🇨🇳🇷🇴🇺🇦 Biden's Corruption: $20M+ bribes. All the evidence that isn't evidence.

[BillsFanNC]

Documented meetings of Hunter Biden’s business associates with Joe Biden isn't evidence that Joe Biden met with Hunter's business associates.

 

 

[BillStime]

What was Devon Archer's sworn testimony again? 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

NOT A CHANCE HE WILL SHOW.

 

 

 

 

If I am wrong, all the better, but we will see.

 

.

[BillsFanNC]

27 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

NOT A CHANCE HE WILL SHOW.

 

 

 

 

If I am wrong, all the better, but we will see.

 

.

 

 

Then Steve Bannon him.

[daz28]

4 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

So the answer to the million dollar question of why this shouldn't be done in public for all Americans to see is because Democrats did it the wrong way before???  

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

Then Steve Bannon him.

....or GOP Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Mo Brooks of Alabama, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy him???

[John from Riverside]

Just let him do it in public. If he’s going to do, it could do anything but benefit the Republicans.
 

…right?

[daz28]

23 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Just let him do it in public. If he’s going to do, it could do anything but benefit the Republicans.
 

…right?

Can you imagine those unqualified clowns, who've been smearing Hunter(the crackhead) for years, being completely owned by him(a lawyer), and his legal team?  I can, and I think they can imagine it, too.  Anyone who objectively watched it would conclude that the crackhead should probably have their jobs.  There's a reason why people rarely testify on their own behalf, and that's because they know the lawyers are smarter and better at the game.  This is literally the same thing, but in reverse.  If Comer had real evidence, there would be a comprehensive list of it all over his social media pages, but for some strange reason(hmmm), they like to instead make allegations across select media sources.  It's almost like this is, gasp, purely political.    

Edited December 7, 2023 by daz28

[JDHillFan]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

It's almost like this is, gasp, purely political.    

Perhaps you will answer this question that your like-minded board members won’t - what do you think various foreign entities were getting from the Biden’s in exchange for millions of dollars? 

[daz28]

23 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Perhaps you will answer this question that your like-minded board members won’t - what do you think various foreign entities were getting from the Biden’s in exchange for millions of dollars? 

I'm curious to know, and unlike your like-minded board members, I'm also curious to know if it's indeed a fact, and why I haven't been provided any substantial facts to support those ALLEGATIONS(that I don't simply wish were true).  Just so you're aware, dividing people into groups is PRECISELY what 'they' want you to be doing so diligently.  I'm also curious if you have any comments based around my actual post, and not just this ad hoc attempt to try to label me.  You know, like maybe if you think this is political??

Edited December 7, 2023 by daz28

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Just let him do it in public. If he’s going to do, it could do anything but benefit the Republicans.
 

…right?

That’s not how the committee wants to proceed, and it’s now about who benefits, or who doesn’t…it’s about the truth.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I'm curious to know, and unlike your like-minded board members, I'm also curious to know if it's indeed a fact, and why I haven't been provided any substantial facts to support those ALLEGATIONS(that I don't simply wish were true).  Just so you're aware, dividing people into groups is PRECISELY what 'they' want you to be doing so diligently.  I'm also curious if you have any comments based around my actual post, and not just this ad hoc attempt to try to label me.  You know, like maybe if you think this is political??

The Mueller investigation lasted two years, and did not have all the issues that a committee of this sort has to deal with it.   We’ve got a president openly lying about his relationship with family members, money flowing backwards to hostile nations, the potential for undue influence, criminal actions with seemingly intentionally blown statutes, sweetheart deals rejected by a judge, and now a subject apparently defying congressional subpoenas.  
 

It all may be a big kerfuffle and misunderstanding over nothing, but I think we all want these questions answered. 
 

Besides, Ozark, the tv series, ran 4 seasons long over 5 years.   This is just getting rolling. 
 

 

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That’s not how the committee wants to proceed, and it’s now about who benefits, or who doesn’t…it’s about the truth.  

Yeah, the committee that grandstands EVERY SINGLE DAY, now doesn't want grandstanding.  Explain how the hearing being public would conceal "the truth", because I can explain very quickly why a behind closed doors hearing could conceal it.  Could it be a guy with a BS in agriculture doesn't want to be made to look the fool talking to actual lawyers???  

[JDHillFan]

28 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I'm curious to know, and unlike your like-minded board members, I'm also curious to know if it's indeed a fact, and why I haven't been provided any substantial facts to support those ALLEGATIONS(that I don't simply wish were true).  Just so you're aware, dividing people into groups is PRECISELY what 'they' want you to be doing so diligently.  I'm also curious if you have any comments based around my actual post, and not just this ad hoc attempt to try to label me.  You know, like maybe if you think this is political??

So what you have seen to date isn’t enough for you to know that the Biden’s have been on the receiving end of millions? Are you serious? 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The Mueller investigation lasted two years, and did not have all the issues that a committee of this sort has to deal with it.   We’ve got a president openly lying about his relationship with family members, money flowing backwards to hostile nations, the potential for undue influence, criminal actions with seemingly intentionally blown statutes, sweetheart deals rejected by a judge, and now a subject apparently defying congressional subpoenas.  
 

It all may be a big kerfuffle and misunderstanding over nothing, but I think we all want these questions answered. 
 

Besides, Ozark, the tv series, ran 4 seasons long over 5 years.   This is just getting rolling. 
 

 

I want the truth as much as any democrat hating person does.  I'm no shill for anyone, and that's what makes me stay away from, for the most part, a very clearly polarized forum.  I'm not convinced the Trump/Mueller investigation was handled properly, and I'm even less optimistic this will be.  Also, defying subpoenas to conceal "the truth" seems to be the norm, with no repercussions depending on who now holds the gavel.  A VERY CLEAR indications of politics and not "truth". 

