Debates
24 Apr 22
24 Apr 22
The noose tightens. Funny thing is, nothing will ever come of this, unless Joe succumbs and pulls out.
You should read this, keeping in mind his lie, that he never talked to Hunter about his business. Yeah, it is on video, I just hate it.
https://nypost.com/2022/04/23/joe-biden-met-with-hunter-biden-business-partner-at-the-white-house/
Remember, Jimmmm, this is not about Hunter per se
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
@averagejoe1 saidOld news, Hunter and his Russian/Chinese/Ukraine business partners were around his dad from the start, and everyone knows it.
The noose tightens. Funny thing is, nothing will ever come of this, unless Joe succumbs and pulls out.
You should read this, keeping in mind his lie, that he never talked to Hunter about his business. Yeah, it is on video, I just hate it.
https://nypost.com/2022/04/23/joe-biden-met-with-hunter-biden-business-partner-at-the-white-house/
Remember, Jimmmm, this is not about Hunter per se
The sad thing is no matter what facts about Biden's crimes are revealed, nothing will be done about it.
24 Apr 22
@averagejoe1 saidThe noose tightens. Funny thing is, nothing will ever come of this unless Joe succumbs and pulls out.
The noose tightens. Funny thing is, nothing will ever come of this, unless Joe succumbs and pulls out.
You should read this, keeping in mind his lie, that he never talked to Hunter about his business. Yeah, it is on video, I just hate it.
https://nypost.com/2022/04/23/joe-biden-met-with-hunter-biden-business-partner-at-the-white-house/
Remember, Jimmmm, this is not about Hunter per se
Once again averagejoe dazzles us with his legal scholarship. 😏
24 Apr 22
@jj-adams saidIf they did him in, they would have to do the Clinton mob and that is impossible.
Old news, Hunter and his Russian/Chinese/Ukraine business partners were around his dad from the start, and everyone knows it.
The sad thing is no matter what facts about Biden's crimes are revealed, nothing will be done about it.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
24 Apr 22
@jj-adams saidSomething sinister about a visit to WH?
Old news, Hunter and his Russian/Chinese/Ukraine business partners were around his dad from the start, and everyone knows it.
The sad thing is no matter what facts about Biden's crimes are revealed, nothing will be done about it.
Unlike his predecessor, all visitors are logged in,
and WH logs can be scrutinized.
@jj-adams saidJJ, above Marauder suggests that it is not proven that Biden has spoken to his son, Hunter, about his business. I was aghast at his suggesting that, given the undisuptable facts as set out in the POST article. (If libs find any news report inconvenient, the lessers on this thread, like the jester, attack the reporter,,,,,in this case, the Post, saw watch for that).......
If it was Trump you'd be screaming bloody murder but Joe can do it and you're OK with it?
Anyway, , given the facts of the article, that is proof enough. Remember, we are debating with people who do not know which bathroom to use, so a grain of salt is appropriate.
@averagejoe1 saidAre you familiar with what the word "prove" means?
JJ, above Marauder suggests that it is not proven that Biden has spoken to his son, Hunter, about his business. I was aghast at his suggesting that, given the undisuptable facts as set out in the POST article. (If libs find any news report inconvenient, the lessers on this thread, like the jester, attack the reporter,,,,,in this case, the Post, saw watch for that)...... ...[text shortened]... e are debating with people who do not know which bathroom to use, so a grain of salt is appropriate.
Obviously not if you think the fact that someone who had business dealings with Hunter is on White House logs as meeting with Joe Biden 12 years ago under circumstances which are not disclosed (was it with a group, for example?) "proves" that Joe Biden had intimate knowledge of Hunter's business dealings (almost all of which are questionable occurred well after said "meeting" ).
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
25 Apr 22
@no1marauder saidExactamundo 😛
Are you familiar with what the word "prove" means?
Obviously not if you think the fact that someone who had business dealings with Hunter is on White House logs as meeting with Joe Biden 12 years ago under circumstances which are not disclosed (was it with a group, for example?) "proves" that Joe Biden had intimate knowledge of Hunter's business dealings (almost all of which are questionable occurred well after said "meeting" ).
25 Apr 22
@no1marauder saidI submit that the standard for proof on the Forum is a bit lower than that required in a court of law. After all, law schools have total courses dedicated solely to Evidence. The are entitled Evidence.
Are you familiar with what the word "prove" means?
Obviously not if you think the fact that someone who had business dealings with Hunter is on White House logs as meeting with Joe Biden 12 years ago under circumstances which are not disclosed (was it with a group, for example?) "proves" that Joe Biden had intimate knowledge of Hunter's business dealings (almost all of which are questionable occurred well after said "meeting" ).
So, yes, you really nailed me that my proffered proof does not meet all of the elements of proof which is taught in the school of law. Very impressive post, but zero traction when chatting on The Forum. If we follow your reasoning, we really could not render opinions, could we? What would we be without The Opinions of Sonhouse?
You need to relax, Marauder. You are definitely not very much fun. You, a lawyer I am told, know that Hunter is a crook, and daddy is involved. Unlawful or not, it smells to high heaven, but yet you, forever the contrarian, up in the clouds with your paralegal researching all of your links, cannot simply banter this great subject.
Do you know that your writing lacks any insight into what you really think? Now you will say 'I never said they weren't guilty', or some such. Whatever. Where's the beef?
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
25 Apr 22
@no1marauder saidWhat about all the trips Joe and Hunter took together?
Are you familiar with what the word "prove" means?
Obviously not if you think the fact that someone who had business dealings with Hunter is on White House logs as meeting with Joe Biden 12 years ago under circumstances which are not disclosed (was it with a group, for example?) "proves" that Joe Biden had intimate knowledge of Hunter's business dealings (almost all of which are questionable occurred well after said "meeting" ).
Are you going to claim that "10% for the Big Guy" to refers someone besides Joe?
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
25 Apr 22
@averagejoe1 saidIf that's your contention-----
I submit that the standard for proof on the Forum is a bit lower than that required in a court of law. After all, law schools have total courses dedicated solely to Evidence. The are entitled Evidence.
So, yes, you really nailed me that my proffered proof does not meet all of the elements of proof which is taught in the school of law. Very impressive post, but zero ...[text shortened]... k? Now you will say 'I never said they weren't guilty', or some such. Whatever. Where's the beef?
then the only thing that counts is opinion.
Burden of proof indeed.....coming from a TRUMP supporter?