way incompetent.

So why would Garland--totally controlled by the regime--order the report to be released if they didn't have to, eh?

I want my smart siblings to consider that question for a minute.

Obviously people do things for reasons.  If a lackey has the choice of doing something that will harm his boss's chances of re-election, *would he do that if he didn't have to?

If you're a rational person the answer is obvious: No.  And yet Garland did release it.

Why release the damning report when they didn't have to?

We'll never know, but some are thinking the reason was that the people who run the Democrat party know if biden is their nominee it's gonna take a truly *massive* vote fraud to win in November.  They can do it, of course, but at his rate of decline he'll be a total zombie in a couple of years, leaving the Dems (and the country) with Cackles as president.

Some Dems undoubtedly think this would be a good thing, since it locks up the black and female (and gay and tranny) votes.  Others calculate that it will cost 'em far more votes than it wins.  So between now and November those two groups will be arguing over who's right, and fighting to make their belief win.

IF the people running the party agree that keeping biden as their nominee despite officially-declared mental incompetence is likely to cost 'em more votes, they'll get rid of him.  If, who would they nominate?

The problem is, at present there are no other popular Democrats seeking the nomination.  Yes, there are sound thinkers like Dean Phillips ("who?"), but only a small percentage of voters know who they are.

Skeptics counter that biden can't be replaced unless he chooses not to run.  That's utter nonsense, since the 25th Amendment (1965) allows him to be removed from office by the declaration by a simple majority of cabinet-level secretaries that he is unable to...you get it.

This is infinitely easier than the virtually impossible task of getting two-thirds of the senate to "convict and remove" following impeachment.
 
Of course you knew all that cuz you read the Constitution in highschool, right?

(Spoiler:  Not one American in 100,000 has ever read the Constitution.  The K-12 schools (many controlled by communist-run school boards) stopped teaching the Constitution decades ago, instead substituting the wonders of two mommies running families.  More recently they've been teaching the wonders of coming out as tranny, or claiming that the U.S. has always been raaaaaacist.)

So for those of you who wouldn't read the Constitution if you were paid, Section 4 of the 25th Amendment provides that a president can be removed if...
>>...the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office...">>

So if the Dems want Joe out, they'll force him out with the 25th, and his advisors know it.

So a few months from now, people go to Biden and say "You had a good first term.  Go down in the history books as being the first president to resign for the good of the nation.*  You'll be viewed as noble.  Altruistic.  Willing to give up your faaaabulous power for the good of the nation!"

Of course that's horseshit: Nixon resigned rather than drag things out, but since that happened 50 years ago Porridgebrain won't remember it, so won't dispute the "first prezzie to do X" pitch.

"And of course before you leave you can pardon your son Hunty--that's the one who didn't die.  And you can ride off into the sunset as the most powerful Democrat evah!"

How could anyone resist such a brilliantly-crafted pitch, eh?  So he'll obviously take the deal.  He won't realize that the "resign" faction was just bluffing: the last thing they wanna do is remove biden, cuz guess what happens then?

Yep, Cackles automatically becomes prezzie.

Now, until a couple of weeks ago I was certain the Dems would NOT want Cackles as prezzie, since when she ran for prezzie in 2020 she won just *one percent of the vote* in the Dem primary *in her own damn home state.*  But now I'm no longer certain, because the Dems know she brings in *lots* of votes from women and blacks, and they may decide to roll the dice.

But I think there's a far more likely possibility:

Both parties' national committees have rules for what to do if their presidential nominee dies or becomes unable to serve after the party's nominating convention.  The answer is that the party decides--all by itself, with not a single nod to voters--on their new nominee.

So with the official report by the Special Counsel having found Porridgebrain has a hugely impaired memory, it wouldn't be implausible for Joe to have a "health issue" after the August convention that would leave him unable to fulfill the duties of the office.

Faced with a sure ejection via the 25th if he balks, compared with assurances from EVERY top Dem that he'll go down in the history books as a selfless hero who gave up the top office for the good of his country, what do ya think he'd do, eh?

Sure.  Now only two question remain:
  1. Who do we nominate? and...
  2. How do we get rid of Kamala without losing black and female votes?

They'll almost certainly nominate Gavin Newsom, who's been a darling of the Mainstream Media for almost a decade now.  All Democrats love him (for bizarre reasons too obvious to need explaining).  So at that point we have an ambiguity in the DNC rules:

As every American should know, the nominee for president chooses his VP.  No one gets to vote on that.  And at the Dem convention Porridgebrain will have again chosen Cackles as his VP.

Ambiguity is, when the DNC installs Newsom as their nominee, is he stuck with biden's choice for VP, or do the Democrat leaders give their golden boy the power to choose his own VP--a power given to every other presidential nominee?

Given the extreme improbability of a party's presidential nominee dying or becoming unable to serve after the nomination, I doubt the DNC's rules directly addressed that question.  And if they don't, it'll be left up to the party.

Newsom will claim to be delighted to have Cackles as his running mate.  Problem is, the two are from the same state, and normal strategy is to pick a prez and VP from different  states (hopefully large ones with lots of electoral votes).

Cackles is stupid but not crazy, and will quickly pick up on the fact that the although the rulers of the party think she's a great VP, they know they'll go more good if the VP is from a different state.  Cackles will quickly agree that this is for the good of the party and will *voluntarily* withdraw her name from the ballot--"for the good of the party," obviously.

This will immediately set off a bidding war between CNN and MSNBC, one of which will win by offering her the staggering sum of $6 million per year.  (For comparison, the VP makes $302,168 per year.)

Now the only remaining question is, who will Newsom choose as his VP?  My money is on Ayanna Pressley--a black female member of congress from Massachusetts.  A black radical and member of the "squad."  Retains the female and black votes, and picks up the votes of angry Hamas supporters who are now starting to form angry mobs in front of Democrats' homes to pressure the biden regime to stop sending arms to Israel.

SO...see how neatly it all works out?  As if by magic, the Democrat party exchanges their corrupt, unpopular, senile nominee for the glib, often-claimed-photogenic governor of the state with the most electoral votes.  Nominating a Californian for president gives the ludicrous, unpopular Cackles a face-saving excuse to take her name off the ballot.  (Well, that and the promise of $6 million per year.)

And Newsom picking a new black female keeps the party from losing any black and female votes, and picks up young radicals angry with the Democrats.  

"So once again, 'the People' have spoken," eh?

Today is 10 Feb 2024.  If I'm right, you heard it here first.  And conservatives: don't worry that I've given the Dems the winning plan, cuz they don't have any idea this blog exists.