placeholder

So Devon Archer volunteers to speak before the committee which desperately wants evidence that Joe Biden was making money out of this and offers them nothing to prove that?

But Joe Biden isn't just someone, is he? This may come as news to you but he's actually Hunter Biden's father. Are you claiming that Joe Biden's love for his son wouldn't explain why he would speak on 20 phone calls over a few years time? You take a very dismal view of parent-child relationships.

You claimed that the chap in the article who said Joe Biden was hired is obvious. Who is that person?

You made this claim: I think, as the chap says in the article, allowing himself to be hired to provide support to a company sounds pretty slimy of Biden Sr." Clearly, you can't back it up.

Actually, probably a lot sooner. That's why Smith is currently only prosecuting Trump: Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 Trump Indictment Is a Prosecutorial Masterstroke "The new indictment is at once sure-footed, streamlined, and prudently aggressive. It takes on charges that must be brought and whose evidence overlaps in a careful design to ensure an efficient trial that can be completed before the November election." https://archive.ph/Xa8X8 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/jack-smith-jan-6-trump-indictment-prosecution-masterpiece.html

And yet you won't name him. You've got nothing because no one in the article said that Joe Biden was hired.

Maybe you are now, but you weren't previously. You were claiming back then that Trump did nothing wrong. That's obviously different from a presumption of innocence.

I was going to write "nice try at deflection" but actually, it's a pretty poor one.

You claimed that I think, as the chap says in the article, allowing himself to be hired to provide support to a company sounds pretty slimy of Biden Sr." Who is the chap who said this?

Plotting to create fake electors is not just asking questions and whinging.

Conspiracy to commit a crime can be a crime in itself whether or not the crime is carried out.

I think you should add to the example that govt. investigators discovered their plans and stopped them from going through with it.

His difficulty with what the right to free speech protects and what it doesn't might explain why he didn't make it to his second year.

"Fitch said Tuesday that the downgrade reflects an “erosion of governance” in the U.S. relative to other top-tier economies over the past two decades, pointing to the financial uncertainty posed by a series of close calls in which legislative stalemates nearly derailed routine payments on U.S. Treasury debt, typically treated by investors around the world as ultrasafe. “The repeated debt-limit political standoffs and last-minute resolutions have eroded confidence in fiscal management,” Fitch said." https://archive.ph/mH4QZ#selection-335.0-339.130 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fitch-downgrades-u-s-credit-rating-56c73b89?mod=hp_lead_pos1

You clearly don't get the point. The right to free speech isn't absolute.

Who is the chap in the article that said Joe Biden was hired. That was your claim. Who is the chap? You've got nothing.

And why couldn't they whoever "they" are, substitute the ballot someone checked off for a different ballot? The points you are raising are absurd.

Maybe because someone who engages in fits of rage on Twitter/X is engaging in infantile behavior?

And, by the way, what chap in the article says that Joe Biden was hired, which is what you claimed?

I explained very clearly how "or" works. What don't you understand about that?

Failure does not exempt Trump from having committed a crime.

Is making death threats also protected under free speech? Free speech is not an unlimited right.

Because the deficit wasn't rising under Trump as well? Didn't Trump's tax breaks actually greatly increase the deficit. In fact, the last time the deficit might have shrunk maybe was briefly under Bill Clinton just before George Bush took over and showered the wealthy with tax breaks.

At the outset you claimed this: "I think, as the chap says in the article, allowing himself to be hired to provide support to a company sounds pretty slimy of Biden Sr." "Now you're claiming "Why would Biden involve himself so much in his son's business if he or his son weren't being financially rewarded for it?" Do you understand how "or" works? Even if you had written if he or his son or both etc,, it still leaves open the possibility that Biden wasn't hired. So clearly you're backing away for your baseless assertion that "the chap in the article says etc..".

I think it's bizarre that you think a violent attempt to stop a crucial Constitutionally mandated process was not unprecedented. Can you come up with another example?