1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 09, 2023, 01:41:45 PM »
Literally the first uploaded video proves it wasn't a peaceful protest where they were let in.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?Probably because they aren't investigating anyone else. I'm rather certain the number of people, including the Trumps, who personally benefitted from a relative in high office is pretty damn high. Do you agree every single political family should be investigated to check for such wrongdoings? Maybe make it illegal (because its not).
We appear to be at the point where you guys are claiming that multiple Biden family members were being bribed by foreign country entities to trick Joe Biden into influencing policy decisions, but Joe Biden didn't know about it.No one is suggesting this.
Quote from: Lord DaveSo far, they might have Hunter Biden on selling his father's position for his own gain. But they haven't linked anything illegal to Joe Biden.
Ok. So you admit that Hunter Biden was selling access to his father's power (through tricking his father into influencing or doing things). How can you maintain that congress doesn't need to investigate that?
Is trying to profit off the presidency and informally sell access to power illegal or not? You can't say that it's not a big deal when Trump and his family do it and then flip out when a couple of Biden's relatives (not even Biden himself, just his relatives) try to do something similar.And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.
Don't let conservatives rewrite history on this. There is ample evidence that Russia wanted Trump elected and interfered with the 2016 election to achieve that goal. Now, is there any proof that Trump only won because of that interference? No. Does this mean that the 2016 election was somehow invalid or illegitimate? No. And is acknowledging this interference in any way "equivalent" to Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election? No, absolutely not. But it happened, no matter how much conservatives wish that it didn't.
What years? That would seem to be important. And how much? Because if its like $1,000 a month for the political campaign, it would make sense. Hell, every politician gets money from businesses, sad as it is.They do claim to have evidence for the Biden's pay-for-play schemes - https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/They've had the same claim for what.... 4 years?
Trump has claimed election fraud for 8.
And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.
None of them produced any usable evidence so you'll excuse me if I don't trust a press release.
It's not the same four year old claims. They have been posting new evidence and new claims to the link I gave all year. They most recently added something today December 4th -
https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-direct-monthly-payments-to-joe-biden-from-hunter-bidens-business-entity%ef%bf%bc/
"WASHINGTON—Today, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) released subpoenaed bank records revealing Hunter Biden’s business entity, Owasco PC, made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden. "
Hunter Biden is currently under an investigation by the Department of Justice for using the Owasco PC corporate account for tax evasion and other serious crimes.I look forward to seeing how that goes or if charges are ever brought.
Following subpoenas to obtain Biden family associates’ bank records, Chairman Comer issued subpoenas for Hunter and James Biden’s personal and business bank records. The House Oversight Committee has identified over 20 shell companies and uncovered how the Bidens and their associates raked in over $24 million dollars between 2015 and 2019 by selling Joe Biden as “the brand.” Financial records obtained show Hunter Biden’s business account, Owasco PC, received payments from Chinese-state linked companies and other foreign nationals and companies."And? Selling famous people as a brand is a time honored tradition. Tho wasn't Trump president during half of that time, not Biden? Sounds like we need a better breakdown of the time period. If biden was sold as "the brand" when he wasn't VP, wouldn't help your case. Hell, him being VP and being sold as a brand isn't really all that unusual.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67598948
Are you MAGA lot sick of all the winning yet?
Ironic comment from you since Trump is now winning the polls.
https://www.the-daily-record.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/11/19/donald-trump-leads-joe-biden-young-voters-2024-poll/71646789007/
https://www.enmnews.com/2023/11/29/tracking-polls-show-trump-at-his-all-time-high-as-a-presidential-candidate/#google_vignette
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/november-2023-national-poll-trump-maintains-lead-over-biden/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/11/26/biden-trump-2024-election-battleground-polls/71667419007/
https://www.westernjournal.com/uh-oh-nbc-news-drops-new-trump-vs-biden-poll-never-result-like/
https://themessenger.com/politics/poll-trump-continues-to-lead-biden-exclusive-2
https://electionwire.com/surprise-in-the-polls-trump-takes-the-lead/#google_vignette
https://newstarget.com/2023-12-01-joe-biden-performing-poorly-different-opinion-polls.html
They do claim to have evidence for the Biden's pay-for-play schemes - https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/They've had the same claim for what.... 4 years?
