ChiGoose

Yes, it has been. But when it was made public, a lot of people believed it was true because they didn’t understand it was raw intelligence and not vetted for truth.

Me: both the Steele Dossier and the Biden claims are unproven claims that shouldn’t be taken as fact until they are properly investigated. The literal dumbest person on the internet: you believed the pee tape Honest to god, I’d be embarrassed if this moron was on my side. Like, just an absolutely illiterate mouth breather.

I’m looking at the evidence we know and drawing the simplest conclusion: Hunter Biden was trading on his name and some people wanted to use him to influence his dad. Was his dad involved? So far, the people pushing that narrative only have that one guy said he bribed two Biden’s. Hardly convincing. They also grossly misunderstand the Shokin situation or are lying about it. So yeah, I’m not likely to jump to a conclusion based purely on conjecture from people who are untrustworthy.

I’m just looking at the evidence, buddy. Do you think $17 million is a lot of money to people who want influence in the US? It’s nothing. It’s absolutely worth it to throw at somebody in the hopes that it pans out. Hunter is a crappy guy drug addict who was trading on his last name. But if Joe himself was involved, you need to prove it.

I am going with: the crackhead son of the VP is an easy target for foreign actors but I’m not going to assume that Joe was personally involved until I’m shown that Joe was personally involved. You’re giving too much credit to Hunter and not enough to the people with the real money. It would be bad! And he should face consequences if he was!

Absolutely. But I’m not going to believe that on the testimony of one guy saying he bribed two Biden’s. Show me where Joe himself was actually involved. Hard evidence.

I’m sure people thought he had influence over his dad. If you’re sitting on a giant pile of money and have the opportunity to pull the son of the VP into your fold, it makes a lot of sense to throw some money at him to see what you could get. I love this argument so much. It’s just so dumb. It requires you to believe that people can see into the future. This is like sitting there in 2016 and saying “are we sure we fired Doug Marrone because he sucked? We fired him and we still suck. Maybe there’s another reason…” The entire Western world wanted Shokin fired because he was corrupt. Firing him, however, doesn’t immediately end corruption. While Ukraine has made progress on combating corruption, it’s long history of corruption is one of its biggest impediments to fully joining the west. And for some reason, this is incredibly difficult for some people to grasp.

My position is that I need more than a statement from one random guy saying he bribed “two Biden’s” to believe that Joe Biden took a bribe. You know, something actually showing that Joe Biden actually took a bribe. That whole thing called “evidence”. Maybe subpoena his financial records and see if there’s something there. Until then, this is a random person saying something with no evidence to back it. Just like the Steele Dossier you all rightfully called out.

Wrong, as usual. Obviously Hunter was trading on his dad’s name. There’s no reason he would get such a cushy job on his own merit. He’s a classic failson. But there’s a difference between being perceived as wielding your dad’s influence and actually doing it. I have no doubt that Hunter talked up his dad and what he could get his dad to do. But what we haven’t seen is actual hard evidence that Joe Biden actually did anything. We have the testimony of one guy saying he bribed two Biden’s. Is he telling the truth? Is Joe one of the Biden’s or is it Hunter and his uncle? Do you have any independently verified evidence that payment was made specifically to Joe Biden?

I’m willing to believe it but I need more evidence than one guy saying something. Do they have bank records of the money transfers? Any kind of independently verifiable records of the bribes? Or just some guy talking?

I think “desperate” gives them too much credit. They would have to have even the slightest grasp on reality to be desperate. It’s just so, so, so much more likely that they are either ignorant or just stupid.

GTFO with that logic and facts. We all know that Joe Biden was taking bribes because one person who nobody had ever heard of says so and we definitely don’t need to go further than that or get any other actual evidence. Also we need to do absolutely nothing and say absolutely nothing about Jared Kushner’s financial deals…

The thing that is so incredibly hard for the clickservative crowd to understand is that Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the top prosecutor specifically because the prosecutor wasn’t prosecuting corruption. Ironically, Joe Biden pressuring for the firing of Shokin made it *more likely* that Burisma would be investigated but that doesn’t fit the narrative so they just make up BS instead. They will swallow any lie so long as it supports their worldview

Because it’s generally ill-advised to release unproven claims. Why are you spending your Friday night thinking about me? 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

We'll see when the target letter is made public or Trump is actually indicted, but I remain skeptical that he'll be charged for incitement of violence. Fake electors, wire fraud, defrauding the US, etc seem much more likely.

Not necessarily. At its simplest, it's just documenting an unverified tip from someone. If you call the FBI today and tell them that you believe your mailman is the Zodiac Killer, they'll probably have to fill out the form for that, but might not necessarily end up investigating it. Without additional hard evidence or investigative report, this is no different in terms of truth at this stage as the unverified stories in the Steele Dossier. You can either believe both the Steele Dossier claims and this one, or neither. To believe one and not the other at this stage is just being partisan. That changes, of course, if they can actually *prove* some of the claims. Congress has the ability to subpoena financial records and other evidence that could be used to verify the claims. If they believe the claims are accurate, they should do that. Hunter Biden is clearly a scummy guy trading on his dad's name, but you need more than this to show that Joe Biden himself was involved.

Sure, but it won't go that way. While one might think he'd want the trial over sooner if he believed he was innocent (an acquittal before the election probably strengthens him), Trump is going to delay as much as possible to get the date moved after the election. Not sure if he'll be successful though.

I think that's correct from the government's perspective. They seem pretty well organized and shouldn't have a problem presenting their case by May (especially since it is such a slam dunk that any other defendant would have already plead out). However, the discovery process is going to be fairly onerous for Trump's team. Sure, they can get a bunch of junior lawyers on doc review, but to my knowledge, cases involving classified documents rarely go to trial within a year of the indictment. Additionally, there's going to be a lot of motion practice on how to handled the classified materials. As a defendant, Trump would normally be able to view the materials to be used against him but the government would be worried that he would be careless with them and would prefer only Trump's lawyers view it. Additionally, how are they going to handle classified info in open court? Are they going to use the silent witness rule or some other method? It's definitely possible the May date holds, I just wouldn't be surprised if it ends up getting pushed back some.

I am old enough to remember when conservatives were mad about the Steele Dossier because it was just unverified and uninvestigated rumors…

What? No. That doesn’t make any sense. An impeachment resolution by a current House actually has effects.

They literally cannot. Every two years the House is disbanded and a new House is created. It’s not a continuing body like the Senate. They cannot go back and undo the work of a previous House. Most they can do is pass a resolution saying that he shouldn’t have been impeached but it’ll just be a bunch of words.

This actually seems fairly aggressive given the case. I’m curious to see if it doesn’t get pushed back as we get closer.

Good riddance to a real POS owner. Shame he comes out of this making a ton of money.

Conservatives: Stupid liberals think everything is racist. Liberals: Maybe Supreme Court justices shouldn’t take free gifts from billionaires. Conservatives: THAT’S RACIST!!!!

The game they play is lump anything that isn’t pro-Trump in as Dems. So law enforcement enforcing the law becomes part of the Dem scheme is they enforce the law against Trump. Even if Democratic officials, the DNC etc have no part in it.