Joe Biden’s denials shift as evidence piles up about his involvement in Hunter’s deals

[HARK!]

So their existing powers haven't turned up any actual evidence?

You might want to actually review the evidence.

 

[NxNW]

You might want to actually review the evidence.

Zero evidence of an actual crime by Joe Biden has been presented, despite months and years of promises. Archer's recent testimony cleared Biden. So there is that. The GOP is getting desperate, it seems.

 

[HARK!]

Zero evidence of an actual crime by Joe Biden has been presented, despite months and years of promises. Archer's recent testimony cleared Biden. So there is that. The GOP is getting desperate, it seems.

Nonsense. Copious amounts of evidence have been revealed. This is why there are talks of impeachment.

 

[NxNW]

Nonsense. Copious amounts of evidence have been revealed.

Evidence of what? Hunter Biden having a job?

 

[HARK!]

Evidence of what? Hunter Biden having a job?

A job? LOL! If you are calling that a job; what product or service did he and his family delver in exchange for those millions of dollars? Why all of the shell corporations? Any two bit racketeer would be investigated on the shell corporations alone.

 

[KCfromNC]

Nonsense. Copious amounts of evidence have been revealed. This is why there are talks of impeachment.

I thought the talks of impeachment were so that the GOP would have more tools to try and dig up any evidence at all.

 

[KCfromNC]

A job? LOL! If you are calling that a job; what product or service did he and his family delver in exchange for those millions of dollars? Why all of the shell corporations? Any two bit racketeer would be investigated on the shell corporations alone.

Quite a quick trip from claiming there's copious evidence to this post which is just a bunch of questions.

 

[HARK!]

Quite a quick trip from claiming there's copious evidence to this post which is just a bunch of questions.

I, and other members, have been posting the evidence in this forum for quite some time. If you're actually interested in reviewing the evidence; you might look into it. Many just choose to ignore the evidence.

 

[Hank77]

I, and other members, have been posting the evidence in this forum for quite some time. If you're actually interested in reviewing the evidence; you might look into it. Many just choose to ignore the evidence.

I, and other members, have been posting the evidence...

Evidence of what?

Look, if Joe Biden has broken the law I want him to face justice. But, so far there isn't any factual evidence that shows that he did. Even Comer and Ron Johnson are saying they don't have the evidence and that they have to "infer" what they think was happening. I'm sorry, that's just not good enough for me and it shouldn't be good enough for you either or for any honest citizen. I wouldn't want myself, my family members, or you to be accused of a crime without clear evidence.

What do you think of the absolute facts that are the evidence that SC Justice Thomas has been receiving millions of dollars from wealthy influential businessmen, etc? Do you think that if Thomas wasn't a judge and now a SC justice those men would have ever met Thomas, let alone become such great friends with him? It seems to me his position/profession was beneficial to him making wealthy acquaintances and benefactors. Is there anything illegal about that? Is it unethical?

 

[SimplyMe]

I, and other members, have been posting the evidence...

Evidence of what?

Look, if Joe Biden has broken the law I want him to face justice. But, so far there isn't any factual evidence that shows that he did. Even Comer and Ron Johnson are saying they don't have the evidence and that they have to "infer" what they think was happening. I'm sorry, that's just not good enough for me and it shouldn't be good enough for you either or for any honest citizen. I wouldn't want myself, my family members, or you to be accused of a crime without clear evidence.

What do you think of the absolute facts that are the evidence that SC Justice Thomas has been receiving millions of dollars from wealthy influential businessmen, etc? Do you think that if Thomas wasn't a judge and now a SC justice those men would have ever met Thomas, let alone become such great friends with him? It seems to me his position/profession was beneficial to him making wealthy acquaintances and benefactors. Is there anything illegal about that? Is it unethical?

It is interesting how Biden and Trump are treated differently. With Republicans, it seems like Trump can't be guilty, even when he basically admits to the crime out of his own mouth (such as how he admits he intentionally kept classified documents). OTOH, Biden is guilty if they can "infer" a crime, no actual evidence appears to be needed.

Now, you can argue it the other way -- Democrats did there own "inferring" that Trump must be guilty. You could even claim they impeached him for what seems to be inferred by his phone call with Ukraine; though they did, at least, have the actual transcript of the call. And there was plenty of "inferring" about Russia, though no investigations were done by Democrats; just claims to the media.

It would be great if we judged each event on the actual evidence, not the claims that partisan individuals make.

 

[Hank77]

It is interesting how Biden and Trump are treated differently. With Republicans, it seems like Trump can't be guilty, even when he basically admits to the crime out of his own mouth (such as how he admits he intentionally kept classified documents). OTOH, Biden is guilty if they can "infer" a crime, no actual evidence appears to be needed.

Now, you can argue it the other way -- Democrats did there own "inferring" that Trump must be guilty. You could even claim they impeached him for what seems to be inferred by his phone call with Ukraine; though they did, at least, have the actual transcript of the call. And there was plenty of "inferring" about Russia, though no investigations were done by Democrats; just claims to the media.

