The Great White Hunter in Daily Beast. The article actually

[HokieHam]

Hunter Biden Met Privately with ‘F—ing Spy Chief of China’ During Hong Kong Trip, Jim Biden Testifies

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administra ... testifies/

That's a strange article. Claims Hunter met China's spy chief, and then details how Jim Biden testified that he met with Patrick Ho, who is not (never has been) the top China intelligence Minister.

It's kind of monumentally stupid since the guy Hunter met with is crook and is guilty of trying to bribe government officials in other countries. Seems like spending time on that info is more important than making up crap. Way to go Free Beacon!!

Pretty sure the article said Jim Biden was the one that claimed Hunter had met the spy chief, while the article identified him as otherwise.

Rereading the article. Looks like Hunter is the one saying that Ho was the spy chief. Not exactly the most reliable source....

Sniff…..sniff…..

[UpstateSCHokie]

"nO EvIdENcE!"

[HokieHam]

"nO EvIdENcE!"

“Pee tape levels…..”

These crooks were AHole deep in lining their pockets off the Potato…..

[HokieFanDC]

"nO EvIdENcE!"

LOL. How many times will people fall for Bobulinski's schtick. He's tried it with Fox News, WaPo, Tucker, and several other outlets. Are you betting that he's now magically found some actual evidence to back up his claims??

[HokieHam]

[HokieFanDC]

I think she broke the record for moat finger wags in a 5 minute window.

I really wanted to hear Bobulinski answer. He's comedy gold.

[RiverguyVT]

"nO EvIdENcE!"

Amazing, isn’t it?

[RiverguyVT]

"nO EvIdENcE!"

LOL. How many times will people fall for Bobulinski's schtick. He's tried it with Fox News, WaPo, Tucker, and several other outlets. Are you betting that he's now magically found some actual evidence to back up his claims??

LOL

“schtick”

Yeah, that’s the ticket


https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/ ... tement.pdf

[HokieFanDC]

"nO EvIdENcE!"

LOL. How many times will people fall for Bobulinski's schtick. He's tried it with Fox News, WaPo, Tucker, and several other outlets. Are you betting that he's now magically found some actual evidence to back up his claims??

LOL

“schtick”

Yeah, that’s the ticket


https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/ ... tement.pdf

Eye roll all you want, but Bobulinski has been making these claims since 2020, without evidence to prove his claims.
Same goes with Comer. He's claimed several times that he found evidence of wrongdoing, yet every time he makes a claim, nothing happens. He just ignores his failure, and makes more claims, that he never backs up with evidence.

So, yeah, until someone produces evidence, it's schtick. Everyone should be familiar with this show. We went through it starting in 2016. And it's been happening again since 2020.

[RiverguyVT]

"nO EvIdENcE!"

LOL. How many times will people fall for Bobulinski's schtick. He's tried it with Fox News, WaPo, Tucker, and several other outlets. Are you betting that he's now magically found some actual evidence to back up his claims??

LOL

“schtick”

Yeah, that’s the ticket


https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/ ... tement.pdf

Eye roll all you want, but Bobulinski has been making these claims since 2020, without evidence to prove his claims.
Same goes with Comer. He's claimed several times that he found evidence of wrongdoing, yet every time he makes a claim, nothing happens. He just ignores his failure, and makes more claims, that he never backs up with evidence.

So, yeah, until someone produces evidence, it's schtick. Everyone should be familiar with this show. We went through it starting in 2016. And it's been happening again since 2020.

You continue to confuse nothing happening in a lopsided legal system with innocence. This is how you used to defend Hillary!; same argument. A version of "if she did this, why isn't anyone doing anything? Why haven't the (courts/process) found her guilty?" Several here (me included) answer you with "it is a dual system of law" and then you just tend to mock that fact.

Bobulinski making the claims since 2016 and nothing happening isn't a reflection on Bobulinski's claims. If you read the transcripts, he provides evidence.

Here is more eVidEnCe-

[RiverguyVT]

Another example to blow up the ol’ “…if there was wrongdoing, why didn’t anything happen..” spiel.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/21/us-news/c ... tax-probe/


Nah. There aren’t two sets of rules and laws. Not at all

[RiverguyVT]

?
Double post deleted

[HokieHam]

Another example to blow up the ol’ “…if there was wrongdoing, why didn’t anything happen..” spiel.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/21/us-news/c ... tax-probe/


Nah. There aren’t two sets of rules and laws. Not at all

Remember…..the Pee Tape had more credibility……..

[HokieFanDC]

"nO EvIdENcE!"

LOL. How many times will people fall for Bobulinski's schtick. He's tried it with Fox News, WaPo, Tucker, and several other outlets. Are you betting that he's now magically found some actual evidence to back up his claims??

