Special counsel to investigate President Biden's son Hunter

[nauseus]

Just now, ozimoron said:

Any press. Not even the far right bile like TS have published any evidence. It's always in still coming mode. That keeps the faithful, well faithful.

Whatever evidence there is will be offered at the hearing. No patience you lot. 

[BangkokReady]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

What? the NYT???  555

This guys crackers.  He was in another thread discussing an article about what Hunter's business associate had said and he wouldn't accept anything from the article being discussed.  He was demanding "court admissible evidence" or nothing could be said!  ????

[Isaan sailor]

As long as the Oversight Committee keeps uncovering wrongdoings unimpeded—the SC can continue its investigation.  But this sure looks like a stonewall.

[BangkokReady]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Whatever evidence there is will be offered at the hearing. No patience you lot. 

They want the discussion halted.  ????  Scared of something...

[placeholder]

56 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

And a lot of left wingers here believe that they can wish evidence away by pretending it isn't there...

Actually, the problem seems to be that right wingers are pretending it is. I have repeatedly addressed this issue with specific evidence.. I have yet to see one fact based rebuttal of  of the points I've raised. Instead I see evidence-free generalizations like yours. You've got nothing.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Why would Zlochevsky actually admit that Burisma ever had any contacts with Biden?

 

So, not dissolved.  The rest just re-spun by pro Biden media narrative. Thanks anyway.

Devon Archer testified that Hunter Biden confesssed to him that he had no hand in it. Other members of Biden's company told Archer it was bad news because Zlochevsky had Shokin under control.  And irrefutable evidence is that Biden was carrying out U.S. govt policy when he threatened to cut off funding if Shokin wasn't dismissed. The EU applauded the move. You've got less than nothing.

[BangkokReady]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I have repeatedly addressed this issue with specific evidence.

You've shown evidence that there is not and never will be any evidence?  That's some very special evidence.

 

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You've got nothing.

I present evidence for any evidential claim that I make. 

 

You have nothing.  That's why you responded to someone simply speculating in such a weird way.

[BusyB]

12 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Wait, Marjorie Taylor Greene does not agree..LOL

 

Today’s move by Merrick Garland to appoint David Weiss as Special Counsel to investigate (and in reality cover up) Hunter Biden’s criminal career is the latest action in a continuous pattern of corrupt behavior by Joe Biden and his regime. Behavior typically only seen in juntas in third-world nations or early twentieth-century dictatorships in Europe. This is a cover-up, plain and simple.

https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1690111285369737216

 

She really is a sectionable nutter. My god who on earth wants something like that representing them in a parliament? Seriously what kind of lunatic votes for that? She's really unhinged, regardless of party membership.

[Scott]

A post violating community guidelines has been removed. 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

Did you think I was trying to place a real bet, by commenting on ASEAN Now?  Are you OK?

The pointlessness lies in the fact that it can't be proven or disproven. . Not whether or not it's  a bet for cash.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

He's from their tribe.  He can do no wrong.  Any mention of any wrongdoing must be silenced. 

 

They're the "good guys" and the other tribe is the bad guys. so they can do what they want to keep their tribe safe and in power.  The truth is irrelevant.

I wasn't aware that I had the power to silence posters on this website. I promise to use it sparingly.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

What? the NYT???  555

Straw man much?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

You've shown evidence that there is not and never will be any evidence?  That's some very special evidence.

 

 

I have shown extremely strong evidence that strongly undercuts the claims Joe Biden did anything criminal in the case of Burisma. What have the Republicans shown? An FD 1023. Which is a hearsay report. Not something witnessed by the person who made the report. And now they're claiming that they don't actually have to show evidence at all that Biden accepted bribes from Burisma

•  

Edited August 12, 2023 by placeholder

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

They want the discussion halted.  ????  Scared of something...

I guess when you haven't got fact, go to motives. That's the convenient thing about alleging motives. The allegation can't be proven but it can't be disproven either. It's just a cheap way of making it personal.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

They want the discussion halted.  ????  Scared of something...

No, they want the oversight committee to put or shut up. Any shred of evidence would change their tune markedly.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Whatever evidence there is will be offered at the hearing. No patience you lot. 