It would be great if we judged each event on the actual evidence, not the claims that partisan individuals make.

I agree with you except for the call Trump made to Ukraine, that call was quite clearly a weakly disguised threat. He was trying to imitate what he thought Biden had done. Biden had the backing of others, including those where the funds were coming from, the IMF, unlike his digging around for dirt on a rival. He's not a very intelligent person.

 

[SimplyMe]

I agree with you except for the call Trump made to Ukraine, that call was quite clearly a weakly disguised threat. He was trying to imitate what he thought Biden had done. Biden had the backing of others, including those where the funds were coming from, the IMF, unlike his digging around for dirt on a rival. He's not a very intelligent person.

But it is an inferred threat, Trump never directly states that he won't give the Javelins if Ukraine doesn't announce an investigation into Biden. As such, I decided to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt, even though I agree that the implied threat seems clear.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

President Biden’s repeated denials that he participated in his son’s foreign business transactions or ever spoke to his son about them have shifted in recent weeks amid an accumulation of evidence from bank records and eyewitness testimony that show he likely played a pivotal role in securing the lucrative deals.

Mr. Biden opted to remain silent on Friday when reporters shouted questions at him about a new Justice Department special counsel investigation of his son Hunter Biden for crimes related to tax evasion, financial schemes and potentially for acting as an unregistered lobbyist for foreign entities.

The president has long denied involvement in his son’s business deals, but a House investigation has compiled evidence that Mr. Biden helped his family pocket millions of dollars by serving as the influential “brand” and popping in on phone calls and business meetings.

Mr. Biden, at an event Tuesday in Arizona, did not deny knowing about his son’s business deals but instead stated: “I never talked business with anybody.”

Joe Biden’s denials shift as evidence piles up about his involvement in Hunter’s deals

President Biden’s repeated denials that he participated in his son’s foreign business transactions or ever spoke to his son about them have shifted in recent weeks amid an accumulation of evidence from bank records and eyewitness testimony that show he likely played a pivotal role in securing...

www.washingtontimes.com

Pants on fire, and it is astonishing that there is an entire segment of the population who are buying the phony narrative to protect him.

 

[stevil]

and guess Who is in charge of “miracles”!

Well, whoever is in charge of "miracles" was this person appointed by Trump? did they pledge loyalty to Trump? Did they bend the knee?

 

[stevil]

But it is an inferred threat, Trump never directly states that he won't give the Javelins if Ukraine doesn't announce an investigation into Biden. As such, I decided to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt, even though I agree that the implied threat seems clear.

That's typically the way crimes go.
You don't typically say the crime out loud. You speak in code and make sure the message is clearly implied.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Special counsel’s appointment just a bid to whitewash Bidens’ business deals, Republicans say​

The appointment of a special counsel may appear to put a bull’s-eye on Hunter Biden and threaten to make the family’s foreign business deals a lasting issue for the president’s reelection campaign.

Yet some Republicans fear that a special counsel investigation is a device to whitewash President Biden’s purported involvement in pay-to-play schemes.

House Republicans urge Barr to appoint special counsel to probe alleged Biden revelations​

Lawmakers say it is 'imperative' the allegations are investigated

Trump urges Barr to 'act fast,' 'appoint somebody' to probe Hunter Biden business dealings​

President Trump on Tuesday said Attorney GeneralWilliam Barr needs to “act” and “appoint somebody” after nearly a dozen House Republicans urged him to tap a special counsel to investigate alleged revelations coming from a laptop purported to have belonged to Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

 

[NxNW]

A job? LOL! If you are calling that a job; what product or service did he and his family delver in exchange for those millions of dollars? Why all of the shell corporations? Any two bit racketeer would be investigated on the shell corporations alone.

So . . . no evidence of a crime then.

Any news on those bank records or audio tapes that were supposed to be the smoking gun?

 

[HARK!]

So . . . no evidence of a crime then.

Enough to consider impeachment.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, California Republican, is considering an impeachment inquiry to investigate the president’s culpability in deals that netted millions of dollars for Hunter Biden, the president’s brother James Biden, and several other members of the Biden clan.

White House hedges bets on whether Hunter Biden special counsel will implicate president

The White House declined to say Monday that special counsel David Weiss definitely will not uncover any links between President Biden and his son Hunter’s questionable business dealings.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[NxNW]

Enough to consider impeachment.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, California Republican, is considering an impeachment inquiry to investigate the president’s culpability in deals that netted millions of dollars for Hunter Biden, the president’s brother James Biden, and several other members of the Biden clan.

If they had evidence, they wouldn't be just considering it.

By the way, didn't Trump just get indicted again? That's what happens when there is actual evidence.

 

[HARK!]

If they had evidence, they wouldn't be just considering it.

LOL! They;re considering it because they do have evidence. If you choose to ignore the evidence; that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There's plenty of on Hunter's laptop alone.

By the way, didn't Trump just get indicted again? That's what happens when there is actual evidence.

You're off topic.