[** Official President Joe Biden Thread **]

[dogcows 1,030]

14 minutes ago, RLLD said:

 So then, I ask again, and I truly want an answer this time.   If this evidence.....pointed instead toward Trump and his son, you would also then suggest there is nothing worth pursuing?  Please answer this. 

I answered you on this before. I guess you didn’t read it. This is trash “evidence” that proves nothing, and I would be unhappy if Democrats were flashing this kind of nonsense about anybody, and pretending it was real evidence. I guess you have no links to share with this damning evidence you’re talking about?

[seafoam1 2,917]

8 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I answered you on this before. I guess you didn’t read it. This is trash “evidence” that proves nothing, and I would be unhappy if Democrats were flashing this kind of nonsense about anybody, and pretending it was real evidence. I guess you have no links to share with this damning evidence you’re talking about?

Dear Lord you are dumb.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

Bribe-en

[League Champion 1,909]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Bribe-en

I can't believe the balls on some of these liberal hypocrites in here. They are still crying Trump, Trump, Trump like little biatches. Last I checked Trump isn't running the Country and has nothing to do with the mess that Biden has us in. Yet, they'll still find something to cry about. 

They knew he was a pedophile and racist yet still voted for Biden . So here we are 

[dogcows 1,030]

Lev Parnas points out that there is still no evidence of the supposed corruption of Joe Biden.

https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/fmr-guiliani-associate-lev-parnas-debunks-gop-misinformation-about-the-bidens-and-ukraine-189067333934
 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

Joe Bidens three mansions and his families wealth, nearly all of it from overseas and his denial of having no knowledge of it is plenty of evidence of his corruption. Why lie? 

[RLLD 4,192]

12 hours ago, dogcows said:

I answered you on this before. I guess you didn’t read it. This is trash “evidence” that proves nothing, and I would be unhappy if Democrats were flashing this kind of nonsense about anybody, and pretending it was real evidence. I guess you have no links to share with this damning evidence you’re talking about?

The links have been posted.  And I will add, the Democrats are not refuting the evidence at all.....they are only trying to suggest the evidence is showing something "OK" or "normal".  When it clearly is not.  Now if you are saying you would NOT be in here raising your alarm about Trump I will accept that on its face.  

 

[dogcows 1,030]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

The links have been posted.  And I will add, the Democrats are not refuting the evidence at all.....they are only trying to suggest the evidence is showing something "OK" or "normal".  When it clearly is not.  Now if you are saying you would NOT be in here raising your alarm about Trump I will accept that on its face.  

 

The links you posted show zero evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens in regard to Ukraine or China. Posting links of hearsay isn’t enough to convict, or even indict somebody.

I’ll let Lev Parnas sum this up:

Quote

“There has never been any factual evidence, only conspiracy theories spread by people who knew exactly what they were doing,” Mr. Parnas wrote to Mr. Comer. “With all due respect, Chairman Comer, the narrative you are seeking for this investigation has been proven false many times over, by a wide array of respected sources. There is simply no merit to investigating this matter any further.”

 

[Reality 3,121]

Sgt. Schultz, nice to meet you.

[The Real timschochet 6,617]

On 7/21/2023 at 7:33 AM, Ultra Max Power said:

Its crazy how compromised the DOJ and FBI are and how much the left doesn't care.  Mind blowing really.  

There is nobody who would not care about this if it were true. Those of us who disagree with you simply don’t believe that it’s true. And that’s because the “evidence” that’s been offered to prove it is flimsy, shady, inconclusive, and ultimately unreliable. 

[League Champion 1,909]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

Lev Parnas points out that there is still no evidence of the supposed corruption of Joe Biden.

Is there evidence of him groping and sniffing little kids? 

[Baker Boy 1,694]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

There is nobody who would not care about this if it were true. Those of us who disagree with you simply don’t believe that it’s true. And that’s because the “evidence” that’s been offered to prove it is flimsy, shady, inconclusive, and ultimately unreliable. 

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
 

 

[The Real timschochet 6,617]

1 minute ago, Baker Boy said:

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
 

 

I have pretty strong doubts that John Lennon would believe his lyrics applied to the farce that the House Republicans are trying to sell the American people. 

[dogcows 1,030]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have pretty strong doubts that John Lennon would believe his lyrics applied to the farce that the House Republicans are trying to sell the American people. 

They also believe they are living out the ideals of Martin Luther King Jr.

[Baker Boy 1,694]

8 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have pretty strong doubts that John Lennon would believe his lyrics applied to the farce that the House Republicans are trying to sell the American people. 

