House releases overview of evidence against Biden

[BPPLEE]

I just did. The words "alleged" and "accused" are all over it, which is the opposite of assuming guilt.

They did manage to squeeze it in there two or three times but not all over it. Okay I give them credit for at least getting it in there

 

[wing2000]

Bad analogy. That's Russia, not the Soviet Union.

A distinction without a difference in this case. The Soviets may have been more sophisticated in taking out their targets, but the end result was the same.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I think this is a good graphic:

View attachment 336284

Where is this news source from?

 

[Ana the Ist]

So even many of his supporters want the issue of guilt or innocence settled before the election. Which is a good idea.

Well, one of his cases might be done by then.

I think since the Georgia case got severed, and the 2 lawyers will be tried first, that one is unlikely to resolve before the election.

But hey, best of luck to Jack Smith.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A distinction without a difference in this case.

Not really.

 

[The Barbarian]

Bad analogy. That's Russia, not the Soviet Union.

Remember, Putin is a Soviet KGB agent. He changed sides, but not behaviors.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes. You keep asserting that instead of providing a source for the supposed "line" from Speaker Pelosi showing it to be a real quote and not @Valletta paraphrasing her ACA comment.

Will I ever see a citation?

@Valletta , did your comment have anything to do with the ACA? When you said “the seriousness of the charges” did you actually mean “We have to pass.the bill to see what’s in it “?
I know you didn’t but @USincognito keeps insisting that you did.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Remember, Putin is a Soviet KGB agent. He changed sides, but not behaviors.

Again...it's not the same.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again...it's not the same.

Let me see... shutting down internal dissent. Murdering opposing politicians. Invading smaller countries. Poisoning defectors living in the west... How is that not the behavior of a Soviet dictator?

 

[USincognito]

How can you possibly confuse “The seriousness of the charges “ with “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”? There’s no way one is a paraphrase of the other.

I'm not the one that's confused, so I'm going to try and explain it one more time.
1. It was my impression that @Valletta was paraphrasing Speaker Pelosi's comment (remember HE is the one who mentioned "Pelosi's line") about the ACA.
2. I content that the "line" he attributed to her doesn't exist and he was instead making one up based on her statement about ACA reconciliation.
3. If the supposed "Pelosi line" is a thing, then you or him or someone should be able to quote her saying it.
4. I have asked you two repeatedly to provide me with a source for the supposed "Pelosi line". It's going on two days and neither of you have shown to me that it even exists.
5. I note that Valletta has never tried to "correct" me on this and instead only argued with Barbarian about her ACA quote.

Just admit that you made a mistake and move on.

I'm not the one making a mistake.

“It’s not the nature of the evidence it’s the seriousness of the charge “ was the battle cry of the left during the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill debacle, I don’t know who it originated from.

It originates with Rush Limbaugh, not "the left". It's also irrelevant to a supposed "Pelosi line" that is the subject of this sidebar.

Not Nature of Evidence, Seriousness of the Charge

<a href=”http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/03/09/093003_4_seriousnesscharge.asx”> </a> I’m going to tell you what’s guiding this non-story over the so-called leaking of Joe Wilson’s wife’s name – a name which the guy has on his personal bio at the Middle...

www.rushlimbaugh.com

 

[USincognito]

Where is this news source from?

It was a meme pieced together from NY Post articles, Comer's Tweets and some things Tucker Carlson said.

 

[USincognito]

@Valletta , did your comment have anything to do with the ACA? When you said “the seriousness of the charges” did you actually mean “We have to pass.the bill to see what’s in it “?
I know you didn’t but @USincognito keeps insisting that you did.

Please stop mischaracterizing what I wrote.

Can you provide a source for the supposed "Pelosi line" or not?

