House releases overview of evidence against Biden

[Petros2015]

I guess that's better than booked and printed?

Shortly to be booked and processed I suspect lol

Mike Lindell says vendors "calling me up" as MyPillow faces financial ruin

The MyPillow CEO said he has had to reassure vendors "we're here to stay" as he faces a hugely damaging defamation lawsuit.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Bradskii]

Hunter provided Joe. Even if he was selling the illusion that Joe was in on it he used his father.

And the GOP is selling the illusion that Joe is therefore somehow corrupt.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then why isn’t the committee finding out why the FBI is “broken”, instead of trying to do its [the FBI’s] “job”?

This is actually Congress' responsibility. If you have a sitting president that...

1. Is using the federal government to persecute and eliminate political opponents.
2. Appears to be guilty of multiple crimes ranging from mishandling classified documents to accepting bribes and abuse of power.
3. Has multiple whistleblowers from throughout the federal government accusing the administration of policy violations, to crimes, to dereliction of duty.

Then we're actually well past the point where Congress is obligated to impeach the president. There's a whole reason for the separation of powers, and Congress has the responsibility of holding the president responsible for his actions (or inactions).

 

[BPPLEE]

And the GOP is selling the illusion that Joe is therefore somehow corrupt.

No. Just that there’s enough circumstantial evidence to warrant an inquiry. He could just be naive and incompetent. You can always hope that’s the case

 

[Pommer]

No. Just that there’s enough circumstantial evidence to warrant an inquiry. He could just be naive and incompetent. You can always hope that’s the case

Or just plain innocent, that’s beyond the scope of the “opinion” (it would seem), I understand how this one might have slipped one’s mind.
About what year did Biden suddenly become crooked?
I remember him from way back and beside his “plagiarism” stuff, was generally considered “an honest guy”.

But no, that couldn’t be! He was playing the “long-con” all along.
If he was crooked back then he did a heck of a job selling the Honest(-ish) Joe Biden, character.


The history books will be interesting in 15 years.

 

[BPPLEE]

Or just plain innocent, that’s beyond the scope of the “opinion” (it would seem), I understand how this one might have slipped one’s mind.
About what year did Biden suddenly become crooked?
I remember him from way back and beside his “plagiarism” stuff, was generally considered “an honest guy”.

But no, that couldn’t be! He was playing the “long-con” all along.
If he was crooked back then he did a heck of a job selling the Honest(-ish) Joe Biden, character.


The history books will be interesting in 15 years.

His son puts him on the phone with people that are paying him millions and Joe has no idea what’s going on. If he’s innocent he’s also clueless

 

[Yttrium]

Y'know, I've had a pretty low opinion of Joe, to the point that I wouldn't vote for him over anybody except Trump. Still, if this is the best the opposition can come up with against him, I might have to reconsider my options. I'd still vote for Haley over him, but Biden might not be such a bad choice against certain others after all.

 

[Pommer]

His son puts him on the phone with people that are paying him millions and Joe has no idea what’s going on. If he’s innocent he’s also clueless

Clueless!?
Yes, “innocent men” generally are!

The present isn’t so much like “Nixon 1972” as it “Reagan in 1986”.

 

[Pommer]

Y'know, I've had a pretty low opinion of Joe, to the point that I wouldn't vote for him over anybody except Trump. Still, if this is the best the opposition can come up with against him, I might have to reconsider my options. I'd still vote for Haley over him, but Biden might not be such a bad choice against certain others after all.

He’s not shrewd like, like Dear Leader, (or yet, somehow he is and is much better than DL, at being corrupt because we’re only “finding out about how corrupt he is” just these past few years. He was THAT good at being “corrupt”!)

The doublethink, it burns!

 

[BPPLEE]

Clueless!?
Yes, “innocent men” generally are!

The present isn’t so much like “Nixon 1972” as it “Reagan in 1986”.

He also met with one of them from China and wrote a letter of recommendation for his daughter but still had no clue what was going on

 

[Bradskii]

No. Just that there’s enough circumstantial evidence to warrant an inquiry. He could just be naive and incompetent. You can always hope that’s the case

All you guys have been given that line and are simply repeating it. Circumstantial evidence infers proof of the fact in question. In this case, a crime. And you seem to think that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove who was guilty of the crime. Or at least, to continue further investigation of the crime to determine the guilty party.