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

So what you have seen to date isn’t enough for you to know that the Biden’s have been on the receiving end of millions? Are you serious? 

Which means nothing if you don't understand the reasons why.  Even the DOJ and the Republican committee aren't as sure as you what happened, and I'm certain they have 100k times the info/data you have.  You're simply playing the role of the TBD Elise Stefanik wannabe, and I have zero interest in being the counter to that.  If you want me to say there's smoke, then ok, there's smoke.  I'm interested where the allegations go, and rather than it be a gotcha moment for me, I'd look at it sadly as another sad moment for my country.  I'd be willing to bet a property deed that there's smoke ALL OVER Washington, and I wouldn't want any of 'my side' protected.  To me, the absolute saddest part of it all is that the only smoke you're ever going to hear about is smoke from the side who's currently not in power.  Well, what may be sadder is that this partisanship is escalating, and is dividing us as a nation.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Yeah, the committee that grandstands EVERY SINGLE DAY, now doesn't want grandstanding.  Explain how the hearing being public would conceal "the truth", because I can explain very quickly why a behind closed doors hearing could conceal it.  Could it be a guy with a BS in agriculture doesn't want to be made to look the fool talking to actual lawyers???  

No, I think that’s silly and you’re education shaming. I also think you’re putting attorneys on a pedestal, and that’s sort of silly, too.  
 

I believe it’s because the committee wants to control the narrative.  I don’t think there are any concerns, whatsoever, over H Biden’s intellect as a witness or the prowess of his legal team.  I also think it’s a psychological play, designed to get inside Hunter’s head a bit.  He’s a classic rich kid, protected and pampered by his father, used to getting his own way to the extent that he simply decided income tax was for suckers and knew his father would intervene to save him.  By defining the terms, they establish control. 
 

I never suggested a public hearing would impede the truth—-I doubt Hunter Biden will be forthcoming about his father’s involvement in his business dealings and the money trail to China and Russia, but public testimony provides a road map for other witnesses to follow.  
 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

17 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I want the truth as much as any democrat hating person does.  I'm no shill for anyone, and that's what makes me stay away from, for the most part, a very clearly polarized forum.  I'm not convinced the Trump/Mueller investigation was handled properly, and I'm even less optimistic this will be.  Also, defying subpoenas to conceal "the truth" seems to be the norm, with no repercussions depending on who now holds the gavel.  A VERY CLEAR indications of politics and not "truth". 

Ok, fair enough, but reasonable people can disagree.  Worst case scenario, it’s a political play.  That would make it one of hundreds, if not thousands, of similar plays designed to sway the vote.  That’s Washington for ya. 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

No, I think that’s silly and you’re education shaming. I also think you’re putting attorneys on a pedestal, and that’s sort of silly, too.  
 

I believe it’s because the committee wants to control the narrative.  I don’t think there are any concerns, whatsoever, over H Biden’s intellect as a witness or the prowess of his legal team.  I also think it’s a psychological play, designed to get inside Hunter’s head a bit.  He’s a classic rich kid, protected and pampered by his father, used to getting his own way to the extent that he simply decided income tax was for suckers and knew his father would intervene to save him.  By defining the terms, they establish control. 
 

I never suggested a public hearing would impede the truth—-I doubt Hunter Biden will be forthcoming about his father’s involvement in his business dealings and the money trail to China and Russia, but public testimony provides a road map for other witnesses to follow.  
 

 

It's not shaming, it's pointing out he's out of his league.  Just like they'd have no chance with him in a matter concerning irrigation.  Heck, I'll admit I'd make a lousy prosecutor/investigator, because I know nothing about it, and that's hard to do as an American, because 30 minutes of YouTube usually counts as an expert.  Also, I'm pretty much only discussing the money laundering/bribery part, not the income tax/gun matters, which I think Hunter pretty much already admitted to, and can/will plead the 5th to.  I think if you polled the people, you'd get a very high percentage wanting a public hearing, because it gives the appearance of transparency, which we rarely get.  If he's not forthcoming, ie he lies, then he faces perjury.  Something that he, unlike 5 House GOP Reps, doesn't appear to be afraid of.  

[Doc]

1 hour ago, JDHillFan said:

Perhaps you will answer this question that your like-minded board members won’t - what do you think various foreign entities were getting from the Biden’s in exchange for millions of dollars? 

 

He had zero business being on the board of Burisma.  Except to sell influence.  To what end?  I think we have a good idea...

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

It's not shaming, it's pointing out he's out of his league.  Just like they'd have no chance with him in a matter concerning irrigation.  Heck, I'll admit I'd make a lousy prosecutor/investigator, because I know nothing about it, and that's hard to do as an American, because 30 minutes of YouTube usually counts as an expert.  Also, I'm pretty much only discussing the money laundering/bribery part, not the income tax/gun matters, which I think Hunter pretty much already admitted to, and can/will plead the 5th to.  I think if you polled the people, you'd get a very high percentage wanting a public hearing, because it gives the appearance of transparency, which we rarely get.  If he's not forthcoming, ie he lies, then he faces perjury.  Something that he, unlike 5 House GOP Reps, doesn't appear to be afraid of.  

I was just kidding about the shaming, but I’m quite certain no one is scared about facing the Hunteream.  It seems quite obvious Joe Biden was involved intimately in the business, and that makes his unconditional denial of any involvement quite odd.  I’m willing to see where it goes, and polling suggests a majority of people believe he’s involved. 
 

As for public testimony, when every committee follows suit, every time, I’m all for it.  In the meantime, the game has to be played the way it’s played.  Get the popcorn ready!