I guess you misunderstood what I was saying. I was applying the words to you not House Republicans. and in your case they ring very true.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

48 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

There is nobody who would not care about this if it were true. Those of us who disagree with you simply don’t believe that it’s true. And that’s because the “evidence” that’s been offered to prove it is flimsy, shady, inconclusive, and ultimately unreliable. 

Whistleblowers are no good now? 

[Baker Boy 1,694]

50 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

There is nobody who would not care about this if it were true. Those of us who disagree with you simply don’t believe that it’s true. And that’s because the “evidence” that’s been offered to prove it is flimsy, shady, inconclusive, and ultimately unreliable. 

When were you allowed to review all the evidence? Did you listen to the tapes? How many documents are there? Can you give us the links?

[Strike 5,410]

48 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Whistleblowers are no good now? 

Yeah, and bear in mind @The Real timschochet thought the evidence against Kavanaugh was sufficient.  And, as a reminder, that evidence consisted of the 25 year old "memories" from someone about a supposed incident at a party she doesn't know when or where happened.  And, even her friends who were supposedly with her don't remember the party or the incident.  But that evidence was good quality stuff but several career government employee whistleblowers putting their careers on the line are not sufficient.  These are the types of hypocritical examples that demonstrate how people like Tim, Squidboy, and Dogsh*t are just hacks. 

[lod001 1,344]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

Yeah, and bear in mind @The Real timschochet thought the evidence against Kavanaugh was sufficient.  And, as a reminder, that evidence consisted of the 25 year old "memories" from someone about a supposed incident at a party she doesn't know when or where happened.  And, even her friends who were supposedly with her don't remember the party or the incident.  But that evidence was good quality stuff but several career government employee whistleblowers putting their careers on the line are not sufficient.  These are the types of hypocritical examples that demonstrate how people like Tim, Squidboy, and Dogsh*t are just hacks. 

What it is is that they have severe mental retardation.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

Yeah, and bear in mind @The Real timschochet thought the evidence against Kavanaugh was sufficient.  And, as a reminder, that evidence consisted of the 25 year old "memories" from someone about a supposed incident at a party she doesn't know when or where happened.  And, even her friends who were supposedly with her don't remember the party or the incident.  But that evidence was good quality stuff but several career government employee whistleblowers putting their careers on the line are not sufficient.  These are the types of hypocritical examples that demonstrate how people like Tim, Squidboy, and Dogsh*t are just hacks. 

Also, the unverified, because it’s unverifiable, Steele dossier was enough for a special counsel on the Russia hoax, but eye witnesses that testified under the threat of perjury, along with the government’s own documents, not a paid for “report”, isn’t. You gotta love their ability to forget and move on.  

[RLLD 4,192]

20 hours ago, dogcows said:

The links you posted show zero evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens in regard to Ukraine or China. Posting links of hearsay isn’t enough to convict, or even indict somebody.

I’ll let Lev Parnas sum this up:

 

Of course the links do not satisfy, and I would not presume tha any of the banking evidence, testimony or prety much anything else would suffice for you to admit what is easily evident.  I get that. You will stand by a political ally, no matter what.

[dogcows 1,030]

2 hours ago, RLLD said:

Of course the links do not satisfy, and I would not presume tha any of the banking evidence, testimony or prety much anything else would suffice for you to admit what is easily evident.  I get that. You will stand by a political ally, no matter what.

How much money was shown to go to Joe Biden in the banking records they revealed?

[RLLD 4,192]

34 minutes ago, dogcows said:

How much money was shown to go to Joe Biden in the banking records they revealed?

They are not done yet, so far they can only prove about 10 million, according to the reporting.  But the Burisma folks admitted that the complexity of the Biden setup with the LLC's would take something like 10 years to unwind.  I have no doubt it will be trickey and take some time.  This is why I am assiduously opposed to the DOJ assigning a special prosecutor, should that happen we likely never get the truth. 

[Ultra Max Power 214]

Hunter Biden put then-VP dad Joe on the phone with business associates at least 2 dozen times, ex-partner Devon Archer to testify (nypost.com)

Quote

 

Hunter Biden would dial in his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, on speakerphone into meetings with his overseas business partners, according to testimony expected before Congress this week from Devon Archer, the first son’s former best friend. 

Archer, 48, who is facing jail for his role in a $60 million bond fraud, is scheduled to testify to the House Oversight Committee about meetings he witnessed that were attended by Joe Biden either in person or via speakerphone when Hunter would call his father and introduce him to foreign business partners or prospective investors. 