 

[Valletta]

Evidence of Joe Biden’s Involvement in His Family’s Influence Peddling Schemes - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

oversight.house.gov

1) In July 2023, former Biden business associate Devon Archer described how Joe Biden was “The Brand” and was used to send “signals” of power, access, and influence to enrich the Biden family from foreign sources​

​

2) Devon Archer alone was aware of at least 20 times in which then-Vice President Biden spoke on speakerphone with Hunter Biden’s foreign business associates.​

​

3) In February 2014, then-Vice President Joe Biden dined with oligarchs from Russia and Kazakhstan who funneled millions of dollars to Hunter Biden and his business associates.​

​

4) In April 2015, then-Vice President Biden dined with Hunter Biden’s foreign business associates, including Ukrainian Burisma executive Vadym Pozharsky. Burisma was then being investigated by Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin for corruption.​

​

5) Then-Vice President Biden had coffee with Hunter Biden’s Chinese business associate, Jonathan Li of BHR, in Beijing and wrote a college letter of recommendation for his daughter.​

Back to the topic, notice that the establishment simply changes the story each time they are refuted. At first Joe had never talked with Hunter about Hunter's business--supposedly knew nothing about it. Then the White House claimed that Joe never participated in Hunter's business. Now as more evidence is revealed they claim there is no "direct evidence." They have so many followers who pick up on these lines. The truth is there does not have to be direct evidence to convict, many people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence. But there is "direct evidence," they are lying about that as well. Joe himself bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, that's direct evidence of one of the parts needed for bribery. Similarly Hunter's Biden's statement that the big guy was right next to him as he was making demands of the Chinese is direct evidence. Both the circumstantial and direct evidence and the fact that Joe has lied are FAR more than is needed for an impeachment investigation.

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm not the one that's confused, so I'm going to try and explain it one more time.
1. It was my impression that @Valletta was paraphrasing Speaker Pelosi's comment (remember HE is the one who mentioned "Pelosi's line") about the ACA.
2. I content that the "line" he attributed to her doesn't exist and he was instead making one up based on her statement about ACA reconciliation.
3. If the supposed "Pelosi line" is a thing, then you or him or someone should be able to quote her saying it.
4. I have asked you two repeatedly to provide me with a source for the supposed "Pelosi line". It's going on two days and neither of you have shown to me that it even exists.
5. I note that Valletta has never tried to "correct" me on this and instead only argued with Barbarian about her ACA quote.

I'm not the one making a mistake.

It originates with Rush Limbaugh, not "the left". It's also irrelevant to a supposed "Pelosi line" that is the subject of this sidebar.

Not Nature of Evidence, Seriousness of the Charge

<a href=”http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/03/09/093003_4_seriousnesscharge.asx”> </a> I’m going to tell you what’s guiding this non-story over the so-called leaking of Joe Wilson’s wife’s name – a name which the guy has on his personal bio at the Middle...

www.rushlimbaugh.com

You still can’t admit that you made a mistake. Okay. And Rush Limbaugh was quoting the left, it didn’t originate with him.
From your link, “Remember the October Surprise and remember Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill, folks. Remember the left’s battle cry: “The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.” You simply need to make a harsh, totally unfounded charge, and that’s reason enough to investigate. “

 

[BPPLEE]

Please stop mischaracterizing what I wrote.

Can you provide a source for the supposed "Pelosi line" or not?

I didn’t mischaracterize your mistake and I told you where the line came from.

 

[Valletta]

4. I have asked you two repeatedly to provide me with a source for the supposed "Pelosi line". It's going on two days and neither of you have shown to me that it even exists.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she hopes "the seriousness of the charges and the actions taken by the committee will lead the administration to negotiate on how they will release the information to the Congress of the United States, which they have a constitutional responsibility to do."

House inches toward constitutional showdown with contempt vote - CNN.com

The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to cite two White House aides -- one current, one former -- for contempt of Congress, another step toward a constitutional showdown between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the Bush administration.

www.cnn.com

Nancy is hardly the only one on the left to have uttered those words.

 

[USincognito]

You still can’t admit that you made a mistake.

I didn't. It looks like you're not going to get it, so I'll stop wasting my time with you.

 

[BPPLEE]

I didn't. It looks like you're not going to get it, so I'll stop wasting my time with you.

People reading the thread can judge for themselves

 

[Gene2memE]

People reading the thread can judge for themselves

Yes. Yes they can...

 

[The Barbarian]

It originates with Rush Limbaugh, not "the left". It's also irrelevant to a supposed "Pelosi line" that is the subject of this sidebar.

I should have known it was another fake story from the right. Thanks for clearing that up.