The Republicans are already lowering the bar on their previous claims. You think the GOP is pushing this because they have a strong case? 

 

[ozimoron]

What the right don't seem to grasp is that there is not one librel poster here who cares one whit if Biden is convicted of corruption. He would simply be replaced by the VP and life would go on. Many dems would be happy to see another Democratic candidate. The same can't be said for the MAGA cult who's heads would explode if Trump is convicted.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

You have nothing.  That's why you responded to someone simply speculating in such a weird way.

It's what can best be characterized as Rorschach speculation. It tells us something about you but nothing about the facts of the case. 

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

The pointlessness lies in the fact that it can't be proven or disproven. . Not whether or not it's  a bet for cash.

Why does it need to be proven or disproven for me to speculate on Biden Sr's frame of mind?

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

I wasn't aware that I had the power to silence posters on this website.

Your gang certainly behave like you do.

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

I promise to use it sparingly.

I don't believe you.

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

I have shown extremely strong evidence that strongly undercuts the claims Joe Biden did anything criminal in the case of Burisma. What have the Republicans shown? An FD 1023. Which is a hearsay report. Not something witnessed by the person who made the report. And now they're claiming that they don't actually have to show evidence at all that Biden accepted bribes from Burisma

•  

And that proves there is not any evidence that you aren't aware of, nor will there ever be?  That's some killer evidence.

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Your gang certainly behave like you do.

 

I don't believe you.

What does that mean that :"your gang certainly behaves like you do". What is the behavior that indicates I believe or other believe that we wish to shut those who disagree with us down?  I think along with 

 

"They want the discussion halted.  ????  Scared of something..."

 

this belongs with your penchant for alleging motives. In other words, making it personal. Because motives may not be able to be proved in this venue, but they can't be disproved either.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

And that proves there is not any evidence that you aren't aware of, nor will there ever be?  That's some killer evidence.

What sort of evidence could there be that disproves absolutely that there won't be? But the evidence against the Republican committee's assertions is very strong, and the evidence they have provided, such as it is, is very weak despite repeated claims that they were about to produce evidence that was very strong. And every tiime they have produced their evidence, it's fizzled. Past form counts. Even Hannity was sceptical of Comer's claims.

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Why does it need to be proven or disproven for me to speculate on Biden Sr's frame of mind?

"It's what can best be characterized as Rorschach speculation. It tells us something about you but nothing about the facts of the case."

[BangkokReady]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What does that mean that :"your gang certainly behaves like you do". What is the behavior that indicates I believe or other believe that we wish to shut those who disagree with us down?  I think along with 

 

"They want the discussion halted.  ????  Scared of something..."

 

this belongs with your penchant for alleging motives. In other words, making it personal. Because motives may not be able to be proved in this venue, but they can't be disproved either.

Go through this thread, look at your posts, think about how often you genuinely engage with what people are actually saying, and how many time you simply try to discredit the author or try to "disagree" without really addressing the comment you are replying to.  ????

[BangkokReady]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What sort of evidence could there be that disproves absolutely that there won't be?

Exactly.  

[BangkokReady]

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

"It's what can best be characterized as Rorschach speculation. It tells us something about you but nothing about the facts of the case."

Once again, this doesn't address what I actually wrote.  It seems like you want to reply, but don't have anything to say. ????‍♂️

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Go through this thread, look at your posts, think about how often you genuinely engage with what people are actually saying, and how many time you simply try to discredit the author or try to "disagree" without really addressing the comment you are replying to.  ????

I'm not your researcher. When someone makes a claim, it's incumbent upon them to provide evidence to back it up.. Cite my words and the post or posts I've replied to.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Once again, this doesn't address what I actually wrote.  It seems like you want to reply, but don't have anything to say. ????‍♂️

Of course it addresses what you wrote. It tells us you believe Biden is guilty but offers no evidence that Biden is actually feeling what you contend he's feeling. It's only based on your belief that he is guilty. Which tells us something about you but nothing about Biden.

 

[BangkokReady]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm not your researcher. When someone makes a claim, it's incumbent upon them to provide evidence to back it up.. Cite my words and the post or posts I've replied to.

Maybe tomorrow.  It's past my bedtime.  ????