“We are looking forward very much to hearing from Devon Archer about all the times he has witnessed Joe Biden meeting with Hunter Biden’s overseas business partners when he was vice president, including on speakerphone,” said Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the committee chairman. 

Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed he did not speak with his son about Hunter’s foreign business dealings.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

57 minutes ago, dogcows said:

How much money was shown to go to Joe Biden in the banking records they revealed?

The money doesn’t have to go directly to Biden for it to be a crime. But cling to that. Overlook everything because the money was sent to different accounts, to his family. Which is illegal.  

[The Real timschochet 6,617]

22 hours ago, Strike said:

Yeah, and bear in mind @The Real timschochet thought the evidence against Kavanaugh was sufficient.  And, as a reminder, that evidence consisted of the 25 year old "memories" from someone about a supposed incident at a party she doesn't know when or where happened.  And, even her friends who were supposedly with her don't remember the party or the incident.  But that evidence was good quality stuff but several career government employee whistleblowers putting their careers on the line are not sufficient.  These are the types of hypocritical examples that demonstrate how people like Tim, Squidboy, and Dogsh*t are just hacks. 

Your first sentence is misleading. I found Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony to be believable, but not compelling in a court of law. If Brett Kavanaugh had been on trial I would have voted to acquit him of any charge. But he was not on trial, he was being considered for a higher position, the highest in the land. I would not have voted to confirm him for that position. 
 

With regard to Biden, the evidence from the whistleblowers that I have followed so far indicates some murky and questionable behavior, but nothing that rises to a level of illegal or impeachable offense. That’s my judgment. 

[The Real timschochet 6,617]

In any case, I don’t believe any of this will have a significant effect on the upcoming election. I believe this is true because it’s not substantial. Many will believe it’s true because they think there’s a cover up and that the establishment and mainstream media are complicit. But the conclusion is the same: it won’t matter. 
 

Here’s what WILL matter: the economy is booming. Illegal immigration has been significantly reduced in recent months. Biden’s opponent is likely to be Donald Trump, who more than half the nation will NEVER vote for, and who is facing ever more serious legal charges. If all this holds up Biden will win re-election without much difficulty. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,314]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Your first sentence is misleading. I found Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony to be believable, but not compelling in a court of law. If Brett Kavanaugh had been on trial I would have voted to acquit him of any charge. But he was not on trial, he was being considered for a higher position, the highest in the land. I would not have voted to confirm him for that position. 
 

With regard to Biden, the evidence from the whistleblowers that I have followed so far indicates some murky and questionable behavior, but nothing that rises to a level of illegal or impeachable offense. That’s my judgment. 

But you think trump asking why is quid pro joe on tape committing quid pro quo is an impeachable offense  

can’t make this sh1t up

[Ultra Max Power 214]

25 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The money doesn’t have to go directly to Biden for it to be a crime. But cling to that. Overlook everything because the money was sent to different accounts, to his family. Which is illegal.  

This really needs to be hammered home.  Any influence that enriches your family is a crime.  Clearly Burisma paid the Biden family and getting Shokin fired was in the benefit of Burisma.  Joe used US tax dollars (illegally) to get this done.  Pretty slam dunk crime if you ask me. 

[dogcows 1,030]

55 minutes ago, RLLD said:

They are not done yet, so far they can only prove about 10 million, according to the reporting.  But the Burisma folks admitted that the complexity of the Biden setup with the LLC's would take something like 10 years to unwind.  I have no doubt it will be trickey and take some time.  This is why I am assiduously opposed to the DOJ assigning a special prosecutor, should that happen we likely never get the truth. 

They didn’t prove $10 million went to Joe Biden. That’s plainly false. Why lie?

And then you go right back to conspiracy theories. Oh you know there’s something there, but everybody is covering it up. That’s Conspiracy 101. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

11 minutes ago, dogcows said:

They didn’t prove $10 million went to Joe Biden. That’s plainly false. Why lie?

And then you go right back to conspiracy theories. Oh you know there’s something there, but everybody is covering it up. That’s Conspiracy 101. 

Well, money laundering is a conspiracy. So…..

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

36 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

In any case, I don’t believe any of this will have a significant effect on the upcoming election. I believe this is true because it’s not substantial. Many will believe it’s true because they think there’s a cover up and that the establishment and mainstream media are complicit. But the conclusion is the same: it won’t matter. 
 

