The GOP Clowns Have No Evidence of Biden Misconduct

[trnyerheadncough]

Aug 11, 2023 6:27:50 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Aug 11, 2023 6:11:17 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

So…there would be an incentive for him to drag it out as long as possible to keep up the outrage irrespective of whether there is any “there” there.

I 100% agree.

There's been plenty of "there" there, y'all just choose to ignore it.

More specifically, the plenty of “there” that you identify is nearly ALL framed by Comer, to promote a specific belief. All of the actual stuff that Comer can’t change COULD be something nefarious, but it COULD also be something totally legit.

Even Comer is telling you that. Statements like “we aren’t there yet”.

He’s not saying that because they have direct evidence that confirms guilt. That admits that what they have can still go either way.

[DrSchadenfreude]

Republican Congressman Accidentally Admits There’s No Proof of Biden Corruption

Representative Nick Langworthy tried to defend Republicans’ Biden investigation, and ended up rejecting their main talking point instead.


newrepublic.com/post/174953/republican-langworthy-accidentally-admits-no-proof-biden-corruption


August 10, 2023

[cbisbig]

Aug 11, 2023 7:03:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 11, 2023 6:27:50 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

There's been plenty of "there" there, y'all just choose to ignore it.

I'm not ignoring it. Just the opposite. I am asking Comer to show it to me. So far, "We're not there yet" and "we're going to be looking into that." is all I've gotten from him.

You ignored this part...

I think we've already made the case now, but it's only going to be a stronger case that we need to see [Joe Biden's] bank record

[cbisbig]

Aug 11, 2023 7:04:01 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Aug 11, 2023 6:27:50 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

There's been plenty of "there" there, y'all just choose to ignore it.

More specifically, the plenty of “there” that you identify is nearly ALL framed by Comer, to promote a specific belief. All of the actual stuff that Comer can’t change COULD be something nefarious, but it COULD also be something totally legit.

Even Comer is telling you that. Statements like “we aren’t there yet”.

He’s not saying that because they have direct evidence that confirms guilt. That admits that what they have can still go either way.

I think we've already made the case now, but it's only going to be a stronger case that we need to see [Joe Biden's] bank record....Comer

[trnyerheadncough]

Aug 11, 2023 13:27:28 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Aug 11, 2023 7:04:01 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

More specifically, the plenty of “there” that you identify is nearly ALL framed by Comer, to promote a specific belief. All of the actual stuff that Comer can’t change COULD be something nefarious, but it COULD also be something totally legit.

Even Comer is telling you that. Statements like “we aren’t there yet”.

He’s not saying that because they have direct evidence that confirms guilt. That admits that what they have can still go either way.

I think we've already made the case now, but it's only going to be a stronger case that we need to see [Joe Biden's] bank record....Comer

What he “thinks” is again…his view of what he thinks the evidence shows, not what a Court, the House, or the public will think once they actually are able to see everything.

His word isn’t gospel, and he’s not an unbiased factfinder.

[cbisbig]

Aug 11, 2023 13:30:44 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Aug 11, 2023 13:27:28 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

I think we've already made the case now, but it's only going to be a stronger case that we need to see [Joe Biden's] bank record....Comer

What he “thinks” is again…his view of what he thinks the evidence shows, not what a Court, the House, or the public will think once they actually are able to see everything.

His word isn’t gospel, and he’s not an unbiased factfinder.

I understand your liberal bias, and thats fine, but im going to stick with comer on this one.
I've certainly seen enough to form an opinion.

[Walter]

Aug 11, 2023 13:25:31 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Aug 11, 2023 7:03:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

I'm not ignoring it. Just the opposite. I am asking Comer to show it to me. So far, "We're not there yet" and "we're going to be looking into that." is all I've gotten from him.

You ignored this part...

I think we've already made the case now, but it's only going to be a stronger case that we need to see [Joe Biden's] bank record

LOL
"...Our only problem now is we just don't know what the case is about. We don't know what the crime is yet.".

[trnyerheadncough]

Aug 11, 2023 13:36:51 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Aug 11, 2023 13:30:44 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

What he “thinks” is again…his view of what he thinks the evidence shows, not what a Court, the House, or the public will think once they actually are able to see everything.

His word isn’t gospel, and he’s not an unbiased factfinder.

I understand your liberal bias, and thats fine, but im going to stick with comer on this one.
I've certainly seen enough to form an opinion.

If you’re sticking with Comer…he’s told you they aren’t there yet. So…they ain’t there yet.

[cbisbig]

Aug 11, 2023 15:09:43 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 11, 2023 13:25:31 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

You ignored this part...

I think we've already made the case now, but it's only going to be a stronger case that we need to see [Joe Biden's] bank record

LOL
"...Our only problem now is we just don't know what the case is about. We don't know what the crime is yet.".

LOL!!!
Wooooowwww!
SMH.👎🏻

[DrSchadenfreude]

This is going to end like all Republicon "investigations"-- a nothing burger.

[cbisbig]

Aug 11, 2023 17:38:23 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

This is going to end like all Republicon "investigations"-- a nothing burger.

Seriously, mr cartoon?

Bank records, 20 shell companies, FD1023, witness testimonies, 9 bidens receiving 20mil
And this...

[cbisbig]

www.newsmax.com/politics/lindsey-graham-special-counsel-weiss/2023/08/11/id/1130496/

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., took aim at the appointment of U.S. Attorney David Weiss as the special counsel to continue investigating Hunter Biden on Friday, saying "it doesn't pass the smell test" while calling for a "new set of eyes."

The statement from Graham, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joins a loud chorus of complaints from fellow GOP lawmakers, who say the appointment of Weiss by Attorney General Merrick Garland earlier Friday is nothing but a win for the son of the president.

It was Weiss who attempted to end his earlier prosecution of Hunter Biden with a plea deal that was rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika last month. That plea deal would have resulted in no prison time for Hunter Biden.

[Walter]

Perhaps Trump made a mistake appointing him as a US Attorney.

[oujour76]

Aug 11, 2023 22:18:50 GMT -5 Walter said:

Perhaps Trump made a mistake appointing him as a US Attorney.

Guess we'll find out. Been saying for a long while that the HB case was a poster child for a Special Counsel. And I'm not complaining that one has finally been named.

However, one issue here might get interesting...if Weiss is a current US attorney and employed by the DOJ, should he be a Special Counsel? Always thought the point of being a Special Counsel meant being outside the DOJ?

[Walter]

Aug 12, 2023 11:06:58 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Aug 11, 2023 22:18:50 GMT -5 Walter said:

Perhaps Trump made a mistake appointing him as a US Attorney.

Guess we'll find out. Been saying for a long while that the HB case was a poster child for a Special Counsel. And I'm not complaining that one has finally been named.

However, one issue here might get interesting...if Weiss is a current US attorney and employed by the DOJ, should he be a Special Counsel? Always thought the point of being a Special Counsel meant being outside the DOJ?

Not sure, and I'm just guessing, but I think the term 'special counsel' is about jurisdiction more than agency. The argument a few months ago, if you recall, was that as a SC, Weiss would have had authority in any district in the country and not just his district. Mueller, OTOH, was a 'special prosecutor', not a 'special counsel'...Perhaps that is the distinction. Again...just guessing.