LOL

“schtick”

Yeah, that’s the ticket


https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/ ... tement.pdf

Eye roll all you want, but Bobulinski has been making these claims since 2020, without evidence to prove his claims.
Same goes with Comer. He's claimed several times that he found evidence of wrongdoing, yet every time he makes a claim, nothing happens. He just ignores his failure, and makes more claims, that he never backs up with evidence.

So, yeah, until someone produces evidence, it's schtick. Everyone should be familiar with this show. We went through it starting in 2016. And it's been happening again since 2020.

You continue to confuse nothing happening in a lopsided legal system with innocence. This is how you used to defend Hillary!; same argument. A version of "if she did this, why isn't anyone doing anything? Why haven't the (courts/process) found her guilty?" Several here (me included) answer you with "it is a dual system of law" and then you just tend to mock that fact.

Bobulinski making the claims since 2016 and nothing happening isn't a reflection on Bobulinski's claims. If you read the transcripts, he provides evidence.

Here is more eVidEnCe-

The old Hillary trope.

As for the eVidEnCe, maybe you don't understand what evidence is. In a hearing or trial, evidence is evidence of wrongdoing.
The eVidEnCe Donalds is showing has been known since at least 2018. For 6 years, Pubs and conservatives like Benny Johnson have been trying to tie them to Joe. They keep failing to do so.
And as for Bobulinski, he isn't providing evidence. He's making claims. Same as he did 4 years ago when he made a bunch of claims about his emails and messages. When he turned them over, there was nothing there to back up his claims. Congress, Fox News, Tucker Carlson, WaPo. They all found nothing.

You really think he has more eVidEnCe that no one has seen??

[RiverguyVT]

Did you read the transcript of his testimony?

[HokieFanDC]

Did you read the transcript of his testimony?

Not all of it. What I read was the same story he's been peddling for several years. Its the same one that he's told to multiple politicians and news outlets for the last 4 to 6 years.
He has made a lot of claims. Either he doesn't have evidence to back them up or the people running the investigation for 6 years, are full blown idiots. What's holding them back?

[RiverguyVT]

Did you read the transcript of his testimony?

Not all of it. What I read was the same story he's been peddling for several years. Its the same one that he's told to multiple politicians and news outlets for the last 4 to 6 years.
He has made a lot of claims. Either he doesn't have evidence to back them up or the people running the investigation for 6 years, are full blown idiots. What's holding them back?

evidence is evidence of wrongdoing.

HIs testimony includes first-hand witnessed accounts of Joes involvement, and copies of emails documenting the same. That's evidence. Of wrongdoing.

The eVidEnCe Donalds is showing has been known since at least 2018. For 6 years, Pubs and conservatives like Benny Johnson have been trying to tie them to Joe. They keep failing to do so.

The phuque. It ties directly to Joe. Again, you're confusing "nothing happening" due to a bifurcated system with there being no evidence. I'd consider first hand witnesses, deposit slips, withdrawal slips, and cancelled checks pretty damn good evidence.

They all found nothing.

LOL. Yeah. Nothing.

Either he doesn't have evidence to back them up or the people running the investigation for 6 years, are full blown idiots. What's holding them back?

Or, the people running the investigation are up against a different set of rules.

The old Hillary trope

No trope. This is the EXACT same line of reasoning you took with her myriad malfeasances.

So, you're in the bogus impeachment camp apparently. (eye roll. Very big eye roll)

[HokieFanDC]

Did you read the transcript of his testimony?

Not all of it. What I read was the same story he's been peddling for several years. Its the same one that he's told to multiple politicians and news outlets for the last 4 to 6 years.
He has made a lot of claims. Either he doesn't have evidence to back them up or the people running the investigation for 6 years, are full blown idiots. What's holding them back?

evidence is evidence of wrongdoing.

HIs testimony includes first-hand witnessed accounts of Joes involvement, and copies of emails documenting the same. That's evidence. Of wrongdoing.

The eVidEnCe Donalds is showing has been known since at least 2018. For 6 years, Pubs and conservatives like Benny Johnson have been trying to tie them to Joe. They keep failing to do so.

The phuque. It ties directly to Joe. Again, you're confusing "nothing happening" due to a bifurcated system with there being no evidence. I'd consider first hand witnesses, deposit slips, withdrawal slips, and cancelled checks pretty damn good evidence.

They all found nothing.

LOL. Yeah. Nothing.

Either he doesn't have evidence to back them up or the people running the investigation for 6 years, are full blown idiots. What's holding them back?

Or, the people running the investigation are up against a different set of rules.

The old Hillary trope

No trope. This is the EXACT same line of reasoning you took with her myriad malfeasances.

So, you're in the bogus impeachment camp apparently. (eye roll. Very big eye roll)

You're FOS RGVT. I didn't say anything remotely close to that with Hillary. I've never said she's innocent, and have said the exact opposite. Your memory is maringally better than the current POTUS.

