GroveHillWanderer

No, (and at the risk of repeating myself) I'm saying that there's no evidence that anything other than pleasantries were exchanged. And incidentally there's also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden ever received "millions via shell companies." If you want to know how he became wealthy, the article below shows that the majority of his and Jill Biden's current wealth comes from a book deal (worth $8 million) and speaking engagements. All of this is fully documented in his tax returns. How Joe Biden Went from Middle-Class Joe to a Millionaire

Well, what I firmly believe is that there's not a single shred of evidence currently available to show that any business-related matters were discussed in those phone calls. Although we do have the sworn testimony of an eye witness, given under penalty of perjury, that only pleasantries were exchanged. In the final analysis, you have nothing but supposition to offer and as I'm sure you're aware, supposition does not provide a legal basis for proving criminality.

Jack Smith is not a Democrat (he's a registered Independent) and in any event he is not ultimately the source of the accusations in the indictment. Those come from the largely Republican witnesses who testified before the grand jury, notably Trump's own VP Mike Pence. If you look at the list of witnesses in the article below (and on whose testimony the indictment is based) you can see that the vast majority of them are Republicans. Dozens of witnesses have testified as the Jan. 6-focused grand jury probes Trump

Pretty much every study ever done in a developed country shows that immigrants provide a net economic benefit to the countries they immigrate to. Here's just two examples for the US and UK, respectively. Benefits of Immigration Outweigh the Costs The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK As I say, studies in pretty much every other developed nation find the same thing.

You can't extrapolate based on simply your own experience, though. Just because you used to take the 800k out doesn't mean the majority of people did. To give an opposing, also totally non-probative example, everybody I know who uses (or used to use) the 800k method, leaves (or left) it in all year. That doesn't mean the majority do, though I suspect more than just a few do it this way, based on the number of comments to that effect on this forum alone.

That's not an example of Occam's razor. Occam's razor is the principle that, "the simplest solution which is consistent with the existing data is preferred." (Emphasis mine). How to Use Occam’s Razor Without Getting Cut In this instance, there is no data or evidence to show what caused the fire, therefore you can't invoke Occam's razor to argue that EV's must have been responsible.

Sure, the people in that picture look Asian - but there's no way to know if they're Chinese or not. However you don't think that's a picture of the actual MG design team in England do you? Although it's also stated that: According to the article below here are the names of some of the main team members, at least as of a couple of years ago. MG Motors UK design team expands

I don't know if you realize it, but all you're doing is tacitly admitting that you don't even understand what Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election means.

The issue being discussed was Russian interference in the 2016 election. By definition, the people involved in it were foreigners. So your attempted rebuttal makes no sense.

As was already alluded to, the 13 Russian nationals who were indicted based on the findings of the Muller report and charged with interference in the 2016 election could not be brought to court as they were not under US jurisdiction. However, during the Trump administration a Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, in their 1,313-page report issued in July 2019, found that the Russian government had engaged in an extensive campaign to sabotage the election in favor of Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers. Senate report finds Manafort passed campaign data to Russian intelligence officer

Don't be so sure. The judge in this case has a well-deserved reputation for moving things along extremely quickly. In fact she's already scheduled the first hearing, and so this case will "see the inside of a courtroom" in exactly 24 days - unless you know something that we don't. See link below. Trump’s first hearing in election case set for August 28

They undoubtedly hired Hunter Biden because of who his father was and I would say it's very likely that they hoped his family connections would be of use to them. However hoping that something would be true doesn't make it so.

I would describe it as what it is - a clip wherein it is clearly and unequivocally stated by the second person who speaks, that there is no evidence linking Joe Biden to any wrongdoing in connection with Hunter Biden's tax or gun charges.

The Thai FDA entry there indicates it was approved in May this year, so it seems that article I quoted earlier was correct, after all.

No, they don't. Goldman's remarks go to the point that Biden had no involvement in his son's business dealings. That's what, "they never once spoke about any business dealings," means. And I never once said anything about not believing the contents of the article. I'm pointing out (as several others have done) that the article does not provide any actual evidence of what Archer said or about whether Biden was involved in his son's business dealings. For instance, I am fully prepared to believe that the people mentioned, like Comer and Goldman, said what they are quoted as saying. However what they are saying is a) totally different and b) not probative of anything.

*Deleted post edited out* There is absolutely nothing in that article that provides, "the word of Hunter Biden's business associate." His words are not quoted. All it contains are interpretations by other people of what Archer said, such as by James Comer and Dan Goldman. And whereas Comer gives his interpretation (said interpretation not being evidence, please note) that Archer's remarks showed the value of the Biden "brand," Dan Goldman characterised them completely differently. According to Goldman, Archer's testimony showed that, "... approximately 20 times over the course of a 10-year relationship. Hunter may have put his father on the phone with any number of different people, and they never once spoke about any business dealings." So in the end, both Republicans and Democrats seem to be claiming that the same witness testimony supports their own views on Joe Biden's putative involvement in Hunter's business dealings, even though their views are diametrically opposed.

I certainly did.

That is in the article and it's all purely Comer's personal opinion and wild conjecture. None of what Comer says there provides any actual evidence that what Joe Biden said on any of the phone calls was anything other than casual conversation. It's also completely at odds with how other members of the committee characterized Archer's evidence.

It's hardly meaningless. Various people have been arguing that meeting with your son's business partners is proof that you discussed your son's business dealings with him. My example and my personal experience shows that meeting your son's business partners is absolutely no proof whatsoever that you have discussed business dealings with your son.

Did you actually read the article? There's nothing in it that shows Joe and Hunter Biden ever did anything other than exchange casual remarks when there were other business partners of Hunter in the room and they were on speakerphone, or that they ever discussed Hunter's business dealings.

No, it absolutely does not prove that at all. Let me give you a concrete example from my own life. I have a grandson who runs a business with partners (though for the purposes of the argument he could just as easily be my son). I have met most (if not all) the partners that he runs his business with. Yet I can assure you that I have never discussed his business dealings with him.

Again, how does meeting some of a person's business partners prove the contents of any conversation that you have had with that person? (Hint - it doesn't).

The allegation that Joe and Hunter Biden sometimes exchanged remarks over the phone with Hunter Bidens business associates in the room means "the net is tightening" in what way, exactly? Can you imagine the conversation in a court of law? "Yes m'lud, I can prove that the accused committed the crimes he is accused of. The fact that he sometimes spoke to his son on the phone is incontrovertible evidence of his guilt."

Neither meeting somebody, nor writing college admission letters, provides any evidence of the contents of any conversation between Joe and Hunter Biden.

Where is your evidence that it's a lie? Do you have a transcript or recording of any of their conversations, to prove what was said? If not, then it's a baseless claim.