But there has been no crime proved to have been committed.

What you are saying is directly equivalent to saying that circumstantial evidence leads us to the conclusion that Joe Citizen is the murderer. Yet there is no evidence of a murder actually being committed.

What you have, and all that you have, are suspicions that a crime has been committed. IF it is proved that a crime has been committed THEN you can present circumstantial evidence to infer someone's guilt of that crime.

 

[BPPLEE]

Clueless!?
Yes, “innocent men” generally are!

The present isn’t so much like “Nixon 1972” as it “Reagan in 1986”.

I don’t remember Reagan having a son that took advantage of him and sold the family name for millions

 

[BPPLEE]

All you guys have been given that line and are simply repeating it. Circumstantial evidence infers proof of the fact in question. In this case, a crime. And you seem to think that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove who was guilty of the crime. Or at least, to continue further investigation of the crime to determine the guilty party.

But there has been no crime proved to have been committed.

What you are saying is directly equivalent to saying that circumstantial evidence leads us to the conclusion that Joe Citizen is the murderer. Yet there is no evidence of a murder actually being committed.

What you have, and all that you have, are suspicions that a crime has been committed. IF it is proved that a crime has been committed THEN you can present circumstantial evidence to infer someone's guilt of that crime.

No they are only justifying an inquiry. They are not proving guilt. The witnesses said there’s not enough evidence for impeachment but more than enough for an inquiry. And some people have been convicted with circumstantial evidence, it’s still good evidence and yes there is suspicion that’s why they’re having an inquiry.. you want them to prove he’s guilty before doing an investigation. Suspicion is why you do an investigation.

 

[Yttrium]

He’s not shrewd like, like Dear Leader, (or yet, somehow he is and is much better than DL, at being corrupt because we’re only “finding out about how corrupt he is” just these past few years. He was THAT good at being “corrupt”!)

The doublethink, it burns!

The arguments have just gotten so silly. I have a hard time accepting that anyone but Valetta is taking them seriously.

 

[Pommer]

He also met with one of them from China and wrote a letter of recommendation for his daughter but still had no clue what was going on

I heard that she didn’t get into the college she wanted, did “papa” get a “refund”?
(I could accept that as “evidence”).

 

[BPPLEE]

I heard that she didn’t get into the college she wanted, did “papa” get a “refund”?
(I could accept that as “evidence”).

No. I’m sure he got what he paid for

 

[Bradskii]

No they are only justifying an inquiry. They are not proving guilt. The witnesses said there’s not enough evidence for impeachment but more than enough for an inquiry. And some people have been convicted with circumstantial evidence, it’s still good evidence and yes there is suspicion that’s why they’re having an inquiry.. you want them to prove he’s guilty before doing an investigation. Suspicion is why you do an investigation.

No, I want proof that a crime has been committed. Circumstantial evidence is used to infer guilt. You can't infer guilt without a crime. People have been convicted by circumstantial evidence. But they were charged with a crime.

All you have are vague suspicions. NOT circumstantial evidence.

 

[BPPLEE]

The arguments have just gotten so silly. I have a hard time accepting that anyone but Valetta is taking them seriously.

It’s hard to believe that Joe is naive and Hunter took advantage of him?

 

[BPPLEE]

No, I want proof that a crime has been committed. Circumstantial evidence is used to infer guilt. You can't infer guilt without a crime. People have been convicted by circumstantial evidence. But they were charged with a crime.

All you have are vague suspicions. NOT circumstantial evidence.

Suspicion is why you do an investigation. You don’t have to prove guilt before you investigate. The threshold for an inquiry is low. And records of financial transactions are evidence

 

[Aldebaran]

No, I want proof that a crime has been committed. Circumstantial evidence is used to infer guilt. You can't infer guilt without a crime. People have been convicted by circumstantial evidence. But they were charged with a crime.

All you have are vague suspicions. NOT circumstantial evidence.

Proof is subjective. That's why a judge is needed in a courtroom.