Well a deposition regarding potentially illegal activity should probably be done in private. If anything illegal was done then the names Hunter Biden has to mention should probably go to law enforcement or the Congressional Sergeant at Arms rather than speak the names in public and tip off a potential criminal who thought that they were safe or that they wouldn't be pointed out, and cause people to destroy records and documents in a mad panic.
Among its powers, the House performs law enforcement functions and has powers to arrest people who defy their orders. If you are called by the House to testify in a private deposition, you should probably do what they say.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hunter-biden-agrees-testify-house-oversight-committee-rcna126962
So "We need transparency" Republicans really really don't want Hunter Biden's testemony to be public. Wonder why?
Any insights Tom?
If you ever watch a public congressional testimony a good percentage of the responses to the questions are "I can't mention names in public" or "I can't disclose that in this public setting" and that somehow passes for an answer.
It sounds like they want a private deposition and are also open to a public one at a future date as well.
https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1729511683301716088
You are mainly just claiming things like it is possible that someone doesn't scream when they are raped. This possibility does nothing to erase that red flag.Rates of screaming is minimal. Its not "improbable" its "typical". You're thinking like a man. You're tough and your fight or flight typically turns to fight. So you'd scream. You'd claw and bite and do anything to stop it.
Yes, it is possible that a woman does not scream in a department store when she is raped against her will. However, it is improbable. If you were to go and rape a woman in a store bathroom tomorrow against her will how likely is it that the woman will scream for help? Very likely, obviously.
The series of explanations presented are pure excuse making, which you are explicitly making to explain away and justify a lack of evidence in this case. You pretend that we should be completely on board with believing a series of improbable excuses.
Perhaps you have a different definition of evidence than the court system.You know damn well he does.
Look guys.
Tom is gonna say 'i told you so' if Powell has nothing.
If Powell has damning testemony, he'll dismiss it as fake or lies or whatever.
Actually, what Tom and the Maganoids don't understand is that Kraken Lady ALREADY testified on video. If she changes her testimony on the stand at this point, the video of her proffer will still be shown in evidence and she will be facing all the original felonies.
https://abc7chicago.com/jenna-ellis-sydney-powell-donald-trump-2020-election/14054154/
As traitors go, Ellis is very different than Kraken Lady in that she seems genuinely remorseful and understands what a dumbass she was for believing anything from the Trump people.
Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully. There could be a number of reasons that agreement was given. Maybe they initially overcharged her and gave her this standard truth agreement as a hail mary. Sidney Powell is certainly not acting like she flipped on Trump, judging by her continuous attacks on the prosecutors after this agreement -
https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-doubt-election-results-attack-prosecutors-after-guilty-plea-2023-10
"Sidney Powell pushes claims that 2020 election was rigged and prosecutors 'extorted' her after she pleaded guilty to election interference"
...
"On her social-media accounts, Powell has continued to push claims that the 2020 election was rigged and that prosecutors in Georgia who brought the criminal case against her were politically motivated."
...
"Powell's newsletter promoted a claim that Willis 'extorted' her guilty plea"
...
"Since her guilty plea, the newsletters have urged her followers to "hold fast." They told supporters to read and share articles and YouTube videos that argue her guilty plea was 'extorted' and amounted to a blow to Willis, the Fulton County district attorney."
...
"Powell's followers were directed to the same Federalist article again in her Monday newsletter. It also cited an Epoch Times article quoting Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, who said Powell pleaded guilty only because of 'pressure' from Willis."
...
"Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, told Insider that Powell's comments were unusual for a cooperating witness who was likely to be asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution at a trial.
'Usually, after a guilty plea, the defendants do not want to rock the boat,' Carlson said."