Here’s what WILL matter: the economy is booming. Illegal immigration has been significantly reduced in recent months. Biden’s opponent is likely to be Donald Trump, who more than half the nation will NEVER vote for, and who is facing ever more serious legal charges. If all this holds up Biden will win re-election without much difficulty. 

How did they curtail illegal immigration? 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

44 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Your first sentence is misleading. I found Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony to be believable, but not compelling in a court of law. If Brett Kavanaugh had been on trial I would have voted to acquit him of any charge. But he was not on trial, he was being considered for a higher position, the highest in the land. I would not have voted to confirm him for that position. 
 

With regard to Biden, the evidence from the whistleblowers that I have followed so far indicates some murky and questionable behavior, but nothing that rises to a level of illegal or impeachable offense. That’s my judgment. 

So, you find Ford believable, but not the whistle blowers. Why? I guess you also believe that Biden never spoke to his son about his overseas business deals and the laptop is a Russian plant. Do I have all that right? 

[League Champion 1,909]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

How did they curtail illegal immigration? 

We don't talk about that

[League Champion 1,909]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

How did they curtail illegal immigration? 

Doesn't matter, gotta get those filthy Russians out of Ukraine. 

[RLLD 4,192]

57 minutes ago, dogcows said:

They didn’t prove $10 million went to Joe Biden. That’s plainly false. Why lie?

And then you go right back to conspiracy theories. Oh you know there’s something there, but everybody is covering it up. That’s Conspiracy 101. 

I never suggested they have yet completed the investigation, and "proven" it went to Joe, in fact 5 went to Hunter and it is clear the other 5 went to Joe.  If you want to ignore this, and what it clearly means, that is fine for you. I am not going to convince you of anything here. I accept that because of your allegience to political ideology (and by extension Joe Biden) you will ignore what is right in front of you.  More proof will come, and you will ignore that as well. 

It is clear, to me, based on the available informaton that the DOJ worked diligently to protect the Biden family from their criminal activity.  You can ignore that as well.  

Later.....should it arise that the DOJ clearly protects, oh lets say Donald Trump, perhaps then we can enjoy a shared experience around caring about criminal activity. 

[dogcows 1,030]

21 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I never suggested they have yet completed the investigation, and "proven" it went to Joe, in fact 5 went to Hunter and it is clear the other 5 went to Joe.  If you want to ignore this, and what it clearly means, that is fine for you. I am not going to convince you of anything here. I accept that because of your allegience to political ideology (and by extension Joe Biden) you will ignore what is right in front of you.  More proof will come, and you will ignore that as well. 

It is clear, to me, based on the available informaton that the DOJ worked diligently to protect the Biden family from their criminal activity.  You can ignore that as well.  

Later.....should it arise that the DOJ clearly protects, oh lets say Donald Trump, perhaps then we can enjoy a shared experience around caring about criminal activity. 

In summary: there is no credible evidence of corruption by Joe Biden, nor of any conspiracy by the DOJ to protect him.

I am not the one believing things without proof. I think it’s fair to say anybody believing things without evidence is biased. Not those saying “show me the evidence.”

[Hardcore troubadour 15,251]

4 minutes ago, dogcows said:

In summary: there is no credible evidence of corruption by Joe Biden, nor of any conspiracy by the DOJ to protect him.

I am not the one believing things without proof. I think it’s fair to say anybody believing things without evidence is biased. Not those saying “show me the evidence.”

Evidence comes before proof. Proof is proven in court. Are you sure you’re an American? 

[Dizkneelande 1,094]

2 hours ago, Ultra Max Power said:

Hunter Biden put then-VP dad Joe on the phone with business associates at least 2 dozen times, ex-partner Devon Archer to testify (nypost.com)

Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed he did not speak with his son about Hunter’s foreign business dealings.

 

It doesn’t matter they don’t care. They won’t believe Devon Archer.

[RLLD 4,192]

20 minutes ago, dogcows said:

In summary: there is no credible evidence of corruption by Joe Biden, nor of any conspiracy by the DOJ to protect him.

I am not the one believing things without proof. I think it’s fair to say anybody believing things without evidence is biased. Not those saying “show me the evidence.”

No. in summary there is enough evidence to continue the investigation and potentially assign a special prosecutor (but I hope they do NOT assign one).  There is more evidence than was available for say, the first fake impeachment for Trump.  But again, unless the criminal has the wrong political stance you will not care about criminality, we have established this.

More will come out, nothing short of a confession from Biden will ever suffice for you.  Not sure why people are inclined to protect the powerful, when they are clearly corrupt.  That one will continue to be baffling.