Not sure what the "bogus impeachment camp" is. Probably just another thing you made up in ur head, like the dozens of the BS rigged election claims you've fallen for over the years.

And as for the evidence, I'm referring to the numerous claims by GOP pols that they have the "deposit slips, withdrawal slips, and cancelled checks" that prove the malfeasance. The failure I'm talking about has nothing to do with having to go up against a different set of rules. No one is forcing them to make those claims. If we're to believe the GOP claims are honest, then they are either lying about having the evidence they say they have, or they are refusing to bring charges based on that "pretty damn good" evidence. Which is it?

[RiverguyVT]

You're FOS RGVT. I didn't say anything remotely close to that with Hillary. I've never said she's innocent, and have said the exact opposite. Your memory is maringally better than the current POTUS.

Not sure what the "bogus impeachment camp" is. Probably just another thing you made up in ur head, like the dozens of the BS rigged election claims you've fallen for over the years.

And as for the evidence, I'm referring to the numerous claims by GOP pols that they have the "deposit slips, withdrawal slips, and cancelled checks" that prove the malfeasance. The failure I'm talking about has nothing to do with having to go up against a different set of rules. No one is forcing them to make those claims. If we're to believe the GOP claims are honest, then they are either lying about having the evidence they say they have, or they are refusing to bring charges based on that "pretty damn good" evidence. Which is it?

A whoooooosh bigger than the seat next to a Boeing door that just fell off.

You never said Hillary! was innocent, true. Your middle road was always a version of (paraphrase) "If the charges are true, why isn't anything happening?" which is your exact same argument being made now on behalf of Joe.

Bogus impeachment camp- meaning, the impeachment is bogus. It shouldn't be brought.

The GOP pols have shown deposit slips, withdrawal slips and cancelled checks. They've shown them. In congress. In these hearings. You don't think they have shown them? Okay. That's a you thing. I guess what they showed was forged. You're right. GOP dishonesty. Forged documents.

Your either/or is silly. Yeah. They didn't show evidence.

[HokieFanDC]

You're FOS RGVT. I didn't say anything remotely close to that with Hillary. I've never said she's innocent, and have said the exact opposite. Your memory is maringally better than the current POTUS.

Not sure what the "bogus impeachment camp" is. Probably just another thing you made up in ur head, like the dozens of the BS rigged election claims you've fallen for over the years.

And as for the evidence, I'm referring to the numerous claims by GOP pols that they have the "deposit slips, withdrawal slips, and cancelled checks" that prove the malfeasance. The failure I'm talking about has nothing to do with having to go up against a different set of rules. No one is forcing them to make those claims. If we're to believe the GOP claims are honest, then they are either lying about having the evidence they say they have, or they are refusing to bring charges based on that "pretty damn good" evidence. Which is it?

A whoooooosh bigger than the seat next to a Boeing door that just fell off.

You never said Hillary! was innocent, true. Your middle road was always a version of (paraphrase) "If the charges are true, why isn't anything happening?" which is your exact same argument being made now on behalf of Joe.

Bogus impeachment camp- meaning, the impeachment is bogus. It shouldn't be brought.

The GOP pols have shown deposit slips, withdrawal slips and cancelled checks. They've shown them. In congress. In these hearings. You don't think they have shown them? Okay. That's a you thing. I guess what they showed was forged. You're right. GOP dishonesty. Forged documents.

Your either/or is silly. Yeah. They didn't show evidence.

No whoosh here. You're just wrong on every level RGVT. I never said anything remotely close to "if the charges are true, why isn't anything happening".
And I'm not saying that about Joe either, or saying the impeachment is bogus.
And only you, could come up with the idea that what I'm saying is that the docs were forged. This is where your idiotic future statements about what I've said or believe, are born. In your crazy rants that are simply you, not being able to read.,

I'll try to lay it out in a way that anyone can understand what I said.

1) The GOP has shown deposit slips, withdrawal slips, cancelled checks. We agree on that, I assume.

2) The GOP has also said several times that the evidence proves that Biden is guilty. Comer said that he and his committee had connected the dots from China to Joe's back pocket. That is Comer saying that he has the evidence needed to charge and convict Joe. Emmer also made comments about the evidence being proof that Biden had received funds from Chinese entities. Comer said similar things several times. Yet, each and every time he has made this claim, he has failed to present a charge.
This isn't about "two sets of laws", or a "bifurcated system". This is the GOP leaders saying they have the evidence it takes to charge and convict, but then doing nothing. What is your reasoning as to why Comer, and Donalds as the latest one, have said they have the evidence in hand, but aren't doing anything??
Seems like your choices are that they have the evidence of crimes they are claiming, and are doing nothing with it, or they don't really have the evidence they claim they have. Open to there being another option as to why they've made these claims, but taken no action.